ASSESSMENT#2

REFLECTIVE PRACTICE ASSIGNMENT – DESCRIPTION

Assessment type: Individual – Case study report

Word limit: 2500 words +- 10%

Due date: Week 9 Friday (12 May 2022) 11:45 pm AEST

Weighting: 30%

NOTE: Must be read in conjunction with PPMP20008 Assessment 2 Case studies & questions.

Overview

The objective of this assessment is to help students learn about a range of trending topics in project management, especially throughout initiating and planning stages of projects – through conducting research. You are required to analyse a case such as a failed project, and distil lessons learnt through answering a range of questions. The lessons learnt will inform the development process of the project plan for a new project of a similar nature (e.g. Assessment 3). Several questions will be asked in relation to the topics discussed in the unit. The questions address different knowledge areas covered in the unit (e.g. scope management, cost management, stakeholder management and risk management, etc.) in relation to project initiation and planning. Therefore, for students, it is essential to acquire a good understanding of the topics covered during the unit.

Assessment details

A case study is considered for this assessment. The case description is provided as an attachment to this document. You must carefully read the cases and questions and answer to each question logically by using quality references from academic journals, books, PM standards (e.g. PMBOK and other authenticated sources (such as PMI and APM websites). You must clearly link theory to the case throughout your discussions.

This assignment must be delivered in a report format containing:

Executive summary – overview of the purpose of report, findings and lessons learned,

Table of content,

Introduction – purpose of the report, cases summaries, and the structure of the report,

Body – Answer to the questions by referring to relevant project management knowledge and use of techniques. Cite high quality and relevant references,

Conclusion – concluding each case finding and lessons learned,

Reference list – Harvard style,

Appendices (if any).

Referencing guidelines

You must acknowledge all sources of information you have used in your submission. You MUST use Harvard referencing style for in-text citations and reference list. To address questions, it is highly recommended to use quality sources of information, e.g. books, peer reviewed journal articles and conference papers.

At least 10 references MUST be used to address given questions.

Academic integrity and plagiarism

Academic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge, and ideas. You should take extreme care that you have:

Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have quoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in your assessment through the appropriate referencing methods,

Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source if necessary. This includes material taken from Internet sites.

If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they were your own.

CQUniversity treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct. Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:

Failure to properly document a source,

Collusion between students.

For further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the University website.

Assessment declaration

When you submit work electronically, you agree to the below assessment declaration.

I have not impersonated or allowed myself to be impersonated by any person for the purposes of this assessment.

This assessment is my/our original work and no part of it has been copied from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made.

No part of this assessment has been written for me/us by any other person except where such collaboration has been authorised by the lecturer/teacher concerned.

I have correctly acknowledged the re-use of any of my own previously submitted work within this submission.

I give permission for my assessment response to be reproduced, communicated compared and archived for the purposes of detecting plagiarism.

I give permission for a copy of my assessment to be retained by the University for review and comparison, including review by external examiners.

I understand that:

Plagiarism is a form of cheating and is a very serious academic offence that may lead to exclusion from the University.

Plagiarism includes the act of assisting or allowing another person to plagiarise or to copy my work.

I agree and acknowledge that:

I have read and understood the Declaration and Statement of Authorship above.

I accept that use of my CQU account to electronically submit this assessment constitutes my agreement to the Declaration and Statement of Authorship.

If I do not agree to the Declaration and Statement of Authorship in this context, the assessment outcome is not valid for assessment purposes and cannot be included in my aggregate score for this unit.

You’ll find more information about the penalties for plagiarism in the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure – CQU.

Assessment Criteria

See the assessment rubric in the next page.

Marking criteria

Criteria	HD	D	C	P	F
Exec. Sum – 2 marks Contains purpose of the report and summarises of the findings and lessons learned.	Outstanding effort. Criteria requirements fully achieved.	Satisfactory effort. Has elements of excellence but needs to be consistent across all criteria requirements.	Has rooms for growth to be completely satisfactory. Requires more improvement to fully satisfy criteria requirements.	Effort considered inferior to the required minimum standard. Limited establishment of criteria requirement.	No submission or presentation received, or no establishment of criteria requirements.
Introduction – 2 marks Purpose of the report, cases summaries, and the structure of the report are articulated	Outstanding effort. Criteria requirements fully achieved.	Satisfactory effort. Has elements of excellence but needs to be consistent across all criteria requirements.	Has rooms for growth to be completely satisfactory. Requires more improvement to fully satisfy criteria requirements.	Effort considered inferior to the required minimum standard. Limited establishment of criteria requirement.	No submission or presentation received, or no establishment of criteria requirements.
Q1 – 3 marks 2 reasons of poor project scope planning are identified. The discussion is supported with evidence and references linked to the case.	Outstanding effort. Criteria requirements fully achieved.	Satisfactory effort. Has elements of excellence but needs to be consistent across all criteria requirements.	Has rooms for growth to be completely satisfactory. Requires more improvement to fully satisfy criteria requirements.	Effort considered inferior to the required minimum standard. Limited establishment of criteria requirement.	No submission or presentation received, or no establishment of criteria requirements.
Q2 – 3 marks Adequately discuss the 2 recommendations to avoid poor project scope planning. Provide judgment on whether they are appropriate. The discussion well relates to the business case.	Outstanding effort. Criteria requirements fully achieved.	Satisfactory effort. Has elements of excellence but needs to be consistent across all criteria requirements.	Has rooms for growth to be completely satisfactory. Requires more improvement to fully satisfy criteria requirements.	Effort considered inferior to the required minimum standard. Limited establishment of criteria requirement.	No submission or presentation received, or no establishment of criteria requirements.
Q3 – 3 marks Discusses the importance of early stakeholder engagement and explains its benefits while referring to the case by providing appropriate examples.	Outstanding effort. Criteria requirements fully achieved.	Satisfactory effort. Has elements of excellence but needs to be consistent across all criteria requirements.	Has rooms for growth to be completely satisfactory. Requires more improvement to fully satisfy criteria requirements.	Effort considered inferior to the required minimum standard. Limited establishment of criteria requirement.	No submission or presentation received, or no establishment of criteria requirements.
Q4 – 3 marks A minimum of 4 stakeholders are identified and assessed based on their power/interest level. The stakeholder map is correctly depicted.	Outstanding effort. Criteria requirements fully achieved.	Satisfactory effort. Has elements of excellence but needs to be consistent across all criteria requirements.	Has rooms for growth to be completely satisfactory. Requires more improvement to fully satisfy criteria requirements.	Effort considered inferior to the required minimum standard. Limited establishment of criteria requirement.	No submission or presentation received, or no establishment of criteria requirements.
Q5 – 3 marks The stakeholder engagement matrix is developed, and the current and desired engagement levels are appropriately discussed.	Outstanding effort. Criteria requirements fully achieved.	Satisfactory effort. Has elements of excellence but needs to be consistent across all criteria requirements.	Has rooms for growth to be completely satisfactory. Requires more improvement to fully satisfy criteria requirements.	Effort considered inferior to the required minimum standard. Limited establishment of criteria requirement.	No submission or presentation received, or no establishment of criteria requirements.
Q6 – 3 marks An appropriate stakeholder communication plan is provided with some key elements such as communication methods, channel, frequency, person in charge, etc. The discussion must well relate to the case.	Outstanding effort. Criteria requirements fully achieved.	Satisfactory effort. Has elements of excellence but needs to be consistent across all criteria requirements.	Has rooms for growth to be completely satisfactory. Requires more improvement to fully satisfy criteria requirements.	Effort considered inferior to the required minimum standard. Limited establishment of criteria requirement.	No submission or presentation received, or no establishment of criteria requirements.
Conclusion – 2 marks Case study findings and lessons learned are clearly identified.	Outstanding effort. Criteria requirements fully achieved.	Satisfactory effort. Has elements of excellence but needs to be consistent across all criteria requirements.	Has rooms for growth to be completely satisfactory. Requires more improvement to fully satisfy criteria requirements.	Effort considered inferior to the required minimum standard. Limited establishment of criteria requirement.	No submission or presentation received, or no establishment of criteria requirements.
Referencing quality – 3 marks At least 10 quality references are used across various questions. References are matching the requested style.	Consistently clear, well-integrated evidence using accurate paraphrasing. Consistently uses accurate references while citations are appropriately positioned.	Clear, well-integrated evidence using accurate paraphrasing. Uses mostly accurate references while citations appropriately positioned.	Paraphrases adequately avoid plagiarism. References and citations generally accurately positioned.	Generally, paraphrases to avoid plagiarism. References generally accurately positioned. Citation issues are evident.	Does not paraphrase correctly. References and citations positioned incorrectly or used inaccurately.
Overall report quality – 3 marks Good flow of topics, clarity of language and grammar, coverage, and completeness. Report structure is followed.	Writing is persuasive, logical and communicates meaning clearly. Uses appropriate vocabulary consistently. Spelling and punctuation completely accurate. Consistently integrates research and ideas from relevant and appropriate sources.	Writing communicates clearly and effectively; logic and meaning not clear in some places but does not detract from meaning. Vocabulary is mostly appropriate; errors do not detract from overall meaning. Spelling and punctuation generally accurate; small errors may exist. Integrates research and ideas from relevant sources.	Writing communicates effectively; logic and meaning not always clear but still comprehensible. Vocabulary is adequate; occasional errors using subject-specific words/terms. Spelling and punctuation generally accurate; some errors may exist. Generally, integrates relevant theory from a number of mostly appropriate sources	Writing errors are frequent, making understanding difficult. Limited vocabulary, words often incorrect or incorrectly used. Numerous spelling errors indicating spell check not used Fails to use relevant theory / or number of sources indicates lack of research	The report is missing parts and does not meet minimum standards mentioned in the criteria.