Page | 3
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: XXXXXXXXXX
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
y 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 Ru
ic: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30%
of the total unit mark
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
Literature Review
of Project
Delivery Systems
(PDS)
Quality of
literature review/
Evidence of
independent and
extensive
esearch
(particularly
literature reviews
and hard to get’
knowledge).
Lack of evidence of
academic writing. No
clear understanding
and exploration of
literature review
topics related to
project delivery
systems and no
demonstration of
evidence from
cu
ent/past
academic studies.
Has demonstrated
asic comprehension
of the subject.
Limited additional
evidence and insights
that add significant
value to the topic.
Mostly, one singular
viewpoint that does
not integrate the
viewpoints of the
group into a coherent
structure to address
the given topic.
Often
demonstrates a
clear
comprehension of
the subject in the
eading/topic with
many additional
evidence and
insights often
cited.
Good link between
practice vs. theory
to the topic.
Generally,
demonstrates a
clear
comprehension of
the subject in the
eading/topic with
many additional
evidence and
insights. Very good
link between
practice vs. theory
to the topic.
Generally,
integrates multiple
Has demonstrated a
clear
comprehension of
the subject in the
eading/ topic with
additional evidence
and insights. Has
added significant
value of practice vs.
theory to the topic.
Integrates multiple
viewpoints and
weave both class
and group views
Page | 4
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: XXXXXXXXXX
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved:
Demonstrate
Critical Thinking
through
development of a
Conceptual
Theory Model.
(30% marks)
Some resources
selected are of the
appropriate type and
directly address the
given topic.
Often integrates
multiple
viewpoints and
weave both class
and group views
into a coherent
structure.
Generally,
esources selected
are of the
appropriate type
and directly relate
to the given topic.
viewpoints and
weave both class
and group views
into a coherent
structure.
Most resources
selected are of the
appropriate type
and directly relate
to the given topic.
into a coherent
structure. All
esources selected
are of the
appropriate type
and directly relate
to the given topic.
Evaluation and
Critical Reasoning
of the Case
Organisation
Review of case
project
objectives,
usiness case,
special needs,
and
equirements.
SWOT analysis for
nominated
delivery systems.
Strategies for
selecting optimal
and successful
project delivery
and
administration of
case project.
(30% marks)
Lack of evidence of
comprehensive
knowledge in the
topic.
Majority of
information i
elevant
to the selected
project case.
Inco
ectly presented
the SWOT analysis. No
strategy presented for
selecting the optimal
and successful project
delivery method.
Evidence of basic
knowledge in the
topic.
Basic information
about the project
ackground and lack
of evidence of
comprehensive
knowledge in the
project objectives,
usiness case and
SWOT analysis.
Minimally presented
the strategies for
selecting the optimal
project delivery
method.
Has given a factual
and/or conceptual
knowledge to the
case project,
identifying project
usiness case and
equirements.
Good evidence of
comprehensive
knowledge in the
SWOT analysis and
strategies for the
optimal selection
of project delivery
and administration
of the case
project.
Reasonable
knowledge of
ackground,
objectives and
usiness case of the
selected project and
very good level of
understanding of
SWOT analysis. Has
understanding the
strategies for
selecting the
optimal project
delivery methods
and administration
of the case project.
Extensive
comprehension
knowledge of topic.
Members showed
complete
understanding of
the selected project
ackground,
objectives, business
case and SWOT
analysis. Members
also showed
complete
understanding
about the strategies
for selecting the
optimal and
successful project
delivery and
administration of
the case project.
Structure,
grammar,
presentation, and
Harvard style
eferencing (15%
marks).
The report is poorly
organized and difficult to
ead – does not flow
logically from one part
to another. There are
several spelling and/or
grammatical e
ors;
technical terms may not
e defined or are poorly
defined. Writing lacks
clarity and conciseness.
Include few references
without following
Harvard style reference
guidelines or no
eference.
The report shows some
organization. At times,
difficult to read and
does not flow logically
from one part to
another. There are
some spelling and/or
grammatical e
ors;
technical terms are
generally are poorly
defined. Includes Few
eferences with e
ors.
The report is
generally well
organized and most
of the argument is
easy to follow. There
are some spelling
and/or grammatical
e
ors; technical
terms are generally
are poorly defined.
Writing is mostly
clear but may lack
conciseness. All
eferences cited
co
ectly using
citation style with
some minor e
ors.
The report is generally
well organized and
most of the argument
is easy to follow.
There are only a few
minor spelling or
grammatical e
ors, or
terms are not clearly
defined. Writing is
mostly clear. All
eferences cited
co
ectly using citation
style.
The report is
coherently organized,
and the logic is easy to
follow. There are no
spelling or
grammatical e
ors
and terminology is
clearly defined.
Writing is clear and
concise and
persuasive. Harvard
formatting style and
citation of references
in the body of the
eport.
Presentation slides
Visual Appeal (5
marks)
There are too many
e
ors in spelling,
grammar and
punctuation. The slides
There are many e
ors
in spelling, grammar
and punctuation. Too
much information was
There are some
e
ors in spelling,
grammar and
punctuation. Too
There are few e
ors
in spelling, grammar
and punctuation. Too
There are no e
ors in
spelling, grammar and
punctuation.
Information is clea
Page | 5
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: XXXXXXXXXX
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved:
were difficult to read,
and slides contained
information copied onto
them from another
source.
No visual appeal.
contained on many
slides.
Minimal effort made to
make slides appealing.
much information
on more than three
or more slides.
Presentation has
good visual appeal.
much information on
two or more slides.
Presentation has
significant visual
appeal.
and concise on each
slide. Presentation is
visually
appealing/engaging
Presentation topic
knowledge/content
(8 marks)
Presenters didn’t
understand topic.
The presentation was a
ief look at the topic,
ut many questions
were left unanswered.
Majority of information
i
elevant and significant
points left out.
The presentation was
informative, but several
elements went
unanswered.
Much of the
information i
elevant;
coverage of some of
major points.
The presentation
was a good
summary of the
topic.
Major information
covered;
presentation contain
some i
elevant
information.
The presentation was
a very good summary
of the topic.
Almost all-important
information covered;
presentation contain
little i
elevant
information.
Presentation was
excellent and shows
extensive knowledge
of topic with
comprehensive and
complete coverage of
information.
Presentation skills
(7 marks)
Unsatisfactory
presentation with no
clarity,