SBM1204 Project Delivery Systems

Page | 1
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: 13/02/2019, V1
Unit Code and Title: SBM1204 Project Delivery Systems
Assessment Overview

Assessment Task Weighting Due Length ULO
Assessment 1: Quiz
Multiple choice quiz
covering the contents
covered in week 1 and 2
10% Week 3 30 mins ULO-1
Assessment 2: Portfolio
Development and
implementation of the
delivery system in the case
project
60% Week 12 5,500 – 6,000 words ULO-1
ULO-2
ULO-3
ULO-4
Assessment 3: Final Exam 30% Week 14 ULO-1
ULO-2
ULO-4

Assessment 1: Quiz

Due date: Week 3
Group/individual: Individual
Word count / Time provided: 30 minutes
Weighting: 10%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1

Assessment 1 Details:
This 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. The prescribed textbook is the main reference along with the recommended reading material.
Marking Information: The quiz will be marked out of 10 and will be weighted 10% of the total unit
mark.
Assessment Brief
Page | 2
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: 13/02/2019, V1
Assessment 2: Portfolio
Assignment 2: Portfolio

Due date: Week 12
Group/individual: Group assignment
Word count: 5500-6000
Weighting: 60%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4

Assignment 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. The portfolio 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 by
students in their field of interest.
The portfolio includes three components:
1. Literature review on the case project, including the typical delivery models and contexts.
2. Development of the methodology for case project delivery system.
3. Implementation of the methodology from 2. To design case project delivery systems.
Students will also discuss results and expected outcomes and suggest implementation
plan for the case project.
The following methodology maybe applied to arrive at an optimum delivery system:
Page | 3
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: 13/02/2019, V1
Figure 1: Generic approach to design of an optimum project delivery system
Simulation
In this unit it is assumed that you are a team of professionals working in a management consulting
company and a client asks you to design and outline an optimum project delivery system for a given
project whose background information is supplied by the client in a brief (note the actual case project
each student team uses varies and provided a different context that will form part of the client brief).
You team’s task is to design a project delivery system and present it to your manager internally and
upon review and revision it will be submitted to the Client organisation, as seen in Figure 2.
Page | 4
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: 13/02/2019, V1
Figure 2: Project simulation sketch.
Scope
In this unit of study, the scope comprises the following activities within the context of the assigned
case project:
1. A systematic review of all commonly known project/program delivery systems (literature
review).
2. Select a methodology, process and approach that can help your team achieve the end results.
3. Identify data sources needed and how that can be obtained.
4. Outline the assumptions and constraints (items 2 to 4 form your team’s Initiation Plan).
5. Apply the Initiation Plan and follow the project delivery methodology in Figure 1.
6. Compile and present your draft project delivery system.
7. Evaluate your project delivery system against the client brief and find out where there is
misalignment and what needs to happen to address that misalignment.
8. Simultaneously consider the feedback you received from your academic supervisors and
others (e.g. from the real-life project team).
9. Revise your project delivery system.
10. Consolidate all the work done and compile your Team’s PDS Report on the Case Project.
11. Submit your PDS Report and prepare your presentation slides.
Follow the workflow diagram shown in Figure 3 to complete Assignment (Part 1 to Part 3). Strict
deadlines apply for submission of individual assignment and conduct of self and peer competency
assessments as well as peer rating.
Page | 5
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: 13/02/2019, V1
Figure 3: Workflow diagram for completion of assignment in SBM1204.
Table of Contents
1. Overview
1.1. Project Title (Project/Program Delivery Systems)
1.2. Project Background
2. Objectives and Scope
2.1. Objective(s)
2.2. Outcome(s)/Benefits
2.3. Output(s)
2.4. Assumptions and Constraints
3. Literature Review and Features of Typical Delivery Systems
3.1. Literature summary related to project/program delivery systems
3.2. Case project objectives, business case, context, requirements and challenges
3.3. Structuring knowledge to respond to case project requirements and challenges
3.4. Typical delivery systems & Key Success Factors
4. Data, Methodology and Process (Initiation Phase)
4.1. Factors influencing selection and performance of project delivery systems (project delivery
risks, SWOT analysis, legislation,…)
4.2. Selected methodology and process for arriving at an optimum delivery system
4.3. Data sources, ease of gathering data, timing and reliability
4.4. Difficulties expected from applying potential delivery systems to the case project
4.5. Schedule of activities to apply the methodology
5. Optimal Delivery System for Case Project
5.1. Review of case project objectives, business case, special needs and requirements
5.2. SWOT analysis (selected project delivery system)
5.3. Analysis and mitigation of risks
Page | 6
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: 13/02/2019, V1
5.4. Strategies for successful project delivery and administration of case project
5.5. Delivery system framework, components, sequence and control strategies
5.6. Review of governance, reporting and control mechanisms
6. Evaluation, Revision, Finalisation& Presentation of PDS
6.1. Evaluation of the delivery system against project objectives, business case, risks and
constraints
6.2. Review of the feedback received
6.3. Revision and adjustment of the optimal delivery system
6.4. Documentation of the optimal delivery system
6.5. Guidelines for the
6.6. implementation of the delivery system
6.7. Other consideration
7. Discussion and Conclusion
8. Reference List (Harvard Style)
Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 10%
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/
Program Delivery
Systems (PDS)
(25%)
Quality of literature
review/ Evidence of
independent and
extensive research
(particularly
literature reviews
and hard to get’
knowledge)
Demonstrate
Critical Thinking
through
development of a
Conceptual Theory
Model.
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
current/past academic
studies.
Has demonstrated basic
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.
Some resources
selected are of the
appropriate type and
directly address the
given topic.
Often demonstrates
a clear
comprehension of
the subject in the
reading/topic with
many additional
evidence and
insights often cited.
Good link between
practice vs. theory
to the topic.
Often integrates
multiple viewpoints
and weave both
class and group
views into a
coherent structure.
Generally, resources
selected are of the
appropriate type
and directly relate to
the given topic.
Generally,
demonstrates a clear
comprehension of the
subject in the
reading/topic with
many additional
evidence and insights.
Very good link
between practice vs.
theory to the topic.
Generally, integrates
multiple 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.
Has demonstrated a
clear comprehension
of the subject in the
reading/ 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 into a coherent
structure. All
resources selected are
of the appropriate
type and directly
relate to the given
topic.
Initiation Plan for
PDS of Case
Organisation (20%)
Review of case
project objectives,
business case,
special needs and
requirements.
Lack of evidence of
comprehensive
knowledge in the topic.
Majority of information
irrelevant to the selected
project case. Incorrectly
presented the SWOT
analysis. No strategy
presented for selecting
the optimal and
Evidence of basic
knowledge in the topic.
Basic information about
the project background
and lack of evidence of
comprehensive
knowledge in the
project objectives,
business case and
SWOT analysis.
Has given a factual
and/or conceptual
knowledge to the
case project,
identifying project
business case and
requirements.
Good evidence of
comprehensive
knowledge in the
Reasonable
knowledge of
background,
objectives and
business case of the
selected project and
very good level of
understanding of
SWOT analysis. Has
understanding the
Extensive
comprehension
knowledge of topic.
Members showed
complete
understanding of the
selected project
background,
objectives, business
case and SWOT

Page | 7
Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College
55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111
PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D
Approved: 13/02/2019, V1

SWOT analysis for
nominated delivery
systems.
Strategies for
selecting optimal
and successful
project delivery and
administration of
case project.
successful project
delivery method.
Minimally presented
the strategies for
selecting the optimal
project delivery
method.
SWOT analysis and
strategies for the
optimal selection of
project delivery and
administration of
the case project.
strategies for selecting
the optimal project
delivery methods and
administration of the
case project.
analysis. Members
also showed complete
understanding about
the strategies for
selecting the optimal
and successful project
delivery and
administration of the
case project.
Final PDS Report of
Team Case
Organisation (25%)
Evaluation of the
delivery system
against project
objectives, business
case, risks and
constraints.
Lack of evidence of
adequate understanding
of the selected project
delivery system. The
evaluation of the
delivery system against
project objectives,
business case, risks and
constraints lacks main
aspects. Majority of
information irrelevant
and significant points left
out.
Evidence of basic
knowledge and skills of
evaluating the delivery
system against project
objectives, business
case, risk and
constraints.
Has given a factual
and/or conceptual
knowledge and skills
base in developing a
technique to
evaluate the delivery
system against
project objectives,
business case, risk
and constraints.
Reasonable
knowledge and skills
of evaluating the
delivery system
against project
objectives, business
case, risk and
constraints.
Has excellent skills in
developing a
technique to evaluate
the delivery systems
against project
objectives, business
case, risk and
constraints.
Referencing (5%)
Harvard formatting
style and citation of
references in the
body of the report.
Includes identifying
information with many
errors in format. Paper is
poorly organized and
difficult to read – does
not flow logically from
one part to another.
Include few references
without following
Harvard style reference
guidelines or no
reference.
Includes identifying
information with some
errors in format. Paper
shows some
organization. At times,
difficult to read and
does not flow logically
from one part to
another. Few references
with errors.
All references cited
correctly using
citation style with
some minor errors.
Paper is generally
well organized and
most of the
argument is easy to
follow. Writing is
mostly clear but may
lack conciseness
All references cited
correctly using citation
style. Paper is
generally well
organized and most of
the argument is easy
to follow. Writing is
mostly clear.
Harvard formatting
style and citation of
references in the body
of the report.
Paper is coherently
organized and the
logic is easy to follow.
Writing is clear and
concise and
persuasive.
Structure, grammar
and presentation
(5%)
Paper is poorly organized
and difficult to read –
does not flow logically
from one part to
another. There are
several spelling and/or
grammatical errors;
technical terms may not
be defined or are poorly
defined. Writing lacks
clarity and conciseness.
Paper 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
errors; technical terms
are generally are poorly
defined.
Paper is generally
well organized and
most of the
argument is easy to
follow. There are
some spelling and/or
grammatical errors;
technical terms are
generally are poorly
defined. Writing is
mostly clear but may
lack conciseness.
Paper is generally well
organized and most of
the argument is easy
to follow. There are
only a few minor
spelling or
grammatical errors, or
terms are not clearly
defined. Writing is
mostly clear.
Paper is coherently
organized and the
logic is easy to follow.
There are no spelling
or grammatical errors
and terminology is
clearly defined.
Writing is clear and
concise and
persuasive.
Presentation (20%)
Quality of the
presentation
material
Logical flow of the
presentation/
Presentation
Visuals/ Voice and
General Control of
the Audience.
Lack of evidence of
minimal communication
skills such as body
language and eye
contact. Minimal eye
contact and focusing on
small part of audience.
The presenter did not
get the audience
engaged.
Evidence of basic
communication skills.
Minimal body language
was used by the
presenters. Minimal
evidence of engaging
the audience.
Evidence of good
oral communication
skills. Some
members spoke to
majority of
audience; steady eye
contact. The
audience was
engaged by the
presentation.
Most members spoke
to majority of
audience; very good
body language,
suitable volume
speaking level, regular
eye contact. The
audience was engaged
by the presentation.
Has excellent skills in
oral communication.
Excellent body
language, speaking
volume & regular eye
contact. The audience
was engaged, and
presenters held the
audience’s attention.