Project Planning and Budgeting

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.