Assessment Information 3
Subject Code: MBA641
Subject Name: Strategic Project Management
Assessment Title: Assessment 3 – Performance Evaluation and Video Presentation
Weighting: 30%
Total Marks:
Time Limit:
Submission: 30
15 minutes
Upload video to Vimeo
Due Date: Tuesday of Week 13, 11.55pm AEST
.
Your task
Prepare a 15 minute video recording during which you evaluate the three case studies included below:
• Project A – DeGrandis Running Shoes
• Project B – Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) Partnership
• Project C – Ladybird Sporting Apparel
Assessment Description
In your Performance Evaluation Video Presentation, you must evaluate the performance of each of the three projects and provide the following:
a) Commentary on project alignment with strategic goals and ethical standards
b) A Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) Snapshot
c) Conclusions
d) Recommendations
A PowerPoint template is provided for you to use in your video presentation if you wish. There is no requirement to use this template.
Assessment Instructions
Assessment 3 Case Study – DeGrandis Sporting Goods
1. Project A – DeGrandis Running Shoes
Project A introduced the DeGrandis private label running shoe to the company’s product range. Although the project ran over budget, the project team successfully developed a new sole cushioning technology and delivered a brand-new shoe within the project timeframe. Customers love the new shoes - they are outselling rival international brands - and sales have increased company revenues by over $5 million. The editor of online running shoe reviewer Shoe News has given the running shoes a 5 out of 5-star rating.
But not everybody is so thrilled with the project’s outcomes. The board of directors is unhappy that the project team did not consult them about the Chinese organisation selected to manufacture and supply the shoes. Had the directors known that the Chinese supplier uses child labour in their factory they would not have approved the supply agreement because engaging partners that rely on child labour is prohibited under the company’s Code of Conduct. The consultants are managed by regional managers in each city.
2. Project B - Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) Partnership
The primary objective of Project B was for DeGrandis Sporting Goods to become an official supplier of sporting equipment to the Australian Olympic Team. At the outset all key stakeholders were identified and consulted and a comprehensive list of project requirements was developed based on stakeholder needs. Apart from the project running six months over the scheduled project timeframe, every other project requirement was successfully met. The new partnership was established and sales are estimated to have increased by over $3 million.
The project was considered a resounding success until it emerged that the project sponsor, a member of the DeGrandis senior executive team, had paid a high-ranking AOC official an incentive payment to approve the partnership. The press learned of the bribe and the incident became a public scandal. DeGrandis Sporting Goods suffered reputational damage as the company’s Code of Conduct expressly prohibits the payment of bribes to generate business. An extensive marketing campaign originally developed to promote the partnership has been cancelled because it would only draw more attention to the bribery scandal.
3. Project C – Ladybird Sporting Apparel
Project C successfully introduced the environmentally friendly and internationally known Ladybird brand of sporting apparel to the DeGrandis Sporting Goods product range. Although fundamental project requirements such as project timeframe and budget were met, the new line of clothing was not properly market tested prior to the product line launch. It turns out that customers consider the Ladybird clothing range to be inferior in quality and customer complaints have increased as a result.
DeGrandis Sporting Goods have ceased ordering new stock from Ladybird due to poor sales and increasing customer dissatisfaction.
You are required to use at least 15 sources of information and use Kaplan Harvard Referencing Style. Wikipedia and other ‘popular’ sites are not to be used.
Assessment Submission
This file must be submitted as a ‘Word’ or ‘PDF’ document to avoid any technical issues that may occur from incorrect file format upload. Uploaded files with a virus will not be considered as a legitimate submission. Turnitin will notify you if there is an issue with the submitted file. In this case, you must contact your lecturer via email and provide a brief description of the issue and a screenshot of the Turnitin error message.
You are also encouraged to submit your work well in advance of the deadline to avoid any possible delay with the Turnitin similarity report or any other technical difficulties.
Late assignment submission penalties
Penalties will be imposed on late assignment submissions in accordance with Kaplan Business School “late assignment submission penalties” policy.
Number of days Penalty
1* - 9 days 5% per day for each calendar day late deducted from the total marks available
10 - 14 days 50% deducted from the total marks available.
After 14 days Assignments that are submitted more than 14 calendar days after the due date will not be accepted, and the student will receive a mark of zero for the assignment(s).
Note Notwithstanding the above penalty rules, assignments will also be given a mark of zero if they are submitted after assignments have been returned to students
*Assignments submitted at any stage within the first 24 hours after the deadline will be considered to be one day late and therefore subject to the associated penalty
For more information, please read the full policy via https://www.kbs.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/KBS_FORM_Assessment-Policy_MAR2018_FA.pdf
Important Study Information
Academic Integrity Policy
KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.
What is academic integrity and misconduct?
What are the penalties for academic misconduct?
What are the late penalties?
How can I appeal my grade?
Click here for answers to these questions:
http://www.kbs.edu.au/current-students/student-policies/.
Study Assistance
Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Click here for this information.
MBA641 Strategic Project Management – Assessment 3 Marking Rubric – 30%
Criteria F (Fail)
0%-49% P (Pass) 50%-64% CR (Credit) 65%74% D (Distinction)
75% - 84%
HD (High Distinction)
85%-100%
Mark
Performance Evaluation Video
Presentation
Strategy & Ethics
Brief and inaccurate analysis indicating poor understanding strategic project management concepts. Demonstrated understanding of strategic project management concepts. Mostly accurate analysis based upon appropriately identified strategic goals and ethical standards.
Meaningful analysis based upon accurately identified strategic goals and ethical standards indicating strong understanding of strategic project management concepts. Comprehensive understanding of strategic project management concepts evident from highly accurate analysis incorporating all relevant strategic goals and ethical standards. Demonstrated advanced level understanding of strategic project management concepts. Analysis is penetrating and insightful with findings that go beyond fundamental strategic goals and ethical standards outlined in the case study. /6
Performance Evaluation Video
Presentation
Project Performance
Scorecard (PPS) Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) either unclear or not used at all indicating poor understanding of project performance evaluation model. Demonstrated understanding of project performance evaluation model. Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) is reasonably clear and incorporates the essential features of the basic model. Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) correctly used to accurately score and explain PPS Dimensions indicating strong understanding of project performance evaluation model. Comprehensive understanding of project performance evaluation model evident from highly accurate scoring and explanation of PPS Dimensions in Project
Performance Scorecard
(PPS) Demonstrated advanced level understanding of project performance evaluation model. Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) is clear, easy to interpret and incorporates features that go beyond the basic model. /6
Performance Evaluation Video
Presentation
Conclusions Conclusions demonstrate poor understanding of strategic project management concepts. Explanations for conclusions not provided or unclear or illogical. Conclusions demonstrate reasonable understanding of strategic project management concepts. Meaningful explanations for appropriate conclusions provided in mostly comprehensible language. Conclusions demonstrate solid understanding of strategic project management concepts. Relevant explanations for logical conclusions provided in comprehensible language. Conclusions demonstrate comprehensive understanding of strategic project management concepts.
Proficient explanations for effective conclusions provided in clear language. Conclusions demonstrate advance level understanding of strategic project management concepts. Detailed explanations for insightful conclusions provided in clear and concise language. /6
Performance Evaluation Video
Presentation
Recommendations
Recommendations demonstrate poor understanding of strategic project management concepts. Explanations for commendations not provided or unclear or illogical. Recommendations demonstrate reasonable understanding of strategic project management concepts. Meaningful explanations for appropriate recommendations provided in mostly comprehensible language. Recommendations demonstrate solid understanding of strategic project management concepts. Relevant explanations for logical recommendations provided in comprehensible language. Recommendations demonstrate comprehensive understanding of strategic project management concepts. Proficient explanations for effective recommendations provided in clear language. Recommendations demonstrate advanced level understanding of strategic project management concepts. Detailed explanations for innovative recommendations provided in clear and concise language. /6
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.
Criteria F (Fail)
0%-49% P (Pass) 50%-64% CR (Credit) 65%74% D (Distinction)
75% - 84%
HD (High Distinction)
85%-100%
Mark
Answer clearly and logically presented Serious lack of organization. Content of slides or notes pages does not refer back to or relate to main arguments. Writing is formulaic, i.e. “in conclusion,”
“another example is….” Writing style could be more effective. Organization is hard to follow; there is little progression of ideas. Little or no transitions between slides. Need to more effectively weave main arguments throughout. Slides are generally well organized. Better transitions needed. The progression of ideas could be more thoughtful. Slides and note relate back to main arguments to prove argument. Ideas & arguments are well structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Sound transitions between slides and notes pages. Major arguments are effectively made. Ideas & arguments are effectively structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Excellent transitions between slides and notes. Concluding comments leave the reader thinking. Major arguments are effectively woven throughout everybody slides, with ideas always related back to main arguments. /1
Appropriate theory and research used to answer question posed The critique does not have appropriate structure and lacks direction. No significant observations made from appropriate theory and research. Poor writing and expression of arguments. Reasonable critique which examines the relevant issues and makes reasonable observations made from appropriate theory and research. Reasonable writing and expression of arguments. Good critique examines the relevant issues and makes good observations from appropriate theory and research. Good writing and expression of arguments. A very good critique -considers all the relevant issues and makes important observations from appropriate theory and research. Very good writing and expression of arguments. Fully considers all the relevant issues and makes significant observations from appropriate theory and research. Excellent writing and expression of arguments. /1
Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, grammar and punctuation Needs more sentence variety. Little or no thought given to diction. Tone or language is conversational. Contains much informal language.
Uses “I” or
“you.” Contains many examples of unclear or awkward phrasing. Needs more sentence variety.
Attention needed with diction. Contains informal language or conversational tone or uses “I” or “you.” Unclear or awkward sentence phrasing. Sentence variety is adequate. Tone is appropriate. Diction is clear but could be more effective. Language is academic, and writing is clear and effective. Very little or no unclear or awkward phrasing. Sentence variety is effective and good. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is appropriate and effective. Language is academic. Writing is clear and concise. Sentence variety is effective and sophisticated. Tone is
appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is sophisticated and effective. Language is academically sound. Writing is clear, concise, and strong. /1
Format of answer consistent with question requirements and
KBS guidelines No efforts made to follow submission and editing, spacing, etc requirements. Meets most editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Some requirements not met. Meets editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets almost all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. /1
In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines Inappropriate referencing. Not in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Reasonably appropriate referencing, generally in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Good referencing, largely in line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Very good referencing, 100% in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Excellent/appropriate referencing,
100% in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. /1
Video presentation is within + / - 10% of time requirement Video presentation is within + / - more than 15% of time requirement Video presentation is within + / - 15% of time requirement Video presentation is within + / - 10% of time requirement Video presentation is within + / - 5%
of time requirement Video presentation is within + / - 0% of time requirement /1
Comments:
/24
/6
/30
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.