Assessment Brief: PRJ5004 Procurement, Quality, and Risk Management

Trimester 3, 2024
Assessment Overview
Type Weight Length Due ULOs
Assessment Task
Assessed

Assessment 1: Mid-term In-Class Assessment Individual 20% Equiv. Week 5 ULO1

This assessment requires students to 1000 ULO2
individually complete in- class test designed to words) ULO3
Invigilated
assess their knowledge on the topics covered
in Week 1 to Week 4 (Introduction to Quality
Management to Introduction to Risk
Management)
Assessment 2: Critical Review Individual 25% 2000 Week 8 ULO2
This assessment requires students to work words ULO3
individually to critically review quality and risk ULO4
concepts to discuss its application in a project
environment and its impact on project life
cycle. Student is also required to discuss about
two contemporary (what is in practice)
models of quality management and two
contemporary models of risk management
used in business organization/industry of their
choice.
Assessment 3: QRP Management Plan Group 35% 2500 Week12 ULO1
Group assessment requiring analysis of a real- words ULO2
life Project incorporating Quality, risk, and ULO3
procurement management) in successful ULO4
ULO
delivery of the project.

Assessment 4: End-term In-Class Assessment Individual 20% Equiv. Week 10 ULO1

This assessment requires students to 1000 ULO4
individually complete in- class test designed to words) ULO5
Invigilated
assess their knowledge on the topics covered
in Week 5 to Week 9 (Risk Management
Process to Procurement Methods)

equiv. – equivalent word count based on the Assessment Load Equivalence Guide. It means this assessment is equivalent to the normally
expected time requirement for a written submission containing the specified number of words.

Sydney Melbourne
Level 6, 1-3 Frtzwllliam Street, 399 Lonsdale Street
Parramatta. NSW 2150 Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone:-1£128319 2100 Phone· t£ 1 3 9603 5333
Email: [email protected] Ema11· [email protected]
ap1college.edu.au apIcollege.edu.au

www.apicollege.edu.au
 Assessment 1: Midterm In-Class Assessment

Due date: Week 5

Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 1 hour duration (equiv. 1000 words)
Weighting: 20%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2 and ULO3

Assessment 1 Detail

This assessment requires students to individually complete in- class test designed to assess their knowledge
on the topics covered in Week 1 to Week 4 (Introduction to Quality Management to Introduction to Risk
Management). Students are required to bring their device (laptop) to complete the task. This assessment
will be an invigilated assessment. To successfully complete this task, students are required to go over the
content covered in Week 1 to Week 4 including the class activities.

Note: This assessment does not allow the use of AI and AI-generated materials, including copied and edited
text. Details on generative AI can be found from Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI:
Guidelines for Students

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The marks of Midterm In-Class Assessment will be used to calculate the final total mark out of 100 and will
be weighted 20% of the total unit mark.
 Assessment 2-: Critical Review & Analysis

Due date: Week 8

Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 2000 words
Weighting: 25%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Assessment 2 Detail
This assessment requires students to work individually to critically review the concepts of quality and risk,
and to discuss their application in a project environment, and their impact on a project life cycle.

Students are also required to discuss two contemporary (what is in current practice) models of quality
management and two contemporary models of risk management that are being used in a business
organization/industry of their choice. The industry of choice should fall within the domain of project
management.

Note: This assessment does not allow the use of AI and AI-generated materials, including copied and edited
text. Details on generative AI can be found from Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI:
Guidelines for Students

Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark. The marking
criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.
 Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Not Satisfactory Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
Marking Criteria (0-49% of the criterion (50-64% of the criterion (65-74% of the criterion (75-84% of the criterion (85-100% of the criterion
mark) mark) mark) mark) mark)
Critical evaluation of  No demonstration of  Evidence of limited  Evidence of good  Evidence of very good  Evidence of an excellent
Quality concepts critical evaluation interpretation and demonstration of understanding and understanding of and
(20 marks) through analysis of demonstration of critical evaluation demonstration of demonstration of critical
contemporary critical evaluation through the analysis critical evaluation evaluation through the
ideas/concepts in through the analysis of contemporary through the analysis analysis of
Quality management of contemporary ideas/concepts in of contemporary contemporary
ideas/concepts in quality management ideas/concept in ideas/concept in quality
quality management.  Good analysis of the quality management management
impact of quality on  Very good analysis of  Very good analysis of
project life cycle the impact of project the impact of quality on
life cycle project life cycle and in
 Detail explanation managerial decision
demonstrating very with detail explanation
good critical thinking  Referencing of
skills. supporting literature in
the interpretation,
explanation and analysis
is presented.
 Analysis presented is
rigours and enlightening
indicating independent
strongly argued
coherent writing
Critical evaluation of Risk  No demonstration of  Evidence of limited  Evidence of good  Evidence of very good  Evidence of an excellent
concept critical evaluation interpretation and demonstration of understanding and understanding of and
(20 marks) through analysis of demonstration of critical evaluation demonstration of demonstration of critical
contemporary critical evaluation through the analysis critical evaluation evaluation through the
ideas/concepts in Risk through the analysis of contemporary through the analysis analysis of
management of contemporary ideas/concepts in risk of contemporary contemporary
ideas/concepts in risk management ideas/concepts in risk ideas/concepts in risk
management.  Good analysis of the management management
impact of risk on  Very good analysis of  Very good analysis of
project life cycle the impact of risk on the impact of risk on
project life cycle project life cycle and in
 Detail explanation managerial decision
 good critical thinking  Referencing of
skills. supporting literature in
the interpretation,
explanation and analysis
is presented.
 Analysis presented is
rigours and enlightening
indicating independent
strongly argued
coherent writing
Review of two best  Lack of evidence of  Use of some  Evidence of good  Evidence of strong  Evidence of excellent
practice quality models enough use of supporting literature reference to reference to reference to supporting
in industry literature and limited with limited supporting literature supporting literature literature in reviewing
(15 marks) interpretation of the interpretation of in reviewing best in reviewing best best practice models
models. models and their practice models with practice models with with significant
 No evidence of critical significance in good interpretation of significant synthesis of synthesis of arguments.
review of best managerial decision- model significance in arguments  Review presented is
practice quality making pertaining to managerial decision-  Evidence of rigorous in validating
models quality management. making pertaining to independent research the significance of best
quality management. to validate the practice model in
significance of best managerial decision-
practice model in making pertaining to
managerial decision- quality management.
making pertaining to
quality management.
Review of two best  Lack of evidence of  Use of some  Evidence of good  Evidence of strong  Evidence of excellent
practice risk models in enough use of supporting literature reference to reference to reference to supporting
industry literature and limited with limited supporting literature supporting literature literature in reviewing
(15 marks) interpretation of the interpretation of in reviewing best in reviewing best best practice models
models. models and their practice models with practice models with with significant
 No evidence of critical significance in good interpretation of significant synthesis of synthesis of arguments.
review of best managerial decision- model significance in arguments and  Review presented is
practice risk models. making pertaining to managerial decision- evidence of rigorous in validating
risk management. making pertaining to independent research the significance of best
risk management. to validate the practice model in
significance of best managerial decision-
practice model in making pertaining to
managerial decision- risk management.
making pertaining to
risk management.
Clarity of Expression  The writing is poor  The writing is  The writing is fluent  The writing is fluent  The writing is fluent and
(20 marks) with no logical flow satisfactory and and coherent with and coherent with coherent with excellent
and has grammatical exhibits majority of good structure very good structure structure and
errors. grammatically correct exhibiting exhibiting presentation exhibiting
 Information is limited, sentences that are grammatically correct grammatically correct grammatically correct
unclear and the depth appropriately sentences that are sentences that are sentences that are
is not adequately punctuated with some appropriately appropriately appropriately
developed. spelling or typing punctuated with punctuated with few punctuated with no
 The idea is a simple errors. minor spelling or spelling or typing minor spelling or typing
restatement of the  The writing does not typing errors. errors. errors.
topic. go far enough in  The writing is used to  The writing demonstrates
 Demonstration of a expanding key issues/ support the main a sense of the wider
limited sense of concepts. ideas and convince context of the ideas.
purpose or theme  The writing requires the reader of the
 Insufficient further information to argument who is left
understanding of the clarify main in no doubt of the
topic. arguments. purpose.

Presentation and  The writing shows  The writing shows  The writing shows  The writing shows  The writing shows
referencing insufficient inconsistent good application of very good application excellent application of
(10 marks) application of the application of the the recommended of the recommended the recommended style
recommended style of recommended style of style of referencing style of referencing of referencing (APIC
referencing (APIC referencing (APIC (APIC Harvard style) (APIC Harvard style) Harvard style) with no
Harvard style) Harvard style) with some errors in with few errors in error in referencing.
 The writing shows no  In-text citations match referencing. referencing.  Report is formatted and
in-text citation. with the citations  Report is formatted  Report is well presented exactly as per
 In-text citations do not under Reference list and presented as per formatted but not the APIC Assessment
= match with citations  Report is formatted the APIC Assessment presented exactly as presentation guidelines.
under Reference list and presented as per presentation per the APIC
 Report is not the APIC Assessment guidelines to large Assessment
formatted and presentation extent. presentation
presented as per the guidelines to some guidelines.
APIC Assessment extent.
presentation
guidelines.
 Assessment 3: QRP Management Plan

Due date: Week 12

Group/individual: Group
Word count/Time provided: 2500 words
Weighting: 35%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, ULO5

Assessment 3 Detail
This assessment requires students to work in a group of 3 to analyse a real-life project, either completed
(within last five years) or ongoing, and to evaluate and discuss its QRP management plan (Quality
management, risk management, procurement management) in successful delivery of the project.
Students can select a project in their field of interest, but the project must be aligned with the discipline
of project management. The following resources may assist students 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
 City of Sydney, Changing urban precincts:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/changing-urban-precincts

Note: This assessment does not allow the use of AI and AI-generated materials, including copied and
edited text. Details on generative AI can be found from Academic Integrity Module in the page titled
Generative AI: Guidelines for Students

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
Not Satisfactory Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
Marking Criteria (0-49% of the criterion mark) (50-64% of the criterion mark) (65-74% of the criterion mark) (75-84% of the criterion mark) (85-100% of the criterion mark)

Case project  No evidence of case  Case project is identified  Case project identified is  Case project is well  Case project is very well
identification and project identification and but no focus on project appropriate with focus identified and a very identified and an
assessment (20 assessment type and industry sector. on project type and good analysis on project excellent analysis on
marks)  Some assessment is industry sector. type, industry sector. project type, industry
presented such as  Good assessment is  Context, challenges, context, challenges,
characteristics of project, presented with focus on characteristics, needs characteristics, needs,
context, and challenges. context, challenges, risk and opportunities constraints, risk,
characteristics. are well presented opportunities,
uncertainties,
stakeholders, and best
practice is presented.
 Discussion on QRP and
their potential impacts
on project delivery/plan
is well handled.
QRP  No work on QRP  QRP management plan is  QRP management plan is  QRP management plan is  QRP management plan is
management plan management plan is presented with no presented with well presented with very well presented with
(45 marks) presented. comparison against comparison against comparison against comparison against
project objectives, project objectives, project objectives, project objectives,
business case, need and business case, business case, business case,
constraints. constraints, and constraints, challenges, constraints, challenges,
challenges. requirements. and requirements.
 Best practice model is  Best practice model is
also discussed with key also discussed with key
success factors. success factors along
with control and
management processes
to ensure successful
project delivery.
Clarity of  The writing is poor with  The writing is satisfactory The writing is fluent and  The writing is fluent and  The writing is fluent and
expression no logical flow and has and exhibits majority of coherent with good coherent with very good coherent with excellent
(20 marks) grammatical errors. grammatically correct structure exhibiting structure exhibiting structure and presentation
 Information is limited, sentences that are grammatically correct grammatically correct exhibiting grammatically
unclear and the depth is appropriately punctuated sentences that are sentences that are correct sentences that are
not adequately with some spelling or appropriately appropriately punctuated appropriately punctuated
developed. typing errors. punctuated with minor with few spelling or with no minor spelling or
 The idea is a simple spelling or typing errors. typing errors. typing errors.
restatement of the topic.

 Demonstration of a  The writing does not go  The writing is used to  The writing perceives a
limited sense of purpose far enough in expanding support the main ideas sense of the wider
or theme key issues/ concepts. and convince the reader context of the ideas.
 Insufficient  The writing requires of the argument who is
understanding of the further information to left in no doubt of the
topic. clarify main arguments. purpose.

Presentation and  The writing shows  The writing shows  The writing shows good  The writing shows very  The writing shows
referencing (15 insufficient application of inconsistent application of application of the good application of the excellent application of
marks) the recommended style of the recommended style of recommended style of recommended style of the recommended style
referencing (APIC Harvard referencing (APIC Harvard referencing (APIC Harvard referencing (APIC of referencing (APIC
style) style) style) with some errors in Harvard style) with few Harvard style) with no
 The writing shows no in-  In-text citations match referencing. errors in referencing. error in referencing.
text citation. with the citations under  Report is formatted and  Report is well formatted  Report is formatted and
 In-text citations do not Reference list presented as per the but not presented exactly presented exactly as per
match with citations  Report is formatted and APIC Assessment as per the APIC the APIC Assessment
under Reference list presented as per the presentation guidelines Assessment presentation presentation guidelines.
 Report is not formatted APIC Assessment to large extent. guidelines
and presented as per the presentation guidelines
APIC Assessment to some extent.
presentation guidelines.
 Assessment 4: End-term In-Class Assessment

Due date: Weeks 10

Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: Equiv. 1000 words
Weighting: 20%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO4, ULO5

Assessment 4 Detail

This assessment requires students to individually complete in- class test designed to assess their
knowledge on the topics covered in Week 5 to Week 9 (Introduction to Quality Management to
Introduction to Risk Management). Students are required to bring their device (laptop) to complete the
task. This assessment will be an invigilated assessment. To successfully complete this task, students are
required to go over the content covered in Week 5 to Week 9 including the class activities.

Assessment 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The marks are evaluated after the completion of each week's activity and will be aggregated at the
end of the teaching period to calculate the final total mark for Assessment 4: End-term In-Class
Assessment which will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark.