Project Risk and Procurement Dr Kevin Kane, Nov 2016 1 Project Risk and Procurement Assignment 1: This is an individual assignment worth 50% of the module mark. Word length 3000 words (do not exceed word limit). Do not include References in the word count. Submission: Electronically through RKC's OnlineCampus by February 19th, 23:59 Assignment Brief The concept of 'risk' is complex in theoretical terms. It is also complex and complicated, especially in terms of how we are to manage it in projects. How can we define what we mean by 'risk' and how can it be managed successfully in large and small projects? You are required to critically analyse the concept of risk; discuss how it can be measured and ranked and outline how a project risk management strategy may be constructed for a project. In completing this assignment you should discuss both theoretical and practical risk management strategies and how these can assist in minimising risk for your project. Relates to Learning Outcomes:  Locate, synthesise and critically evaluate recent/current information from a wide range of published literature in the area of Project Risk and Procurement Management  Apply knowledge of the theory and practice of Project Risk and Procurement Management to develop insights into and solve current problems.  Critically evaluate the use of complex models of Project Risk and Procurement Management; systematically and creatively making sound judgements based on the systematic analysis and creative synthesis of ideas.  Critically and effectively assess the value of theories, concepts and models to the practice of Project Risk and Procurement Management. Assessment Housekeeping: You are required to follow the University's regulations regarding plagiarism and citing sources and references used. Assignments may not be submitted late. Marking penalties for late submission will follow the University regulations for PMC and late submission. Please note that there are changes in the late submission process this year.Project Risk and Procurement Dr Kevin Kane, Nov 2016 2 Marking Scheme Criteria Marks Use of theory 30 Examples 30 Quality of argument 10 Reference to course ideas 10 Citation and References 10 Conclusions 10Project Risk and Procurement Dr Kevin Kane, Nov 2016 3 Criterion / Mark range 90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 0-39 Overall level (indicative – not for grading) Standard comparable to journal publication Standard comparable to conference paper publication Distinctive work for Masters level Merit work for Masters level Acceptable for Masters Below Masters pass standard Significantly below Masters pass standard Scope Outstanding clarity of focus, includes what is important, and excludes irrelevant issues. Excellent clarity of focus, boundaries set with no significant omissions or unnecessary issues. Clear focus. Very good setting of boundaries, includes most of what is relevant. Clear scope and focus, with some omissions or unnecessary issues. Scope evident and satisfactory but with some omissions and unnecessary issues. Poorly scoped, with significant omissions and unnecessary issues. Little or no scope or focus evident. Understanding of subject matter Outstanding with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas. Excellent with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Excellent expression of ideas. Very good with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas. Good with some awareness of relevance of issues. Ideas are expressed, with some limitation. Basic with limited awareness of relevance of issues. Limited expression of ideas. Poor with little awareness of relevance of issues Little or no understanding of subject matter is demonstrated. Literature Comprehensive literature review. Evaluation and synthesis of source material to produce an outstanding contribution. Excellent independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce an excellent contribution. Very good independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce a very good contribution. Good secondary research to extend taught materials. Evidence of evaluation of sources, with some deficiencies in choice and synthesis. Limited secondary research to extend taught materials. Limited evaluation of sources, deficiencies in choice and synthesis. Little or no extension of taught materials. Poor choice and synthesis of materials. Poor use of taught materials. No synthesis. Critical analysis based on evidence Standard of critical analysis – showing questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought Excellent standard of critical analysis – excellence in questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought A very good standard of critical analysis. Sources are questioned appropriately, and a very good understanding of bias, showing independence of thought Critical analysis with some questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought. Analysis evident but uncritical. Sources are not always questioned, with limited independence of thought. Little or no analysis. No valid analysis. Structure of argument, leading to conclusion Well structured, compelling and persuasive argument that leads to a valuable contribution to the field of study, paving the way for future work. Argument has excellent structure and persuasiveness, leading to very significant insights and relevant future work. Well-structured and persuasive argument Insightful conclusion draws together key issues and possible future work. Structured and fairly convincing argument leads to conclusion that summarises key issues. Argument has some structure and development towards conclusion with limitations in summary of issues. Argument is unstructured, no recognizable conclusion. No evidence of argument or conclusion.