Assignment 2B
Page | 1 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Unit Code and Title: SBM1202 Project Quality, Risk & Procurement Management Assessment Overview Assessment Task Weighting Due Length ULO Assessment 1: Article Review( individual assessment) This assessment requires students to write a review of an article demonstrating critical thinking through analysis of issues and cases in QRP management. 10% Week 4 600 words ULO-1 Assessment 2: Reflective Journal ( individual) 2 x 10% = 20 % Week 7 Week 9 400 -500 words each ULO-3 ULO-5 Assessment 3: Critical Review & Evaluation (individual assessment) This assessment requires students to critically evaluate contemporary quality or risk concept and discuss its application in a project environment and its impact on project life cycle. 30% Week 10 2,000 words ULO-1 ULO-2 Assessment 4: Project management plan for QRP and Presentation (Individual assessment) This assessment requires students to analyse a real-life project to develop and writer QRP plan. This assessment also requires student to present the QRP plan to class in separate presentation session. 40% Week 12 Report:2,000 words Presentation: 15 minutes ULO-3 ULO-4 Assessment Details Page | 2 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Assessment 1: Article Summary Due date: Week 4 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 6,00 words Weighting: 10% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1 Assessment Details: The purpose of this assessment is to write a review of an article demonstrating critical thinking through analysis of issues and cases in QRP management. To write the assignment, you need to select One recent article published in peer reviewed journals relevant to the topic of QRP management and approved by the lecturer. Student can focus on any one of the areas of QRP management: Quality or Risk or Procurement. Marking Information: The article summary will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 10% of the total unit mark. Marking Criteria Not satisfactory (0-49%) of the criterion mark) Satisfactory (50-64%) of the criterion mark Good (65-74%) of the criterion mark Very Good (75-84%) of the criterion mark Excellent (85-100%) of the criterion mark Article choice (10 marks) The selected article does not reflect the subject’s main concept and is not peer reviewed. The selected article is in the field of the subject and reflects one of the main concepts suggested by the lecturer and is peer reviewed. The selected article is in the field of the subject, covers the main concepts suggested by the lecturer and is peer reviewed. The selected article is in the field of the subject and covers the concepts suggested by the lecturer and is scholarly and relatively current. The article directly discusses the main concepts suggested by the lecturer and is highly relevant, scholarly and recently published. Clarity of Expression (20 marks) Writing lacks clarity and coherence. Points have not been paraphrased well. There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing is generally clear with some lapses in coherence. Some points have been paraphrased well. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing is clear and coherent. Most points have been paraphrased well. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing shows good clarity and cohesion. Points have been paraphrased well. There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Writing shows excellent clarity and cohesion. Points have been skilfully paraphrased. There are no or very few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Review (40 marks) Writing lacks clarity; no evidence of critical thinking, writing simply restate the main article. Fail to address the criteria. Review is generally clear with some evidence of critical thinking and analysis but fails to synthesis the arguments. Good demonstration of critical thinking through analysis and presentation; Not all arguments are well supported. Very good demonstration of critical thinking through analysis, synthesis and presentation; evidence of independent research; few Excellent demonstration of critical thinking through analysis, synthesis and presentation; evidence of independent research; review is Page | 3 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: arguments are not well supported. well supported with relevant arguments. Summary (20 marks) The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are missing, unclear, inaccurate and/or irrelevant. The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are generally evident, but may be vague, incomplete, or have some inaccuracies. The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised accurately in most parts. Some information may be irrelevant or inaccurate. The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly and accurately, providing a good overview of the article with minimal irrelevant or inaccurate information. The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly, accurately and precisely, providing an excellent overview of the original article. Reference and Formatting (10 marks) Assignment is not presented as per APIC assessment presentation guidelines and includes insufficient application of APIC Harvard style of referencing. Assignment show some adherence to APIC assessment presentation guidelines and APIC Harvard style of referencing. Assignment mostly adheres to APIC assessment presentation guidelines and APIC Harvard style of referencing. Assignment completely adheres to APIC assessment presentation guidelines with few inconsistencies with APIC Harvard style of referencing. Assignment completely adheres to APIC assessment presentation guidelines and APIC Harvard style of referencing. Assessment 3: Reflective Journal ( A and B) Due date: Week 7, Week 9 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 400 - 500 words Weighting: 20% ( 10% each) Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-3, ULO-5 Assessment Details: This assignment requires you to think deeply and write about your learning experience and the topic (s) content you have experienced and learned over the past two weeks (Week 7 and Week 9). You are required to write two reflective journal entries one about your learning experience and the topic (s) you learned in (Week 6 and Week 7) that is Reflective Journal (A) and it is due on Sunday of Week 7, and one about your learning experience and the topic (s) you learned in (Week 8 and Week 9) that is Reflective Journal (B) and it is due on Sunday of Week 9. It is recommended to visit the SLS page for more information about this type of assessment via this link https://apic.instructure.com/courses/39/pages/reflective-learning-journal In writing you reflective learning journal, you will need to follow the following strategy to write your journal entry: https://apic.instructure.com/courses/39/pages/reflective-learning-journal Page | 4 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: DIEP (Describe, Interpret, Evaluate, Plan) Strategy. Source: (RMIT University–adapted from Boud, D 1985, Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning) https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/writing-academic-reflection-0 See below for explanation of each criterion in DIEP Mainly you need to select one of the main topics discussed in week 6 and week 7 and write your reflection on the selected topic. You required to write 400-500 words to describe your learning experience. You can use the following questions to guide your writing entry: • What did I read for this topic, apart from the notes? (Include information and references from a range of sources) • What was the most interesting thing I read for this topic - why was that? • What material didn’t I find interesting – why was that? • What did I previously think was true, but now know to be wrong? • What did we not cover that I expected we should? • What have I changed my mind about as a result of this topic? • What is one thing I learned in this topic that I may be able to use in future? • What am I still unsure about? What would I like to learn more about? • What issues(s) interested me and would I like to study in more detail? • What are my ideas for action, based on this topic? You can use the following example as reference: Adapted from RMIT University: https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/sample-reflection-0 This week’s recommended reading on resource management and planning presented the idea of collect requirements through questioning to clarify the client needs and to establish the project’s work breakdown structure (WBS) (Smith 2019). The article gave a real-life example of this concept whereby groups of five people were asked to build a tower from straws. The facilitator said it would be judged in terms of strength, eight, and how aesthetically pleasing it was. Each group did the task cooperatively and finished it in the prescribed time. However, the facilitator pointed out that all groups built the tower without much attention to project management techniques in