Assessment Information 2
Subject Code: MBA641
Subject Name: Strategic Project Management
Assessment Title: Length: Assessment 2 – Project Feasibility Study and Timeline 2000 words (+/- 10% allowable range)
Weighting: 40%
Total Marks:
Submission: 40
Online via Turnitin + Additional files
Due Date: Monday Week 8, 23.55 (AEST)
.
Your task
You are required to read the following case study and prepare a Project Feasibility Study and Timeline based on the information contained in the case study.
Assessment Description
.
This assessment is a case study regarding a Residential Duplex Development Project. In this case study you own a real estate development business with cash reserves for funding development projects of $800,000. Your current business project is to successfully complete, within a nine-month timeframe, a small residential development in a regional centre (a place that is not a suburb in a capital city) in the state in which you reside.
This will require you to locate:
1. A regional centre in your state with a growing population that currently has more than 10,000 residents;
2. A block of land for sale that is large enough to construct a duplex (two attached residences) based on the minimum land allotment size prescribed by the local council and that is selling for a price you can afford;
3. A builder that will construct a duplex on your chosen block of land for a price you can afford.
Your primary objective is to create as much equity as possible (value of your constructed duplex less all project costs) and as much income as possible (rent collected from tenanted duplex less all holding costs).
Your assessment task is to prepare and submit a Project Feasibility Study and Project Timeline. Templates for both of these will be made available to you but you are welcome to modify them or use your own templates if you wish. You are expected to source real statistics and information rather than providing estimates. This can be achieved by conducting internet research of relevant websites and emailing or telephoning relevant people and organisations.
You will also be required to prepare an explanation supported by evidence of where you sourced each item of information in your assessment submission from. How you do this is entirely up to you.
You may prepare a separate report based on each of the headings in the project feasibility study
or
You may include the information in your project feasibility study and project timeline as an appendix.
Your explanation report cannot exceed 2,000 words and it must also include:
• Constraints and goals
• Macro-environment business drivers (such as economic, competitive, resourcing and
• demographic factors taken into account when determining feasibility)
• Micro-environment business drivers (such as technical /internal expertise, time pressures, and other people-related considerations)
Assessment Submission
This file must be submitted as a ‘Word’ or ‘PDF’ document to avoid any technical issues that may occur from incorrect file format upload. Uploaded files with a virus will not be considered as a legitimate submission. Turnitin will notify you if there is an issue with the submitted file. In this case, you must contact your lecturer via email and provide a brief description of the issue and a screenshot of the Turnitin error message.
You are also encouraged to submit your work well in advance of the deadline to avoid any possible delay with the Turnitin similarity report or any other technical difficulties.
You are required to use at least 15 sources of information and use Kaplan Harvard Referencing Style. Wikipedia and other ‘popular’ sites are not to be used.
Late assignment submission penalties
Penalties will be imposed on late assignment submissions in accordance with Kaplan Business School “late assignment submission penalties” policy.
Number of days Penalty
1* - 9 days 5% per day for each calendar day late deducted from the total marks available
10 - 14 days 50% deducted from the total marks available.
After 14 days Assignments that are submitted more than 14 calendar days after the due date will not be accepted, and the student will receive a mark of zero for the assignment(s).
Note Notwithstanding the above penalty rules, assignments will also be given a mark of zero if they are submitted after assignments have been returned to students
*Assignments submitted at any stage within the first 24 hours after the deadline will be considered to be one day late and therefore subject to the associated penalty
For more information, please read the full policy via https://www.kbs.edu.au/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/KBS_FORM_Assessment-Policy_MAR2018_FA.pdf
Important Study Information
Academic Integrity Policy
KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.
What is academic integrity and misconduct?
What are the penalties for academic misconduct?
What are the late penalties?
How can I appeal my grade?
Click here for answers to these questions:
http://www.kbs.edu.au/current-students/student-policies/.
Word Limits for Written Assessments
Submissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded.
Study Assistance
Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Click here for this information.
MBA641 Assessment 2 Marking Rubric – Project Feasibility Timeline 40%
Marking
Criteria NN (Fail) 0 – 49% P (Pass) 50 – 64% CR (Credit) 65 – 74% DN (Distinction) 75 – 84% HD (High Distinction) 85 -100% Marks
Project
Feasibility
Study
Project Feasibility Study indicates a lack of understanding of case study information with no further research conducted to determine project data inputs not provided in case study. Project data inputs do not lie within a plausible range.
Project Feasibility Study indicates novice level understanding of case study information and further research required to determine project data inputs not provided in case study. Some project data inputs lie within a plausible range.
Project Feasibility Study indicates intermediate level understanding of case study information and further research required to determine project data inputs not provided in case study. Sufficient project data inputs lie within a plausible range.
Project Feasibility Study indicates advanced level understanding of case study information and further research required to determine project data inputs not provided in case study. Most project data inputs lie within a plausible range.
Project Feasibility Study indicates expert level understanding of case study information and further research required to determine project data inputs not provided in case study. All project data inputs lie within a plausible range. 8
Project
Timeline
Project Timeline does not indicate understanding of Gantt chart principles or scheduling concepts with project stage timeframes and the relationships between project stage timeframes not indicated.
Project Timeline indicates novice level understanding of Gantt chart principles and scheduling concepts with project stage timeframes and the relationships between project stage timeframes indicated.
Project Timeline indicates intermediate understanding of Gantt chart principles and scheduling concepts with project stage timeframes and the relationships between project stage timeframes indicated.
Project Timeline indicates advanced level understanding of Gantt chart principles and scheduling concepts with project stage timeframes and the relationships between project stage timeframes clearly indicated.
Project Timeline indicates expert level understanding of Gantt chart principles and scheduling concepts with project stage timeframes and the relationships between project stage timeframes clearly indicated. 8
Project
Results
Negative equity value and/or negative net monthly rental income generated by project
feasibility study
No equity value and/or no net monthly rental income generated by project feasibility study
Equity value in excess of $50,000 and/or net monthly rental income in excess of $250 generated by project
feasibility study
Equity value in excess of $100,000 and/or net monthly rental income in excess of $750 generated by project
feasibility study Equity value in excess of $150,000 and/or net monthly rental income in excess of $1,000 generated by project
feasibility study
8
Research and
Information
Insufficient explanation of information sources unsupported by evidence demonstrating inadequate research activity.
Sufficient explanation of information sources supported by evidence demonstrating adequate research activity including internet research.
Ample explanation of information sources supported by evidence demonstrating broad research activity including internet research and consultation with relevant people and organizations.
Comprehensive explanation of information sources supported by evidence demonstrating thorough research activity including internet research and consultation with relevant people and organizations.
Detailed explanation of information sources supported by evidence demonstrating extensive research activity including internet research and consultation with relevant people and organizations.
8
/32
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.
Marking Criteria F (FAIL)
0—49% P (Pass) 50-64% CR (Credit) 65-74% DN (Distinction) 75% - 84% HD (High Distinction) 85 – 100% Marks
Answer clearly and logically presented Serious lack of organization. Body paragraphs do not refer back to or relate to main arguments. Writing is formulaic, i.e. “in conclusion,” “another example is….” Writing style could be more effective. Organization is hard to follow; there is little progression
of ideas. Little or no transitions between paragraphs. Need to more effectively weave main arguments throughout and relate body paragraphs. Paragraphs are generally well organized. Better transitions needed. The progression of ideas could be more thoughtful. Paragraphs relate back to main arguments to prove argument. Ideas & arguments are well structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Sound transitions between paragraphs. Major arguments are effectively made. Ideas & arguments are effectively structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Excellent transitions between paragraphs. Concluding comments leave the reader thinking. Major arguments are effectively woven throughout everybody paragraph, with ideas always related back to main arguments. /2
Appropriate theory and research used to answer question posed The critique does not have appropriate structure and lacks direction. No significant observations made from appropriate theory and research. Poor writing and expression of arguments. Reasonable critique which examines the relevant issues and makes reasonable observations made from appropriate theory and research. Reasonable writing and expression of arguments. Good critique examines the relevant issues and makes good observations from appropriate theory and research. Good writing and expression of arguments. A very good critique considered all the relevant issues and made important observations made
from appropriate theory and research. Very good writing and expression of arguments. Fully considered all the relevant issues and made significant observations made from appropriate theory and research. Excellent writing and expression of arguments. /2
Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, grammar and punctuation Needs more sentence variety. Little or no thought given to diction. Tone or language is conversational. Contains much informal language. Uses “I” or “you.” Contains many examples of unclear or awkward phrasing. Needs more sentence variety. Attention needed with diction. Contains informal language or conversational tone, or uses “I” or “you.” Unclear or awkward sentence phrasing. Sentence variety is adequate. Tone is appropriate. Diction is clear, but could be more effective. Language is academic, and writing is clear and effective. Very little or no unclear or awkward phrasing. Sentence variety is effective and good. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is appropriate and effective.
Language is academic. Writing is clear, and concise. Sentence variety is effective and sophisticated. Tone is
appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is sophisticated and effective. Language is academic. Writing is clear, concise, and strong. /1
Format of answer consistent with question requirements
and
KBS guidelines No efforts made to follow submission and editing, spacing, etc requirements. Meets most editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Some requirements not met.
Meets editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets almost all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. /1
In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines Inappropriate referencing. Not in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Reasonably appropriate referencing, generally in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines.
Good referencing, largely inline with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Very good referencing, 100% in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Excellent/appropriate referencing, 100% in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. /1
Word count is within + / - 10% of requirement Word count is within + / - more than 15% of requirement Word count is within + / - 15% of requirement Word count is within + / - 10% of requirement Word count is within + / - 5% of requirement Word count is within + / - 0% of requirement /1
Comments:
/8
/40
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.