Assessment Details

Unit Code and Title: SBM1204 Project Delivery Systems

Assessment 2: Portfolio

Assignment 2: Portfolio
Due date: Week 12
Group/individual: Group assignment
Word count: 5500-6000
Weighting: 60%
Unit Learning Outcomes: [ULO1], [ULO2], [ULO3], [ULO4]
Course Learning Outcomes: [CLO1], [CLO2], [CLO4], [CLO7], [CLO8], [CLO9]
Graduate Attributes: GA1, GA3, GA5, GA11

Assignment 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 | 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: DATE & Version
 Figure 1: Generic approach to design of an optimum project delivery system

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.

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
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: DATE & Version
 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
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

Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 10%
of the total unit mark

Not satisfactory Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent

Marking
Criteria (0-49%) of the (50-64%) of the (65-74%) of the (75-84%) of the (85-100%) of the
criterion mark) criterion mark criterion mark criterion mark criterion mark
Literature Review Lack of evidence of Has demonstrated basic Often demonstrates Generally Has demonstrated a
of Project/ academic writing. No comprehension of the a clear demonstrates a clear clear comprehension
Program Delivery clear understanding and subject. Limited comprehension of comprehension of the of the subject in the
Systems (PDS) exploration of literature additional evidence and the subject in the subject in the reading/ topic with
(25%) review topics related to insights that add reading/topic with reading/topic with additional evidence
Quality of literature project delivery systems significant value to the many additional many additional and insights. Has
review/ Evidence of and no demonstration of topic. Mostly, one evidence and evidence and insights. added significant
independent and evidence from singular viewpoint that insights often cited. Very good link value of practice vs.
extensive research current/past academic does not integrate the Good link between between practice vs. theory to the topic.
(particularly studies. viewpoints of the group practice vs. theory theory to the topic. Integrates multiple
literature reviews into a coherent to the topic. Generally integrates viewpoints and weave
and hard to get’ structure to address the Often integrates multiple viewpoints both class and group
knowledge) given topic. multiple viewpoints and weave both class views into a coherent
Demonstrate Some resources and weave both and group views into a structure. All
Critical Thinking selected are of the class and group coherent structure. resources selected are
through appropriate type and views into a Most resources of the appropriate
development of a directly address the coherent structure. selected are of the type and directly
given topic. appropriate type and
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: DATE & Version
Conceptual Theory
Model.
Initiation Plan for Lack of evidence of
PDS of Case comprehensive
Organisation (20%) knowledge in the topic.
Review of case Majority of information
project objectives, irrelevant to the selected
business case, project case. Incorrectly
special needs and presented the SWOT
requirements. analysis. No strategy
SWOT analysis for presented for selecting
nominated delivery the optimal and
systems. successful project
Strategies for delivery method.
selecting optimal
and successful
project delivery and
administration of
case project.
Final PDS Report of Lack of evidence of
Team Case adequate understanding
Organisation (25%) of the selected project
Evaluation of the delivery system. The
delivery system evaluation of the
against project delivery system against
objectives, business project objectives,
case, risks and business case, risks and
constraints. constraints lacks of main
aspects. Majority of
information irrelevant
and significant points left
out.
Referencing (5%) Includes identifying
Harvard formatting information with many
style and citation of errors in format. Paper is
references in the poorly organized and
body of the report. difficult to read – does
not flow logically from
one part to another.
Include few references
without following
Harvard style reference
guidelines or no
reference.
Structure, grammar Paper is poorly organized
and presentation and difficult to read –
(5%) 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.
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: DATE & Version
Generally, resources directly relate to the relate to the given
selected are of the given topic. topic.
appropriate type
and directly relate to
the given topic.
Evidence of basic Has given a factual Reasonable Extensive
knowledge in the topic. and/or conceptual knowledge of comprehension
Basic information about knowledge to the background, knowledge of topic.
the project background case project, objectives and Members showed
and lack of evidence of identifying project business case of the complete
comprehensive business case and selected project and understanding of the
knowledge in the requirements. very good level of selected project
project objectives, Good evidence of understanding of background,
business case and comprehensive SWOT analysis. Has objectives, business
SWOT analysis. knowledge in the understanding the case and SWOT
Minimally presented SWOT analysis and strategies for selecting analysis. Members
the strategies for strategies for the the optimal project also showed complete
selecting the optimal optimal selection of delivery methods and understanding about
project delivery project delivery and administration of the the strategies for
method. administration of case project. selecting the optimal
the case project. and successful project
delivery and
administration of the
case project.
Evidence of basic Has given a factual Reasonable Has excellent skills in
knowledge and skills of and/or conceptual knowledge and skills developing a
evaluating the delivery knowledge and skills of evaluating the technique to evaluate
system against project base in developing a delivery system the delivery systems
objectives, business technique to against project against project
case, risk and evaluate the delivery objectives, business objectives, business
constraints. system against case, risk and case, risk and
project objectives, constraints. constraints.
business case, risk
and constraints.
Includes identifying All references cited All references cited Harvard formatting
information with some correctly using correctly using citation style and citation of
errors in format. Paper citation style with style. Paper is references in the body
shows some some minor errors. generally well of the report.
organization. At times, Paper is generally organized and most of Paper is coherently
difficult to read and well organized and the argument is easy organized and the
does not flow logically most of the to follow. Writing is logic is easy to follow.
from one part to argument is easy to mostly clear. Writing is clear and
another. Few references follow. Writing is concise and
with errors. mostly clear but may persuasive.
lack conciseness
Paper shows some Paper is generally Paper is generally well Paper is coherently
organization. At times, well organized and organized and most of organized and the
difficult to read and most of the the argument is easy logic is easy to follow.
does not flow logically argument is easy to to follow. There are There are no spelling
from one part to follow. There are only a few minor or grammatical errors
another. some spelling and/or spelling or and terminology is
There are some spelling grammatical errors; grammatical errors, or clearly defined.
and/or grammatical technical terms are terms are not clearly Writing is clear and
errors; technical terms generally are poorly defined. Writing is concise and
are generally are poorly defined. Writing is mostly clear. persuasive.
defined.
Page | 4
 mostly clear but may
lack conciseness.
Presentation (20%) Lack of evidence of Evidence of basic Evidence of good Most members spoke Has excellent skills in
Quality of the minimal communication communication skills. oral communication to majority of oral communication.
presentation skills such as body Minimal body language skills. Some audience; very good Excellent body
material language and eye were used by the members spoke to body language, language, speaking
Logical flow of the contact. Minimal eye presenters. Minimal majority of suitable volume volume & regular eye
presentation/ contact and focusing on evidence of engaging audience; steady eye speaking level, regular contact. The audience
Presentation small part of audience. the audience. contact. The eye contact. The was engaged, and
Visuals/ Voice and The presenter did not audience was audience was engaged presenters held the
General Control of get the audience engaged by the by the presentation. audience’s attention.
the Audience. engaged. presentation.

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: DATE & Version