BBA103 Manager for a Day Project Guide
Course and Project Overview
The BBA103 Group Project, designated under the title "Manager for a Day" for Semester 1 2026/2027, tasks students with assuming the managerial role of an organization facing an operational crisis. The core objective of this assignment is the direct practical application of foundational management principles covered across Weeks 1 through 5 of the academic curriculum. Working within collaborative teams of a maximum of people, students must assess, diagnose, and construct a comprehensive organizational resolution to a realistic crisis scenario.
Registration of team rosters and chosen topics must be formally completed by the initial deadline of 13th October 2026. Teams in Class A must submit their group information and selected scenario via the designated spreadsheet portal (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ljk6c8rBOqTP9JcKoirDVAaFPavsj2DD/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107521746292984364817&rtpof=true&sd=true). Teams in Class B must record their project details through their assigned registration portal (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I6GpSqsO8_pyV6lQxUXjWb-poU-0895x/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107521746292984364817&rtpof=true&sd=true). The course schedule provides a dedicated week off on 27th October 2026, leading up to the final project deadline and group presentations scheduled for 3rd November 2026.
A fundamental structural requirement of the project is that groups must examine one single crisis scenario across multiple analytical dimensions. Rather than duplicating narrative context across sections, each analytical phase answers a distinct managerial inquiry. Every subsequent phase builds a different dimension of the managerial response, ensuring that theoretical frameworks, planning mechanisms, operational hierarchies, and interpersonal leadership strategies converge into a coherent crisis management blueprint.
Scenario Selection and Crisis Contexts
Each group is required to choose exactly one operational scenario from a set of approved organisational dilemmas. The predefined scenarios address pressing logistical, environmental, geopolitical, and service-delivery crises across varied industries. The first scenario is the Macau Retail Crisis, which centres on extreme overcrowding and resource strain during peak holiday periods, specifically Golden Week, Christmas, and New Year’s. The second scenario focuses on the geopolitical crisis and operational disruptions arising from the current war between the USA and Iran. The third scenario explores high-volume service bottlenecks manifested as Hotel Front Desk Check-in Congestion. The fourth scenario examines public healthcare and service delays categorized under Clinic / Pharmacy Queue Overflow. The fifth scenario addresses workforce disruptions and scheduling breakdowns illustrated by a Gym or Studio Instructor No-Show. The sixth scenario involves an animal welfare and capacity crisis defined as a Pet store – No staff to care for the pets and overflow.
Groups possess the option to propose an alternative business organization and crisis scenario outside the predefined list. Any proposed custom scenario requires direct formal approval prior to commencement. This approval mechanism ensures operational parity across groups, prevents duplication, and ensures that the entire class does not converge on the same organizational dilemma.
Application of Management Functions and Theoretical Frameworks
The project requires an exhaustive application of the four core management functions established in Week 1. The first function, Planning, requires teams to outline specific crisis mitigation objectives and map out necessary corrective courses of action. The second function, Organising, necessitates the delegation of operational roles, structuring of divisional duties, and coordination of critical workflows. The third function, Leading, involves navigating personnel through the disruption via tailored leadership methods, strategic motivation techniques, and multi-channel communication systems. The fourth function, Controlling, establishes mechanisms for real-time performance monitoring, metric-based progress tracking, and systemic operational evaluation to guarantee accountability and corrective intervention.
Beyond basic administrative functions, groups must ground their strategic solution in one established management theory derived from Week 2 curricula. The chosen framework must be explicitly justified regarding its specific relevance to the selected crisis. Groups must evaluate their scenario through one of five theoretical paradigms: Scientific Management, which emphasizes task standardization, workflow optimization, and efficiency maximization; Human Relations, which focuses on workplace sociology, group dynamics, and employee well-being; Systems Theory, which models the organization as an interconnected network of inputs, transformations, and feedback loops operating within a volatile external environment; Contingency Theory, which asserts that optimal management actions are situational and dependent on specific internal and external environmental variables; or Kaizen, which establishes continuous, incremental improvement and relentless elimination of operational waste.
Planning, Decision-Making, and Organizational Design
The formulation of response strategies in Step 4 demands a multi-tiered planning structure spanning strategic, tactical, operational, and contingency plans. Strategic planning defines high-level, overarching survival and recovery targets; tactical planning translates strategic goals into departmental execution plans; operational planning governs day-to-day work schedules and procedural instructions during crisis management; and contingency plans articulate actionable protocols designed to be executed should primary operational interventions fail. All established objectives must strictly comply with SMART criteria, ensuring they are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
The analytical plan must delineate the systematic decision-making process adopted by managerial leadership while confronting the crisis. Groups must rigorously dissect the cognitive hazards of leadership under pressure by identifying and detailing one or two cognitive or decision-making biases that could threaten optimal judgment. Potential pitfalls include biases such as anchoring bias, framing effects, confirmation bias, or status quo bias, and the managerial approach must explicitly indicate how these distortions are recognized and neutralized.
Organizational architecture, aligned with Week 4 principles, requires the design of a simple, clear organizational chart. This schematic must illustrate the chain of command, operational reporting hierarchies, and emergency spans of control. Accompanying documentation must comprehensively define exact roles and operational responsibilities across the response team. Furthermore, the framework must provide an integrated coordination approach detailing cross-functional linkages, escalation pathways, and operational interdependencies to prevent divisional isolation during response execution.
Leadership Strategy, Expected Results, and Field Observations
Step 6 mandates the establishment of an evidence-based leadership strategy developed from a synthesis of classroom principles and secondary research. The project must explicitly identify the managerial leadership style deployed, justifying whether an authoritarian, democratic, transformational, transactional, or situational paradigm is ideal for stabilizing the crisis. Complementing this style, the approach must detail operational motivation methods configured to maintain workforce endurance and performance amid adversity. A structured communication plan must lay out exact messaging protocols, reporting frequencies, and dissemination platforms for internal and external stakeholders, accompanied by actionable guidelines for mediating workplace conflict and acute organizational stress.
Step 7 requires an articulation of expected results, projecting the qualitative and quantitative improvements achieved by the proposed interventions. Groups must benchmark operational outcomes, evaluating recovery metrics, customer satisfaction indices, financial stabilization, employee retention, and overall systemic performance enhancements.
Groups are recommended to supplement their academic inquiry through optional field observations related to their crisis context, such as conducting site visits to an active retail environment, hospitality desk, or coffee shop. Field research may incorporate photographic documentation of relevant public spaces, strictly prohibiting the inclusion of recognizable human faces, coupled with brief observational field notes detailing operational bottlenecks, customer behavior, and workflow arrangements. This field component is entirely voluntary and is designed as an analytical enrichment; opting out carries no academic disadvantage or grading penalty.
Deliverables, Formatting, and Assessment Structure
The final evaluation comprises two mandatory deliverables: an oral group presentation and a written business report. The oral presentation is allocated a strict duration of minutes and must be supported by a slide deck containing a maximum of slides. The slide deck structure requires exactly one introductory title slide, eight analytical information slides detailing the project investigation and crisis resolution, and one final concluding slide reserved for audience questions and answers (Q&A).
The accompanying written report must comprise a total word count between and words. The document must be formatted strictly in Time New Roman font at a -point font size, formatted with line spacing. The report must contain a formal Title Page incorporating the official University of Saint Joseph (USJ) logo, the official course name, the specific project title, full group member names with corresponding student identification numbers, and the formal submission date. Following the cover page, the document must include an organized Table of Contents, an exhaustive References section, and Appendices where applicable.
Grading is divided across six distinct evaluation criteria totaling of the project score. The thoroughness and accuracy in applying the four management functions carries a weight of . The identification, contextual use, and theoretical justification of the chosen management theory accounts for . The rigor and depth of the planning, SMART goal formulation, and decision-making bias analysis constitutes . The structural integrity of the organizational chart, role clarity, and coordination approach is allocated . The strategic soundness of the leadership style, motivational framework, and conflict mitigation strategy contributes . The final is evaluated based on presentation clarity, verbal delivery, professional demeanor, and visual slide quality.
Title Page Structure and Identification Standards
Formal written reports submitted for course modules BBA103_A and LBA229_BA (Principles of Management / Project Management) must strictly adhere to the academic styling parameters exhibited in formal project submissions. The header of the submission must present the integrated course coding and project description: BBA103_A/LBA229_BA - Principles of Management/Project Management Final Project.
The project title must capture the operational focus of the assignment, exemplified by titles such as "Project Mission: Improbable – Because 'Impossible' felt just a bit too pessimistic." Every contributing team member must be cataloged with their exact official name followed by their assigned alphanumeric student identifier, as formatted in official cohorts: Jacky Chan (132345AC), Mimi Rogers. (124445VB), Jackson Wang. (902345PO), Keanu Reeves (765345GY), and Taylor Swift (678345AS). Submissions must conclude their cover metadata by recording the exact final submission date, documented formally as 12TH JANUARY 2027.