Study Guide

Objective

The aim of this module is to familiarise with the game development project management.

Student is able to understand the importance the role and importance of project management in game development projects. Students is able to apply project management methodologies and frameworks to plan and manage game development projects effectively. Student will acquire knowledge on building and leading high-performing game development teams, fostering effective communication and collaboration. Student will learn to apply critical thinking and problem-solving skills to address challenges and optimize project outcomes in the game development context. Student is able to apply agile methodologies in game development projects, facilitating iterative development and responding to evolving requirements.

Content

Introduction to Game Development Project Management
Game Development Planning and Scope Management
Team Building and Leadership in Game Development
Agile Project Management in Game Development
Game Development Project Execution and Monitoring
Vendor and Outsourcing Management in Game Development
Project Closure and Post-Project Analysis

Location and time

20.8. Reppu /Course opens
27.8 LECTURE 16-18 Nitro Games, Elina Seppälä: Team management and effect to budget
10.9 LECTURE 16-18 BSS, Sako Salovaara: Projects gone wrong, scope management
24.9 LECTURE 16-18 Jay Ranki: Team building and leadership in game development
30.9 Discussion about project management practices. (individual)
8.10 LECTURE 16-18 Jay Ranki: Agile PM in Game Development
20.10 Selecting project, submitting video task (group)
10.11 Project, submitting AI-task (group)
22.11 Exam, 1st possibility 18-20 (individual)
3.12 Project, FINAL PRESENTATIONS 16-18
5.12 Exam, 2nd possibility 18-20 (individual)
8.12 Project, submitting documentation (group)

Materials

Reppu

Teaching methods

Online course with Teams lectures.

Employer connections

Working life experience integrated into lectures, possibility to do the course project work into companies

Exam schedules

22.11 or 5.12.

Completion alternatives

It is possible to apply accreditation (includes showing and creating evidence, if work-life based) or agree on studification (includes learning diary and case-assignment).

Student workload

5 op means 135 hours of student work

Evaluation scale

0 - 5

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been achieved to an exceptionally high-level
demonstrating the following attributes:
- Exceptional understanding, exploration, insight, and application of the theories and concepts
learned.
- Clear adherence to all specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where
appropriate
- The organization, structure, and standard of output, including any subject-specific conventions,
where applicable, are of very high quality throughout
- Evidence of effective communication of work to peers and others
- Offer stimulating and rigorous arguments that are likely to be at the limits of what may be expected
at this level
- The coursework has been executed/performed in an original way
- Outstanding ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence
- Evidence of very high-quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and critical appraisal
- Evidence of outstanding problem-solving skills and ability to suggests alternative approaches
- Evidence of outstanding ability to address complex issues both systematically and creatively

Assessment criteria, good (3)

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been met fully at a good or very good standard
demonstrating the following attributes:
- Good to very good understanding, exploration, insight, and application of the theories and concepts
learned.
- No significant inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors
- Clear adherence to all specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where
appropriate
- The organization, structure, and standard of output, including any subject-specific conventions,
where appropriate, are of reasonable to good quality throughout
- Evidence of sufficiently effective communication of work
- Ability to present structured, clear and concise arguments
- The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a comprehensive way with some
degree of originality

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been met demonstrating the following attributes:
- Evidence of sufficient ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex
evidence
- Evidence of reasonable quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal
- Evidence of sufficient problem solving skills and ability to suggest alternative approaches
- Demonstrate some ability to develop an argument but can lack fluency
- The coursework has been approached and/or executed/performed in a standard way with limited
evidence of originality
- Some contextualization on a limited number of sources and, in general, the breadth and depth of
sources and research are lacking
- Evidence of study and demonstration of the ability to reach appropriate decisions based on
incomplete or complex evidence

Assessment methods and criteria

90-100 points = 5
80-89 points = 4
70-79 points = 3
60-69 points = 2
50-59 points = 1
under 50 points = Fail

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been achieved to an exceptionally high-level
demonstrating the following attributes:
- Exceptional understanding, exploration, insight, and application of the theories and concepts
learned.
- Clear adherence to all specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where
appropriate
- The organization, structure, and standard of output, including any subject-specific conventions,
where applicable, are of very high quality throughout
- Evidence of effective communication of work to peers and others
- Offer stimulating and rigorous arguments that are likely to be at the limits of what may be expected
at this level
- The coursework has been executed/performed in an original way
- Outstanding ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence
- Evidence of very high-quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and critical appraisal
- Evidence of outstanding problem-solving skills and ability to suggests alternative approaches
- Evidence of outstanding ability to address complex issues both systematically and creatively

Toteutuksen arviointikriteerit, hyvä (3-4)

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been met fully at a good or very good standard
demonstrating the following attributes:
- Good to very good understanding, exploration, insight, and application of the theories and concepts
learned.
- No significant inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors
- Clear adherence to all specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where
appropriate
- The organization, structure, and standard of output, including any subject-specific conventions,
where appropriate, are of reasonable to good quality throughout
- Evidence of sufficiently effective communication of work
- Ability to present structured, clear and concise arguments
- The work has been approached and/or executed/performed in a comprehensive way with some
degree of originality

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

All learning outcomes/ assessment criteria have been met demonstrating the following attributes:
- Evidence of sufficient ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex
evidence
- Evidence of reasonable quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal
- Evidence of sufficient problem solving skills and ability to suggest alternative approaches
- Demonstrate some ability to develop an argument but can lack fluency
- The coursework has been approached and/or executed/performed in a standard way with limited
evidence of originality
- Some contextualization on a limited number of sources and, in general, the breadth and depth of
sources and research are lacking
- Evidence of study and demonstration of the ability to reach appropriate decisions based on
incomplete or complex evidence