Microsoft Word - MGT206 Assignment 1 MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1 © Southern Institute of Technology 2015 MGT206 ASSIGNMENT 1 Activity Title: Assignment 1: Case Study “JCU Spring Concert” Analyse risk management plans and design a risk management plan for a project. Paper Number and Title: MGT206 Risk Management and Quality Level 6, 15 credits, Version 1 Assessed Learning Outcomes: 1, 2, 3 Analyse areas of risk in the project management lifecycle. Undertake a risk analysis and justify conclusions. Compare and contrast problem‐solving methods for dealing with problems when they arise in projects and apply them to a specific scenario providing justification for the chosen approach. Conditions: This is a compulsory assignment. It must be submitted and makes up 40% of your final result for this paper. The completed assignment is to be submitted to your facilitator via Blackboard by the due date. MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1 © Southern Institute of Technology 2015 ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS Word count: 2,000 with a maximum of 3,000 words 1. Read the Case, JCU Spring Concert on pages 246 of your text. 2. Undertake the three tasks on the top of page 246. 3. Write an individual assignment of 2,000 words in which you undertake a risk analysis and develop a risk management plan to justify your conclusions for the JCU Spring Concert. 4. You are encouraged to refer to additional sources of information for this assignment. 5. Ensure that you reference all of your sources using the correct APA referencing conventions. 6. Make sure you read the Marking Schedule below carefully before embarking on the assignment. It will give you clear idea of what we are looking for in the submission. MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1 © Southern Institute of Technology 2015 Marking schedule Criteria E (0-39) D (40-49) C (50-64) B (65-79) A (80-100) Introduction: Introduce case study and provide context around the case Weighting 10% Introduction does not offer only context for the subject to be discussed. Introduction not included about the case study. Introduction is weak and does not offer useful context for the subject to be discussed. Introduction is poorly structured about the case study. Satisfactory introduction with useful content about the subject to be discussed. Content is sound but not particularly well developed, structured or supported about the case study. Good introduction and well-presented and argued. Introduction is detailed, developed and supported with good evidence and detail about the case study. Exceptionally well- presented introduction. High level of detail presented about case study, very well- structured, presented with specific evidence and facts about the case study. Literature review: Undertake literature review covering project risk management Weighting 10% Content is not sufficient to determined understanding, does not offer discussion or ideas, no external referencing to support discussion, discussion is irrelevant. No discussion related to. Content is weak and does not offer useful discussion or relevant ideas, no external referencing to support discussion. Minimal discussion around. Discussion is sound and relevant, ideas are present but not particularly well developed or supported; some evidence of external references, discussion of a generic nature. Basic discussion around. Well-presented and argued; ideas are detailed, discussion supported by some external referencing and relevant facts and examples. Useful discussion covering. Excellent well-presented and argued; ideas are comprehensive, well- developed, discussion supported by appropriate external referencing, specific evidence and facts, relevant examples suggested. Well- articulated overview covering. Project risks: Risks associated with project Weighting 10% No presentation of risks identified for the project. Minimal presentation of risks identified for the project. Basic presentation of risks identified for the project. Useful presentation of risks identified for the project. Well-articulated presentation of risks identified for the project. Risk Matrix: Undertake risk analysis using risk Matrix tool for the case study Weighting 10% No risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk Matrix tool discussed in the prescribed text. Minimal risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk Matrix tool discussed in the prescribed text. Basic risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk Matrix tool discussed in the prescribed text. Useful risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk Matrix tool discussed in the prescribed text. Well-articulated risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk Matrix tool discussed in the prescribed text. Risk register: Develop a risk register for the case study Weighting 10% No risk register developed for the case study. Minimal risk register developed for the case study. Basic risk register developed for the case study. Useful risk register developed for the case study. Well-articulated risk register developed for the case study. Risk management plan: Develop a risk management plan for the case study Weighting 30% No risk management plan developed for the case study which was covered in the literature. Minimal risk management plan developed for the case study which some aspects covered in the literature. Basic risk management plan developed for the case study which is aligned to examples covered in the literature. Useful risk management plan developed for the case study which is aligned to examples covered in the literature. Well-articulated risk management plan developed for the case study which is well aligned to examples covered in the literature. Conclusion: Present an overview of assignment findings and lessons learned Weighting 10% Content is weak and does not offer useful discussion or relevant learnings, discussion is irrelevant. Content is weak and does not offer useful discussion or relevant ideas, no external referencing to support discussion, discussion is irrelevant. Discussion is sound and relevant, learnings have been included but are not particularly well developed or supported, discussion of a generic nature. Well-presented and argued; learnings are detailed and supported by relevant facts and examples. Exceptionally well- presented and argued; Learnings are comprehensive, well- developed, discussion is clear and there is evidence, facts and relevant examples are presented. Writing Weighting 5% No consideration for presentation. Muddled writing that is very difficult to follow. Numerous grammatical Acceptable presentation. Long winded and some clear writing presentation. Some grammatical Tidy presentation. Mostly clear writing but at times long winded. Writing style lacks Professional presentation. Clear writing mainly to the point. Considered writing style. Polished presentation. Clear and concise writing. Mature and appropriate writing style. MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1 © Southern Institute of Technology 2015 errors. Multiple spelling errors. errors. Multiple spelling errors. consideration. Few issues around grammar. Less than 5 spelling errors. Excellent grammar with only minor oversights. Less than 3 spelling errors. Excellent grammar, correct in all aspects. No spelling errors. In-text citations and Reference list APA formatted Weighting 5% More than 5 errors. 4-5 errors. 2-3 errors. 1 error. No errors.