2500 word with ppt with speaker notes
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: Assessment 2: Written Report and Presentation Due date: Week 10 Group/individual: Group assignment Word count: 2500 words and PP presentation Weighting: 30% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4 Assessment 2 Details: Design of Project Delivery System influences the success or failure of the implementation phase of projects and programs. It is not just about selecting a contact model; it provides a framework for procurement of goods and services needed to implement the project. This assessment task is based on the delivery system of the “Case project”, where students use real-life project as the vehicle for learning and developing their competencies in this unit of study. The case project should be selected by students in their field of interest. This assessment task includes the following components: 1. The background and the objectives of the case project 2. Literature review on the case project, including the typical delivery models and contexts. 3. SWOT analysis of the selected delivery methods 4. Development of the methodology for case project delivery system 5. Implementation of the methodology from 2. Students will also discuss results and expected outcomes and suggested implementation plan for the case project. 6. Students are also required to present and upload their case project presentation slides on the Canvas in week 10. 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 Literature Review of Project Delivery Systems (PDS) Quality of literature review/ Evidence of independent and extensive research (particularly literature reviews and hard to get’ knowledge). Lack of evidence of academic writing. No clear understanding and exploration of literature review topics related to project delivery systems and no demonstration of evidence from current/past academic studies. Has demonstrated basic comprehension of the subject. Limited additional evidence and insights that add significant value to the topic. Mostly, one singular viewpoint that does not integrate the viewpoints of the group into a coherent structure to address the given topic. Often demonstrates a clear comprehension of the subject in the reading/topic with many additional evidence and insights often cited. Good link between practice vs. theory to the topic. Generally, demonstrates a clear comprehension of the subject in the reading/topic with many additional evidence and insights. Very good link between practice vs. theory to the topic. Generally, integrates multiple Has demonstrated a clear comprehension of the subject in the reading/ topic with additional evidence and insights. Has added significant value of practice vs. theory to the topic. Integrates multiple viewpoints and weave both class and group views 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: Demonstrate Critical Thinking through development of a Conceptual Theory Model. (30% marks) Some resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly address the given topic. Often integrates multiple viewpoints and weave both class and group views into a coherent structure. Generally, resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly relate to the given topic. viewpoints and weave both class and group views into a coherent structure. Most resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly relate to the given topic. into a coherent structure. All resources selected are of the appropriate type and directly relate to the given topic. Evaluation and Critical Reasoning of the Case Organisation Review of case project objectives, business case, special needs, and requirements. SWOT analysis for nominated delivery systems. Strategies for selecting optimal and successful project delivery and administration of case project. (30% marks) Lack of evidence of comprehensive knowledge in the topic. Majority of information irrelevant to the selected project case. Incorrectly presented the SWOT analysis. No strategy presented for selecting the optimal and successful project delivery method. Evidence of basic knowledge in the topic. Basic information about the project background and lack of evidence of comprehensive knowledge in the project objectives, business case and SWOT analysis. Minimally presented the strategies for selecting the optimal project delivery method. Has given a factual and/or conceptual knowledge to the case project, identifying project business case and requirements. Good evidence of comprehensive knowledge in the SWOT analysis and strategies for the optimal selection of project delivery and administration of the case project. Reasonable knowledge of background, objectives and business case of the selected project and very good level of understanding of SWOT analysis. Has understanding the strategies for selecting the optimal project delivery methods and administration of the case project. Extensive comprehension knowledge of topic. Members showed complete understanding of the selected project background, objectives, business case and SWOT analysis. Members also showed complete understanding about the strategies for selecting the optimal and successful project delivery and administration of the case project. Structure, grammar, presentation, and Harvard style referencing (15% marks). The report is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to another. There are several spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity and conciseness. Include few references without following Harvard style reference guidelines or no reference. The report shows some organization. At times, difficult to read and does not flow logically from one part to another. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined. Includes Few references with errors. The report is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness. All references cited correctly using citation style with some minor errors. The report is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are only a few minor spelling or grammatical errors, or terms are not clearly defined. Writing is mostly clear. All references cited correctly using citation style. The report is coherently organized, and the logic is easy to follow. There are no spelling or grammatical errors and terminology is clearly defined. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive. Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report. Presentation slides Visual Appeal (5 marks) There are too many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. The slides There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information was There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too There are no errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear 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: were difficult to read, and slides contained information copied onto them from another source. No visual appeal. contained on many slides. Minimal effort made to make slides appealing. much information on more than three or more slides. Presentation has good visual appeal. much information on two or more slides. Presentation has significant visual appeal. and concise on each slide. Presentation is visually appealing/engaging Presentation topic knowledge/content (8 marks) Presenters didn’t understand topic. The presentation was a brief look at the topic, but many questions were left unanswered. Majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out. The presentation was informative, but several elements went unanswered. Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of some of major points. The presentation was a good summary of the topic. Major information covered; presentation contain some irrelevant information. The presentation was a very good summary of the topic. Almost all-important information covered; presentation contain little irrelevant information. Presentation was excellent and shows extensive knowledge of topic with comprehensive and complete coverage of information. Presentation skills (7 marks) Unsatisfactory presentation with no clarity,