Directions
Write a 6-page, double-spaced compare and contrast essay that investigates how two structures from two different period styles illustrate a particular theme in architecture. (This theme is your thesis statement.)
The structures you chose MUST correlate with the time, cultures, and period styles covered in this course. You cannot chose buildings that are outside of the periods and regions covered in this class.
Your paper must include the following components:
Course Introduction, Intro to Architecture History
Neo-Classicism in Germany
Neo-Classicism in England Neo-Classicism in America
Architecture and the Industrial Revolution, part 1
Architecture and the Industrial Revolution, part 2
Gothic Revival Art Nouveau
Beaux-Arts Influence in America
Development of the Skyscraper
Frank Lloyd Wright – part 1 Frank Lloyd Wright – part 2
Adolf Loos
The European Avant-Garde: Italian Futurism and Russian Constructivism
The European Avant-Garde: German Expressionism and De Stijl
Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus
Le Corbusier – part 1 Le Corbusier – part 2
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe – part 1
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe – part 2
4/19: Midterm #2
Regional Modernism
Louis Kahn Eero Saarinen
Modern and Contemporary Architecture in Japan
Post-Modernism, part 1
Post-Modernism, part 2
Contemporary Architecture, part 1
• Introduction paragraph with a clear, controlling idea (thesis statement) and ?building identification: names of the structures, architect (if known), building ?materials, and period styles ?
• Descriptive visual analysis of EACH of your two buildings ?
• Comparative structure (to compare is to discuss how the images are similar, and ?to contrast is to discuss how the images are different)?o This should include discussion of both a visual compare and contrast, and ?a cultural compare and contrast ?
• Conclusion (summarize your argument and connect to greater idea) ?
• Works Cited Page: a separate page of sources in MLA style formatting (use at ?least 3 sources) ?Academic Sources: Use at least 3 sources – but feel free to use more!?Your research focus depends on which two structures you pick and your thesis statement (the argument you want to say about these two buildings). ?Your research MUST BE academic – so NO BLOGS or WIKIPEDIA! I recommend you avoid any website that ends in “.com.” Look for websites that end in “.edu” or “.org.” Below are some suggestions for academic sources: ?ACADEMIC BOOKS ?
• Buildings Across Time: An Introduction to World Architecture by Michael Fazio ?
• The DVC Library is a great resource! The librarians can assist you in finding ?appropriate books for your research. ?ACADEMIC WEBSITES ?
??Academic websites, such as museum or university sites, are a good place to start:
o Smarthistory: Presented by Kahn Academy (http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org). This is the website that I use for many of the clips you watch in class.
o Victoria and Albert Museum’s Design Guides (http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/d/design-styles). Divided by century, these design guides cover from the Medieval Period to the 20th Century.
o The Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History by the Metropolitan Museum (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/). While this is an Art History timeline, also includes articles on Architectural History. The “Thematic Essays” listed on the Heilbrunn Timeline ARE academic articles – you can rely on them for correct information and should cite them in your term paper. (Each essay includes an example of proper citation at the bottom of the webpage!)
??DVC Library A-Z Databases (http://dvc.libguides.com/az.php). The DVC Library gives students access to many online, academic databases where you can search for articles. I highly suggest two of the databases: Academic Search Premier (EBSCO) and ProQuest Research Library.
If you are unsure about the academic quality of a book or website, it is best to err on the side of caution and not use it. If you have questions about the quality a specific source, you may ask me about it.
How to cite academic resources: Use MLA style in-text citations and your Works Cited Page!
When you do research, you always need to cite your sources. To cite means to point to the evidence. You MUST cite when you quote and when you paraphrase a source. There is a zero tolerance policy towards plagiarism in this class and zero credit will be given for plagiarized work.
You need to cite your source in-text AND on a separate list of sources (Works Cited Page) at the end of your paper.
Submit hardcopy in class with PROPER formatting:?Your hardcopy final submission must be TYPED and PRINTED.
• Title Page or heading containing the student’s full name, class title & section, date, and instructor’s name. ?
• Typed 12-point Times New Roman font and double-spaced with 1-inch margins ?
• Works Cited Page Cite references used according to MLA style. ?
• Staple (do not use a folder or clip) ?

Directions
Case Study 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson (Chapter 2)
Read the case titled: “Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson” found in Chapter 2.
Write a four to six (4-6) page paper in which you:
Each of the following questions must be answered in the paper
1.Analyze the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.
2.Suggest two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.
3.Create a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.
4.Project five (5) years ahead and speculate whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process. Justify your answer.
5.Use at least four (4) quality (peer-reviewed) resources in this assignment.
Your assignment must:
The following formatting must be followed
•Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
•Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN ACTION
Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson One of the most difficult, yet most
important, lessons we have learned at D. D. Williamson surrounds project
prioritization. We took three years and two iterations of our prioritization process
to finally settle on an approach that dramatically increased our success rate on
critical projects (now called VIPs, or “Vision Impact Projects”).

Knowing that one of the keys to project management success is key
management support, our first approach at prioritization was a process where our
entire senior management team worked through a set of criteria and resource
estimations to select a maximum of two pro- jects per senior management
sponsor-l 6 projects in total. Additionally, we hired a continuous improvement
manager to serve as both our project office and a key resource for project
facilitation. This was a great move forward (the year before we had been
attempting to monitor well over 60 continuous improvement projects of varying
importance). Our success rate improved to over 60 percent of projects finishing
close to the expected dates, financial investment, and results.

What was the problem? The projects that were not moving forward tended to
be the most critical-the heavy-investment “game changing” projects. A review of
our results the next year determined we left significant money in opportunity “on
the table” with projects that were behind and over budget!

This diagnosis led us to seek an additional process change. While the criteria
rating was sound, the number of projects for a company our size was still too many
to track robustly at a senior level and have re- sources to push for completion.
Hence, we elevated a subset of projects to highest status-our “VIPs.” We
simplified the criteria ratings-rating projects on the level of expected impact on
corporate objectives, the cross-functional nature of the team, and the perceived

likelihood that the project would encounter barriers which required senior level
support to overcome.

The results? Much better success rates on the big projects, such as design
and implementation of new equipment and expansion plans into new markets. But
why?

The Global Operating Team (GOT) now has laser focus on the five VIPs,
reviewing the project plans progress and next steps with our continuous improve-
ment manager in every weekly meeting. ll’a project is going off plan, we see it
quickly and can move to real- locate resources, provide negotiation help, or change
priorities within and outside the organization to man- age it back on track.
Certainly, the unanticipated barriers still occur, but we can put the strength of the
entire team toward removing them as soon as they happen.

Directions
Case Study 1: Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson (Chapter 2)
Read the case titled: “Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson” found in Chapter 2.
Write a four to six (4-6) page paper in which you:
Each of the following questions must be answered in the paper
1.Analyze the prioritizing process at D. D. Williamson.
2.Suggest two (2) recommendations to improve the prioritizing process.
3.Create a scenario where the implemented process at D. D. Williamson would not work.
4.Project five (5) years ahead and speculate whether or not D. D. Williamson will be using the same process. Justify your answer.
5.Use at least four (4) quality (peer-reviewed) resources in this assignment.
Your assignment must:
The following formatting must be followed
•Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
•Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN ACTION
Prioritizing Projects at D. D. Williamson One of the most difficult, yet most
important, lessons we have learned at D. D. Williamson surrounds project
prioritization. We took three years and two iterations of our prioritization process
to finally settle on an approach that dramatically increased our success rate on
critical projects (now called VIPs, or “Vision Impact Projects”).

Knowing that one of the keys to project management success is key
management support, our first approach at prioritization was a process where our
entire senior management team worked through a set of criteria and resource
estimations to select a maximum of two pro- jects per senior management
sponsor-l 6 projects in total. Additionally, we hired a continuous improvement
manager to serve as both our project office and a key resource for project
facilitation. This was a great move forward (the year before we had been
attempting to monitor well over 60 continuous improvement projects of varying
importance). Our success rate improved to over 60 percent of projects finishing
close to the expected dates, financial investment, and results.

What was the problem? The projects that were not moving forward tended to
be the most critical-the heavy-investment “game changing” projects. A review of
our results the next year determined we left significant money in opportunity “on
the table” with projects that were behind and over budget!

This diagnosis led us to seek an additional process change. While the criteria
rating was sound, the number of projects for a company our size was still too many
to track robustly at a senior level and have re- sources to push for completion.
Hence, we elevated a subset of projects to highest status-our “VIPs.” We
simplified the criteria ratings-rating projects on the level of expected impact on
corporate objectives, the cross-functional nature of the team, and the perceived

likelihood that the project would encounter barriers which required senior level
support to overcome.

The results? Much better success rates on the big projects, such as design
and implementation of new equipment and expansion plans into new markets. But
why?

The Global Operating Team (GOT) now has laser focus on the five VIPs,
reviewing the project plans progress and next steps with our continuous improve-
ment manager in every weekly meeting. ll’a project is going off plan, we see it
quickly and can move to real- locate resources, provide negotiation help, or change
priorities within and outside the organization to man- age it back on track.
Certainly, the unanticipated barriers still occur, but we can put the strength of the
entire team toward removing them as soon as they happen.