Assessment 2: Case Study Analysis/Business Case
Due date: Week 9
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 2000 words (excluding references)
Weighting: 20%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO 1 to 5
Assessment 2 Detail
The case study on Victorian Myki Smart Card 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.
* Students are required to complete the Academic Skills Module (ASM) as part of this assignment. The ASM assists students in tackling assignment and developing the important academic skills necessary to write an assignment effectively. Students can access the ASM via the Dashboard and complete this module as an independent learning activity. The Student Learning Support team will deliver a webinar in week 4 to facilitate and support PRJ5001 students to complete the ASM. Students who do not complete the ASM by week 9 of the term (i.e. the due date for Assignment 2) will be deducted 10% mark from this assignment.
Guideline for evaluating the Case Study and writing Critical Review (word count is indicative), Part A:
? 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 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% 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)
Introduction to the project and reasons for the controversy (20
Marks) Poor
introduction and reasons for controversy correctly identified from project
management viewpoint. Satisfactory introduction and reasons for controversy correctly identified from project
management viewpoint. Good
introduction and reasons for controversy correctly identified from project
management viewpoint. Very good introduction and reasons for controversy correctly identified from project
management viewpoint. Excellent introduction and reasons for controversy correctly identified from project
management viewpoint.
Review of 4 publications in context to relevance to case study and
project
initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement
(40 marks) The publications’ main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are missing, unclear, inaccurate and/or irrelevant. Relevance to project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement in context to the case study is missing.
The publications’ main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are generally evident, but may be vague, incomplete, or have some inaccuracies. Relevance to project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement in context to the case study is missing. The publications’ main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and
conclusions are
summarised
accurately in most parts. Some information may be irrelevant or inaccurate. Relevance to project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement in context to the case study is found but not adequately presented. The publications’ main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions
are identified and summarised clearly and accurately, providing a good overview of the
article with minimal irrelevance to project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement in context to the case study. The publications’ main topic(s), aim/ purpose, key points and conclusions are identified and providing a clearly, accurately and precisely, providing excellent relevance to project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement in context to the case study.
Lack of adequate care in project
initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement connected to reasons for
controversy and
recommendatio ns for
improvement (30 Marks) Poor connection of reasons for controversy to lack of adequate care for project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement. Recommendatio ns for
improvement focused on technical improvements and not on improvement to
managing initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement.
Satisfactory connection of reasons for controversy to lack of adequate care for project
initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement. Recommendatio
ns for
improvement focused on
technical improvements and to some extent on improvements to managing
initiation, planning and Satisfactory connection of reasons for controversy to lack of adequate care for project
initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement. Recommendatio
ns for
improvement not focused on
technical improvements
but elaborating some improvements to managing
initiation, planning and Very good connection of reasons for controversy to lack of adequate care for project
initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement. Recommendatio
ns for
improvements relevant and elaborating some improvements to managing initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement.
Excellent connection of reasons for controversy to lack of adequate care for project
initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement. Recommendatio
ns for
improvements relevant and
defining well improvements to managing initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement.
stakeholder engagement.
stakeholder engagement.
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)
Written communication skills and referencing (10
marks)
Writing lacks clarity and coherence. Points have not been paraphrased well. There are many
errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation and Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report.
Writing is generally clear with some lapses in coherence. Some points have been paraphrased well. There are many errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report.
Writing is clear and coherent. Most points have been paraphrased well. There are some errors in spelling,
grammar, punctuation and Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report. Writing shows good clarity and cohesion. Points have been paraphrased well. There are few errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report.
Writing shows excellent clarity and cohesion. Points have been skilfully paraphrased. There are no or very few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Excellent Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report.