AssessmentDetailsandSubmissionGuidelines

Trimester

Term1 2025

UnitCode

BN205

UnitTitle

ProjectManagement

AssessmentType

IndividualAssessment

AssessmentTitle

CaseStudyAnalysisProjectSuccess&Failure BN205

Purpose of the assessment(with ULO Mapping)

b.Demonstrateprojectleadershipskills;identifyandassessrisk in designing and executing a major project

Weight

10%

TotalMarks

20

Wordlimit

1000minimum

DueDate

04/Apr/202511:59PM

Submission Guidelines

AllworkmustbesubmittedonMoodlebytheduedatealongwith a completed Assignment Cover Page.

TheassignmentmustbeinMSWordformat,1.5spacing,11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings.

Referencesourcesmustbecitedinthetextofthereport,and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using IEEE referencing style.

UseofAIcanbeusedforunderstandingthetopicconceptonly.Content generated by AI cannot be used for assignment either

waywithcitationorwithoutcitation.

Extension

If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration Application must be submitted directly in AMS. Youmustsubmitthisapplicationthreeworkingdayspriortothe due date of the assignment. Further information is available at MIT website.

Academic Misconduct

Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousnessofthecase,penaltiescanvaryfromawrittenwarningor zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree.

Students should make themselves familiar with the full policy and procedure available at:https://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/AcademicIntegrityPolicyAndProcedure

Forfurtherinformation,pleaserefertotheAcademicIntegritySection in your Unit Description.

Useof

GenerativeArtificial Intelligence(GenAI) in

Assessments

MoreinformationabouttheuseofGenAIinstudentassessmentcan be found

in the full policy and procedure available at: https://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/GenAIinLearningTeachingAndResearch

Furthersupportcanbefoundinthe MITLibGuide:UsingGenAI at MIT.

Furtherdetailsonthetypeofassessmenttasks,andwhetherGenAI is permitted to be used or not are provided in the assessment brief.

Section

Description

Marks(20)

Q1

Projectselectionand overview

4

Q2

Success&failurefactors

4

Q3

Ethical&riskconsiderations

4

Q4

Lessonslearned

4

Q5

Referencesandformatting

4

Task

HD(80%-100%)

D(70%-79%)

C(60%-69%)

P(50%-59%)

Fail(<50>

1.Project

Selection(4Marks)

Provides a detailed, clear, and comprehensive overviewofboth successful and failed projects, including well- articulated

objectivesand outcomes.

Goodoverview of both projects with minor detailsmissing in objectivesor outcomes.

Adequate overview with basic description of both projects. Lacksdepthin objectives or outcomes.

Briefoverview with insufficient explanationof projects, lacking key details about objectives or outcomes.

Missing or incomplete project descriptions, with poor or noarticulation of objectives andoutcomes.

2. Success & FailureFactors (4 Marks)

Identifies and thoroughly explains three key reasons for boththesuccess andfailureofthe projects with strong, well- supported

evidence.

Identifiesthree reasons for each, with some explanation or evidence.

Identifieskey reasons, but explanations lack detail or supporting evidence.

Identifies some reasons for success or failure, but explanations are minimal or unclear.

Does not adequately identify or explain reasonsfor success or failure.

3. Ethical andRiskConsiderations(4 Marks)

Insightful discussion of ethical issues thatcontributed to the failed project and identifies and thoroughly analyzes two major risks in both projects with clear explanationsof how they were managed or

mismanaged.

Good discussion of ethical issues with identificationofrisksinboth projects.Risks are explained but with minor gaps in analysis.

Addresses some ethical issues but lacksdepthin explaining risksandtheir management.

Minimal discussionof ethical issues, with limited identification of risks or lack of detail in how they were handled.

Ethical issues or risks are notdiscussed, or the explanation is unclear or irrelevant.

4.Lessons

Learned(4Marks)

Provides three well-articulated, insightful takeaways that are highly relevant to project management. Each lesson is backedbyclear

reasoningand examples.

Providesthree takeaways,but some lessons may lack depth or clear connection to project management.

Providesbasiclessons, but they may be somewhat general or lack practical relevance.

Provides a few lessons that are not fully developedor clearlylinked to project management practices.

Provides few or no takeaways,or the lessons are irrelevant to the field of project management.

5. References andFormatting (4 Marks)

All sources are properly cited and formatted in IEEEreferencing style. Document has clear structure with properheadings, subheadings,and consistent formatting

throughout.

Few minor formattingor referencing errors.

Structureand presentation are generally good.

Some referencingor formatting errors,butthe structure is still clear.

Many referencingor formatting issues, and the structure is somewhat unclear.

Majorerrorsin referencing or formatting.

Document lacks clear structureor proper citation.