PROJ6002_Assessment_1_Brief_ForumPost_Module 2 Page 1 of 5
| ASSESSMENT 1 BRIEF | |
| Subject Code and Title | PROJ6002: Project Planning and Budgeting |
| Assessment | Project Scope and Quality Management Discussion Activity |
| Individual/Group | Individual |
| Length | 750 words |
| Learning Outcomes | The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include: (a) Evaluate and apply a range of project management tools, techniques and practices to diverse global projects. (b) Evaluate budgetary and planning outcomes against project success measures, including stakeholder expectations. |
| Submission | Initial discussion post due by 11:55 pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of First Half of Module 2. Response post due by 11:55 pm AEST/AEDT Sunday End of Module 2. |
| Weighting | 10% |
| Total Marks | 100 marks |
Assessment Task
Critically analyse the Assessment 1 question as outlined in the Case Study provided by the Learning
Facilitator by end of Module 1. Then, respond to the question with a 500-word discussion forum post
and a 250-word critique of another student’s initial post.
Please refer to the Instructions for details on how to complete this task.
Context
Project Scope Management involves processes to ensure that the project incorporates all work
required to complete it successfully. Managing project scope involves defining and controlling what is
included in the project.
One of the keys to project success is effective scope management. Uncertainty about a stakeholder’s
needs or problems leads to a misleading definition (scope of work). Rework and extra effort may
impact project costs and timelines.
Documenting how the project will demonstrate compliance with quality requirements and standards
is the process of project quality management planning. This process helps to manage and validate
quality throughout the project.
PROJ6002_Assessment_1_Brief_ForumPost_Module 2 Page 2 of 5
For a project to be successful, the performing organisation must define and implement quality
policies, objectives, and responsibilities.
Instructions
1. The Case Study will be posted in the Assessments section in Blackboard by the end of
Module 1 by your Learning Facilitator.
2. Critically analyse the Assessment 1 question outlined in the Case Study and conduct research
related to the topics outlined in the question.
3. Write a 500-word initial post analysing the question and key issues. Cite all sources used to
inform your post, including learning resources and academic or industry literature. The
reference list is not included in the word count.
4. Read another student’s post. Consider their post and compare it with the research you have
conducted. This approach will allow you to “critique” their view. You can do this by
highlighting your agreement and/or disagreement with their post. You must justify and
explain your critique. You will need to cite industry and academic literature. Your answer must
be 250 words. The reference list is not included in the word count.
Referencing
It is essential that you use the most recent edition of APA style for citing and referencing research.
Please see more information on referencing in the Academic Skills webpage.
Submission Instructions
Post your answer in the Assessment 1 Discussion Forum, which can be accessed via the Assessment 1
link to in the main navigation menu in PROJ6002 – Project Planning and Budgeting. Do not upload a
Word document.
PROJ6002_Assessment_1_Brief_ForumPost_Module 2 Page 3 of 5
Post your response to at least one students’ work by using the “Reply” button under their initial post.
Submit your answers in an academic style, including both in-text citations and a full reference list
using the correct APA style of referencing.
Your assessment will be formally graded via the Grade Centre by your Learning Facilitator and
feedback will be provided through My Grades.
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately
referenced and academically written according to the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to
have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and
subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online.
Students also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.
Special Consideration
To apply for special consideration for a modification to an assessment or exam due to unexpected or
extenuating circumstances, please consult the Assessment Policy for Higher Education Coursework
and ELICOS and, if applicable to your circumstance, submit a completed Application for Assessment
Special Consideration Form to your Learning Facilitator.
PROJ6002_Assessment_1_Brief_DiscussionForumPost_Module 2 Page 4 of 5
Assessment Rubric
| Assessment Attributes |
Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% |
Pass (Functional) 50-64% |
Credit (Proficient) 65-74% |
Distinction (Advanced) 75-84% |
High Distinction (Highly advanced) 85-100% |
| Knowledge and understanding of Project Scope and Quality Management and relevant planning tools and techniques. Percentage for this criterion = 50 % |
Demonstrates a partially developed understanding of project scope and quality management. Key components of the assignment are not addressed and relevant tools and techniques are not applied. Case study is not discussed. |
Demonstrates a functional knowledge of project scope and quality management. Demonstrates a limited application of project scope and quality tools and techniques. to project planning and the case study. |
Demonstrates proficient knowledge of project scope and quality management. Demonstrates a proficient application of project scope, and quality tools and techniques. to project planning and the assigned case study. |
Demonstrates advanced knowledge of project scope and quality management. Demonstrates an advanced application of project scope, and quality tools and techniques to project planning and the assigned case study. |
Demonstrates a highly advanced knowledge of project scope and quality management. Demonstrates an exceptional application of project scope and quality tools and techniques to project planning and the assigned case study. |
| Contribution to the Learning Community Percentage for this criterion = 30 % |
Post has not been submitted. Post offers no support or encouragement to peers. |
Post is a summary of peer’s post, providing limited insight and/or additional contribution to the discussion. Feedback is not always clear or specific to guide peers, and/or demonstrates limited support or encouragement. |
Post contributes valuable information to the discussion, acknowledging ideas of others in attempt to advance the discussion. Feedback is provided with examples to guide peers. |
Post advances the group discussion and presents a coherent and concise approach to the topic. Formulates the merits of alternative ideas or proposals and communicates them constructively to peers. |
Post contributes valuable information and advances discussions with a coherent and concise approach to the topic. Expertly articulates the merits of alternative ideas or proposals and communicates them effectively and constructively to peers |
PROJ6002_Assessment_1_Brief_DiscussionForumPost_Module 2 Page 5 of 5
| Assessment Attributes |
Fail (Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% |
Pass (Functional) 50-64% |
Credit (Proficient) 65-74% |
Distinction (Advanced) 75-84% |
High Distinction (Highly advanced) 85-100% |
| Effective Communication (Written) Percentage for this criterion = 10% |
Very limited organisation, text, structure and coherence Frequent errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation |
Limited organisation, text, structure and coherence Some errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation |
Adequate organisation, text, structure and coherence Occasional errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation |
Good organisation, text, structure and coherence Very few errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation |
Very good organisation, text, structure and coherence No errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation |
| Correct citation of key resources and evidence Percentage for this criterion = 10% |
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. Shows very limited to no evidence of sourcing evidence. Didn’t refer to sources; referencing does not resemble the most recent edition of APA. |
Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. Shows evidence of limited scope within Torrens University resources for sourcing evidence. Rarely referred to sources; uses most recent edition of APA referencing with frequent errors |
Demonstrates use of credible resources to support and develop ideas. Shows evidence of adequate scope within Torrens University resources for sourcing evidence. Adequately referred to sources; uses most recent edition of APA referencing with occasional errors. |
Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within Torrens University resources for sourcing evidence. Referred to sources throughout; uses most recent edition of APA referencing with very few errors. |
Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows evidence of wide scope and moving beyond Torrens University resources for sourcing evidence. Referred to sources throughout; uses most recent edition of APA referencing with no errors. |