ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Subject Code and Title PROJ6011: Integrated Infrastructure Project Management
Assessment Assessment 1: Infrastructure Project Case Study – Identification and Context Analysis (3 parts)
Individual/Group Part A: Group
Parts B & C: Individual
Length Part A: Blackboard comments and analysis
Part B: Draft Report no longer than 1000 words
Part C: Final Report no longer than 2250 words
Learning Outcomes 1. Critically analyse the interaction and mutual impact between infrastructure project, society and the environment, and the sphere of influence of the project manager in impacting those outcomes.
2. Critically evaluate the specific nature of infrastructure projects with regards to the challenges, stakeholders, governance and funding/financial arrangements, noting how these specificities impact on the project management process.
Submission Part A: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 1
Part B: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 2
Part C: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 3
Weighting Part A: Group activities - 5%
Part B: Draft report – 15%
Part C: Final report – 30%
Total Marks Part A: 5 marks
Part B: 15 marks
Part C: 30 marks
Context:
Integrated infrastructure project management is a unique field of project management because of the potential size and complexity of the projects. They can be very challenging to implement and the probability is high for early career project managers to have had little exposure to large-scale projects of this nature. Nevertheless, when the opportunity is presented to lead an infrastructure project in a difficult environment you may feel hesitant to do so.
Assessment 1 is designed around a case study experience from a large-scale infrastructure project involving a public-private partnership which takes into consideration the triple bottom line principles of environmental impact, social equity outcomes and economic returns. There is an abundance of material which describes and documents the life cycle experiences and lessons learnt from these types of projects.
The emphasis for Assessment 1, however, focuses on the identification phase and context analysis of the chosen case study project. This will include an analysis of the challenges faced, stakeholders involved and the funding and finance for the project. The learning process will involve the deconstruction of the case study material to answer questions, examine lessons learnt and highlight issues for further discussion. You will be encouraged to reflect on your case study findings in order to identify project management best practices which can be applied in the future to significant projects that you may lead as project manager or oversee in a senior role.
Instructions:
This assessment is conducted in three parts. Part A is a group activity on integrated infrastructure project management. Students are asked to participate in group to discuss a question posted by the learning facilitator.
In Part B, students are asked to review and research the subject learning resources and/or broader Internet and select one large-scale infrastructure project which involved a public-private partnership and provided significant value to the community in terms of its triple bottom line sustainability criteria. The project must also have significant depth so that it will provide sufficient contextual information to satisfy the requirements for the case study analysis. Aspects which should be considered when making the project selection include:
• the complexity of the project and the challenges faced in terms of the sustainability criteria,
• any controversial impacts or related-side effects from the project on the key stakeholders,
• leadership challenges associated with project execution, and
• its strategic value in meeting stakeholder expectations.
Based on the information gathered, students are required, in the first instance, to provide an overview of the selected project and analyse the following requirements:
• The demand for the project and the projected benefit(s) to stakeholders. Did the project provide strategic value and were the expectations of the stakeholders met?
• What impact did the project have on the environment and/or society? What did the project leadership do to address any impacts or side effects?
• Were there any environmental-impact or other factors (triple bottom-line related) that were overlooked in the planning stage and if so, what were they?
• Was there any scope for improvement in project execution?
• Were there any leadership lessons to be learnt from the project?
Part C of the assessment allows the student to examine and analyse the challenges, stakeholders and financial aspects associated with the case study project. In preparing for this component, particular attention should be paid to the article ‘Innovation in Megaprojects: System Integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5’ (Davies, Gann, & Douglas, 2009) and the six processes it calls out when examining challenges and the Indus Towers case study which highlights the complexity introduced when goal congruence amongst multi-stakeholder groups is sought. As a guide, Part C Final Report (and associated analysis of the case study) should address the following requirements:
Identification and Assessment of Key Challenges
• Identification and assessment of the key challenges experienced in the project (explicitly address the challenges in moving from project to operational status)
• Explain how project leadership managed and overcame these challenges
• Identification of opportunities for improvement in the management of the project’s challenges
Stakeholder Analysis
• Approaches in public-private partnership case study project to identify stakeholders, assess their level of involvement and interest, the representative groups (e.g. whether the stakeholders include governmental, political or regulatory bodies), and why you feel they are or are not included
• Did the case study highlight any effective attributes of public-private partnerships?
• Analyse the level of involvement and interest in the case study project by each stakeholder
• Analyse the potential tensions that may exist between the various stakeholder groups and how optimal trade-off between such tensions was achieved
• Explain how the stakeholders’ needs were addressed and how competing interests between private and public stakeholders were resolved
• Identification of opportunities for improvement in managing stakeholder interests
Funding Model and Financial Arrangements
• Identify what financial arrangement and/or funding model(s) were used on the case study project and why
• Explain whether the case study project achieved financial sustainability. If so, explain why, and if not, explain why not and what was done to address this.
• Evaluate whether the trade-offs between building infrastructures and providing services was an issue for the case study project. If so, identify the trade-offs and explain their impact on the project.
• Highlight any opportunities for improving the management of project finances for the projects and the mechanisms and methods to be followed to achieve best practice
In considering these requirements, always 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.
Learning Activities and Output:
This assessment is broken down into 3 parts to assist student progress through with support.
Part A: Group Activity – Group wiki and discussion board participation – by end of Module 1 – 5%
In Part A, students will be allocated into groups of 2-3. Each group will be assigned a wiki page for communication. Your learning facilitator will post a question on integrated infrastructure project management in the allocated wiki. In your group, use the wiki page to discuss and finalise your response to the question. Identify the critical findings and post these on Module 1 class discussion board to share with the rest of the class. Evidence of contribution and participation in the wiki and discussion board will be used for grading.
Part B: Draft Report – by end of Module 2 – 15%
In Part B, students will draft an introduction of the report along with the section which deals with project selection and analysis (i.e. Part B of the assessment). This provides an opportunity for feedback to assist students learn and improve on their work. Submit the draft by the end of Module 2.
Part C: Final Report – by end of Module 3 – 30%
In Part C, students will review the feedback received from Part B, make adjustment to the report and complete the final report for submission by the end of Module 3.
Learning Resources:
• Resource on APA style:
Learning and Academic Skills Unit. (2016). Academic Writing Guide. APA 6th ed. Sydney, Australia: Laureate Australia.
• 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 1 and 2 to complete Assessment 1.
Assessment Criteria:
Part A: Group activity (5%)
• Participation (20%)
• Leadership (20%)
• Feedback (20%)
• Cooperation (20%)
• Time Management (20%)
Part B: Draft report (15%)
• Content, audience and purpose (30%)
• Knowledge and understanding (30%)
• Correct citation of key resources and evidence (20%)
• Effective communication (20%)
Part C: Final report (30%)
• 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 – Part A: Group Activity
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 – Part B: Draft Report
Assessment Attributes Fail
(0-49) Pass
(50-64) Credit
(65-74) Distinction
(75-84) High Distinction
(85-100)
Content, Audience and Purpose
(30%) Does not meet minimum standard
Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Meets minimum standard
Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment
Moves beyond minimum standard
Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Exceeds minimum standard
Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Exceeds minimum standard and exhibits high levels of independence
Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment.
Knowledge and understanding
(30%) 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.
Correct citation of key resources and evidence
(20%) 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.

Learning Rubrics – Part C: Final Report
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.