Introduction to the Course page 2 Learning Objectives page 3 Staff details page 4 Timetable Information page 4 Seminars page 5 Map of Seminars page 6 List of Readings page 7 Assessments –Summary page 11 Assessment 1 – Online Quiz page 12 Assessment 2 – Overall Critical Analysis page 12 Assessment 3 – Final Exam page 17 Other Assessment Information page 20 A Roadmap to Success page 20 KEY DATES ASSESMENT TASK DUE DATE WEIGHT A1. Development of Project for Learning (PfL) week 10 Sunday 14 May 23:59 40 % A2. Overall critical analysis of PfL Week 13 Sunday 04 June 23:30 hrs. 60 % Twenty first century projects are complex because goals are unclear; stakeholders are dispersed and have multiple views; requirements are volatile and poorly understood; and assumptions are likely to change over the duration of the project. Therefore, solutions need to be novel, multidisciplinary and adaptive to ever changing conditions. Taking a multidisciplinary approach, this course provides a combination of theoretical insights and practical conceptual tools to diagnose project complexity, and to make decision about organizing complex projects. It is expected that at the end of the course students will be able to understand the different dimensions of complex projects; select the most adequate conceptual tools to deal with the type of complexity of projects; adapt tools to specific project situation; and be aware of the implications of the decisions made for internal stakeholders, customers, suppliers and project goals. This course presents a set of advanced organisational and management tools specifically developed to cope with both organisational and people-related issues embedded in complex projects. Based on a combination of complexity, learning & knowledge management as well as power and politics theories, this course helps to diagnose project complexity and to make informed decisions about the adequate tools to be applied based on the project’s complexity profile. Furthermore, it supports the development of ‘soft’ project management skills required to overcome issues linked to the actual implementation of the various stages of the project such as, people resistance, multiple stakeholders with competing views, unsupportive sponsors and diverse teams. The course targets those with some responsibility for managing or sponsoring a project as well as team project members. It is specially designed for learners with work experience who feel the need for acquiring additional project management skills that go beyond traditional control and planning-based methods such as the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Its’ aim is to present, share and promote the in-depth understanding of advanced project management concepts as well as the development of skills for understanding the key dimensions of complex projects and real world practices to make the project implementation happen. This means that on completion of the course, students should be able to critically analyse a project within a specific context and develop alternative solutions blending technical, resource, organisational and people related issues. The central questions addressed by the course therefore are: ⦁ How do we recognise complex projects? ⦁ Which tools, processes and techniques are available for managing complex projects? ⦁ Why do complex projects fail/succeed? ⦁ What are the skills and competencies required to manage complex projects? ⦁ How can the changes resulting from new contextual conditions be effectively managed? ⦁ How do we manage unexpected events? ⦁ How do we manage politically-driven behaviour in complex projects? ⦁ How to promote learning and knowledge transfer between projects? ⦁ What is the advice of contemporary academic-based research about practice of managing complex projects? To be successful, a project manager requires a diverse range of management, technical skills and knowledge. While the course focuses on Project Management, it allows students to integrate and contribute knowledge from many of their discipline specific management areas (both practical and theoretical). After successfully completing this course you should be able to: 1. Explain and identify the logic behind diverse project management models; 2. Understand the key dimensions underlying complex projects; 3. Comprehend the main features of uncertain environments and its influence on the project; 4. Identify, discuss and evaluate the major people-related issues that project managers need to address; 5. Compare various project management approaches; 6. Know how to apply advanced project management tools to deal with complex projects; 7. Discuss the role of project manager as change agent; 8. Discern the political dimension of complex projects as well as understand analytical models to cope with political behaviour; 9. Demonstrate an understanding of the relevant academic literature. 10. Translate theoretical concepts to the practice of managing complex projects. Dr. Gustavo Guzman Primary course convenor Office: G42_5.25 Gold Coast campus PH: 555 28 919 [email protected] ⦁ Please email for an appointment at my office beforehand. ⦁ I will be available to talk to students face-to-face immediately after lectures at South Bank. ⦁ I will also be available for skype meetings, but make an appointment via email beforehand. Face-to-face seminars will be delivered on Fridays and Saturdays (9:00 hrs.- 15:30 hrs.) at South Bank in the following dates and venues: Week 7: Friday 21 April and Saturday 22 April Week 8: Friday 28 April and Saturday 29 April Week 11: Friday 19 May and Saturday 20 May Venue: S07_1.23 South Bank Week & date Topic Prescribed Readings For recommended readings see the full List of Readings below. Week 0: Introduction to Complex Projects ⦁ Hayes & Bennett (2011) Week 7 Friday 21 April Module 1 Introduction to the Course; The 4S Model: The Dynamics of Complex Projects; Models for Managing Complex Projects ⦁ Cicmil and Hodgson (2006); ⦁ Atkinson et al. (2006); Week 7 Sat. 22 April Module 2 Screening - Part A ⦁ Buchanan (1991) ⦁ Snowden & Boone (1997) Week 8 Friday 28 April Module 3 Screening – Part B ⦁ Shenhar & Dvir (2007) Chapter 4, 5, 6 & 7. Week 8 Sat. 29 April Module 4 Shifting - The Implementation of Complex Projects ; Managing the Unexpected; ⦁ Kotter (1995); ⦁ Weick & Sutclife (2007); Week 11 Friday 19 May Module 5 Shaping - Power Assisted project Management. ⦁ Buchanan & Badham (2008) Chapters 1 & 2. Week 11 Friday 20 May Module 6 Sharing - Knowledge Management in Complex Projects ⦁ Principe & Tell (2001); ⦁ Rice et al. (2008); Managing Complex Projects in Uncertain Environments WEEK 0 (Prescribed Reading): Hayes, S. and Bennett, D. (2011) Managing projects with high complexity, In T. Cooke-Davies (Ed.) Aspects of complexity: Managing projects in a complex world, Atlanta: Project Management Institute. MODULE 1: The Dynamics of Complex Projects Prescribed Readings: Cicmil, S.and Hodgson, D. (2006) Making Projects Critical: an Introduction, In D. Hodgson and S. Cicmil (Eds.) Making Projects Critical, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Chapter 1, pp. 1-11. Atkinson, R., Crawford, L. and Ward, S. (2006) Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management, International Journal of Project Management, 24: 687-698. Case Analysis: The Bridge-building Recommended Readings: Geraldi, J., Maylor, H. and Williams, T. (2011) Now, let’s make it really complex (complicated) – A systematic review of the complexities of projects, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(9): 966-990 (read pages 966-968 and 976-986). Crawford L. & Pollack J. (2004) Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis, International Journal of Project Management, 22: 645-653. Cooke-Davies, T., Cicmil, S., Crawford, L and Richardson, K. (2007) We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto: Mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project management, Project Management Journal, 38(2): 50-61. MODULE 2: Screening – Part A Prescribed Readings: Snowden, D. and Boone, M. (2007) A leader’s framework for decision making, Harvard Business Review, November. Buchanan D. (1991) Vulnerability and agenda: Context and process in project management, British Journal of Management, 2:121-132. Recommended Readings: Boddy, D. and Paton, R. (2004) Responding to competing narratives: lessons for project managers, International Journal of Project Management, 22: 225-233. Funston, F. & Wagner, S. (2010) Surviving and Thriving in Uncertainty, Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons (Chapters 3-13). Schlesinger, L., Kiefer, C. & Brown, P. (2012) New project? Don’t analyze-Act, Harvard Business Review, 90(3), March. MODULE 3: Screening – Part B Prescribed Readings: Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (2007) Reinventing Project Management—The Diamond approach to successful growth and innovation, Boston: MA., Harvard Business School Press (Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7). [South Bank Library Call HD69.875S52 2007. eBook is also available on-line from the Library]. Case analysis: The perfect Thing (The iPod case) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/ipod.html) Recommended Readings: Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (2005) The Business of Projects, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Ch 4: Systems integration and competitive advantage). [eBook is available on-line from the Library]. Saynisch, M. (2010) Mastering Complexity and Changes in Projects, Economy and Society via Project Management Second Order (PM-2), Project Management Journal, 41(5): 4-20. Prencipe, A., Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (2005) The Business of Systems Integration, Oxford University Press (Chapter 16: Integrated solutions: The changing business of system integration). Sauser, B., Reily, R. & Shenkar, AS. (2009) Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights – A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss, International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), pp. 665-679. Carlsen, A., Clegg, S. & Gjersvik, R. (2012) Idea Work – Lessons of the extraordinary in everyday creativity, Cappelen Damm, Norway (Chapters 1 & 2). MODULE 4: Shifting: The implementation of Complex Projects Prescribed Readings: Kotter J. (1995) Leading change: Why transformations efforts fail? Harvard Business Review, 73(2), March-April: 11-20 Weick, K. and Sutcliffe (2015) Managing the Unexpected, John Wiley & Sons, Third Edition, (Chapters 1 and 2). [eBook is available on-line from the Library]. Recommended Readings: Fuda, P. and Badham, R. (2011) Fire, Snowball, Mask, Movie: How leaders spark and sustain change, Harvard Business Review, November, 89(11): 145-148 Roberto, M. Bohmer, R. and Edmondson, A. (2006) Facing Ambiguous Threats, Harvard Business Review, November. Goodman P. & Rousseau D. (2004) Organizational change that produces results: The Linkage approach, Academy of Management Executive, 18(3): 7-19 Strebel P. (1996) Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, May-June. Appelbaum, S., Habashy, S., Malo, J-L. & Shafiq, H. (2012) Back to the future: revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model, Journal of Management Development, 31(8), pp. 764-782. De Meyer, A., Loch, C. and Pich, M. (2002) Managing Project Uncertainty: From variation to chaos, MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2): 60-67. Loch, C., DeMeyer, C. and Pich, M. (2006) Managing the Unknown, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Matta, N. & Ashkenas, R. (2005) Why good projects fail anyway, Harvard Business Review, September. Weick, K. and Sutcliffe (2015) Managing the Unexpected, John Wiley & Sons, Third Edition, (Chapters 3-7). Stoelsnes, R. (2007) Managing unknowns in projects, Risk Management, vol. 9, p. 271-280. Sirkin, H., Keenan, P. & Jackson, A. (2005) The hard side of change management, Harvard Business Review, October. MODULE 5: Shaping: Power-assisted Project Management Prescribed Readings: Buchanan D. and Badham R. (2008) Power, Politics and Organizational Change, Sage, London, Second Edition. (Chapters 1 and 2) [South Bank Library Call HF5386.5.B83 1999]. Recommended Readings: Pinto J. (2000) Understanding the role of politics in successful project management, International Journal of Project management, 18: 85-91. Marshal, N. (2006) Understanding power in project settings, In D. Hodgson and S. Cicmil (Eds.) Making Projects Critical, Basingstoke: Palgrave. pp. 207-231. Lovell, R. J. (1993) Power and the project manager, International Journal of Project Management, (11) 2: 73-78 Swan J & Scarbrough H. (2005) The politics of networked innovation, Human Relations, 58(7): 913-943. Huczynski A. (1996) Influencing within organizations, Pearson education, London. Chapter 8, 9, 11. MODULE 6: Sharing: Knowledge Management in Complex Projects Prescribed Readings: Hansen et al. (1999) What’s is your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, March-April. Prencipe A & Tell F (2001) Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms, Research Policy 30: 1373-1394. Recommended Readings: Rice, M., O’Connor, G.C. and Pierantozi, R. (2008) Implementing a learning plan to counter project uncertainty, MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2): 54-62. Fernie, S., Gren, S., Weller, S. And Newcombe, R. (2003) Knowledge Sharing: context, confusion and controversy, International Journal of Project Management, 21: 177-187. Wenger E. & Snyder W. (2000) Communities of practice: The organizational frontier, Harvard Business Review, January. Owen, J., Burstein, F. and Mitchell, S. (2004) Knowledge Reuse and Transfer in a Project Management Environment, Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 6(4): 21-35. Davies, A. and Hobday, M. (2005) The Business of Projects, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Ch 7: Learning in the project business). Cicmil, S. (2005) Reflection, participation and learning in project environments: a multiple perspective agenda, In Love, P., Fong, P. and Irani, Z. (Eds.) Management of Knowledge in Project Environments, Oxford: Elsevier Buterworth-Heinemann (p. 155-179). Sengupta, K., Abdel-Hamid, T.K. and Van Wassenhove, L. (2008) The Experience Trap, Harvard Business Review, February, p. 94-101. Additional references Flyvbjerg, B., Garbuio, M. and Lovallo, D. (2009) Delusion and Deception in Large Infrastructure Projects: Two models for explaining and preventing executive disaster, California Management Review, 51(2): 170-192. Davies, A., Gann, D. and Douglas, T. (2009) Innovation in Megaprojects: Systems integration at London Heathrow terminal 5, California Management Review, 51(2): 101-125. Miller, R. and Lessard, D. (2000) The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects, Massachusetts, The MIT Press (Introduction and Chapter 1). Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. and Rothengatter, W. (2003) Megaprojects and Risk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Chapters 1 and 12). Apgar, D. (2006) Risk Intelligence – Learning to manage what we don’t know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts. ASSESMENT TASK DUE DATE WEIGHT A1. Development of Project for Learning (PfL) -Written report 2000 words Week 10 Sunday 14 May 23:59 hrs. Electronic submission via SafeAssign only 40 % A2. Overall Critical Analysis of PfL - Written report 2500 words Week 13 Sunday 04 June 23:59 hrs. Electronic submission via SafeAssign only 60 % Assessment tasks are closely related. Assessment 1 (A1) involves the conceptual/theoretical examination of your PfL. Assessment 2 (A2) encompasses the application of tools and methods presented in this course to critically analyse your PfL. NOTE: Supplementary assessment is NOT available in this course. Task description ⦁ Written 2000-word report (excluding references, appendix & cover page) ⦁ Individual assignment ⦁ 7 academic references (minimum) ⦁ Due date: Sunday 14 May 23:59 hrs. ⦁ Weight: 40 % ⦁ Submission: Electronic submission via SafeAssign only Project for Learning This assignment (A1) requires the development of your Project for Learning (PfL) and, the examination of concepts/theories that will be used to analyse your PfL in A2. It has five steps. Step 1: Student needs to define one ‘case’ to develop your PfL. There are two alternatives. Students can either select one case from cases (a)-(d) (see below), or use your own experience and write a ‘case’ related to complex projects (Alternative 2). I advise students with little or no work experience, to select cases (a) or (b). Note, because cases (a) and (b) are simpler than cases (c) and (d), students who select cases (a) or (b) can achieve a maximum mark of 70 % in A1 and A2. Alternative 1: ⦁ The Concorde case, ⦁ The computerization of PAYE case, ⦁ The Deepwater case Part A (Chapters 1 & 3), ⦁ The Deepwater case Part B (Chapters 1 & 4), Alternative 2: You must use your own work experience to develop a brief account of a project with which you are familiar. You must select a particular experience in which you were either directly or indirectly involved. This case has to be suitable for analysis using some of the theories/concepts presented in this course. What is important is that the student has at least some ‘insider’ information to be able to analyze PfL. Names of people and companies must remain anonymous. A copy of cases (a) – (d) is available in the Assessment tab in Learning@Griffith. Step 2: You need to summarize your ‘case’. Students who selected cases (a) and (b), need to present a 2-page summary. Students that selected cases (c) and (d) as well as are using their own work experience (Alternative 2) to develop their ‘case’, must present a 4-page summary. Please attach this summary as an appendix of A1. I suggest focusing on the following aspects: ⦁ Describe the main characteristics of the project in terms of people, technology, resources and institutions involved. ⦁ What people expected from the project in terms of cost, time and performance? ⦁ What were the real outcomes? ⦁ Was there too much difference between the expected and real outcomes? ⦁ Who initiated the project, and why? ⦁ Who were the main stakeholders of the project? Step 3: (i) Select one or two (max.) of the 3 models presented in Theme 1 (8-features model, Cynefin or Diamond model); (ii) explain/justify, using academic references and your PfL, why/how the selected model(s) will help you to analyse your PfL. Note, you do not need to apply the selected model in A1. Theme 1. Models for managing complex projects: · Project complexity- features and challenges · The 8-features model · The Cynefin model · The Diamond model Theme 2. Implementation of Complex projects · Change management processes · Models of change · Managing the unexpected Theme 3. Power assisted project management · Organisational politics & project management · Dimensions of power · Analytical tools to cope with political behaviour · Managing & influencing stakeholders Theme 4. Knowledge Management in complex projects · KM strategies · Mechanisms to transfer knowledge in complex projects · Learning in complex projects Step 4: You need to select one theory/concepts from themes 2-4 (see above) that you think will help you to explain your PfL (Theme 1 will be used in A2). Then, you need to develop a brief review of the literature. Here you need to (i) explain and justify why the selected theories might help to understand your PfL; (ii) outline the main arguments, challenges, tensions as well as the strengths and weaknesses of theories/concepts selected. Remember, this section is not a simple summary of some literatures. You need to use academic references to develop this step. Specifications and Format ⦁ This is a 2000-word report (excluding references, appendix & cover page). ⦁ Use Times New Roman, font 12, single space. ⦁ References: use either Harvard or APA style. ⦁ Pages must be numbered (top right). ⦁ Cover page: Indicate only Full name; Student ID number; title of PfL; total number of words (excluding references, appendix & cover page). Do not use Griffith University official cover page. ⦁ Executive Summary is not necessary. Submission procedures ⦁ A1 must be submitted electronically via SafeAssign only. SafeAssign is Griffith’s University software matching text. ⦁ Electronic files must be saved in ‘doc’ ‘docx’ ‘rtf’ or ‘pdf’ formats only. ⦁ Name your file in the following format: A1 [surname] [snumber]. Example: A1 Guzman s999999. ⦁ Electronic link for SafeAssign submission is available in the “Assessment” tab of Learning@Griffith. Please note that in the ‘Assessment’ tab you will find two links: (a) SafeAssign ‘A1 Draft Submission ’. I will not mark this draft Submission; (b) SafeAssign ‘A1 Final Submission’. You will be able to submit your Final submission once only. I will mark this Final version only. Task description ⦁ Written 2500-word report (excluding references, appendix & cover page) ⦁ Individual assignment ⦁ 7 academic references (minimum) ⦁ Due date: Sunday 04 June 23:59 hrs. ⦁ Weight: 60 % ⦁ Submission: Electronic submission via SafeAssign only This assignment requires the application of conceptual tools and theories selected and explained in A1 to critically analyze your PfL. That is, students need to develop an integrated understanding of the multiple dimensions of the project, in order to explain the ‘hows/whys’ of the project’s outcomes. Informed personal reflection (based on the application of conceptual tools and theory) on project management processes, surrounded by specific situations and leading to specific outcomes, constitutes the core of this assignment. A minimum of 7 academic references is expected to be used to substantiate your arguments. Thus, this assignment was designed to get you thinking critically about how concepts/theories for managing complex project are applied in diverse context-situations. It was also designed to develop your generic skills in writing and presenting logical and persuasive arguments. To develop this major report, you have to go through four major components: In the first component, Introduction, you must briefly describe your PfL, explaining the main issues of you PfL; and describe what you will present in the following sections. Please enclose a copy of your PfL in the Appendix. The second component is an analysis of the type of project complexity associated to your PfL. Based on your selected models from Theme 1 (Step 3 in A1), you need to apply and explain how the model(s) you have selected helps to explain how the type of complexity associated to your PfL affected the development of the project. You do not need to describe the selected model(s). The third component is the application of theories/concepts (selected from themes 2-4 and explained in Step 4 in A1), to perform an overall analysis of your PfL. Here you need describe links between theories and practice, explain (compare and contrast) ideas and apply them to your PfL raising practical implications. The fourth component is conclusions. By integrating arguments developed in components 2 and 3, students must provide an overall critical analysis of your PfL. Additionally, in this section you must reflect about the strengths and limitations of tools and concepts used and their connections with the competing contingencies that shaped your PfL. Specifications and Format ⦁ This is a 2500-word report (excluding references, appendix & cover page). ⦁ Use Times New Roman, font 12, single space. ⦁ References: use either Harvard or APA style. ⦁ Pages must be numbered (top right). ⦁ Cover page: Indicate only Full name; Student ID number; title of PfL; total number of words (excluding references, appendix & cover page). Do not use Griffith University official cover page. ⦁ Executive Summary is not necessary. Additional remarks ⦁ This assessment is not about simple ‘application’ of models. It is about explanations on how/why your PfL was a failure or a success. The quality of your explanations is the most important aspect of this assignment. ⦁ Your explanations need to be based on the combination of the (a) review of the literature, (b) application of concepts and models for managing complex projects and (c) the specific circumstances of your PfL. ⦁ It is not necessary to provide ‘recommendations’ regarding what should be done in the project, ⦁ Failing to comply with format and/or submission procedures involves an extra penalty of 10 % of marks. Remarks about references ⦁ Journals presented in the ‘List of Readings’ section, are high quality academic journals. Use them. ⦁ Use of textbook need to be kept at minimum (20 % max). ⦁ Avoid building your main arguments based on references from one or two Journals only. ⦁ Be aware of bias. e.g using ‘technical oriented’ Journals only. ⦁ The requirement of 7 references includes academic Journals (80%) and textbooks (20%). You can use other sources, but they will not count as one of the 7 references. Submission procedures ⦁ A2 must be submitted electronically via SafeAssign only. SafeAssign is Griffith’s University software matching text. ⦁ Electronic files must be saved in ‘doc’ ‘docx’ ‘rtf’ or ‘pdf’ formats only. ⦁ Name your file in the following format: A2 [surname] [snumber]. Example: A2 Gomes s999999. ⦁ Electronic link for SafeAssign submission is available in the “Assessment” tab of Learning@Griffith. Please note that in the ‘Assessment’ tab you will find two links: (a) SafeAssign ‘A2 Draft Submission ’. I will not mark this draft Submission; (b) SafeAssign ‘A2 Final Submission’. You will be able to submit your Final submission once only. I will mark this Final version only. Marking Criteria For detailed marking criteria, see pages 17-18. Detailed Marking Criteria Criteria Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Use of supporting literature Range and quality of literature used; Extent to which literature is directly linked to the core theme of report. (weight 10 %) Wide and multidisciplinary range of literature used. Used of both classic and contemporary academic references in the specific domain of the report. Selected literature directly linked to the report’s core theme. Very good range of literature used; Consistent use of very high quality academic references; Selected literature directly linked to the report’s core theme. Appropriate range of literature used; Use of high quality academic references; Selected literature linked to the report core theme in significant extent. Limited range of literature used; Use of few high quality academic references; Selected literature linked to the report core theme in limited extent. Very limited range of literature used; Use of too many non-academic references; Use of literature that is little related to the report core theme; does not comply with the instructed minimum number of academic references. Theoretical & Conceptual Understanding Appropriate choice of concepts & theories; Explanations & definitions of relevant concepts provided if needed; Recognition of strengths and weaknesses of theories/models used; Connections between competing theories/concepts are established. (Weight 30 %) Criteria High quality choice of concepts & theories; Fine explanations and justification of relevant concepts/theories used; Full definition and criticism of relevant concepts; In-depth explanations of strengths and weaknesses of theories/models used; Full establishment of connections between competing theories/concepts used. Excellent Good choice of concepts & theories; Superior explanations and justification of relevant concepts/theories used; Full definition of relevant concepts provided if needed; Explanation of strengths and weaknesses of theories/models used; Well establish connections between competing theories/concepts used. Very Good Fair choice of concepts & theories; Adequate explanations and justification of relevant concepts/theories used; Reasonable definition of relevant concepts provided if needed; Recognition of strengths and weaknesses of theories/models used; Establish connections between competing theories/concepts used. Good Adequate choice of concepts & theories; Few explanations and justification of relevant concepts/theories used; Weak definition of relevant concepts provided if needed; Minimum recognition of strengths and weaknesses of theories/models used; Ignorance about connections between competing theories/concepts used. Satisfactory Poor choice of concepts & theories; No or little explanations and justification of relevant concepts/theories used; No definition of relevant concepts provided if needed; No recognition of strengths and weaknesses of theories/models used; Ignorance about connections between competing theories/concepts used. Unsatisfactory Practical Application of Concepts & Theories Development of critical explanations regarding how/why concepts and theories help or do not help to explain specific situations; Extent to which student recognises the role of embedded assumptions in the concepts/model applied; Extent to which managerial and theory implications are raised and discussed. (weight 50 %) Thorough explanations regarding how/why concepts and theories help or do not help to explain specific situations; Full and reflective recognition of the role of embedded assumptions in the concepts/model applied; Comprehensive discussion of managerial and theory implications. Very good explanations regarding how/why concepts and theories help or do not help to explain specific situations; Full recognition of the role of embedded assumptions in the concepts/model applied; Most managerial and theory implications explained. Fair explanations regarding how/why concepts and theories help or do not help to explain specific situations; Recognition of the role of embedded assumptions in the concepts/model applied; Some managerial implications fully explained. Limited explanations regarding how/why concepts and theories help or do not help to explain specific situations; No recognition of the role of embedded assumptions in the concepts/model applied; Few managerial implications considered. Very weak explanations regarding how/why concepts and theories help or do not help to explain specific situations; No recognition of the role of embedded assumptions in the concepts/model applied; Ignorance about managerial and theory implications. Presentation Skills Report/essay structure is logic and clear; Introduction section clearly describes aims, justification, methods and key contextual issues. Writing style facilitates reader’s understanding; Compliance with instructed formatting style. (weight 10 %) Flawless written document, fully complying with all formatting, grammar, structure and word limit requirements; Writing style very direct, concise and clear. Logical structure; Very well referenced. Very clear introduction. Written document fully complies with most formatting, grammar, and word limit requirements. Writing style and structure are adequately clear but with minor issues. Very well referenced. Written document complies with most formatting, grammar, and word limit requirements. Writing style easy to understand but with minor repetition. References mostly adequate but some missing ones. Few formatting mistakes but readable document. Written document barely complies with formatting, grammar, and word limit requirements; Report structure with some flaws. Writing style a bit difficult to understand and/or poorly referenced. Written document does not comply with formatting, grammar, word limit requirements. Writing style very difficult to understand, repetitive, with few or none in-text references and/or without demonstrating evidence. Incomplete references or with wrong format. Supplementary assessments: As per Griffith Business School policy, there are no Supplementary assessments in this course. Late Submission: An assessment item submitted after the due date, without an approved extension from the Course Convenor, will be penalised. The standard penalty is the reduction of the mark allocated to the assessment item by 10% of the maximum mark applicable for the assessment item, for each working day or part working day that the item is late. Assessment items submitted more than five working days after the due date are awarded zero marks. Preparation for and attend all Seminars ⦁ Read preparatory materials, the information will mean much more at the lecture. ⦁ Ask questions and participate in lectures and group discussions. ⦁ Take notes, attend a library workshop to improve your note taking skills. Key dates ⦁ Have a copy of Griffith University Academic calendar ⦁ Write down key dates Prepare early for assessment items ⦁ Ask questions in class. ⦁ Make a time to meet your lecturer ⦁ Plan in advance when the development of your reports. Preparation for written assignments ⦁ Know how to improve your academic writing referencing and research skills. ⦁ The University offers sessions for all students. ⦁ Check out at the Library for workshops-training timetable. These sessions are free but you must book in advance. Get support to improve your English skills ⦁ Attend an EnglishHELP session to support your academic work ⦁ These sessions are for all international students and students from non-English speaking backgrounds Sessions are free but you must book in advance. Check out timetables at the Library.