Get Cheapest Assignment in Australia, UK, US, UAE, Canada and NZ Order Now

PRJ5001 Project Management Profession

0 Comments

Assessment Brief: PRJ5001 Project Management Profession T1, 2021

Assessment Overview

Assessment TaskTypeWeightLengthDueULOs Assessed
Assessment 1: Online Quizzes Weekly online quiz of key content areasIndividual      35%15-20 minutes eachWeek 2- 10ULO1 ULO2
Assessment 2: Applied Project and Presentation Students are required to work to investigate, analyse, report and present on the initiation and planning of a case project, prepare a report and PowerPoint (PP) presentation slides.Group            30%2500 words 15 minutes verbal presentationWeek 9ULO2 ULO3 ULO4
Assessment 3: Business Case Study Analysis Students are required to work individually to provide a literature review and evaluation of a case study.Individual        35%2000 words (excluding references)Week 12ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5

Assessment 1: Online Quizzes

Due date:Week 2 – 10
Group/individual:Individual
Word count/Time provided:15-20 minutes for each quiz
Weighting:35%
Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO1 and ULO2

Assessment 1 Detail

Live (in-class) Online quizzes will be held from week 2 to week 10 (one quiz in each week). Quiz questions will be based on the materials covered in classes as well as those recommended in Canvas. The format of the quizzes will be multiple choice and/or short answer-based questions. The average of all quizzes will be used as the final mark for Assessment 1.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 90 (each quiz will be 10 marks) and will be weighted 35% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking CriteriaNot 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)
Online quizzesThe student shows anThe student demonstrates aThe student demonstrates aThe student demonstrates aThe student demonstrates
 unsatisfactory performanceSatisfactory performance ingood performancevery good performance inan excellent performance in
 in answering the questionsanswering the questions inanswering the questions inanswering the questions inanswering the questions in
 in online quizzes, withonline quizzes, with answersonline quizzes, withonline quizzes, withonline quizzes, with
 answers those are generallythose are nearly accurateaccurate answers and veryaccurate answers andaccurate answers and
 inaccurate and poor writingand good writing style, butgood writing style. Thisexcellent writing style. Thisadvanced writing style. This
 style and manythere might be some errors.reflects a very goodreflects an excellentreflects a deep
 errors. This reflects a poorThis reflects a goodunderstanding ofunderstanding of the subjectunderstanding of the subject
 understanding of theunderstanding of the subjectthe subject matter.matter.matter.
 subject matter.matter.   

Assessment 2: Applied Project and Presentation

Due date:Week 9
Group/individual:Group
Word count/Time provided:2500 words (excluding references) and PP presentation slides
Weighting:Week 9
Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO2; ULO3; ULO4

Assessment 2 Detail

This assessment is designed to assess your technical skills in developing and communicating a project effectively. You required to work individually, select a project case and you are required to investigate, analyse and report on the correct initiation of the project by applying PMBOK@ methodology The group needs to select an industrial project from any domain (IT, construction, banking), study the project details and prepare and present the assessment. The Chunnel Tunnel, Melbourne’s Metro Tunnel, Bhuj Khalifa, Queensland Health Payroll are examples of such projects. Links to real-life projects: (those are mainly infrastructure and construction project, it is not compulsory to use it as your case, you can select a project from your area of expertise).

The report must contain the following project documents:

  • Project background
  • Draft business case
  • Draft stakeholder register
  • Draft project charter
  • Organisational structure
  • Design and application of Balanced Score Card
  • Recommendations for project governance

For successful completion of this assessment, you are required to study the material provided (lecture slides, tutorials, and reading materials) and engage in the unit’s activities. Students are expected to discuss their work with tutor / lecturer and to seek support. Submission of the MS-Word file and the MS-PowerPoint file needs to be then made into Canvas before the stipulated deadline.

Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking CriteriaNot 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)
Written Assignment
Structure and Flow (10%): Appropriate structure with informative headings; smooth flowPoor structure and flow with informative headings. Assignment template modified.Satisfactory structure and flow with informative headings. Assignment template modified.Good structure and flow with informative headings. Generally, follows assignment template.Very good structure and flow with informative headings. Follows assignment templateExcellent structure and flow with informative headings. Follows assignment template
Business case (15%): Suitable Business case chosenNo suitable business case chosen. Business case was poorly identified, analysed, and supported.Satisfactory business case chosen. Business case was not clearly identified, analysed, and supported.Good business case chosen. Business case was partially identified, analysed, and supported.Very good business case chosen. Business case was clearly identified, analysed, and supported.Excellent business case chosen. Business case was clearly identified, analysed, and supported.
Project charter (15%): Appropriate Project charter developedHas not demonstrated a clear comprehension of a project charterHas demonstrated basic comprehension of a project charterOften demonstrates a clear comprehension of a project charterGenerally, demonstrates a clear comprehension of a project charterHas demonstrated a clear comprehension of a project charter
Stakeholder Register (10%): Appropriate stakeholder register providedHas not demonstrated a clear comprehension of how to develop a stakeholder registerHas demonstrated basic comprehension of how to develop a stakeholder register. Partial information provided.Has demonstrated good comprehension of how to develop a stakeholder register. Good information provided.Has demonstrated very good comprehension of how to develop a stakeholder register. Very good information provided.Has demonstrated an excellent comprehension of how to develop a stakeholder register. Excellent information provided.
Balanced Score Card (10%): Appropriate balance scorecard developedHas not demonstrated a clear comprehension of how to develop a balance score cardHas demonstrated basic comprehension of how to develop a balance score card. Partial information provided.Has demonstrated good comprehension of how to develop a balance score card. Good information provided.Has demonstrated very good comprehension of how to develop a balance score card. Very good information provided.Has demonstrated an excellent comprehension of how to develop a balance score card. Excellent information provided.
Recommendation (10%): Specific recommendations and/or plans of action providedEffective recommendations and/or plans of action not provided. Specific data or facts necessary to support the analysis and conclusions was not provided.Effective recommendations and/or plans of action inadequate. Specific data or facts were not referred when necessary to support the analysis and conclusions.Effective recommendations and/or plans of action were partially provided. Specific data or facts were partially referred when necessary to support the analysis and conclusions.Effective recommendations and/or plans of action were provided. Specific data or facts were partially referred when necessary to support the analysis and conclusions.Effective recommendations and/or plans of action were provided. Specific data or facts were referred when necessary to support the analysis and conclusions.
Marking CriteriaNot 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)
Presentation assignment
Visual Appeal (4%)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
Topic knowledge/content (8%)Presenter didn’t understand topic. The presentation was a brief summary of the assignment; many questions were left unanswered; majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out.Presenter showed understanding of some parts of topic; only some questions are accurately answered.Presenter showed understanding of topic and presented a good summary of the assignment; most of the questions are answered.Presenter showed very good understanding of topic and assignment was well summarised with almost all-important information covered; A good discussion model application was presented.Presenter showed an extensive knowledge by answering all questions pertaining to the assignment; presentation was comprehensive and included all relevant information and very good discussion of model use and their significance is presented.
Presentation Skills (4%)Inappropriate/disinterested body language; presentation is not engaging; presenter spoke too quickly or too slowly making it difficult to understand.Presentation was superficially not so engaging; tone and clarity of speech was of satisfactory level.Presentation was engaging; tone and clarity of speech was good with appropriate body language.Presentation was very engaging; tone, pitch and clarity of speech was very good; presented in a professional manner.Presentation was excellent and very engaging; tone, pitch and clarity of speech was excellent; presented in a very professional manner with good body language and appropriate attire and look.
Preparedness (4%)Unbalanced presentation or Evident lack of preparation/rehearsal Dependence on slides.Simple presentation; dependence on slides for most of the time; preparedness was satisfactory.Demonstration of good preparedness; dependent on slide is minimal; some concepts were explained beyond what was written in slide.Very well prepared and rehearsed presentation; dependence in slide in explaining concepts is very minimal.Extremely prepared and rehearsed presentation; no dependence in slide in explain concepts.
For both Presentation and written assignment
Referencing and Grammar: (10%) Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report structure, grammar and presentationIncludes identifying information with many errors in format. Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to another. There are several spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity and concisenessIncludes identifying information with some errors in format. Paper shows some organization. At times, difficult to read and does not flow logically from one part to another. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined.All references cited correctly using citation style with some minor errors. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined. Writing is mostly clear but may lack concisenessAll references cited correctly using citation style. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are only a few minor spelling or grammatical errors, or terms are not clearly defined. Writing is mostly clearHarvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report. Paper is coherently organized, and the logic is easy to follow. There are no spelling or grammatical errors and terminology is clearly defined. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive.

Assessment 3: Business Case Study Analysis

Due date:Week 12
Group/individual:Individual
Word count/Time provided:2000 words (excluding references)
Weighting:35%
Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO 1 to 5

Assessment 3 Detail

The case study on Carmichael coal mine project will assess students’ knowledge of key content areas of PRJ5001, adequate Initiation, Planning and stakeholder engagement. For successful completion of the assessment, students are required to research on the case study and analyse it to provide an evaluation of reasons for controversy of this project attributable to lack of adequate care in project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement and recommend improvements based on content/theories learnt in PRJ5001. The improvements need to focus on project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement for this assignment. Students will have to research and find further information on the case study and related articles. Students are also required to review 4 relevant publications as part of this assignment and analyse/critique them for relevance to project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement in context to the project induced problems from project management perspective.

Guideline for evaluating the Case Study and writing Critical Review (word count is indicative):

  • Introduce the project (~ 200 words)
  • Elaborate on the reasons for controversy (~ 300 words)
  • Review 4 articles and critique them for relevance to project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement in context to the case study. (~ 800 words – 200 words each)
  • Provide critical review and evaluation of reasons for controversy attributable to lack of adequate care in project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement (~ 300 words)
  • Recommend what could have been done to improve the lack of adequate care in project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement (~ 300 words)
  • Conclusion (~ 100 words)

Assessments 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 35% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking CriteriaNot 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)
Introduction to the projectPoor introduction andSatisfactory introductionGood introduction andVery good introduction andExcellent introduction and
and reasons for thereasons for controversyand reasons for controversyreasons for controversyreasons for controversyreasons for controversy
controversy (20 Marks)correctly identified fromcorrectly identified fromcorrectly identified fromcorrectly identified fromcorrectly identified from
 project managementproject managementproject managementproject managementproject management
 viewpoint.viewpoint.viewpoint.viewpoint.viewpoint.
Review of 4 publications inThe publications’ mainThe publications’ mainThe publications’ mainThe publications’ mainThe publications’ main
context to relevance to casetopic(s), aim/ purpose, keytopic(s), aim/ purpose, keytopic(s), aim/ purpose, keytopic(s), aim/ purpose, keytopic(s), aim/ purpose, key
study and project initiation,points and conclusions arepoints and conclusions arepoints and conclusions arepoints and conclusionspoints and conclusions
planning and stakeholdermissing, unclear, inaccurategenerally evident, but maysummarised accurately inare identified andare identified and providing
engagementand/or irrelevant. Relevancebe vague, incomplete, ormost parts. Somesummarised clearly anda clearly, accurately and
(40 marks)to project initiation,have some inaccuracies.information may beaccurately, providing a goodprecisely, providing
 planning and stakeholderRelevance to projectirrelevant or inaccurate.overview of the article withexcellent relevance to
 engagement in context toinitiation, planning andRelevance to projectminimal irrelevance toproject initiation, planning
 the case study is missing.stakeholder engagement ininitiation, planning andproject initiation, planningand stakeholder
  context to the case study isstakeholder engagement inand stakeholderengagement in context to
  missing.context to the case study isengagement in context tothe case study.
   found but not adequatelythe case study. 
   presented.  
Lack of adequate care inPoor connection of reasonsSatisfactory connection ofSatisfactory connection ofVery good connection ofExcellent connection of
project initiation, planningfor controversy to lack ofreasons for controversy toreasons for controversy toreasons for controversy toreasons for controversy to
and stakeholderadequate care for projectlack of adequate care forlack of adequate care forlack of adequate care forlack of adequate care for
engagement connected toinitiation, planning andproject initiation, planningproject initiation, planningproject initiation, planningproject initiation, planning
reasons for controversy andstakeholder engagement.and stakeholderand stakeholderand stakeholderand stakeholder
recommendations forRecommendations forengagement.engagement.engagement.engagement.
improvement (30 Marks)improvement focused onRecommendations forRecommendations forRecommendations forRecommendations for
 technical improvements andimprovement focused onimprovement not focusedimprovements relevant andimprovements relevant and
 not on improvement totechnical improvements andon technical improvementselaborating somedefining well improvements
 managing initiation,to some extent onbut elaborating someimprovements to managingto managing initiation,
 planning and stakeholderimprovements to managingimprovements to managinginitiation, planning andplanning and stakeholder
 engagement.initiation, planning andinitiation, planning andstakeholder engagement.engagement.
  stakeholder engagement.stakeholder engagement.  
Marking CriteriaNot 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)
Written communicationWriting lacks clarity andWriting is generally clear withWriting is clear andWriting shows good clarityWriting shows excellent
skills and referencing (10coherence. Points have notsome lapses in coherence.coherent. Most points haveand cohesion. Points haveclarity and cohesion. Points
marks)been paraphrased well.Some points have beenbeen paraphrased well.been paraphrased well.have been skilfully
 There are many errors inparaphrased well. There areThere are some errors inThere are few errors inparaphrased. There are no or
 spelling, grammar andmany errors in spelling,spelling, grammar,spelling, grammar,very few errors in spelling,
 punctuation and Harvardgrammar, punctuation andpunctuation and Harvardpunctuation and Harvardgrammar and punctuation.
 formatting style and citationHarvard formatting style andformatting style and citationformatting style and citationExcellent Harvard formatting
 of references in the body ofcitation of references in theof references in the body ofof references in the body ofstyle and citation of
 the report.body of the report.the report.the report.references in the body of the
     report.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *