I need ppt also
Page | 8 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: Review of best practice models (30 marks) literature and limited interpretation of the models. No evidence of critical review. with limited interpretation of models and their significance in managerial decision- making pertaining to quality and risk management. supporting literature in reviewing best practice models with good interpretation of model significance in managerial decision making pertaining to quality and risk management. 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. supporting literature in reviewing best practice models with significant synthesis of arguments. Review presented is rigours in validating the significance of best practice model in managerial decision making pertaining to quality and risk management. Clarity of Expression (20 marks) The writing is poor with no logical flow and many grammatical errors The writing is satisfactory exhibiting majority of grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with some spelling or typing errors but may need to interpret. The writing is fluent and coherent with good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with few spellings or typing error. The writing is fluent and coherent with very good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with minor spelling or typing error The writing is fluent and coherent with excellent presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no minor spelling or typing error Formatting and referencing (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 4: Project management plan for QRP & Presentation Due date: Week 12 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 2,000 words Weighting: 40% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-3, ULO-4 Page | 9 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 Details: For this assessment students are required to select a real-life case project in their field of interest to analyse and write QRP plan. This assessment also requires each student to orally present their QRP plan. For this purpose, student can use digital media (such as Power point with embedded voice/video) to record their presentation and submit in Canvas. While reviewing and analysing the case project, student may refer to PMBOK™ guidelines. Following resources may assist student in selecting a real-life project: • The Australian Government's Department Infrastructure and Transport. National Infrastructure Construction Schedule (NICS): https://www.nics.gov.au/Project • Transport for UNSW: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects • City of Sydney, Changing urban precincts: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/changing-urban-precincts Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 40% of the total unit mark and consist of two parts: Written and Presentation. Rubrics for written part (Report: Maximum marks possible is 67): 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 Case project identification and assessment (15 marks) No evidence of case project identification and assessment Case project is identified but no focus on project type and industry sector. Some assessment is presented such as characteristics of project, context and challenges. Case project identified is appropriate with focus on project type and industry sector. Good assessment is presented with focus on context, challenges, characteristics. Case project is well identified and a very good analysis on project type, industry with god focus on context, challenges, characteristics, needs risk and opportunities are presented Case project is very well identified and an excellent analysis on project type, industry context, challenges, characteristics, needs, constraints, risk, opportunities, uncertainties, stakeholders and best practice is presented. Discussion on QRP and their potential impacts on project plan is well discussed. QRP management plan (30 marks) No work on QRP management plan is presented. QRP management plan is presented with no comparison against project objectives, business case, need and constraints. QRP management plan is presented with comparison against project objectives, business case, constraints and challenges. QRP management plan is well presented with comparison against project objectives, business case, constraints, challenges, requirements. Best practice model is also discussed with key success factors. QRP management plan is very well presented with comparison against project objectives, business case, constraints, challenges and requirements. Best practice model is also discussed with key success factors along with control and management processes to ensure successful delivery. Page | 10 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: Clarity of expression (12 marks) The writing is poor with no logical flow and many grammatical errors. The writing is satisfactory exhibiting majority of grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with some spelling or typing errors but may need to interpret. The writing is fluent and coherent with good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with few spellings or typing error. The writing is fluent and coherent with very good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with minor spelling or typing error The writing is fluent and coherent with excellent presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no minor spelling or typing error Formatting and referencing (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. Rubrics for presentation part (Oral presentation: Maximum marks possible is 33): 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 Criteria 1 (5 marks): Visual Appeal There are too many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. The slides were difficult to read, and slides contained information copied onto them from another source. No visual appeal. There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information was contained on many slides. Minimal effort made to make slides appealing. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on more than three or more slides. Presentation has good visual appeal. There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on two or more slides. Presentation has significant visual appeal. There are no errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Presentation is visually appealing/engaging Criteria 2 (13 marks): Topic knowledge/content Presenters didn’t understand topic. The presentation was a brief look at the topic, but many questions were left unanswered. Majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out. The presentation was informative, but several elements went unanswered. Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of some of major points. The presentation was a good summary of the topic. Major information covered; presentation contain some irrelevant information. The presentation was a very good summary of the topic. Almost all-important information covered; presentation contain little irrelevant information. Presentation was excellent and shows extensive knowledge of topic with comprehensive and complete coverage of information. Criteria 3 (10 marks): Presentation Skills Unsatisfactory presentation with no