I need only assessment 3. Topic should be related to 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: **** Unit Code and Title: SBM1203 Venture/Project Economics and Finance Assessment Overview Assessment Task Weighting Due Length ULO Assessment 1: Weekly Online QuizA In weeks 2 to 10 students will complete an online quiz based on material from previous weeks. All tests are open book 40% Week 3 Approx. 30 mins each ULO-1 ULO-2 ULO-3 Assessment 2: Group Pecha kucha Case Study A test including a series of short answer practical and theoretical questions. The test will cover materials covered from week 1 to week 5 (Open Book) 30% Week 8 20 slides 400 second presentation ULO-2 ULO-4 Assessment 3: Individual Case Study Group assignment on analysing real- world (simulated) financial data and information and interpreting the outcomes using the concept and principles of finance you have learnt in this unit. 30% Week-11 3000 ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-4 Assessment 1: Quiz Due date: Weeks 2 - 10 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: Maximum 30 minutes Weighting: 40% Assessment Details: On-line quizzes will be conducted in weeks 2 to 9 inclusive. Some will be conducted in class time while others will be out of class time. Whether the quiz is in class or out of class time will be announced in class each week along with the duration of the quiz. Students should therefore be prepared to complete the the quiz in class each week. Each quiz will be worth 5% of the final mark with only the best 8 results contributing to the final mark. The maximum mark for this assess ement is 40% . Marking Information: Each quiz will be worth 5% of the final mark with only the best 8 results contributing to the final mark. The maximum mark for this assess ement is 40% . Assessment Briefs 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 2: Pecha Kucha Presentation Due date: Week 8 Group/individual: Group Word count / Time provided: 20 Slides, 20 seconds per slide - presentation in class Weighting: 30% Assessment Details: Pecha kucha is loosely translated from Japanese as ‘chit-chat’. Groups of 3 or 4 will be formed in week 2 and will be assigned a case study or provide their own. In the later case, the Unit Coordinators approval will be required before proceeding. The assessment is designed to assess your technical, financial, economical and analytical skills in planning , evaluating and implementing a project effectively and efficiently. Your team will complete a project viability presentation on the case. No written report is required. Rather, teams will present their report in a Pecha kucha format ie: exactly 20 slides (not including the title slide) delived in a time of 6 minutes 20 seconds for the presentation (average of 20 seconds per slide). Marks will be deducted for reports that do not meet these criteria. The presentation should cover (as a minimum) a description of the project, alternative approaches if any, assumptions, risks, financial analysis, sensitivity analysis and recommended action. Marking Information: The Report will be marked out of 100 marks and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark. The marking rubric is attached as Appendix 1 Assessment 3: Case Study Due date: Week 11 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 3000 words Weighting: 30% Assessment Details: Context As an project manager you will need funding to complete your project/venture. A corporate decision has been made that all funding is internal. You may, however, argue that alternate sources may be appropriate (i.e. banks, angel investors, micro-finance organisations, crowd funding, etc.). You will need to present your ideas in a succinct, coherent and persuasive report, to assess the viability of your project. 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: **** This assessment simulates this professional practice, where you present the key analysis to persuade your potential key stakeholders to invest in your project in a safe environment. You should consider the following: • Identify the stakeholders you are presenting to in this assessment. In this case assume that the lecturer is the manager of the company. • Introduce the project idea. Include what the idea is and why it matters to the business. You are free to make any assumptions about the business as needed – provided they are logical. • Provide details of your financial analysis and assessment of the project viability. Ensure that you consider the key risks and the results of sensitivity analyses. • Close the deal. Why should the manager approve the project. Be persuasive. Marking Information: The Report will be marked out of 100 marks and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark. The marking rubric is attached as Appendix 2 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: **** Appendix 1 Assessment 2: Pecha kucha presentation - Marking Rubric Criteria HD (85-100) D (75-84) CR (65-74) PASS (50-64) FAIL (0-49) Personal Professional Presentation 10% Early, prepared, confident, eye contact, dress code: impeccable. On time, prepared, confident, eye contact, dress code: very smart. On time, prepared, confident, eye contact, dress code: smart. On time, prepared, nervous, eye contact, dress code: ok. Late, unprepared, untidy Delivery 30% Holds attention of entire audience with the use of direct eye contact, seldom looking at notes Speaks with fluctuation in volume and inflection to maintain audience interest and emphasize key points Consistent use of direct eye contact with audience, with little or no use of notes. Speaks with higher than satisfactory variation of volume and inflection Displays some eye contact with audience, while reading occasionally from the notes. Speaks with satisfactory variation of volume and inflection Holds little eye contact with audience, as entire report is read from notes. Speaks in low volume and/or monotonous tone, which causes audience to disengage Looks disinterested, no eye contact, reads from notes. Inaudible. Content, Organisation and Understanding of Research 35% Demonstrates full knowledge by answering all class questions with explanations & elaboration. Provides clear purpose and subject; pertinent examples, facts, and/or statistics; supports conclusions/ ideas with evidence. Is at ease with expected answers to all questions, without elaboration Has clear purpose and subject; examples, facts, and/or statistics that support the subject; includes data or evidence that supports conclusions. Is comfortable with information and is able to answer questions Attempts to define purpose and subject; provides examples, facts, and/or statistics, at an above satisfactory level. Has little grasp of information and is able to answer only rudimentary questions. Does not clearly define subject and purpose; provides weak support of subject; gives insufficient support for ideas or conclusions Presentation shows no knowledge of topic Person is not prepared Audience Engagement 15% Demonstrates strong enthusiasm about topic during entire presentation Significantly increases audience understanding & knowledge of topic. Shows enthusiastic feelings about topic Raises audience understanding & awareness of most points. Shows mixed feelings about the topic being presented Raises audience understanding & knowledge of the subject area. Shows little interest in topic presented Raises audience understanding and knowledge of some points. Disinterested in topic. Distracts audience while other team members present. Compliance with specifications 10% Full compliance 20 slides 400 seconds ± 5% Largely compliant 20 slides 400 seconds ± 15% Reasonably compliant 20 slides 400 seconds ± 25% Some compliance 20 slides 400 seconds ± 50% Little compliance GRADE 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: **** Appendix 2 Assessment 3 Case Study – Marking Rubric Criteria HD (85-100) D (75-84) CR (65-74) PASS (50-64) FAIL (0-49) Evaluation and explanation of financial viability and funds. 40% Critical and thorough evaluation of the financial viability and funds required. Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning. Clear and accurate evaluation of the financial viability and funds required Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. An adequate attempt to evaluate the financial viability and funds required. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. A basic attempt to evaluate the financial viability and funds required. Explanation resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. No/limited evidence of evaluation. Explanation