Page | 1
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: XXXXXXXXXX
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: 13/02/19, Version 1
Unit Code and Title: SBM1202 Project Quality, Risk & Procurement Management
Assessment Overview
Assessment Task
Weighting Due Length ULO
Assessment 1: Quiz
Assessment 1 consists of MCQ covering the basic
concepts of quality management from week 1 and
week 2.
10% Week 3 30 minutes
ULO-1
Assessment 2: Critical Review
Students critically analyse quality issue and/or
problem in a field of their interest and co
ect them
applying the principles of TQM.
30% Week 7 2,500
words
ULO-1
ULO-2
Assessment 3: Case Study
Students review risk management plan/practice of a
case project and develop a risk management
framework for the case project as per PMBOK™
guidelines.
30% Week 11 2,500
words
ULO-3
ULO-4
Assessment 4: Examination
Written examination covering the contents from
week 1 to week 11 lecture.
30% Exam
Week
during
advertised
exam time
2 hours ULO-1
ULO-2
ULO-3
ULO-5
Assessment Details
Page | 2
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: XXXXXXXXXX
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: 13/02/19, Version 1
Assessment 1: Quiz
Due date: Week 3
Group/individual: Individual
Word count / Time provided: 25 minutes
Weighting: 10%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1
Assessment Details:
This in class quiz will assess your knowledge of key content areas (Week 1 & 2 content) 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.
Marking Information: The quiz will be marked out of 25 and will be weighted 10% of the total unit
mark.
Assessment 2: Critical Review
Due date: Week 7
Group/individual: Group
Word count / Time
provided:
2,500 words
Weighting: 30%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2
Assessment Details:
Students critically analyse the quality issue and/or problem in a field of their interest and co
ect
them applying the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM). Students are also expected to
eview two best practice models in project quality management to show its significance in
managerial decision.
Marking Criteria and Ru
ic: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30%
of the total unit mark
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: 13/02/19, Version 1
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
Understanding and
Critical Analysis
(40 marks)
Lack of understanding
of the relevant
theories, principles
and approaches to
project quality
management.
No demonstration of
critical thinking
through analysis of
issues and causes
Evidence of basic
understanding of the
elevant theories,
principles and
approaches to project
quality management
with limited
interpretation and
demonstration of
critical thinking
through analysis of
issues and causes
Evidence of good
understanding of the
elevant theories,
principles and
approaches to project
quality management
with good supporting
interpretation and
good demonstration
of critical thinking
through analysis of
issues and causes
Evidence of very good
understanding of the
elevant theories,
principles and
approaches to project
quality management
with good supporting
interpretation and
arguments from
literature and analysis
of issues and causes
with detail
explanation
demonstrating very
good critical thinking
skills.
Evidence of excellent
understanding of the
elevant theories,
principles and
approaches to project
quality management.
Referencing of
supporting literature
in the interpretation,
explanation and
analysis of issues and
causes. Analysis
presented is rigours
and enlightening
indicating
independent strongly
argued coherent
writing.
Demonstration of
excellent critical
thinking skills.
Review of best
practice models
(40 marks)
Lack of evidence of
sufficient use of
literature and limited
interpretation of the
models. No evidence
of critical review.
Use of some
supporting literature
with limited
interpretation of
models and their
significance in
managerial decision-
making pertaining to
quality management.
Evidence of good
eference to
supporting literature
in reviewing best
practice models with
good interpretation of
model significance in
managerial decision
making.
Evidence of strong
eference to
supporting literature
in reviewing best
practice models with
significant synthesis of
arguments and
evidence of
independent research
to validate the
significance of best
practice model in
managerial decision
making
Evidence of excellent
eference to
supporting literature
in reviewing best
practice models with
significant synthesis of
arguments. Review
presented is rigours in
validating the
significance of best
practice model in
managerial decision
making
Clarity of expression
(10 marks)
The writing is poor
with no logical flow
and many grammatical
e
ors
The writing is
satisfactory exhibiting
majority of
grammatically co
ect
sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with some
spelling or typing
e
ors
The writing is fluent
and coherent with
good presentation
exhibiting
grammatically co
ect
sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with
minor spelling or
typing e
or but may
need to interpret.
The writing is fluent
and coherent with
very good
presentation
exhibiting
grammatically co
ect
sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with no
spelling or typing e
or
The writing is fluent
and coherent with
excellent presentation
exhibiting
grammatically co
ect
sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with no
minor spelling or
typing e
or
Presentation and
eferencing
(10 marks)
Demonstration of a
limited sense of
purpose or theme and
insufficient
understanding g of
the topic. Information
is limited, unclear and
the depth is not
adequately
Writing does not go
far enough in
expanding key issues.
The reader is left with
questions. It requires
further information to
clarify main
arguments. The
presentation and
The presentation
and referencing
mostly conforms to
the appropriate
Harvard style guide
and format.
Writing is used to
support the main
ideas and convince
the reader of the
argument who is left
in no doubt of the
purpose. The
presentation
and referencing
Writing perceives a
sense of the wider
context of the ides.
The presentation and
eferencing is
appropriate and
consistent with the
Harvard style guide
and format.
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: 13/02/19, Version 1
developed. The idea is
a simple restatement
of the topic. The
presentation and
eferencing show
insufficient application
of the appropriate
HARVARD style guide
and format.
eferencing show
some application of
the appropriate
Harvard style
guide and format.
Assessment 3: Case Study
Due date: Week 11
Group/individual: Group
Word count / Time
provided:
2,500 words
Weighting: 30%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-3, ULO-4
Assessment Details:
In this assignment, each team will select a real-life case project in their field of interest as the vehicle
for learning in this unit of study. Students review risk management pan/practice of the case project
and develop a risk management framework for a project as per PMBOK™ guidelines. Students may
efer to the following resources to select real-life projects:
• 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 u
an precincts:
http:
www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/changing-u
an-precincts
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: 13/02/19, Version 1
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
Review of the case
organisation’s
Project Risk
Management
(30 marks)
No evidence of
independent research
Evidence of
independent research
with satisfactory
literature review
Evidence of
independent and
extensive research
with food literature
eview
Evidence of
independent and
extensive research
with excellent
literature review
Evidence of
independent and
outstanding literature
eview accompanied
y hard to get
knowledge
Development of a
isk management
framework for the
case project (30
marks)
No clear description
of
methods/methodolog
y applied, and
framework developed
General description of
methods/methodolog
y applied.
Concise description
of
methods/methodolo
gy applied, and
framework
developed
Clear and concise
description of
methods/methodolog
y applied, and
framework developed.
Rationale of
methodology used is
well presented
Clear and concise
description of
methods/methodolog
y applied, and
framework developed.
Rational of
methodology used in
well-presented and
comparison with best
practice is made.
Evaluation of