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

PRJ5004 Procurement, Quality and Risk Management

0 Comments

Assessment Brief: PRJ5004 Procurement, Quality and Risk Management Trimester 1, 2021

Assessment Overview

Assessment TaskTypeWeightLengthDueULOs Assessed
Assessment 1: Quiz Weekly online quiz of key content areasIndividual        35%20-35 minutesWeek 2- 10ULO1
Assessment 2: Critical Review & Analysis This assessment requires students to critically evaluate contemporary quality and risk concept to discuss its application in a project environment and its impact on project life cycle. Students are also required to discuss about two best practice modes for quality and risk currently being used in industry of their interest.Group                        30%2500 wordsWeek 7ULO2 ULO3 ULO4
Assessment 3: QRP management plan & Presentation This assessment requires students to analyse a real-life project, either completed or ongoing to develop and writer QRP plan. This assessment also requires student to present QRP plan as a separate oral presentation.Individual                35%2000 wordsWeek 11ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5

Assessment 1: Quiz

Due date:Week 2 to Week 10
Group/individual:Individual
Word count/Time provided:20 -35 minutes
Weighting:35%
Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO1

Assessment 1 Detail

The purpose of this assessment is to test students understanding of the course content and concepts covered in weekly class lecture and activities. The quiz will be conducted online in Canvas. For successful completion of the quiz, students are required to study the materials covered in weekly lecture, engage in the unit’s activities, and in the discussion forums.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The marks of all 8 online quizzes will be used to calculate the final total mark for the quiz which will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 35% of the total unit mark.

Assessment 2: Critical Review & Analysis

Due date:Week 7
Group/individual:Group
Word count/Time provided:2500 words
Weighting:30%
Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Assessment 2 Detail

This assessment requires students to critically evaluate contemporary quality and risk concept to discuss its application in a project environment and its impact on project life cycle. Students are also required to discuss about two best practice modes for quality and risk currently being used in industry of their interest.

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)
  Critical evaluation of Quality concept (20 marks)No demonstration of critical evaluation through analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in Quality managementEvidence of limited interpretation and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in quality management.Evidence of good demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in quality management along with good analysis of its impact on project life cycle.Evidence of very good understanding and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in quality management along with very good analysis of its impact on project life cycle with detail explanation demonstrating very good critical thinking skills.Evidence of an excellent understanding of and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in quality management along with very good analysis of its impact on project life cycle and in managerial decision with detail explanation. Referencing of supporting literature in the interpretation, explanation and analysis is presented. Analysis presented is rigours and enlightening indicating independent strongly argued coherent writing.
  Critical evaluation of Risk concept (20 marks)No demonstration of critical evaluation through analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in risk managementEvidence of limited interpretation and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in risk management.Evidence of good demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in risk management along with good analysis of its impact on project life cycle.Evidence of very good understanding and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in risk management along with very good analysis of its impact on project life cycle with detail explanation demonstrating very good critical thinking skills.Evidence of an excellent understanding of and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in risk management along with very good analysis of its impact on project life cycle and in managerial decision with detail explanation. Referencing of supporting literature in the
     interpretation, explanation and analysis is presented. Analysis presented is rigours and enlightening indicating independent strongly argued coherent writing.
Review of two best practiceLack of evidence of enoughUse of some supportingEvidence of good referenceEvidence of strong referenceEvidence of excellent
quality models in industryuse of literature and limitedliterature with limitedto supporting literature into supporting literature inreference to supporting
(15 marks)interpretation of theinterpretation of modelsreviewing best practicereviewing best practiceliterature in reviewing best
 models. No evidence ofand their significance inmodels with goodmodels with significantpractice models with
 critical review of bestmanagerial decision-makinginterpretation of modelsynthesis of arguments andsignificant synthesis of
 practice quality modelspertaining to quality and risksignificance in managerialevidence of independentarguments. Review
  management.decision-making pertainingresearch to validate thepresented is rigours in
   to quality and risksignificance of best practicevalidating the significance of
   management.model in managerialbest practice model in
    decision-making pertainingmanagerial decision-making
    to quality and riskpertaining to quality and risk
    management.management.
 Lack of evidence of enoughUse of some supportingEvidence of good referenceEvidence of strong referenceEvidence of excellent
Review of two best practiceuse of literature and limitedliterature with limitedto supporting literature into supporting literature inreference to supporting
risk models in industryinterpretation of theinterpretation of modelsreviewing best practicereviewing best practiceliterature in reviewing best
(15 marks)models. No evidence ofand their significance inmodels with goodmodels with significantpractice models with
 critical review of bestmanagerial decision-makinginterpretation of modelsynthesis of arguments andsignificant synthesis of
 practice risk models.pertaining to quality and risksignificance in managerialevidence of independentarguments. Review
  management.decision-making pertainingresearch to validate thepresented is rigours in
   to quality and risksignificance of best practicevalidating the significance of
   management.model in managerialbest practice model in
    decision-making pertainingmanagerial decision-making
    to quality and riskpertaining to quality and risk
    management.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.The writing is fluent and coherent with good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with minor spelling or typing error but may need to interpret.The writing is fluent and coherent with very good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no 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.
  Presentation and referencing (10 marks)Demonstration of a limited sense of purpose or theme and insufficient understanding g of the topic. Information is limited, unclear and the depth is not adequately developed. The idea is a simple restatement of the topic. The presentation and referencing show insufficient application of the appropriate Harvard style and APIC report presentation guidelines.The writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues. The reader is left with questions. It requires further information to clarify main arguments. The presentation and referencing show some application of the appropriate Harvard style and APIC report presentation guidelines.The presentation and referencing mostly conforms to the appropriate Harvard style and APIC report presentation guidelines.The writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the argument who is left in no doubt of the purpose. The presentation and referencing conform to the appropriate Harvard style and APIC report presentation guidelines.The writing perceives a sense of the wider context of the ides. The presentation and referencing are appropriate and consistent with the Harvard style guide and APIC report presentation guidelines.

Assessment 3: QRP management plan & Presentation

Due date:Week 11
Group/individual:Individual
Word count/Time provided:2000 words
Weighting:35%
Unit Learning Outcomes:ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, ULO5

Assessment 3 Detail

This assessment requires students to analyse a real-life project (either ongoing or completed) to develop and writer QRP management plan. Student can select project in their field of interest, but project must be aligned with the discipline of project management. This assessment also requires student to present the QRP plan as a separate oral presentation. For this purpose, student can use digital media (such as Power point with embedded voice/video) to record their presentation. Both components of the assessment must be submitted in Canvas using assignment submission link for final marking. Following resources may assist student in selecting a real-life project:

The assessment consists of two parts: report and oral presentation. The report should be prepared and submitted as a regular assessment using the submission link from Canvas with proper Turnintin check for the similarity. The details of the oral presentation will be discussed in the workshop session.

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 for Written Report (maximum marks 67)

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)
WR 1: Case project identification and assessment (15 marks)No evidence of case project identification and assessmentCase 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 presentedCase 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 delivery is well discussed.
WR 2: 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 project delivery.
WR 3: 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.The writing is fluent and coherent with good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuatedThe writing is fluent and coherent with very good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuatedThe writing is fluent and coherent with excellent presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated
   with minor spelling or typing error.with no spelling or typing error.with no minor spelling or typing error.
WR 4: Presentation andDemonstration of a limitedThe writing does not go farThe presentation and referencing mostly conforms to the appropriate Harvard style and APIC report presentation guidelines.The writing is used toThe writing perceives a
referencingsense of purpose or themeenough in expanding keysupport the main ideas andsense of the wider context
(10 marks)and insufficientissues. The reader is leftconvince the reader of theof the ides. The
 understanding g of thewith questions. It requiresargument who is left in nopresentation and
 topic. Information isfurther information todoubt of the purpose. Thereferencing are
 limited, unclear and theclarify main arguments. Thepresentation andappropriate and consistent
 depth is not adequatelypresentation andreferencing conform to thewith the Harvard style and
 developed. The idea is areferencing show someappropriate Harvard styleAPIC report presentation
 simple restatementapplication of theand APIC reportguidelines.
 of the topic. Theappropriate Harvard stylepresentation guidelines. 
 presentation andand APIC report  
 referencing showpresentation guidelines.  
 insufficient application of   
 the appropriate Harvard   
 style and APIC report   
 presentation guidelines.   

RW: Written Report

Assessment 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric for oral presentation (maximum marks 33)

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)
OP 1: Visual Appeal (6.6 marks)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.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.
 No visual appeal.    
OP 2: Topic knowledge/content (13.2 marks)Presenter didn’t understand topic. The presentation was a summary of the case project; majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out.Presenter showed understanding of some parts of topic; only some area of QRP are discussed;Presenter showed understanding of topic and presented a good summary of the chosen case project; some areas of QRP are discussed but in a simple way.Presenter showed very good understanding of topic and chosen case project and was well summarised with almost all-important information covered; a good discussion on QRP plan is presented.Presenter showed an extensive knowledge of topic by discussing all pertaining areas of the chosen case project; a very well-argued QRP plan was presented; presentation was comprehensive and included all relevant information.
OP 3: Presentation Skills (6.6 marks)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 and attire.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.
OP 4: Preparedness (6.6 marks)Unbalanced presentation or Evident lack of preparation/rehearsal Dependence on slides and/or notes; not a good use of digital media for video recording.Simple presentation; dependence on slides for most of the time; preparedness was satisfactory; use of digital media for video recording is satisfactory.Demonstration of good preparedness; dependent on slide is minimal; some concepts were explained beyond what was written in slide; good use of digital media for video recording.Very well prepared and rehearsed presentation; dependence in slide in explaining concepts is very minimal and very good use of digital media for video recordingExtremely prepared and rehearsed presentation; no dependence in slide in explain concepts; shows creativity in video recording of the presentation.

OP: Oral Presentation

Leave a Reply

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