Microsoft Word - MGT206 Assignment 1
MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1
© Southern Institute of Technology 2015
MGT206 ASSIGNMENT 1
Activity Title:
Assignment 1: Case Study “JCU Spring Concert”
Analyse risk management plans and design a risk management plan for
a project.
Paper Number
and Title:
MGT206 Risk Management and Quality
Level 6, 15 credits, Version 1
Assessed
Learning
Outcomes:
1, 2, 3
Analyse areas of risk in the project management lifecycle.
Undertake a risk analysis and justify conclusions.
Compare and contrast problem‐solving methods for dealing with
problems when they arise in projects and apply them to a specific
scenario providing justification for the chosen approach.
Conditions:
This is a compulsory assignment. It must be submitted and makes up
40% of your final result for this paper.
The completed assignment is to be submitted to your facilitator via
Blackboard by the due date.
MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1
© Southern Institute of Technology 2015
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Word count: 2,000 with a maximum of 3,000 words
1. Read the Case, JCU Spring Concert on pages 246 of your text.
2. Undertake the three tasks on the top of page 246.
3. Write an individual assignment of 2,000 words in which you undertake a risk analysis and
develop a risk management plan to justify your conclusions for the JCU Spring Concert.
4. You are encouraged to refer to additional sources of information for this assignment.
5. Ensure that you reference all of your sources using the correct APA referencing
conventions.
6. Make sure you read the Marking Schedule below carefully before embarking on the
assignment. It will give you clear idea of what we are looking for in the submission.
MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1
© Southern Institute of Technology 2015
Marking schedule
Criteria E XXXXXXXXXXD XXXXXXXXXXC XXXXXXXXXXB XXXXXXXXXXA XXXXXXXXXX)
Introduction:
Introduce case study
and provide context
around the case
Weighting 10%
Introduction does not
offer only context for
the subject to be
discussed. Introduction
not included about the
case study.
Introduction is weak
and does not offer
useful context for the
subject to be discussed.
Introduction is poorly
structured about the
case study.
Satisfactory
introduction with
useful content about
the subject to be
discussed. Content is
sound but not
particularly well
developed, structured
or supported about the
case study.
Good introduction and
well-presented and
argued. Introduction is
detailed, developed and
supported with good
evidence and detail about
the case study.
Exceptionally well-
presented introduction.
High level of detail
presented about case
study, very well-
structured, presented
with specific evidence
and facts about the case
study.
Literature review:
Undertake literature
review covering
project risk
management
Weighting 10%
Content is not sufficient
to determined
understanding, does not
offer discussion or
ideas, no external
referencing to support
discussion, discussion is
irrelevant. No
discussion related to.
Content is weak and
does not offer useful
discussion or relevant
ideas, no external
referencing to support
discussion. Minimal
discussion around.
Discussion is sound
and relevant, ideas are
present but not
particularly well
developed or
supported; some
evidence of external
references, discussion
of a generic nature.
Basic discussion
around.
Well-presented and
argued; ideas are detailed,
discussion supported by
some external referencing
and relevant facts and
examples. Useful
discussion covering.
Excellent well-presented
and argued; ideas are
comprehensive, well-
developed, discussion
supported by
appropriate external
referencing, specific
evidence and facts,
relevant examples
suggested. Well-
articulated overview
covering.
Project risks: Risks
associated with
project
Weighting 10%
No presentation of risks
identified for the
project.
Minimal presentation of
risks identified for the
project.
Basic presentation of
risks identified for the
project.
Useful presentation of
risks identified for the
project.
Well-articulated
presentation of risks
identified for the
project.
Risk Matrix:
Undertake risk
analysis using risk
Matrix tool for the
case study
Weighting 10%
No risk analysis
undertaken for the case
study using risk Matrix
tool discussed in the
prescribed text.
Minimal risk analysis
undertaken for the case
study using risk Matrix
tool discussed in the
prescribed text.
Basic risk analysis
undertaken for the case
study using risk Matrix
tool discussed in the
prescribed text.
Useful risk analysis
undertaken for the case
study using risk Matrix
tool discussed in the
prescribed text.
Well-articulated risk
analysis undertaken for
the case study using risk
Matrix tool discussed in
the prescribed text.
Risk register: Develop
a risk register for the
case study
Weighting 10%
No risk register
developed for the case
study.
Minimal risk register
developed for the case
study.
Basic risk register
developed for the case
study.
Useful risk register
developed for the case
study.
Well-articulated risk
register developed for
the case study.
Risk management
plan: Develop a risk
management plan for
the case study
Weighting 30%
No risk management
plan developed for the
case study which was
covered in the literature.
Minimal risk
management plan
developed for the case
study which some
aspects covered in the
literature.
Basic risk management
plan developed for the
case study which is
aligned to examples
covered in the
literature.
Useful risk management
plan developed for the
case study which is
aligned to examples
covered in the literature.
Well-articulated risk
management plan
developed for the case
study which is well
aligned to examples
covered in the literature.
Conclusion: Present
an overview of
assignment findings
and lessons learned
Weighting 10%
Content is weak and
does not offer useful
discussion or relevant
learnings, discussion is
irrelevant.
Content is weak and
does not offer useful
discussion or relevant
ideas, no external
referencing to support
discussion, discussion is
irrelevant.
Discussion is sound
and relevant, learnings
have been included but
are not particularly well
developed or
supported, discussion
of a generic nature.
Well-presented and
argued; learnings are
detailed and supported
by relevant facts and
examples.
Exceptionally well-
presented and argued;
Learnings are
comprehensive, well-
developed, discussion is
clear and there is
evidence, facts and
relevant examples are
presented.
Writing
Weighting 5%
No consideration for
presentation.
Muddled writing that is
very difficult to follow.
Numerous grammatical
Acceptable presentation.
Long winded and some
clear writing
presentation.
Some grammatical
Tidy presentation.
Mostly clear writing
but at times long
winded.
Writing style lacks
Professional
presentation.
Clear writing mainly to
the point.
Considered writing style.
Polished presentation.
Clear and concise
writing.
Mature and appropriate
writing style.
MGT206 Risk Management and Quality, Level 6, Credits 15, Version 1
© Southern Institute of Technology 2015
errors.
Multiple spelling errors.
errors.
Multiple spelling errors.
consideration.
Few issues around
grammar.
Less than 5 spelling
errors.
Excellent grammar with
only minor oversights.
Less than 3 spelling
errors.
Excellent grammar,
correct in all aspects.
No spelling errors.
In-text citations and
Reference list APA
formatted
Weighting 5%
More than 5 errors. 4-5 errors. 2-3 errors. 1 error. No errors.