|
ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF |
|
|
Subject Code and Title |
PROJ6003 - Project Execution and Control |
|
Assessment |
Project Status Reporting – Presentation |
|
Individual/Group |
Individual |
|
Length |
1000 words (+/-10%) |
|
Learning Outcomes |
The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include:
c) Critically evaluate and develop communication strategies to engage diverse stakeholders. |
|
Submission |
Due by 11:55 pm AEST/AEDT Sunday first half of Module 6.1 (Week 11) |
|
Weighting |
30% |
|
Total Marks |
100 marks |
Assessment Task
Critically reflect on the assigned Case Study, which is available at the Key Learning Resources link or will be sent to you as an announcement by your Learning Facilitator via the Announcement link in the main navigation menu of PROJ6003: Project Execution and Control. In this assessment, you will further analyse the Case Study that was introduced in Assessments 1 and 2. You will participate in a discussion with your classmates (a 5 to 10-minute presentation, approximately) demonstrating your understanding of Project Status reporting.
You will effectively identify project status reports and discuss their challenges and pitfalls, explaining the difference between the status reports provided for teams, sponsors and steering committee, considering their unique needs, as well as creating and justifying a sample of a status report that would be submitted to a chosen stakeholder of the project from the given Case Study.
This assessment allows you to practise professional communication with peers, either face-to-face or virtually.
Note: At the discretion of your Learning Facilitator, this assessment can be delivered in class as a presentation/discussion, using recordings for online classes and in-class presentation for face-to-face delivery. This might require initiating the task ahead of the submission deadline, which will be communicated by your Learning Facilitator.
Please refer to the Task Instructions for details on how to complete this task.
Context
In Project Management, communicating the status of the project and engaging with the stakeholders are critical aspects to maintain their support on the project. As a Project Manager (PM), you are managing the execution as well as constantly monitoring and controlling the project, but you are also ensuring that your stakeholders are aware of the project’s progress with the level of detail that they need. How would you communicate project progress and status to key stakeholders? How would you ensure that they have sufficient information to make key decisions and assist you in further progress of your project? This will depend on the stakeholder group, their power and interest, and their
communication preferences and requirements.
PMs will need to answer these questions and, many times, they are put in the spotlight to present their progress in meetings to top management to discuss and provide their solutions and ideas for problem-solving if changes are needed. This assessment allows you to practise doing just that! You will build your understanding of a range of project status reports as well as practice professional communication with peers, either face-to-face or virtually, and demonstrate how you can keep track of your project while keeping your stakeholders satisfied.
Instructions
To complete this assessment task, you must:
1. Read and analyse the given Case Study.
• Refer to your subject notes, lecture slides and any additional research you may conduct that may add value to your report.
2. Prepare a script/essay for the main post/presentation, to be submitted on the Discussion Forum, of 750 words (+/-10%) containing the following:
a) Identify, at least, three (3) effective status reports used in project management. b) Discuss challenges and pitfalls for each of the project status reports.
c) Explain the difference between the project status reports provided for teams, sponsors and steering committee, considering their unique needs.
d) Create and justify a sample of a project status report that would be submitted to a chosen stakeholder of the project from the given Case Study.
OPTION 1 – Discussion in class – Presentation and Responses
3. You will, then, deliver a presentation on project status reports based on your script and respond to at least one (1) other classmate in class.
● Face-to-Face students will participate in the discussions, during class, in the second week of Module 6. The main post of 750 words (+/-10%) will be written in the Discussion Forum prior to class, and you will then participate in the discussions in class with a minimum of one (1) response to other student.
- Students will have between 5–10 minutes to deliver a presentation based on their
script.
- Students can use a number of visual aids to support the presentation.
- Students will respond to at least one (1) other classmate by participating in the
discussions in class.
● Students will be marked for the presentation and response to other classmates in class and the scripts they have submitted on the forum.
● While the script can serve as a guide for your presentation, please ensure to use a wide range of presentation techniques to engage, persuade and sustain your audience’s interest.
OPTION 2 – Recording/Writing on Blackboard – Presentation and Responses
If submitting on the Discussion Forum – recorded/written post (F2F/Virtual/Online):
3. You will, then, deliver a presentation on project status reports based on your script and respond to at least one (1) other classmate on the Discussion Forum directly, as instructed by your Learning Facilitator.
• Note: To meet the deadline of the assessment, the recording of your presentation needs to be posted by Friday of Week 6.1 with the response posted by Sunday of Week 6.1.
- Students will have between 5–10 minutes to deliver a presentation based on their script.
- Students can use a number of visual aids to support the presentation.
- Students will respond to at least one (1) other classmate either in writing (250 words) or as a recording (2–3 minutes).
• Students will be marked for the recording and response to other classmates on the forum and the scripts they have submitted on the forum.
• While the script can serve as a guide for your presentation, please ensure to use a wide range of presentation techniques to engage, persuade and sustain your audience’s interest.
4. The written portion of your assessment should consist of:
• A brief Introduction paragraph that will also serve as your statement of purpose for the discussion—this means that you will tell the reader what you are going to cover in the discussion.
• Body paragraphs in which you will cover all four (4) requirements listed above (a to d). This section will contain the information that is required to demonstrate your
understanding of the case study and key Project Management concepts under
discussion by applying them into your project.
i. Any visual aids – tables/diagrams/illustrations – can be used to support the
discussion.
b. A brief Conclusion paragraph summarising any findings or recommendations from the discussion.
i. There should not be any new information in the conclusion.
c. A list of References providing every source cited within your report.
i. Only cited sources are listed in the References.
ii. They should be listed alphabetically.
iii. They need to be valid and linked with the topic/content provided within the
report.
Referencing
It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing in the Academic Skills webpage.
Submission Instructions
In submitting the written portion of your Assessment 3, you will use the Assessments link in the main navigation menu in PROJ6003 – Project Execution and Control. The link will take you to the Discussion Forum where you will select the existing thread created by your Learning Facilitator and reply to the first post by your Learning Facilitator and write directly on the forum (do not attach files). The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
If submitting recordings/pictures:
If your submission includes items (illustrations, recordings), you may attach them by clicking to add content and selecting to insert local files, click ‘Browse Your Computer’ to attach your extra files.
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
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
(Exceptional)
85-100% |
|
Identify different status reports
and critically
analyse their
challenges and pitfalls
List the status
report types and critically analyse status report
challenges.
Percentage for
this criterion =
20% |
Fails to contribute to the
identification of different status reports and their challenges and pitfalls by:
• Identifying other project
reports that are not status
reports.
• Critical analysis of their
challenges and pitfalls are
missing.
• Key components are missing from the discussion. |
Demonstrates limited awareness of project
status reporting.
• A generic discussion of status reports
focused on aspects
and not
format/use/content –
e.g., only based on
frequency.
• Challenges and
pitfalls are addressed
for status reports in
general and not
specific to the ones
identified. |
Shows some
understanding of project status reporting.
• Provides a discussion of different status
reports.
• Challenges and pitfalls are addressed for
each specific status
reports with minor
errors present in the
analysis. |
• Presents a coherent and detailed analysis of
project status reports.
• Well demonstrated capacity to explain
status reports and their challenges and pitfalls,
including making
connections with the
Case Study. |
• Critically analyses and evaluates project status reports with detailed
challenges and pitfalls
that are well linked with the Case Study and its
key stakeholders.
• Contribution is
comprehensive and
advances the class
discussion. |
|
Assessment
Attributes |
Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum
standard)
0-49% |
Pass
(Functional)
50-64% |
Credit
(Proficient)
65-74% |
Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% |
High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100% |
|
Explain the
difference
between key
stakeholders in regard to their
information
needs
Stakeholders
analysis and
connection
between
stakeholders and the status report.
Percentage for
this criterion =
20% |
Fails to demonstrate knowledge in stakeholders and communication management by:
• Not addressing stakeholders in the discussion.
• Lack of explanation of the differences of each
stakeholder. |
• Limited awareness of stakeholders and
communication
management
principles.
• Resembles a recall or summary of key
ideas.
• No link between the analysis of
stakeholders and the
status report suited
for them. |
• Demonstrates
awareness of the
communication needs and preference of key
stakeholders.
• Link between the
analysis of
stakeholders and the
status report suited
for them is ill
developed. |
• Demonstrates advanced knowledge of the
communication needs
and preference of key
stakeholders.
• Link between the
analysis of stakeholders and the status report
suited for them is well
developed. |
• Demonstrates high level of communication and
stakeholder analysis by
identifying the
uniqueness of each key
stakeholder with added insights into how to
engage them.
• Link between the
analysis of stakeholders and the status report
suited for them is very
well developed,
including examples to
support discussion. |
|
Assessment
Attributes |
Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum
standard)
0-49% |
Pass
(Functional)
50-64% |
Credit
(Proficient)
65-74% |
Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% |
High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100% |
|
Develop and
justify a sample project status
report for the
given Case Study
Preparation,
justification and application of
status report.
Percentage for
this criterion =
20% |
• Limited
application/recommendations based upon analysis.
• No status report sample is provided. |
• Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.
• Provides a sample status report that is
generic and not
aligned with the Case
Study or its
stakeholders.
• Little to no
justification provided
for the sample. |
• Demonstrates a
capacity to explain
and apply relevant
concepts into the
development of the
status report.
• Justification of the report is ill-developed
or unclear in regards
to the stakeholder of
the Case Study. |
• Well demonstrated capacity to explain and
apply relevant concepts into the development of the status report.
• Justification of the
report is well-developed and aligned with the
stakeholder from the
Case Study. |
• Highly sophisticated and creative application of
concepts into the
development of the
status reports, including the use of trending
software in the field.
• Justification of the
report is very well
developed and presents additional insights that
contribute to further
learning. |
|
Effective
Communication
Adheres to
structure of
report and word count
requirements.
Appropriate use of terminology, paragraphs,
sentence |
• Specialised language and terminology from Project
Management is rarely or
inaccurately employed.
• Meaning is repeatedly
obscured by errors in the
communication of ideas,
including errors in structure, sequence, spelling, grammar, punctuation and/or the
acknowledgment of sources. |
• Generally, employs specialised language
and terminology from Project Management
with accuracy.
• Meaning is
sometimes difficult to follow.
• Information,
arguments and
evidence are |
• Accurately employs specialised language
and terminology from
Project Management.
• Meaning is easy to follow.
• Information,
arguments and
evidence are
structured and
sequenced in a way |
• Accurately employs a wide range of
specialised language
and terminology from
Project Management.
• Engages audience
interest.
• Information, arguments and evidence are
structured and |
• Discerningly selects and precisely employs a wide range of specialised
language and
terminology from
Project Management.
• Engages and sustains audience’s interest.
• Information, arguments and evidence are |
|
Assessment
Attributes |
Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum
standard)
0-49% |
Pass
(Functional)
50-64% |
Credit
(Proficient)
65-74% |
Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% |
High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100% |
|
construction,
spelling, and
grammar.
Presents using a range of
techniques to
engage and
sustain
audience’s
interest.
Percentage for
this criterion =
20% |
• Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear
structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting
evidence.
• Limited use of engaging presentation techniques.
(e.g., posture, eye contact,
gestures, volume, pitch and
pace of voice). |
structured and
sequenced in a way
that is not always
clear and logical.
• Some errors are
evident in spelling,
grammar and/or
punctuation.
• Presentation is
sometimes difficult to follow.
• Information,
arguments and
evidence are
presented in a way
that is not always
clear and logical.
• Sometimes uses
engaging
presentation
techniques (e.g.,
posture, eye contact,
gestures, volume,
pitch and pace of
voice). |
that is clear and
logical.
• Occasional minor
errors present in
spelling, grammar
and/or punctuation.
• Presentation is easy to follow.
• Information,
arguments and
evidence are well
presented, mostly
clear flow of ideas and arguments.
• Uses engaging
presentation
techniques (e.g.,
posture, eye contact,
gestures, volume,
pitch and pace of
voice). |
sequenced in a way that is clear and persuasive.
• Spelling, grammar and punctuation are free
from errors.
• Engages audience
interest.
• Information, arguments and evidence are very
well presented; the
presentation is logical,
clear and well
supported by evidence.
• Confidently and
consistently uses a
range of engaging
presentation techniques (e.g., posture, eye
contact, expression,
gestures, volume, pitch and pace of voice,
stance, movement). |
insightful, persuasive
and expertly presented.
• Spelling, grammar and punctuation are free
from errors.
• Engages and sustains audience interest.
• Expertly presented; the presentation is logical,
persuasive, and well
supported by evidence,
demonstrating a clear
flow of ideas and
arguments.
• Dynamic, integrated and professional use of a
wide range of engaging
presentation techniques (e.g., posture, eye
contact, expression,
gestures, volume, pitch
and pace of voice,
stance, movement). |
|
Assessment
Attributes |
Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum
standard)
0-49% |
Pass
(Functional)
50-64% |
Credit
(Proficient)
65-74% |
Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% |
High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100% |
|
Constructive
feedback to
peers
Providing
feedback
between 200-250 words and
supporting
evidence.
Percentage for
this criterion =
10% |
• Fails to offer any feedback.
• No support or encouragement to peers.
• No awareness or sensitivity to diversity amongst peers. |
• Offers feedback but rarely constructive or
useful.
• Feedback is not
always clear or
specific to guide
peers.
• Little support or
encouragement to
peers.
• Demonstrates little awareness of and/or
sensitivity to diversity amongst peers. |
• Offers feedback that is sometimes
constructive or useful.
• Feedback is provided with examples to
guide peers.
• Some support and encouragement to
peers.
• Demonstrates some level of awareness of
and sensitivity to
diversity amongst
peers. |
• Offers constructive feedback regularly.
• Formulates the merits of alternative ideas or
proposals and
communicates them to
peers.
• Offers support and
encouragement to
peers.
• Demonstrates a high level of awareness of
and sensitivity to
diversity amongst
peers. |
• Always offers detailed constructive feedback
that is specific and
appropriate.
• Expertly articulates the merits of alternative
ideas or proposals and
communicates them
effectively to peers.
• Provides expert
assistance, support, and encouragement to
peers.
• Consistently
demonstrates a high
level of awareness of
and sensitivity to
diversity amongst peers. |
|
Assessment
Attributes |
Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum
standard)
0-49% |
Pass
(Functional)
50-64% |
Credit
(Proficient)
65-74% |
Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% |
High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100% |
|
Correct citation of key resources and evidence
Appropriate use of credible
resources and
correct citation of key resources
using APA.
Percentage for
this criterion =
10% |
• Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to
support and develop ideas.
• Referencing is omitted or does not resemble APA.
• Different formats are
provided, and references do not align with content. |
• Demonstrates use of credible and relevant
resources to support
and develop ideas,
but these are not
always explicit or well developed.
• Referencing
resembles APA, with
frequent or repeated
errors.
• Different formats are provided, and
references do not fully align with content. |
• Demonstrates use of credible resources to
support and develop
ideas.
• Referencing resembles APA, with occasional
errors.
• References align with content. |
• Demonstrates use of good quality, credible
and relevant resources
to support and develop
arguments and
statements.
• Shows evidence of wide scope within the
organisation for
sourcing evidence.
• APA referencing is free from errors.
• References align with content. |
• Demonstrates use of high-quality, credible
and relevant resources
to support and develop
arguments and position statements.
• Shows evidence of wide scope within and outside the organisation for
sourcing evidence.
• APA referencing is free from errors.
• References align with content. |
DISCUSSION FORUM ESSAY
Introduction
Primary issue was observed related to lack of energy usage due to single battery use within the defence system. In order to mitigate this issue, the project integrated a second battery as a power source to maintain simultaneous usage of two batteries. The concerned project delivers enhanced defence system management that consists of sensors, launchers and command & control centre. Effective defence system management can be observed in the concerned project that initiated proper functionalities related project planning, initiation, cost management and execution in multiple phases of the project.
Effective Status Reports in resolving battery issues associated with air defence system
There are few areas where the project is facing minor issues. They include aspects such as delays in furnished materials and reaching milestones on time. The evaluation timeline may be affected as well (Anao.gov.au, 2022). The project has gone above $4 million since 2021. The forecasted valuations are being followed, so that no contingency funds are necessary. There is a need to understand the major procurement areas as well here. Raytheon Australia, in 2019 June, has helped in achieving the contract signature. For the tactical radars, CEA Technologies have been approached and in the month of November the same year, it was approved.
In terms of contingency funds, the project did not apply for additional funds from the owner as funds were already considered as per the contingency plan. As a result, financial estimation and planning can be considered efficient for the project. The defence project mainly experienced small variation of the expenditure due to additional expenditure. SRGBAD project experienced proper cost management due to effective maintenance of budget, investment and Government funds. The project manager maintained contractual obligations, potential cost cutting sectors and financial investment due to proper allocation of resources and planning.
Difference between the Project Status Reports associated with various issues and stakeholders
In understanding the progress of design reviews, it is clear that there are 3 key areas. First is a system requirement second are preliminary designs and the final is detailed designs. These aspects will start in October 2019 and end in July 2021. For testing and evaluation, system integration and acceptance are of critical importance. Efficient fund management helps cost performance and proper investment in projects. Due to such contexts, the concerned project experienced small variation in project cost and effective fund management (Faten Albtoush et al. 2020). Although there is a chance that the milestones will be delayed, it is unclear how much.
Effective partnership, incorporation, and testing operations were hindered in 2020 and into 2021 by the COVID-19 movement limitations. Additionally, there have been difficulties in the delivery of government-furnished commodities, which are anticipated to have an even larger effect on estimated dates (Defence.gov.au, 2022). The concerned project aims to achieve advanced features and performance through proper system integration and performance management.
Project Status Report
The collaborations will be affected among the key members. This will take place due to the impacts of Covid-19. Effective integration and testing of the events are to face critical issues. Subsequently, the technical issues will increase as well. The project team members are bound to squeeze the schedule, which may lead to an increased risk in the delays of defect testing. IMR include components such as system transfer, Initial Spares, Fire Unit with Tactical Radar and approved system regarding safety. IOC includes deployable units such as fire units and deployable for support (Elghaish et al. 2020). Proper integration of such systems and unit control can improve operational performance of the defence system. It has been possible to perform several crucial integration and test operations remotely over networks, and this will continue. Although some integration operations have required foreign travel, it is not always feasible or efficient. The timeline is being rearranged in several ways, notably shorter review periods for contractual outputs. It is also being discussed if air freight should replace marine freight.
Future ICT cooperation tools will be made available to dependable strategic partners. There is a need to conduct reviews as well. This is done to look at technical viability or competence definition. When the contract is signed, the project will have reached a far more advanced stage if these efforts are expanded to include formal requirements formulation and system description. Operations for primary prevention or mitigation are frequently finished between the first and second passes.
Budget Variance
Variance Report as at 26/11/2022
|
Current Budget Variance |
|||||||||
|
Projected Budget Variance at Completion |
|||||||||
|
Project |
Report as of Date |
Actual Expenditures |
Planned Expenditures |
Variance Amount |
Date Baseline Occurred |
Baseline Budget |
Estimate At Complete |
Variance Amount |
Variance Percentage |
|
Discussion forum on battery issues of air defense system |
26/11/2022
|
200 AUD |
150 AUD |
50 AUD |
33.33% |
1400 AUD |
1429 AUD |
29 AUD |
2.07% |
Comments
This is variance is due to adverse affect ofcovid-19 pandemic
Russia-Ukraine war also has a significant contribution in this variance
Budget Variance Key
Within 1/3 rd of Re-baseline Cost Estimate
Under 5% of Re-baseline Cost Estimate
Conclusion
The project achieved optimal cost performance and small variance in actual budget compared to pre planned budget. SRGBAD project acquired contract with Raytheon Australia. As a major issue, the project experienced delay to complete test activities and integration. Delays in the project created major issues for the concerned project. Major reasons for delays are COVID restrictions, multiple testing and performance feedback acquisition. Overall performance of the project can be considered optimal considering cost performance and deliverables acquired after completion of the project.
References
Anao.gov.au (2022). Short Range Ground Based Air Defence. https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor-General_Report_2021-2022_13_PDSS_Short_Range_Ground_Based_Air_Defence.pdf
Defence.gov.au (2022). Facilities to Support LAND 19 Phase 7B Short Range Ground Based Air Defence. https://defence.gov.au/id/land19ph7b/Default.asp
Elghaish, F., Hosseini, M. R., Talebi, S., Abrishami, S., Martek, I., & Kagioglou, M. (2020). Factors driving success of cost management practices in integrated project delivery (IPD). Sustainability, 12(22), 9539. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229539
Faten Albtoush, A. M., Doh, S. I., Abdul Rahman, A. R. B., & Albtoush, J. F. A. A. (2020). Factors effecting the cost management in construction projects. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 11(1). https://www.doi.org/10.34218/IJCIET.11.1.2020.011