SBM1203 Venture/Project Economics and Finance
Assignment Brief - Project Phase
Introduction
Students need to conduct their project work in their units of study to deepen their knowledge, develop their professional capabilities and contribute to the development of best practice models applicable to ventures and projects. A simplified case study will be used to apply knowledge learnt in the workshop phase of this unit of study (see Case Study Description).
Scope of Project Studies
? Students are to consolidate and deepen their knowledge and develop their professional capabilities in venture/project economics and finance.
In this unit of study the scope comprises the following activities within the context of the assigned case project:
1. A systematic study of all commonly known venture/project economics and finance concepts, tools and techniques
2. Research the case project statement to understand the scope of studies needed
3. Conduct the appraisal of the case project options (road and rail options) and compare these to find out how beneficial the proposed options are in terms of community. Then perform a financial analysis of the selected option to see if it can be run as a private venture
4. Conduct sensitivity and risk analysis and see how the variability of the input factors can impact the selected option and the decision outcomes
5. Review the results and interpret the findings to ensure that the conclusions derived are sound and based on the analysis conducted
6. Document and present the results from all of the above studies (use the Table of Contents included at the end of this document as your report template).
Figure 1 shows this approach to the conduct of this assignment graphically. This brief needs to be read in conjunction with the SBM1203 unit website. As may be noted, students will conduct their work in teams and should manage their own IP (not sharing their work with others).
Terms of Reference (TOR)
Your team project should be delivered through a quality-managed process (as per your Team QA/Workplan) following the process shown in Figure 1 below and within the permitted duration.
Each team develops and submits own work based on the assigned case project in electronic form (MS Word or compatible format). Please keep your own separate copies as the course work submitted are not generally returned to teams (kept for examination purposes and become the property of the College to be used for educational purposes if deemed useful). A marked copy of the electronic version will be sent back to each team to provide feedback on the work submitted.
The final submission should include a single page qualification statement in the form of a table that gives reference to where each item of the requirements of the assignment has been addressed and if the submitted Report complies with all the requirements; if not why not.
The final methodology for case project appraisal must be based on sound research and well justified in terms of conceptual studies.
Submissions 2-4 need to be designed to build up and easily consolidate to form the final submission for this Unit. Your Team QA/Workplan needs to be included as an appendix to the main report. Also, you should be aware that the entire work in assignment should fit into the best practice project management framework as developed in previous studies.
The final submission should be ideally 30-50 pages in size. Its Table of Contents should be similar to that included below. (Please note that this table of contents is a notional one provided for guidance only; your team needs to research and design its own table of contents as variations are expected depending on the case project and host/client organisation under consideration.)
Figure 1: Approach to the conduct of learning project in this unit of study
Table of Contents
1. Overview
1.1 Project title (Venture/Project Economics and Finance)
1.2 Project background
2. Objectives and Scope
2.1 Objective(s)
2.2 Outcome(s)/benefits
2.3 Output(s)
2.4 Assumptions and constraints
3. Literature Review: Techniques of Project Appraisal
3.1 Literature summary of venture/project economics and finance
3.2 Case project context, requirements and challenges
3.3 Structuring knowledge to respond to case project requirements and challenges
3.4 Typical techniques/approaches to project appraisal and finance & key success factors
4. Analysis of Case Project
4.1 Project options analysis from community perspective and selection of preferred option
4.2 Analysis of the financial viability of the preferred option
4.3 Discussion and interpretation of findings
4.4 Preliminary recommendations
5. Sensitivity Analysis of the Case Project
5.1 Sensitivity analysis of project options
5.2 Review of the project options
5.3 Impact on project viability and finance
5.4 Consideration of environmental and social impacts
5.5 Other observations
5.6 Review of the results and recommendation
6. Finalisation & Presentation of Team Report
6.1 Evaluation of the entire analysis performed against stakeholders’ needs and requirements
6.2 Reflection on the feedback received on draft submissions
6.3 Adjustment (if necessary) of the results and reordering of the options (if necessary)
6.4 Risks and critical factors that should be reflected in the project design and implementation
6.6 Conclusions References
Appendices
Criteria
1. Only those submissions that are made within the Schedule of Submissions published in the SBM1203 web site will be assessed; late submissions will not be accepted. The exception is where the team has proposed a different schedule for its submissions within its Team QA/Workplan and when this has been endorsed by the Course Convenor. This option still requires completing the project within the specified 10 week duration.
2. In such situations, the intermediate submission dates will be as per the team’s endorsed
QA/Workplan. Please note that endorsement of QA/Workplan by the Course Convenor does
not remove the responsibility for timely completion of the entire Project Phase from teams. This endorsement is always subject to team’s bearing full responsibility for meeting the relevant deadlines and the final quality they achieve in their project work or competency acquisition efforts.
3. Submissions must be of an adequate professional standard in terms of technical writing, overall structure and flow and graphical design and presentation. All poor quality submissions will be returned without assessment to the team concerned. A team whose work has not been accepted on account of quality of presentation will not receive a final mark. It is important that you and your team attempt to design, compile and write high quality technical reports to recognized standards for all occasions. This assignment is a good opportunity to improve your report writing skills. Poor composition, misspelling of words, poor lay-out and illustrations all detract from the quality of the submission and are not acceptable. In designing your submission you should consider the objectives, readers’ needs and requirements, contents, document structure, where to include any supporting material etc.
4. Please note that marking of each report will be based on the Project Assessment Criteria a copy of which is enclosed to this document.


Assessment Policy and Practice
APIC’s policy is to apply a mixture of test and coursework assessment appropriate to the units of study APIC offers. Assessment of APIC units involves multiple steps. The written test is a means of assessing to what extent the fundamental knowledge has been learnt. Assignment 1 is literature review that further assesses student’s expanded knowledge in the subject disciplines, including tools and techniques, cognate areas etc. Assignments 2 to 4 are designed to be cumulative, i.e. they build upon one another to produce a holistic learning experience. Notwithstanding that, each assignment constitutes a distinct learning activity and as such is assessed individually too. Since project work is done typically by the team of students it is necessary to ensure that each student in the team actively participates in and acquires the target knowledge and skills through the conduct of the project activities. This can only be achieved through an individual verification process and based on objective metrics (target learning outcomes).
Once the points and modes of assessments are finalised the question arises as what should be assessed. APIC assesses students’ knowledge in a given unit through both written test and Assignment 1. The test questions are designed to cover the fundamental knowledge covered in the intensive workshop. Essays are assessed in terms of how far the student has achieved extended learning (breadth and depth). Criteria used for assessing the essay are shown in Table 1.
High
Distinction
( 85%) Evidence of independent and extensive research, particularly literature reviews, ‘hard to get’ knowledge, correct approach to the challenge (e.g. correct interpretation of the size of effort and degree of sophistication required), decision on the method of approach and or formulation of hypotheses, development of creative/breakthrough methods and presentation of the same, logical succinct description of the application to ‘case project’, interpretation and comparison with real life situation, comprehensive response to all the points in the Brief (incl. Terms of Reference, TOR), well-illustrated pictures/diagrams and a well-formatted presentation; evidence of effective teamwork and peer learning processes. Evidence of establishment of feedback loops for continuous team performance assessment and enhancement.
Distinction (75% – 84%) Evidence of independent research, including external literature review and assembly of knowledge, clear definition and validation of ‘best practice’ model and presentation of the same, its logical succinct description and application to ‘case project”, interpretation and comparison with real life situation, response to all the points in the brief (vs. TOR), well-illustrated pictures/diagrams and a well-formatted presentation; a well reasoned and validated Team Report and evidence of substantial participation in Group Learning activities. Evidence of learning and development through team learning.
Credit
(65% - 74%) Evidence of research, and assembly of available data, clear definition of ‘best practice’ model and presentation of the same, logical description of the application to ‘case project” or the assignment questions, interpretation and comparison with real life situation, response to all the points in the brief, well-illustrated pictures/diagrams and a well-formatted presentation; a well reasoned and validated Team Report and evidence of significant team learning.
Pass
(50% - 64%) Evidence of assimilation of the underpinning principles, good presentation of ‘best practice’, logical description of the application to ‘case project”, interpretation and comparison with real life situation, reasonable response to all the points in the brief, a well formatted presentation; a well-reasoned and validated Team Report and evidence of significant participation of team members in the team activities.
Fail ( 50%) Lesser standards compared to the Pass above. Lack of completion of parts of the assignments as per Program & Brief.
Table 1: APIC’s criteria for assessing essays and course work
Assignments 2 to 4 normally deliver an output, i.e. artefacts that embody the application of knowledge. For example, conducting financial appraisal embodies development of an analytical model, acquisition of data, application of the model to derive a solution and consideration of its validity, interpretation and recommendations etc. The assessment most appropriate for these assignments is to judge if the students have learnt to source, consolidate, adopt and apply the respective knowledge correctly to a given problem, if they have correctly interpreted the results and made recommendations as well as the quality of their presentation (document design, technical writing, graphics, etc.). As the scope of assignments are aligned to the target learning outcomes, and other things being equal, it is safe to
Asia Pacific International College ABN 48 061 101 488
www.apicollege.edu.au
assume that a quality assignment is an indicator of high level learning. Quality is judged in terms of the criteria included in Table 1. In addition to assessing the work produced by students during the project phase, APIC also assesses each individual student in terms of the target learning outcomes of the unit through a process known as viva (competency assessment) that is conducted at the end of each unit of study. Each course unit has 2 embedded competency assessment matrices: one is aligned to the target learning outcomes specific to the unit under consideration and the other is aligned to assessment of socio-cultural and personal (behavioural) competencies.
Competency assessment matrices contain performance metrics to aid assessment of the level each student has reached in each unit of study. Each course unit has its own learning outcomes (competency elements). A set of related competency elements comprise a competency unit. Figure 1 shows part of an assessment matrix. Competency levels in APIC are defined in terms of the attributes referred to earlier. Figure 2 shows the definition of competency levels in generic terms. As can be noted performance metrics are defined in terms of high level intellectual capabilities and meta-cognitive abilities.
Self and peer competency assessment is conducted by team members upon completion of each activity (minimum 5 times during the currency of a given course unit). The student can view self and average of peer competency assessment results, including all hints and comments received from peers or own reflections. The self and peer competency assessment results are private to the student. These provide a basis for reflective learning, including questions as to what has worked and what has not in terms of acquisition of the target learning outcomes. However, these are not the basis of the assessment of the student by their examiner at the end of each unit; these reports provide regular feedback to inform and motivate students concerned.
To prepare for the end of unit oral examination, each student is required to compile a final report (FR) containing self evaluation and evidence to substantiate that they have acquired the learning outcomes. This is a criterion based approach to assessment of students and it is a safeguard against plagiarism too. Its purpose is to validate if the student has genuinely acquired the learning outcomes as assessed against the metrics incorporated into the assessment matrices (see Figure 1 for a sample of metrics). It is worth stating that the viva is only conducted when the students concerned have completed all of the respective course components and passed all of their assessment components. In summary, the assessment in each unit of study is primarily focused on ascertaining that the student has acquired the learning outcomes and has improved also in terms of behavioural competencies including increased self awareness and self direction, higher team engagement, initiative and contribution and generally development of critical thinking and meta cognitive abilities. However, these are not the basis for student failing or passing a course unit; these are designed to raise students’ awareness about themselves and thus motivate them to improve where applicable.
Another question concerns the type and level of assessment in different units of study. On the surface it may look as if the assessment regime applied by APIC does not distinguish between fundamental units that constitute the Grad Cert or Grad Dip curricula and the more advanced units falling under the Master or MBA curricula. While the mechanism is the same, the level of rigour and the range of learning outcomes differ in the fundamental units versus the more advanced units.
Asia Pacific International College ABN 48 061 101 488 6
www.apicollege.edu.au
www.apicollege.edu.au
Asia Pacific International College ABN 48 061 101 488