SBM1202_Assessment Brief S2 2019.pdfITS ASSESSMENT 3 CASE STUDYIn this assessment u have to take a real life case project from the following links which sir has provided and then review and develope a risk management framework for a project as per real life projectsGIVE UR BEST AS I NEED MORE THEN 80% TO CLEAR THIS SUBJECT
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: 13/02/19, Version 1 Unit Code and Title: SBM1202 Project Quality, Risk & Procurement Management Assessment Overview Assessment Task Weighting Due Length ULO Assessment 1: Quiz Assessment 1 consists of MCQ covering the basic concepts of quality management from week 1 and week 2. 10% Week 3 30 minutes ULO-1 Assessment 2: Critical Review Students critically analyse quality issue and/or problem in a field of their interest and correct them applying the principles of TQM. 30% Week 7 2,500 words ULO-1 ULO-2 Assessment 3: Case Study Students review risk management plan/practice of a case project and develop a risk management framework for the case project as per PMBOK™ guidelines. 30% Week 11 2,500 words ULO-3 ULO-4 Assessment 4: Examination Written examination covering the contents from week 1 to week 11 lecture. 30% Exam Week during advertised exam time 2 hours ULO-1 ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-5 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: 13/02/19, Version 1 Assessment 1: Quiz Due date: Week 3 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 25 minutes Weighting: 10% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1 Assessment Details: This in class quiz will assess your knowledge of key content areas (Week 1 & 2 content) and to identify further support needs. For successful completion of the quiz, you are required to study the material provided (lecture slides, tutorials, and reading materials), engage in the unit’s activities, and in the discussion forums. Marking Information: The quiz will be marked out of 25 and will be weighted 10% of the total unit mark. Assessment 2: Critical Review Due date: Week 7 Group/individual: Group Word count / Time provided: 2,500 words Weighting: 30% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2 Assessment Details: Students critically analyse the quality issue and/or problem in a field of their interest and correct them applying the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM). Students are also expected to review two best practice models in project quality management to show its significance in managerial decision. Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark 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: 13/02/19, Version 1 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 Understanding and Critical Analysis (40 marks) Lack of understanding of the relevant theories, principles and approaches to project quality management. No demonstration of critical thinking through analysis of issues and causes Evidence of basic understanding of the relevant theories, principles and approaches to project quality management with limited interpretation and demonstration of critical thinking through analysis of issues and causes Evidence of good understanding of the relevant theories, principles and approaches to project quality management with good supporting interpretation and good demonstration of critical thinking through analysis of issues and causes Evidence of very good understanding of the relevant theories, principles and approaches to project quality management with good supporting interpretation and arguments from literature and analysis of issues and causes with detail explanation demonstrating very good critical thinking skills. Evidence of excellent understanding of the relevant theories, principles and approaches to project quality management. Referencing of supporting literature in the interpretation, explanation and analysis of issues and causes. Analysis presented is rigours and enlightening indicating independent strongly argued coherent writing. Demonstration of excellent critical thinking skills. Review of best practice models (40 marks) Lack of evidence of sufficient use of literature and limited interpretation of the models. No evidence of critical review. Use of some supporting literature with limited interpretation of models and their significance in managerial decision- making pertaining to quality management. Evidence of good reference to supporting literature in reviewing best practice models with good interpretation of model significance in managerial decision making. Evidence of strong reference to supporting literature in reviewing best practice models with significant synthesis of arguments and evidence of independent research to validate the significance of best practice model in managerial decision making Evidence of excellent reference to supporting literature in reviewing best practice models with significant synthesis of arguments. Review presented is rigours in validating the significance of best practice model in managerial decision making Clarity of expression (10 marks) The writing is poor with no logical flow and many grammatical errors The writing is satisfactory exhibiting majority of grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with some spelling or typing errors The writing is fluent and coherent with good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with minor spelling or typing error but may need to interpret. The writing is fluent and coherent with very good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no spelling or typing error The writing is fluent and coherent with excellent presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no minor spelling or typing error Presentation and referencing (10 marks) Demonstration of a limited sense of purpose or theme and insufficient understanding g of the topic. Information is limited, unclear and the depth is not adequately Writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues. The reader is left with questions. It requires further information to clarify main arguments. The presentation and The presentation and referencing mostly conforms to the appropriate Harvard style guide and format. Writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the argument who is left in no doubt of the purpose. The presentation and referencing Writing perceives a sense of the wider context of the ides. The presentation and referencing is appropriate and consistent with the Harvard style guide and format. 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: 13/02/19, Version 1 developed. The idea is a simple restatement of the topic. The presentation and referencing show insufficient application of the appropriate HARVARD style guide and format. referencing show some application of the appropriate Harvard style guide and format. Assessment 3: Case Study Due date: Week 11 Group/individual: Group Word count / Time provided: 2,500 words Weighting: 30% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-3, ULO-4 Assessment Details: In this assignment, each team will select a real-life case project in their field of interest as the vehicle for learning in this unit of study. Students review risk management pan/practice of the case project and develop a risk management framework for a project as per PMBOK™ guidelines. Students may refer to the following resources to select real-life projects: • The Australian Government's Department Infrastructure and Transport. National Infrastructure Construction Schedule (NICS): https://www.nics.gov.au/Project • Transport for UNSW: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects • City of Sydney, Changing urban precincts: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/changing-urban-precincts Page | 5 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: 13/02/19, Version 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30% 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 Review of the case organisation’s Project Risk Management (30 marks) No evidence of independent research Evidence of independent research with satisfactory literature review Evidence of independent and extensive research with food literature review Evidence of independent and extensive research with excellent literature review Evidence of independent and outstanding literature review accompanied by hard to get knowledge Development of a risk management framework for the case project (30 marks) No clear description of methods/methodolog y applied, and framework developed General description of methods/methodolog y applied. Concise description of methods/methodolo gy applied, and framework developed Clear and concise description of methods/methodolog y applied, and framework developed. Rationale of methodology used is well presented Clear and concise description of methods/methodolog y applied, and framework developed. Rational of methodology used in well-presented and comparison with best practice is made. Evaluation of