See file attach
Microsoft Word - MGT206 Assignment 2 MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1 © Southern Institute of Technology 2015 MGT206 ASSIGNMENT 2 Activity Title: Assignment 2: Evaluate and Design Quality Management Plans Develop a quality management plan Paper Number and Title: MGT206 Risk Management and Quality Level 6, 15 credits, Version 1 Assessed Learning Outcomes: 4, 5, 6, 7 Analyse the principles of quality control in projects. Examine the common methods of evaluating quality in projects. Develop a quality management plan. Undertake, with rationale, corrective action to address a quality management issue in a specific example. Conditions: This is a compulsory assignment. It must be submitted and makes up 40% or 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: 3,000 with a maximum of 3,500 words 1. Critically evaluate and compare (1,500 words) the three quality management plans, which are provided in Reading Activity 8 in the Course Materials folder on Blackboard, and cover the following: Adherence to major quality management principles. Potential application of their principles to project management. Undertake and rationalize corrective actions to address quality management issues. 2. Design a quality management plan (1,500 words) for a project of your choice. 3. You are encouraged to refer to additional sources of information for this assignment. 4. Ensure that you reference all of your sources using the correct APA referencing conventions. 5. 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 of project quality 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. Quality analysis: Evaluate quality management plans and discuss adherence to major quality management principles Weighting 10% No evaluation around quality management plans and adherence to major quality management principles. Minimal evaluation around quality management plans and adherence to major quality management principles. Basic evaluation around quality management plans and adherence to major quality management principles. Useful evaluation around quality management plans and adherence to major quality management principles. Well-articulated evaluation around quality management plans and adherence to major quality management principles. Evaluation of plans: Evaluate quality management plans and discuss potential application of their principles to project management Weighting 10% No discussion about potential application of quality management principles related to project management. Minimal discussion about potential application of quality management principles related to project management. Basic discussion about potential application of quality management principles related to project management. Useful discussion about potential application of quality management principles related to project management. Well-articulated discussion about potential application of quality management principles related to project management. Proposed enhancements: Evaluate quality management plans and undertake and rationalise corrective actions to address quality management issues identified in the literature review Weighting 10% No discussion covering analysis and approach to be followed to address quality management issues identified in literature review. Minimal discussion analysis and approach to be followed to address quality management issues identified in literature review. Basic discussion analysis and approach to be followed to address quality management issues identified in literature review. Useful discussion analysis and approach to be followed to address quality management issues identified in literature review. Well-articulated analysis and approach to be followed to address quality management issues identified in literature review. Design a quality management plan Weighting 30% No quality management plan designed and not aligned to examples covered in the literature. Minimal quality management plan designed and somewhat aligned to examples covered in the literature. Basic quality management plan designed and aligned to examples covered in the literature. Useful quality management plan designed and aligned to examples covered in the literature. Well-articulated quality management plan designed and well- aligned to examples covered in the literature. MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1 © Southern Institute of Technology 2015 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 errors. Multiple spelling errors. Acceptable presentation. Long winded and some clear writing presentation. Some grammatical errors. Multiple spelling errors. Tidy presentation. Mostly clear writing but at times long winded. Writing style lacks consideration. Few issues around grammar. Less than 5 spelling errors. Professional presentation. Clear writing mainly to the point. Considered writing style. Excellent grammar with only minor oversights. Less than 3 spelling errors. Polished presentation. Clear and concise writing. Mature and appropriate writing style. 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.