I have this assignment from Event Management subject, my assignment still has long time to due. I will let you know accordingly, Please do not make this in one go because I need to make it according to guidance from lecturer. For Now I need 3 Events -1. Name of event and place of event.
2. Date of event and period ( how long, yearly?..)
3. Number of people ( approximately)
4. Approximate budget ( have a guess)
5. Key stakeholders
Please see screenshot for requirements of event selection.
please suggest me 3 events with those 5 requirements. I will have discussion with lecturer then I will let you which one to choose. Also please let me know which event you(expert) want to choose. Thanks
ASSESSMENT ONE Page 1 of 4 Subject Title Event Operations and Quality Management Subject Code EVT806 Lecturer / Tutor William O’Toole Semester Term 1 2022 Assessment Title Application of Operations Theory to event Learning Outcome/s a, b, e Assessment type (group or individual) individual Weighting 25% Word count 1000 Due date Week 5 Sunday 11.45pm Class submission Lecture ☐ Tutorial ☐ Submission type Paper copy ☐ Turnitin ☐x Format / Layout of Assessment Essay: ICMS Cover Page Introduction Body Reference List ☐x ☐x ☐x ☐x Assessment instructions You will need to choose two of the following theories and apply these theories to your event: • Logistics Theory Attendee Journey Map • Project Management Theory • Quality Service Theory or Models Checklists Readings for the assessment • Project Management Institute(PMI), 2008, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) - Fourth Edition. ISBN 978-1-933890-51-7 • O’Toole, W. & Mikolaitis, P. (2002), Corporate Event Project Management. New York, John Wiley & Sons. • Gawande, A. (2010). The Checklist Manifesto, How to get things right. London. Profile • O’Toole, W.J (2022) Events Feasibility and Development Cpt 12 Event Metrics and the Checklist • Silvers, J. R. (2004). Professional event coordination. New York. John Wiley & Sons. The logic and methodology of Checklists Michael Scriven Western Michigan University 2005 (in resources on Moodle subject site) Grading Criteria / Rubric See below ASSESSMENT ONE Page 2 of 4 Peer Review Evaluation (group work – optional) ASSESSMENT ONE Page 3 of 4 Detailed Rubric Assessment 2 Item Weight Excellent HD Very Good D Good CR Satisfactory P Inadequate F Essay meets assessment guidelines 15% Exemplary set out. Very well set out. As set out in the instructions. Well written, presented and demonstrates understanding of the key terms. As set out in the instructions. Essay not submitted and / or incomplete and/or obviously rushed at the last minute. Essay demonstrates an understanding of the topics and its application to the event 15% Strong evidence of deep understanding. Demonstrates the ability to apply lectures and reading material and finds new material to synthesise with the lectures. Provide evidence of understanding of the theory, the terminology and processes. Provide evidence of understanding of the lectures and reading material. Fails to provide evidence of any understanding.. Overall written expression and layout is at industry / professional standard 15% Clear, logical, comparisons and contrary facts used to support suggested improvements Professional Professional use of the terminology and model Clearly written Easy to understand. Understandable. Essay, written expression and layout fails to meet minimum professional standards ASSESSMENT ONE Page 4 of 4 standard. Referencing is accurate, appropriate and complete 15% Perfect referencing. Extended articles, books websites. References include other disciplines related to topic. References are from wide topics that directly relate to the subject. Correct referencing. Using suggested articles and texts, websites. Perhaps extra websites/references. Referencing is used properly No referencing of content. Reflective thought evident 40% Theory completely understood and applied to event. Contrasting processes analysed. Limitations of the theory are demonstrated. The explanation and use of the model is clearly demonstrated. Deeper thought is shown through comparison of examples and counter examples New terminology defined and applied to event Meaningful comments, comparisons and analysis. Demonstrates an understanding of the model and its application. No evidence of reflective thought Lack of application to events and event management