Assignment 2
word count: 2000
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: 14/02/2019,Version 1 Unit Code and Title: SBM1101 Project Management Fundamentals Assessment Overview Assessment Task Weighting Due Length ULO Assessment 1: Article Summary (Individual) Individual Assignment wherein the student summarizes a recently published journal article in the field of the subject and covers the concepts suggested by the lecturer requiring the article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly. 10% Week 4 400-500 words ULO-1 ULO-4 Assessment 2: Case Study (Individual) Students need to analyse a failed project, analyse various project methodologies; select an appropriate PM methodology and justify their selection. 20% Week 7 2000 words ULO-4 ULO-5 Assessment 3: Applied Project and Presentation (Group) Students are required to work in groups to investigate, analyze and report on the initiation and planning of a case project by applying PMBOK@ methodology. 20% 10% Week 10 Week 10 2500 words ULO-1 ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-4 ULO-5 Assessment 4: Examination Examination covering theory and practice in the course. 40% Exam Week TBA ULO-1 ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-4 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: 14/02/2019,Version 1 Assessment 1: Article Summary Due date: Week 4 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 400 -500 words (excludes link and reference) Weighting: 10% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-4 Assessment Details: The students are expected to select a published journal article (not older than 5 years) from the field of project management related to Adoption of Agile methodology in Industry (Engineering, Construction or any domain of your choice) and summarize the article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions clearly in 400 (min.) to 500 words (max.). Students must provide the article’s website link and correctly provide the article’s reference in the submitted word file. The link and reference are not included in the word count. Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment 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 article selected does not reflect the subject’s main concepts. The article selected is in the field of the subject and reflects one/some of the main concepts suggested by the lecturer. The article selected is in the field of the subject, covers the main concepts suggested by the lecturer but may not be current or scholarly. The article selected is in the field of the subject and covers the concepts suggested by the lecturer and is scholarly and relatively current. The article is from academic Journal and directly discusses the main concepts suggested by the lecturer and is highly relevant, scholarly and recently published. Written communication skills (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. Content (40 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 The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly and accurately, providing a good The article’s main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and summarised clearly, accurately and precisely, providing 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: 14/02/2019,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 information may be irrelevant or inaccurate. overview of the article with minimal irrelevant or inaccurate information. an excellent overview of the original article. Structure (20 marks) The summary is not well organised, does not flow logically and is difficult to follow. The summary shows some organisation, but some parts may not flow logically and are difficult to follow. The summary shows organisation and is easy to follow, but occasionally still lacks flow. The summary shows coherent and logical organisation and most points are easy to follow. The summary shows coherent and logical organisation and has clear, well- structured points. Style and article link (10 mark) The article is not referenced and link is not provided. Reporting verbs and connecting words are not used. The article is referenced but link is not provided. Reference contains errors or does not follow Harvard referencing style. Limited reporting verbs and connecting words are used. The article is referenced in Harvard referencing style but may contain some minor errors. Article link is provided. Some reporting verbs and connecting words are used. The article is referenced in Harvard referencing style with few errors. Link is provided. Reporting verbs and connecting words are used well to create flow. The article is accurately referenced in Harvard referencing style. Link is provided. Reporting verbs and connecting words are used very well to create flow and cohesion. Assessment 2: Case Study Due date: Week 7 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 2000 words (excluding references) Weighting: 20% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-4, ULO-5 Assessment Details: This assessment is designed to assess your analytical skills for a failed project. Each student needs to select a real-life project that has already been completed but failed in terms of meeting schedule, budget or customer requirements. Students need to describe specific reasons of mismanagement by the Project Management team that resulted in the failure. Students need to review various project methodologies and recommend an appropriate PM methodology that could have been better suited to manage this failed project. Students need to justify their recommendation to convince the company’s management to improve the organization’s processes for the future. Students are expected to discuss their work with lecturer and seek support. By completing this assessment successfully, you will be able to achieve ULO-4 (Apply knowledge and tools to projects in the work environment including setting up relevant systems and controls) and ULO-5 (Analyse project situations including strategic intent, business case, framework or governance issues and recommend solutions). 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: 14/02/2019,Version 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% 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 Content of case study and reasons for failure by accurately mentioning background of the project/problem and failure of the project management team, (20 marks) The case study’s background, key issues for failure and analysis of failures with unsatisfactory project management are missing, unclear, inaccurate and/or irrelevant. The case study’s background, key issues for failure and analysis of failures with unsatisfactory project management are generally evident, but may be vague, incomplete, or have some inaccuracies. The case study’s background, key issues for failure and analysis of failures with unsatisfactory project management are identified and summarised accurately in most parts. Some information may be irrelevant or inaccurate. The case study’s background, key issues for failure