Assignment 2
word count: 1500
harvard refence style
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) 10% Week 4 6,00 words ULO-1 Assessment 2: 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. 25% Week 7 1,500 words ULO-1 ULO-2 Assessment 3: Project management plan for QRP (Group 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. 30% Week 10 2,500 words ULO-3 ULO-4 Assessment 4: Examination (individual assessment) Written examination (closed book) covering the contents from week 1 to week 11 lectures. 35% 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: 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 2: Critical Review & Evaluation Due date: Week 7 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 1,500 words Weighting: 25% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2 Assessment Details: This assessment requires student to critically evaluate contemporary quality or risk concept and discuss its application in a project environment along with its impact on project life cycle. Students are also expected to review one best practice model for project Risk and quality management respectively to discuss its overall impact on managerial decision. 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 Critical evaluation (40 marks) No demonstration of critical evaluation through analysis of contemporary Evidence of limited interpretation and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis Evidence of good demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary Evidence of very good understanding and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis Evidence of an excellent understanding of and demonstration of critical evaluation 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: ideas/concept in Q/R management of contemporary ideas/concept in Q/R management. ideas/concept in Q/R management along with good analysis of its impact on project life cycle. of contemporary ideas/concept in Q/R management along with very good analysis of its impact on project life cycle with detail explanation demonstrating very good critical thinking skills. through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in Q/R management along with very good analysis of its impact on project life cycle and in managerial decision with detail explanation. Referencing of supporting literature in the interpretation, explanation and analysis is presented. Analysis presented is rigours and enlightening indicating independent strongly argued coherent writing. Review of best practice models (30 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 and risk management. Evidence of good reference to supporting literature in reviewing best practice models with good interpretation of model significance in managerial decision making pertaining to quality and risk management. 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 pertaining to quality and risk management. Evidence of excellent reference to supporting literature