PRJ5004 PROCUREMENT

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

Assessment Overview

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

PRJ5004 PROCUREMENT

My Best Assignment Help

Assessment 1: Quiz

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

PRJ5004 PROCUREMENT

My Best Assignment Help

Assessment 1 Detail

The purpose of this assessment is to test students’ understanding of the course content and concepts covered in weekly class lectures 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 lectures, 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
Wordcount/Time provided:	2500 words
Weighting:	30%
Unit Learning Outcomes:	ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Assessment 2 Detail

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

PRJ5004 PROCUREMENT

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 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)
Critical evaluation of Quality concept (20 marks)	No demonstration of critical evaluation through analysis of contemporary ideas/concept in Quality management	Evidence of limited interpretation and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concepts in quality management.	Evidence of good demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concepts in quality management along with good analysis of its impact on the project life cycle.	Evidence of very good understanding and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concepts in quality management along with very good analysis of its impact on project life cycle with detailed explanation demonstrating very good critical thinking skills.	Evidence of an excellent understanding of and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concepts in quality management along with very good analysis of its impact on the project life cycle and in managerial decision with detailed explanation. Referencing of supporting literature in the interpretation, explanation, and analysis is presented. The analysis presented is rigorous 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 management	Evidence of limited interpretation and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concepts in risk management.	Evidence of good demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concepts in risk management along with good analysis of its impact on the project life cycle.	Evidence of very good understanding and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concepts in risk management along with very good analysis of its impact on project life cycle with detailed explanation demonstrating very good critical thinking skills.	Evidence of an excellent understanding of and demonstration of critical evaluation through the analysis of contemporary ideas/concepts in risk management along with very good analysis of its impact on the project life cycle and in managerial decision with detailed explanation. Referencing of supporting literature in the

					interpretation, explanation, and analysis are presented. The analysis presented is rigorous and enlightening indicating independent strongly argued coherent writing.
Review of two best practice	Lack of evidence of enough	Use of some supporting	Evidence of good reference	Evidence of strong reference	Evidence of excellent
quality models in the industry	use of literature and limited	literature with limited	to supporting literature in	to supporting literature in	reference to supporting
(15 marks)	interpretation of the	interpretation of models	reviewing best practice	reviewing best practice	literature in reviewing best
	models. No evidence of	and their significance in	models with good	models with significant	practice models with
	a critical review of best	managerial decision-making	interpretation of model	synthesis of arguments and	significant synthesis of
	practice quality models	pertaining to quality and risk	significance in managerial	evidence of independent	arguments. Review
		management.	decision-making pertaining	research to validate the	presented is rigors in
			to quality and risk	significance of best practice	validating the significance of
			management.	model in managerial	best practice model in
				decision-making pertaining	managerial decision-making
				to quality and risk	pertaining to quality and risk
				management.	management.
	Lack of evidence of enough	Use of some supporting	Evidence of good reference	Evidence of strong reference	Evidence of excellent
Review of two best practice	use of literature and limited	literature with limited	to supporting literature in	to supporting literature in	reference to supporting
risk models in industry	interpretation of the	interpretation of models	reviewing best practice	reviewing best practice	literature in reviewing best
(15 marks)	models. No evidence of	and their significance in	models with good	models with significant	practice models with
	critical review of best	managerial decision-making	interpretation of model	synthesis of arguments and	significant synthesis of
	practice risk models.	pertaining to quality and risk	significance in managerial	evidence of independent	arguments. Review
		management.	decision-making pertaining	research to validate the	presented is rigors in
			to quality and risk	significance of best practice	validating the significance of
			management.	model in managerial	best practice model in
				decision-making pertaining	managerial decision-making
				to quality and risk	pertaining 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 satisfactorily exhibiting a 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 errors 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 the main arguments. The presentation and referencing show some application of the appropriate Harvard style and APIC report presentation guidelines.	The presentation and referencing mostly conform 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 ideas. 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
Wordcount/Time provided:	2000 words
Weighting:	35%
Unit Learning Outcomes:	ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, ULO5

Assessment 3 Detail

This assessment requires students to analyze a real-life project (either ongoing or completed) to develop and write a QRP management plan. Students can select projects in their field of interest, but the project must be aligned with the discipline of project management. This assessment also requires students to present the QRP plan as a separate oral presentation. For this purpose, students can use digital media (such as Powerpoint with embedded voice/video) to record their presentation. Both components of the assessment must be submitted in Canvas using the assignment submission link for final marking. The following resources may assist the 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
• The city of Sydney, Changing urban precincts: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/changing-urban-precincts

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 a proper Turnitin 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 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)
WR 1: 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.	The case project identified is appropriate with a focus on project type and industry sector. Good assessment is presented with a focus on context, challenges, characteristics.	Case project is well identified and a very good analysis on project type, an industry with god focus on context, challenges, characteristics, needs risk and opportunities are presented	Case project is very well-identified and 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 are well discussed.
WR 2: QRP management plan (30 marks)	No work on the 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 a 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. The 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. The 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 the satisfactory exhibiting a 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	The writing is fluent and coherent with very good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated	The writing is fluent and coherent with excellent presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated

			with minor spelling or typing errors.	with no spelling or typing error.	with no minor spelling or typing error.
WR 4: Presentation and	Demonstration of a limited	The writing does not go far	The presentation and referencing mostly conform to the appropriate Harvard style and APIC report presentation guidelines.	The writing is used to	The writing perceives a
referencing	sense of purpose or theme	enough in expanding key	support the main ideas and	sense of the wider context
(10 marks)	and insufficient	issues. The reader is left	convince the reader of the	of the ides. The
	understanding g of them	with questions. It requires	an argument that is left in no	presentation and
	topic. Information is	further information to	doubt of the purpose. The	referencing are
	limited, unclear, and the	clarify main arguments. The	presentation and	appropriate and consistent
	depth is not adequately	presentation and	referencing conform to the	with the Harvard style and
	developed. The idea is a	referencing show some	appropriate Harvard style	APIC report presentation
	simple restatement	application of the	and APIC report	guidelines.
	of the topic. The	appropriate Harvard style	presentation guidelines.
	presentation and	and APIC report
	referencing show	presentation 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 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)
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. The 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. The presentation has good visual appeal.	There are few errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Too much information on two or more slides. The presentation has significant visual appeal.	There are no errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. The presentation is visually appealing/engaging.

	No visual appeal.
OP 2: Topic knowledge/content (13.2 marks)	The presenter didn’t understand the topic. The presentation was a summary of the case project; the majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out.	The presenter showed understanding of some parts of the topic; only some area of QRP are discussed;	The presenter showed understanding of the topic and presented a good summary of the chosen case project; some areas of QRP are discussed but in a simple way.	The presenter showed a very good understanding of the topic and chosen case project and was well summarised with almost all important information covered; a good discussion on the QRP plan is presented.	The presenter showed extensive knowledge of the topic by discussing all pertaining areas of the chosen case project; a very well-argued QRP plan was presented; the 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.	The presentation was superficially not so engaging; tone and clarity of speech were of satisfactory level.	The presentation was engaging; tone and clarity of speech were good with appropriate body language and attire.	The presentation was very engaging; tone, pitch, and clarity of speech were very good; presented in a professional manner.	The presentation was excellent and very engaging; tone, pitch, and clarity of speech were 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 the slide is minimal; some concepts were explained beyond what was written in the slide; good use of digital media for video recording.	Very well prepared and rehearsed presentation; dependence in the slide in explaining concepts is very minimal and very good use of digital media for video recording	Extremely prepared and rehearsed presentation; no dependence on the slide in explain concepts; shows creativity in a video recording of the presentation.

Visit At :- HC1062 DECISION MAKING TUTORIAL

https://mybestassignmenthelp.com/hc1062-decision-making-tutorial-2/