hi
Microsoft Word - PROJ6000_Assessment 2 brief_T3 Ticketing V5.0 21 Aug 2020 PROJ6000_Assessment 1 Brief_081118.Docx Page 1 of 5 ASSESSMENT BRIEF Subject Code and Title PROJ6000 Principles of Project Management Assessment Assessment 2 - Group collaboration and individual report: PMBoK versus PRINCE2 or Agile in contemporary projects Individual/Group Group Collaboration and Individual Report Submission Length 1,200 words Learning Outcomes Successful completion of this assignment will result in achievement of the following subject learning outcomes: 1. Understand PMBOK knowledge areas and process groups and their role, relevance and impact on project management best practice and PMI's Code of Ethics. 2. Critically compare and contrast project management approaches and their appropriateness for managing a variety of project types, including IT projects. 3. Apply appropriate project management (including IT project management) tools and techniques, paying particular attention to risk management. Submission By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 3 Weighting 35% Total Marks 35 Marks Context: There are several project management methodologies that are used in contemporary project management. Each has certain specific elements that its proponents say make it easier to use, more applicable, more robust or other utilities. While these methodologies are all valid and reliable tools for a project manager to use, it is important to be able to contrast them and to form a view of how they might best be used in a project. This includes their usefulness, application in various types of projects and how they view project risk. PROJ6000_Assessment 1 Brief_081118.Docx Page 2 of 5 This assessment has two parts: (a) You will be placed in a group by your lecturer. In that group in weeks 4 and 5 of the term you will need to read about PMBoK, PRINCE2 and Agile to learn more about their use, application and how they treat project risk. You will also need to read about the similarities and differences between them. The group needs to be divided into two halves. Each half must select either PMBoK or PRINCE2 or Agile to defend. This “defence” takes the form of discussions between your group members in weeks 4 and 5 of the term. You do not need produce anything from this exercise, but you do need to take notes for yourself. These notes will help you complete your individual assessment in part (b) below. (b) Individually, you will need to write a 1,200 - word report that compares and contrasts PMBoK and PRINCE2 or Agile (any 2). This will be based on the week 4 and week 5 discussions that you had in your group. The report must use the following headings: 1. Introduction to PMBoK, Agile and/or PRINCE2 (only 2) (their background and historical context) 2. Similarities between them 3. Differences between them 4. How each method treats project risk 5. In which types of projects each is used 6. Reference list (6 to 12 references) You will need to consult the literature and use at least 6 references (and not more than 12 references) from academic and industry sources. The word count does not include the reference list. Each reference must be in-text cited in your report. The word count is +/- 10%. The assessment requires that you submit your report via the Learning Management System. You do not need to upload anything relating to your group discussions in weeks 4 and 5. Instructions: 1. Discuss the strengths, weaknesses, similarities and contrasts of PMBoK and PRINC2 in your allocated group in weeks 4 and 5. This discussion can be done in your own time, at your convenience and using the format that you prefer (e.g. email, phone, Zoom, online, etc.). The purpose of this is to simply enter into a discussion based on your readings and what you have learned in the subject about these two methodologies. This discussion will help inform your actual assessment, which is the individual report. Write your 1,200-word report with the headings 1. Introduction to PMBoK, Agile and/or PRINCE2 (only 2) (their background and historical context) PROJ6000_Assessment 1 Brief_081118.Docx Page 3 of 5 2. Similarities between them 3. Differences between them 4. How each method treats project risk 5. In which types of projects each is use 6. Reference list Output and Submission: Submit your completed assessment by the end of module 3 (Week 6) on Blackboard. Learning Resources: Jamali, G., & Oveisi, M. (2016). A study on project management based on PMBOK and PRINCE2. Modern Applied Science, 10(6), 142-146. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7cf6/bc6583311e0086d82fad396af945392bb67c.pdf Matos, S., & Lopes, E. (2013). Prince2 or PMBOK–a question of choice. Procedia Technology, 9(2), 787-794. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212017313002417 Rehacek, P. (2017). Application and usage of the standards for project management and their comparison. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 12(4), 994-1002. http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/jeasci/2017/994-1002.pdf Assessment Criteria: The assessment will be graded using the Learning Rubrics below. This is an individual assignment and it is worth 35%. Learning Rubrics – Part A Assessment Attributes Fail (0-49) Pass (50-64) Credit (65- 74) Distinction (75-84) High Distinction (85- 100) Content, Audience and Purpose 25% Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment. Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment. Correct citation of key resources and evidence 25% Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in the APA style. Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are no mistakes in the APA style. Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. There are no mistakes in the APA style. Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within the organisation for sourcing evidence There are no mistakes in the APA style. Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence There are no mistakes in the APA style. Effective written Communication 25% Difficult to understand with no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. Audience cannot follow the line of reasoning. Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. Line of reasoning is easy to follow. Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. Demonstrates cultural sensitivity. Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments. Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multi-media. Knowledge and understanding 25% Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge Key components of the assignment are not addressed. Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s. Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s. Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning.