Assessment Brief

Unit Code and Title: SBM1204 – Project Delivery Systems

Assessment Overview
Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULOs CLOs

Assessment 1: Quiz Individual 30% Week 2, 3, 4, NA ULO-1 CLO-1

(Individual) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & ULO-2 CLO-9
Every quiz will be 10 ULO-3
conducted based on the ULO-4
teaching and learning
materials covered in
each week starting from
week 1 to week 10.
(details in the
Assessment Brief).

Assessment 2: Group 30% Week 10 2500 Words ULO-1 CLO-1

Written Report and and PP ULO-2 CLO-4
Presentation (Group) slides ULO-3 CLO-6
This assessment task is ULO-4 CLO-9
based on the delivery
system of a case project,
where students use real-
life project as the vehicle
for learning and
developing their
capabilities in this unit of
study.
Assessment 3: Individual 40% Week 12 3000 Words ULO-1 CLO-1
Analysis of Case ULO-2 CLO-4
Studies (Individual) ULO-3 CLO-6
In this assessment task, ULO-4 CLO-9
students critically
analyse a case study
supported by project
management theories
(scaffolding submissions
of answers to case
scenarios in week 5, 8 in
which only feedback
provided on those
weeks with no mark but
final submission and
marking in W12).

Page | 1
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved:
Assessment 1: Quiz
Due date: Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9 & 10
Group/individual: Individual
Word count / Time provided: 30 minutes
Weighting: 30%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO-3, ULO-4

Assessment Details:

This quiz will assess your knowledge of key content areas (Week 1 to Week 10 contents) and to identify
further support needs. For successful completion of the quiz, you are required to study the material
provided (lecture slides, tutorials, and reading materials), engage in the unit’s activities, and in the
discussion forums. The prescribed textbook is the main reference along with the recommended
reading material. By completing this assessment successfully, you will be able to identify key aspects
of Project Delivery Systems.

Marking Information: The quiz will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30% of the total
unit mark.

Page | 2
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved:
 Assessment 2: Written Report and Presentation
Due date: Week 10
Group/individual: Group assignment
Word count: 2500 words and PP presentation
Weighting: 30%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4

Assessment 2 Details:

Design of Project Delivery System influences the success or failure of the implementation phase of
projects and programs. It is not just about selecting a contact model; it provides a framework for
procurement of goods and services needed to implement the project. This assessment task is based
on the delivery system of the “Case project”, where students use real-life project as the vehicle for
learning and developing their competencies in this unit of study. The case project should be selected
by students in their field of interest.

This assessment task includes the following components:

1. The background and the objectives of the case project
2. Literature review on the case project, including the typical delivery models and contexts.
3. SWOT analysis of the selected delivery methods
4. Development of the methodology for case project delivery system
5. Implementation of the methodology from 2. Students will also discuss results and
expected outcomes and suggested implementation plan for the case project.
6. Students are also required to present and upload their case project presentation slides
on the Canvas in week 10.

Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30%
of the total unit mark

Not satisfactory Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent

Marking
Criteria (0-49%) of the (50-64%) of the (65-74%) of the (75-84%) of the (85-100%) of the
criterion mark) criterion mark criterion mark criterion mark criterion mark
Literature Review Lack of evidence of Has demonstrated Often Generally, Has demonstrated a
of Project academic writing. No basic comprehension demonstrates a demonstrates a clear
Delivery Systems clear understanding of the subject. clear clear comprehension of
(PDS) and exploration of Limited additional comprehension of comprehension of the subject in the
Quality of literature review evidence and insights the subject in the the subject in the reading/ topic with
literature review/ topics related to that add significant reading/topic with reading/topic with additional evidence
Evidence of project delivery value to the topic. many additional many additional and insights. Has
independent and systems and no Mostly, one singular evidence and evidence and added significant
extensive demonstration of viewpoint that does insights often insights. Very good value of practice vs.
research evidence from not integrate the cited. link between theory to the topic.
(particularly current/past viewpoints of the Good link between practice vs. theory Integrates multiple
literature reviews academic studies. group into a coherent practice vs. theory to the topic. viewpoints and
and hard to get’ structure to address to the topic. Generally, weave both class
knowledge). the given topic. integrates multiple and group views
Page | 3
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved:
Demonstrate Some resources
Often integrates viewpoints and into a coherent
Critical Thinking selected are of the
multiple weave both class structure. All
through appropriate type and
viewpoints and and group views resources selected
development of a directly address the
weave both class into a coherent are of the
Conceptual given topic.
and group views structure. appropriate type
Theory Model. into a coherent Most resources and directly relate
(30% marks) structure. selected are of the to the given topic.
Generally, appropriate type
resources selected and directly relate
are of the to the given topic.
appropriate type
and directly relate
to the given topic.
Evaluation and Lack of evidence of Evidence of basic Has given a factual Reasonable Extensive
Critical Reasoning comprehensive knowledge in the and/or conceptual knowledge of comprehension
of the Case knowledge in the topic. knowledge to the background, knowledge of topic.
Organisation topic. Basic information case project, objectives and Members showed
Review of case Majority of about the project identifying project business case of the complete
project information irrelevant background and lack business case and selected project and understanding of
objectives, to the selected of evidence of requirements. very good level of the selected project
business case, project case. comprehensive Good evidence of understanding of background,
special needs, Incorrectly presented knowledge in the comprehensive SWOT analysis. Has objectives, business
and the SWOT analysis. No project objectives, knowledge in the understanding the case and SWOT
requirements. strategy presented for business case and SWOT analysis and strategies for analysis. Members
SWOT analysis for selecting the optimal SWOT analysis. strategies for the selecting the also showed
nominated and successful project Minimally presented optimal selection optimal project complete
delivery systems. delivery method. the strategies for of project delivery delivery methods understanding
Strategies for selecting the optimal and administration and administration about the strategies
selecting optimal project delivery of the case of the case project. for selecting the
and successful method. project. optimal and
project delivery successful project
and delivery and
administration of administration of
case project. the case project.
(30% marks)
Structure, The report is poorly The report shows some The report is The report is generally The report is
grammar, organized and difficult to organization. At times, generally well well organized and coherently organized,
presentation, and read – does not flow difficult to read and organized and most most of the argument and the logic is easy to
Harvard style logically from one part does not flow logically of the argument is is easy to follow. follow. There are no
referencing (15% to another. There are from one part to easy to follow. There There are only a few spelling or
marks). several spelling and/or another. There are are some spelling minor spelling or grammatical errors
grammatical errors; some spelling and/or and/or grammatical grammatical errors, or and terminology is
technical terms may not grammatical errors; errors; technical terms are not clearly clearly defined.
be defined or are poorly technical terms are terms are generally defined. Writing is Writing is clear and
defined. Writing lacks generally are poorly are poorly defined. mostly clear. All concise and
clarity and conciseness. defined. Includes Few Writing is mostly references cited persuasive. Harvard
Include few references references with errors. clear but may lack correctly using citation formatting style and
without following conciseness. All style. citation of references
Harvard style reference references cited in the body of the
guidelines or no correctly using report.
reference. citation style with
some minor errors.
Presentation slides There are too many There are many errors There are some There are few errors There are no errors in
Visual Appeal (5 errors in spelling, in spelling, grammar errors in spelling, in spelling, grammar spelling, grammar and
marks) grammar and and punctuation. Too grammar and and punctuation. Too punctuation.
punctuation. The slides much information was punctuation. Too Information is clear
Page | 4
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved:
 were difficult to read,
and slides contained
information copied onto
them from another
source.
No visual appeal.
Presentation topic Presenters didn’t
knowledge/content understand topic.
(8 marks) The presentation was a
brief look at the topic,
but many questions
were left unanswered.
Majority of information
irrelevant and significant
points left out.
Presentation skills Unsatisfactory
(7 marks) presentation with no
clarity, appropriate
pause, intonation and is
not capable to engage
listeners.
Presentation Evident lack of
preparedness (5 preparation/rehearsal
marks) Dependence on slides.
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved:
contained on many much information much information on and concise on each
slides. on more than three two or more slides. slide. Presentation is
Minimal effort made to or more slides. Presentation has visually
make slides appealing. Presentation has significant visual appealing/engaging
good visual appeal. appeal.
The presentation was The presentation The presentation was Presentation was
informative, but several
was a good a very good summary excellent and shows
elements went summary of the of the topic. extensive knowledge
unanswered. topic. Almost all-important of topic with
Much of the Major information information covered; comprehensive and
information irrelevant;covered; presentation contain complete coverage of
coverage of some of presentation contain little irrelevant information.
major points. some irrelevant information.
information.
Satisfactory Good presentation Very good Excellent presentation
presentation with some with clarity and presentation with with clarity, pause,
clarity and pause. pause in majority of clarity and pause and intonation and is
speech. able to engage capable to engage
listeners for most of listeners all the time.
the time.
Simple presentation. Good presentation Very well prepared Extremely prepared
Dependence on slides and dependence in and go beyond what is and rehearsed.
for most of the time. slide is minimal presented in slide.
Page | 5
 Assessment 3: Case Study
Due date: Week 12
Group/individual: Individual assignment
Word count: 3000
Weighting: 40%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4

Assessment 3 Details:

In this assessment task, you are required to choose ONE of the following four failed projects in
Australia (https://yourprojectmanager.com.au/4-massive-australian-project-failures-failed/) and
answer all the questions stated below.

1. Myers online shopping disaster

2. Queensland Health and its Payroll System
3. The Australian Cargo Service
4. Victorian MyKi Smart Card

Answer the following questions:

1. What were the objectives of the case project?

2. What were the main issues associated with the Case Project?
3. What were the failures with the early implementation of this project?
4. What were the cost overrun and schedule delays, and what contributed to these?
5. What was the early delivery method for this project?
6. What changed in the final delivery method if the project was not cancelled? If it was cancelled
what was the main cause of cancellation of the project?
7. What recommendations would you make if you were assigned as Project Manager of this
project in its earlier stage?

Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20%
of the total unit mark
Not satisfactory Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
Marking
Criteria (0-49%) of the (50-64%) of the (65-74%) of the (75-84%) of the (85-100%) of the
criterion mark) criterion mark criterion mark criterion mark criterion mark
Identify and Poor identification Satisfactory Good identification Very good Excellent
analyse project and analysis of identification and and analysis of identification and identification and
delivery project delivery analysis of project project delivery analysis of project analysis of project
methods issues,
methods issues, delivery methods methods issues, delivery methods delivery methods
problems and
problems and issues, problems problems and issues, problems issues, problems
failures as they
apply to the failures as they and failures as failures as they and failures as and failures as
case study and apply to the case they apply to the apply to the case they apply to the they apply to the
recommend study, poor case study, and study, and case study, and case study,
appropriate recommendations satisfactory recommendations appropriate excellent and
course of action provided. recommendations provided are recommendations appropriate
with emphasis provided. acceptable. provided.
on project
Page | 6
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved:
delivery recommendations
methods (40% provided.
Marks)
Content of case The case study’s The case study’s The case study’s The case study’s The case study’s
study and main topic(s), aim/ main topic(s), aim/ main topic(s), aim/ main topic(s), aim/ main topic(s), aim/
lesson learned purpose, key purpose, key purpose, key purpose, key purpose, key
(40% marks)
points and points and points and points and points and
conclusions are conclusions are conclusions are conclusions are conclusions are
missing, unclear, generally evident, identified and identified and identified and
inaccurate and/or but may be vague, summarised summarised summarised
irrelevant. incomplete, or accurately in most clearly and clearly, accurately
have some parts. Some accurately, and precisely,
inaccuracies. information may providing a good providing an
be irrelevant or overview of the excellent overview
inaccurate. article with of the original
minimal irrelevant article.
or inaccurate
information.
Written Writing lacks Writing is generally Writing is clear and Writing shows Writing shows
communication clarity and clear with some coherent. Most good clarity and excellent clarity
skills (15% coherence. Points lapses in points have been cohesion. Points and cohesion.
marks)
have not been coherence. Some paraphrased well. have been Points have been
paraphrased well. points have been There are some paraphrased well. skilfully
There are many paraphrased well. errors in spelling, There are few paraphrased.
errors in spelling, There are some grammar and errors in spelling, There are no or
grammar and errors in spelling, punctuation. grammar and very few errors in
punctuation. grammar and punctuation. spelling, grammar
punctuation. and punctuation.
Referencing Includes Includes All references cited All references cited Harvard formatting
(5% marks) identifying identifying correctly using correctly using style and citation
information with information with citation style with citation style. of references in
many errors in some errors in some minor errors. Paper is generally the body of the
format. Paper is format. Paper Paper is generally well organized and report.
poorly organized shows some well organized and most of the Paper is coherently
and difficult to organization. At most of the argument is easy organized, and the
read – does not times, difficult to argument is easy to follow. Writing logic is easy to
flow logically from read and does not to follow. Writing is mostly clear. follow.
one part to flow logically from is mostly clear but Writing is clear and
another. Include one part to may lack concise and
few references another. Few conciseness persuasive.
without following references with
Harvard style errors.
reference
guidelines or no
reference.

Page | 7
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: