ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Subject Code and Title PROJ6011: Integrated Infrastructure Project Management
Assessment Assessment 2: Infrastructure Project Case Study – Performance and Sustainability (3 parts)
Individual/Group Individual for Parts A, B and C
Length Part A: Report Structure
Part B: Draft Report no longer than 1000 words
Part C: Final Report no longer than 2250 words
Learning Outcomes 1. Critically analyse the interaction and mutual impact between infrastructure project, society and the environment, and the sphere of influence of the project manager in impacting those outcomes.
2. Critically evaluate the specific nature of infrastructure projects with regards to the challenges, stakeholders, governance and funding/financial arrangements, noting how these specificities impact on the project management process.
3. Critically analyse options for managing the complete life cycle of infrastructure projects in terms of the key performance indicators that will ensure quality outcomes.
4. Reflect on their abilities and disposition to work within this field of project management, and how they may need to adapt their leadership style to improve their effectiveness in achieving project outcomes.
Submission Part A: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 4
Part B: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 5
Part C: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 6
Weighting Part A: Report structure – 5%
Part B: Draft report – 15%
Part C: Final report – 30%
Total Marks Part A: 5 marks
Part B: 15 marks
Part C: 30 marks
Context:
Assessment 2 builds upon the first assessment and adopts a similar case study approach but focuses on the implementation and decommissioning phases of an integrated infrastructure project. This assessment is designed to enhance your knowledge and analytical skills in the management of the project life cycle with a specific focus on project performance, asset management and sustainability and operational safety and security. This will involve the consideration of management perspectives in terms of quality, control, risk, leadership and decision-making throughout the life cycle and which are integral to ongoing process improvement and project success. Crucial to this success is the way in which infrastructure systems are managed and, specifically, the need to plan prior to and beyond the decommissioning phase of a project for asset maintenance and sustainability. This inevitably involves safety and security considerations both from a contracting and user point of view.
Instructions:
This assessment adopts a similar case study approach but focuses on the implementation and decommissioning phases of an integrated infrastructure project. You may use the case study selected for Assessment 1 or an alternative case study which you believe will better address the requirements for examining and analysing the management of the project life cycle, project performance, asset management and sustainability and operational security and safety as specified in this brief. Your analysis and findings from the case study can be structured in four parts as follows:
Part 1: Infrastructure Project Life Cycle,
Part 2: Managing Infrastructure Project Performance,
Part 3: Asset Management and Sustainability, and
Part 4: Infrastructure Project Security and Safety.
Part 1
Particular attention should be paid to reference material addressing control processes, quality management, risk management, supply chain management and project leadership. As a guide, the case study analysis should address the following requirements:
• Explain the approach project leadership utilised to manage the project. How was quality integrated into the project management function?
• Describe the risks associated with this project and the assessment of these risks. Explain what was done to mitigate/manage these risks throughout the project life cycle.
• Explain how the project leadership managed the supply chains for the project. Were there any difficulties in integrating quality management and control processes into supply chain network?
• Explain if leadership integrated quality into the process and if so, how?
• Describe what tools might have been used in the project’s life cycle to aid in the above tasks.
• Identify opportunities for best practice improvement in the management of the project’s life cycle.
• Were any infrastructure support systems put in place for the project?
Part 2
You will note a focus on the definition of project performance, the importance of building high performance teams, monitoring and controlling performance risks, monitoring and managing the supply chain of an infrastructure project, and approaches to project procurement. As a guide, the case study analysis should address the following requirements:
• Explain how the project defined project performance
• Explain how the project monitored and controlled the project’s performance risks
• Explain how the project monitors and manages the performance of the supply chain in the project
• Explain if there is a relationship between the approaches to procurement and the infrastructure project’s actual performance
• Did the project utilise an integrated project team that promoted project performance? Is there a link between team building and project performance?
• Do you think there were opportunities for improvement in the management of the project? Describe what improvements you would suggest.
Part 3
The emphasis is on asset maintenance and sustainability-based management throughout the complete life cycle from planning to post completion. As a guide, the case study analysis should address the following requirements:
• Explain the commissioning steps for the project
• Explain how project leadership managed the following:
o Contract handover and sign-off
o Infrastructure maintenance issues
o Strategic planning for maintenance
• Explain the techniques the project utilised for maintenance management
• What methods and techniques did the project use for managing the critical infrastructure and the assets from a sustainability perspective? What are the best practice approaches to asset management?
Part 4
You will note an emphasis on safety and security from different perspectives including facility vulnerability, safety considerations after disaster events, disaster management information system requirements and decision-making tools, contamination/hazard sites and contingency models. As a guide, the case study analysis should address the following requirements:
• What were some of the broader operational issues for the project?
• Were there any strategies in place for dealing with safety and security threats?
• How did the project identify security and safety threats? What methods were used?
• Were there any safety and security issues and, if so, what was the project management response to these issues and how were they managed?
• Do you think the project leadership had the ability and disposition to deal with serious safety and security issues on the project?
• What types of techniques were used for safety and security management?
In considering these requirements, always be mindful of, and reflect on, the findings and the lessons learnt from the case study and how they can be applied in your own personal development and professional career. Highlight any specific instances where your strengths and limitations as a project manager have been identified.
Outcomes to be submitted:
This assessment is broken down into 3 parts to assist student progress through with support.
Part A: Proposed report structure – End of Module 4 – 5%
For Part A, submit a proposed report structure of the case study analysis by the end of Module 4. The report structure should reflect the requirements for the assessment and the way in which the relevant information needs to be organised, evaluated and communicated. The structure should at least go down to the next level under the proposed main headings.
Part B: Draft report – End of Module 5 – 15%
For Part B, submit a draft report which includes an introduction and the section which outlines and addresses the project life cycle by the end of Module 5.
Part C: Final report – End of Module 6 – 30%
For Part C, review the feedback received from Part A and B, complete the final report and submit by the end of Module 6.
Learning Resources:
• Resource on APA style:
Learning and Academic Skills Unit. (2016). Academic Writing Guide. APA 6th ed. Sydney, Australia: Laureate Australia.
• Resource on business report writing:
Victoria University of Wellington (2013). How to write a business report. School of Marketing and Internal Business and Student Learning Support Service, Wellington, New Zealand.
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/vbs/teaching/publications/VBS-report-writing-guide-2013-July.pdf
• Resource on writing case study reports
Monash University (2015). Case study report (sample). Learning Support, Language and Learning Online, Melbourne, Australia. http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/writing/general/report/1.xml
• Refer to the subject planner for learning resources on Modules 3 to 6 to complete Assessment 2.
Assessment Criteria:
Part A: Report structure
• Content, audience and purpose (50%)
• Knowledge and understanding (10%)
• Evaluation of information (30%)
• Effective communication (10%)
Part B: Draft report
• Content, audience and purpose (30%)
• Knowledge and understanding (30%)
• Correct citation of key resources and evidence (20%)
• Effective communication (20%)
Part C: Final report
• Knowledge and understanding (10%)
• Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge (20%)
• Evaluation of information (20%)
• Correct citation of key resources and evidence (10%)
• Effective communication (20%)
• Self reflection (20%)
See learning rubrics in the following pages for details.
Learning Rubrics – Part A: Report Structure
Assessment Attributes Fail
(0-49) Pass
(50-64) Credit
(65-74) Distinction
(75-84) High Distinction
(85-100)
Content, Audience and Purpose
(50%) Does not meet minimum standard
Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Meets minimum standard
Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment
Moves beyond minimum standard
Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Exceeds minimum standard
Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Exceeds minimum standard and exhibits high levels of independence
Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment.
Knowledge and understanding
(10%) 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.
Evaluation of information
(30%) Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the pitch.
Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning.
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.
Analysis and evaluation do not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability.
Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Identify logical flaws.
Questions viewpoints of experts.
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.
Viewpoint of experts are subject to questioning.
Analysis and evaluation reflect growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability.
Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis.
Identifies gaps in knowledge.
Exhibits intellectual independence, rigor, good judgement and adaptability.
Effective communication
(10%)
Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.
No effort is made to keep audience engaged, audience cannot follow the line of reasoning.
Little use of presentation aids, or the presentation aids and material used are irrelevant.
Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.
Attempts are made to keep the audience engaged, but not always successful. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow.
Presentation aids are used more for effect than relevance.
Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.
The audience is mostly engaged, line of reasoning is easy to follow.
Effective use of presentation aids.
Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented, the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence.
Engages the audience, demonstrates cultural sensitivity.
Carefully and well prepared presentations aids are used.
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 topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity
Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multi-media.

Learning Rubrics – Part B: Draft Report
Assessment Attributes Fail
(0-49) Pass
(50-64) Credit
(65-74) Distinction
(75-84) High Distinction
(85-100)
Content, Audience and Purpose
(30%) Does not meet minimum standard
Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Meets minimum standard
Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment
Moves beyond minimum standard
Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Exceeds minimum standard
Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Exceeds minimum standard and exhibits high levels of independence
Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment.
Knowledge and understanding
(30%) 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.
Correct citation of key resources and evidence
(20%) 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 communication
(20%)
Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.
No effort is made to keep audience engaged, audience cannot follow the line of reasoning.
Little use of presentation aids, or the presentation aids and material used are irrelevant.
Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.
Attempts are made to keep the audience engaged, but not always successful. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow.
Presentation aids are used more for effect than relevance.
Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.
The audience is mostly engaged, line of reasoning is easy to follow.
Effective use of presentation aids.
Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented, the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence.
Engages the audience, demonstrates cultural sensitivity.
Carefully and well prepared presentations aids are used.
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 topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity
Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multi-media.
Learning Rubrics – Part C: Final Report
Assessment Attributes Fail
(0-49) Pass
(50-64) Credit
(65-74) Distinction
(75-84) High Distinction
(85-100)
Knowledge and understanding
(10%) 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.
Evaluation of information
(20%) Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the pitch.
Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning.
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.
Analysis and evaluation do not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability.
Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Identify logical flaws.
Questions viewpoints of experts.
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.
Viewpoint of experts are subject to questioning.
Analysis and evaluation reflect growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability.
Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis.
Identifies gaps in knowledge.
Exhibits intellectual independence, rigor, good judgement and adaptability.
Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge
(20%) Limited synthesis and analysis.
Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis.
Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application.
Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature.
Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.
Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis
Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge.
Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.
Correct citation of key resources and evidence
(10%) 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 communication
(20%)
Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.
No effort is made to keep audience engaged, audience cannot follow the line of reasoning.
Little use of presentation aids, or the presentation aids and material used are irrelevant.
Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.
Attempts are made to keep the audience engaged, but not always successful. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow.
Presentation aids are used more for effect than relevance.
Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.
The audience is mostly engaged, line of reasoning is easy to follow.
Effective use of presentation aids.
Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented, the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence.
Engages the audience, demonstrates cultural sensitivity.
Carefully and well prepared presentations aids are used.
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 topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity
Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multi-media.
Self reflection
(20%)
No attempt to demonstrate connections to previous learning or experience.
No attempt at self-criticism.
Reflection is irrelevant to student and/course learning goals.
Little to no attempt to demonstrate connections between learning experience and material, and/or personal goals.
Analysis is defensive or lack of depth.
Some attempt at self-criticism, but fails to demonstrate awareness of personal biases, stereotypes or preconceptions.
No attempt at asking probing questions about self.
Inconsistently draws connections between the experience and materials from other courses, and/or past experiences.
Sometimes defensive or one-sided in analysis.
Some attempt at self-criticism, but fails to demonstrate awareness of personal biases, stereotypes or preconceptions.
Asks some probing questions about self, but do not attempt to answer these. The reflection demonstrates connections between the experience and material from other courses, and/or past experiences.
Demonstrates a non-defensive ability to self-appraise, discussing mostly growth related to learning.
Demonstrates the ability to question own biases, stereotypes, preconceptions but new modes of thinking is not evident.
Risks asking probing questions about self but only attempts to answer these sometimes. The reflection demonstrates connections between the experience and material from other courses; past experiences; and/or personal goals.
Demonstrates an open, non-defensive ability to self-appraise, discussing both growth and frustrations related to learning.
Demonstrates the ability to question own biases, stereotypes, preconceptions and define new modes of thinking as a result.
Risks asking probing questions about self and attempts to answer these.