ASSESSMENT BRIEF – Assessment 2a and 2b Subject Code and Title PROJ6004: Contracts and Procurement Assessment Assessment 2: Contracts and Procurement Case Study Further Assessment – Discussion Board Participation and Group Summary – Review of the Case Study Project (new Royal Adelaide Hospital Auditor General Report) and other Learning Resources, including detailed analysis undertaken by students previously in Assessment 1. Individual/Group Assessment 2a - Discussion Board Participation. Assessment 2b - Group Summary Report Length Assessment 2a – Discussion Board Participation. Assessment 2b - Group Summary Report of approximately 1,400 words Learning Outcomes 1. Critically evaluate the risks associated with contract and procurement management approaches and make recommendations to global project sponsors with regard to ‘best practice’ in this area. 2. Apply judgement and initiative in the development of ‘best practice’ contract and procurement process for global project management, identifying the external factors that need to be considered and mitigated for in every instance. 3. Analyse the responsibilities of the procurement manager and project manager necessary to ensure stakeholder satisfaction and successful project outcomes. Submission By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 5 Weighting Assessment 2a – 15% Assessment 2b – 15% Total Marks 30 marks   Context: General Procurement and contracts are integral to successful project management. Planning for purchases and acquisitions, requests for proposal, vendor selection, contract administration, and contract closure are integral parts of the process. Learning from Case Studies and benchmarking against better practices, standards and excellence is vital to understand complexity of issues and successful strategies for procurement and contract management. It will also ensure improved responsiveness to key issues, promote supplier-client relationships through proactive management of risks and ultimately deliver higher level of focus on performance-based outcomes. Specific (Assessment 2 Context) Assessment 2 is context is a further deep-dive of key issues identified in Assessment 1 to better understand the procurement and financial risks, individual/team accountability and to develop key financial themes and quantify financial exposure. It will also consider using blackboard and Group interaction to develop risk mitigation, to benchmark issues andcapture lessons learnt. Areas for possible negotiation and completions documentation will also be identified and acknowledged in the reflection journal. Assessment2–Discussion Board Participation and Team/Group Summarybased on further review of the Case Study (new Royal Adelaide Hospital AG Report) and other Learning Resources. Students are encouraged to look at the full suite of Learning Resources and other public documents associated with the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. However, a careful thorough review of the South AustralianAuditor General Report for 2015 is required to understand the contracts and procurement issues that have arisen during the execution of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project, ongoing risks mitigations and learnings that can be applied to future such large infrastructure projects. Assessment2 aims to encourage a further understanding of the procurement and financial risk, mitigations and benchmarking against better practices and excellence reports to ensure successful completion. The specific roles and responsibilities of project manager and procurement manager in the completions effort is also explored. Students are also encouraged to understand and explore the related organisational issues, stakeholders and the funding and other finance aspects associated with the new Royal Adelaide Hospital drawing upon the learnings from similar (Private Public Partnership) projects from the Essential Learning Resources. As foreshadowed in the Context above, Assessment 2 builds on the vital research work and report prepared by students as part of Assessment 1. Instructions: Assessment 2a is designed around critical review and discussion board contribution for the Case Study from a current large-scale public private partnership hospital project that aims to create a modern health-care facility in South Australia. Assessment 2a will involve discussion board contribution by individuals exploring the following key issues: • Typical procurement and financial risks required to be managed for complex projects; • Specific financial risks that remain for the Case Study (nRAH) project up to completion (use research information, initiative and judgement); • Possible risk mitigation actions that relate to the Case Study project and how these relate to better practice guidelines published by State Procurement Board of South Australia and other learning resources; • Areas for further vendor negotiations and management - to achieve successful contract completion of the Case Study project. • Areas of key accountability for Project Manager and Procurement Manager in facilitating successful outcome for the Case Study project; • The questions for discussion board will be formulated in part by the Learning Facilitator and in part by the students (within their Groups) to critique the above topics and bring out ideas thoughts, develop solutions and ensure students active participation, leadership, feedback, cooperation and time-management aspects. There are 2 important aspects to discussion board participation: • Rules for participation: a culture of mutual respect towards other students or participants, being timely and relevant (staying on the topic), being creative and bringing critical thinking and thoughtful approach in the interactions. It is expected that student contribution to a particular discussion will be made daily (if possible) and preferably within 3 days of start of a new sub-topic related to the particular Module • Protocols for postings: minimum 1 paragraph per sub-topic (or discussion question) of 100 to 120 words, explaining reasons for the comment along with evidence to learning resources or internet references. There may also be other clarifications provided (where required for supplementary questions raised by other students). Recognising around 6 sub-topics or questions, each student will contribute around 600 words to 720 words on the discussion board plus clarification responses which may be 1 or 2 sentences (20 to 50 words) over a defined period of time (for a particular Module) say 1 week per module. Assessment 2b: Group Discussion Summary - (maximum 1,400 Words) will involve the Groups collaborating as virtual teams to consolidate a Summary comprising the following parts: • Part 1: 800 Words maximum - summarize the findings from the discussion board (consider common themes, innovative approaches to consolidate into an agreed Group Summary). • Part 2: 400 Words maximum - Identify the most important issues that can be considered for further in-depth review within the Groups for a Group Report (or Group Presentation); • Part 3: 200 words maximum - Agree and articulate the individual and team behaviours that students agree to adhere to develop the Group Report (or Group Presentation). Note: Groups will be assigned by the Learning Facilitator in consultation with the students and it is expected that there would be four(4) people in each group. It is expected that Groups will be identified early during the Module 1 and 2 so that students can get to know each other within the group well before starting the group project. Students are expected to be in the same Group for both Assessments 2 and Assessment 3. A group size of 4 has been proposed to ensure diversity, interaction and opportunity for students to grow and lead teams. Only in exceptional situation a different group size may be approved by the Learning Facilitator. Assessments 2a and 2b are both equally weighted i.e. 15% weightage each. It is expected that the students will undertake sufficient research and reading as part of Assessment 1 to effectively contribute and share ideas individually during Modules 3 and 4 (to undertake Assessment 2a and 2b) as individual participant and within a Group. It is important for Groups to achieve sufficient depth of analysis as to provide high quality of information to satisfy the requirements for the case study analysis – based on the above guidelines. Aspects which should be considered when considering the Group Summary: • the complexity of the project and the challenges faced in terms of contracts and procurement management over the full life-cycle of the project; • significant issues or controversial aspects that relate to project stakeholders and or result in significant risks to the contracting parties; • leadership challenges associated with project execution, and • Importance of completions effort to meet the needs of the key stakeholders. In considering the above, please be mindful of, and reflect on, the findings and the lessons learnt from the case study and how they can be applied in your own personal development and professional career. Highlight any specific instances where your strengths and limitations as a project manager or manager have been identified. Pre-work for Assessment 3 (Group Report orGroup PPT Presentation) As part of the Assessment 2a and 2b, students are also encouraged to prepare and better understand other related aspects of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project so they can actively collaborate and undertake Assessment 3 (overall Group Report or Group PowerPoint presentation, as appropriate). • Identify dot points on the overall Project Context and Processes adopted to review the Learning Outcomes and research from other public information pertaining to the New Royal Adelaide Hospital Project; • Identify the Top 5issues that require attention going forward, possible actions and how implementing those action will improve sustainable outcomes for the community and key stakeholders; • Explore contracts and procurement management effort for large complex projects (including public infrastructure projects) to ensure successful project outcomes. Identify any cultural or other aspects that apply; • Understand possible common themes or learnings that can be applied to future large projects to improve management of contacts and procurement and ensure project success. • Bring out (as appropriate) any aspects related to project management practice and or changes required to ensure better project outcomes. Important note: If the Virtual Team functions well, the above pre-work can be extracted from the routine Agenda item i.e. to progressively distil key themes noted above. The pre-work is more about being disciplined and organised. Students Reflection Journal should cover how the pre-work was undertaken efficiently and effectively considering interaction and innovation to progressively capture information – required for Assessment 3. Learning Activities and Output: The learning process will involve a review of the case study material, reflection and participation on the discussion board, examine lessons learnt and highlight issues for further consolidation in the Group Summary. You will be encouraged to reflect on your case study findings in order to identify contracts and procurement management better practices which can be applied in the future to significant projects that you may lead as project manager or oversee in a senior role. Learning output will be Discussion Board comments for Assessment 2a and a Group Report for Assessment2b - using the Instructions noted above. Learning Resources: • Resource on APA style: The URL/page for the TUA referencing guides is http://onlinelibrary.tua.edu.au/skills/referencing • Resource on report writing: Victoria University of Wellington (2013). How to write a business report. School of Marketing and Internal Business and Student Learning Support Service, Wellington, New Zealand. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/vbs/teaching/publications/VBS-report-writing-guide-2013-July.pdf • Resource on writing case study reports Monash University (2015). Case study report (sample).Learning Support, Language and Learning Online, Melbourne, Australia. http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/writing/general/report/1.xml • Refer to the subject planner for learning resources on Modules 3 and 4to complete Assessment 2. Assessment Criteria: Assessment2a - Discussion Board Participation(15%) • Participation (20%) • Leadership (20%) • Feedback (20%) • Cooperation (20%) • Time Management (20%) See learning rubrics in the following pages for details. Assessment 2b - Group Summary (15%)to summarise the Discussion Board Participation • Knowledge and understanding (10%) • Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge (20%) • Evaluation of information (20%) • Correct citation of key resources and evidence (10%) • Effective communication (20%) • Self-reflection (20%) See learning rubrics in the following pages for details. Learning Rubrics – Assessment 2a: Individual Participation in Discussion Board Assessment Attributes Fail (0-49) Pass (50-64) Credit (65-74) Distinction (75-84) High Distinction (85-100) Participation (20%) Participates in group activities. Participates in group activities but works on unrelated materials. Participates in group activities but is rarely on task. Participates in most group activities and is on task most of the time. Participated fully and actively. Is always on task. Provides constructive input. Leadership (20%) Fails to assume leadership. Assumes leadership but in a non-productive manner. Assumes leadership and allows others to do but often dominates the group. Assumes leadership by helping members stay on track and encourage group participation. Assumes leadership by helping members stay on track and encourage group participation, posing solutions to problems. Has a positive attitude. Feedback (20%) Fails to offer any feedback. Offers feedback but rarely constructive or useful. Offers feedback that is sometime constructive or useful. Offers constructive feedback regularly Always offers detailed constructive feedback that is specific and appropriate. Offers suggestions to guide peers Cooperation (20%) Treats group member(s) disrespectfully. Does not share the workload fairly. Treats group member(s) respectfully but does not always share the workload fairly. Treats group member(s) respectfully and share the workload fairly Treats group member(s) respectfully and share the workload fairly. Shows sensitivity to others and encourages the participation of others. Treats group member(s) respectfully and share the workload fairly. Shows sensitivity to the feelings and learning needs of others. Encourages the participation of others. Values the knowledge, opinion and skills of all members. Time Management (20%) Fails to complete assigned task on time. Often forces the group to make last-minute adjustments and changes to accommodate missing work. Often fails to complete assigned task on time and held up completion of work. Completes only half of the assigned task on time. Completes most assigned task on time. Always completes all assigned task on time.   Learning Rubrics –Assessment 2b: Summary Report (inclusive of Parts1, 2 and 3) Assessment Attributes Fail (0-49) Pass (50-64) Credit (65-74) Distinction (75-84) High Distinction (85-100) Knowledge and understanding (10%) Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge Key components of the assignment are not addressed. Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s. Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s. Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning. Evaluation of information (20%) Limited understanding of key concepts required to support the pitch. Confuses logic and emotion. Information taken from reliable sources but without a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact with little questioning. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Analysis and evaluation do not reflect expert judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Identify logical flaws. Questions viewpoints of experts. Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Viewpoint of experts are subject to questioning. Analysis and evaluation reflect growing judgement, intellectual independence, rigor and adaptability. Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Information is taken from sources with a high level of interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive critical analysis or synthesis. Identifies gaps in knowledge. Exhibits intellectual independence, rigor, good judgement and adaptability. Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge (20%) Limited synthesis and analysis. Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis. Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases. Correct citation of key resources and evidence (10%) Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style. Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are no mistakes in using the APA style. Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. There are no mistakes in using the APA style. 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 There are no mistakes in using the APA style. Demonstrates use of high-quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence There are no mistakes in using the APA style. Effective communication (20%) Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. No effort is made to keep audience engaged, audience cannot follow the line of reasoning. Little use of presentation aids, or the presentation aids and material used are irrelevant. Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. Attempts are made to keep the audience engaged, but not always successful. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. Presentation aids are used more for effect than relevance. Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. The audience is mostly engaged, line of reasoning is easy to follow. Effective use of presentation aids. Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented, the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. Engages the audience, demonstrates cultural sensitivity. Carefully and well prepared presentations aids are used. Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments. Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multi-media. Self reflection (20%) No attempt to demonstrate connections to previous learning or experience. No attempt at self-criticism. Reflection is irrelevant to student and/course learning goals. Little to no attempt to demonstrate connections between learning experience and material, and/or personal goals. Analysis is defensive or lack of depth. Some attempt at self-criticism, but fails to demonstrate awareness of personal biases, stereotypes or preconceptions. No attempt at asking probing questions about self. Inconsistently draws connections between the experience and materials from other courses, and/or past experiences. Sometimes defensive or one-sided in analysis. Some attempt at self-criticism, but fails to demonstrate awareness of personal biases, stereotypes or preconceptions. Asks some probing questions about self, but do not attempt to answer these. The reflection demonstrates connections between the experience and material from other courses, and/or past experiences. Demonstrates a non-defensive ability to self-appraise, discussing mostly growth related to learning. Demonstrates the ability to question own biases, stereotypes, preconceptions but new modes of thinking is not evident. Risks asking probing questions about self but only attempts to answer these sometimes. The reflection demonstrates connections between the experience and material from other courses; past experiences; and/or personal goals. Demonstrates an open, non-defensive ability to self-appraise, discussing both growth and frustrations related to learning. Demonstrates the ability to question own biases, stereotypes, preconceptions and define new modes of thinking as a result. Risks asking probing questions about self and attempts to answer these.