Recent Question/Assignment

ASSESSMENT BRIEF___________________________________________________
Subject Title Capstone
Subject Code BUS301A
Assessment Title Final Proposal
Graduate Capabilities 5. Skilled Collaboration
6. Agile Leadership
7. Independent Self-Management
Learning Outcome/s a) Evaluate theoretical concepts/constructs to develop a project plan to address issues part of UN Sustainable Development Goals b) Appraise the feasibility of a sustainable initiative
c) Synthesise your skills and knowledge working collaboratively in an interdisciplinary project
d) Integrate ethical judgment into your initiative addressing the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
Assessment type (group or individual) Group
Weighting % 25%
Word count 4,500 words (+/-10%)
Due day Week 11
Submission type Submit into Moodle, with Peer Evaluation ?
v
Format/layout of assessment Report:
ICMS Cover Page
Table of Contents
Introduction (approx. 250 words)
• A summary of what motivated the purpose of the project
• A brief summary of the problem
• A brief summary of the solution to the problem
• Lay-out the format for the rest of the proposal
Problem and Motivation (approx. 500 words) v
v
v
v
ASSESSMENT BRIEF___________________________________________________
• How did this problem come about?
What is the history behind the problem?
• What is the significance of the problem?
• Which UNSD goals does your project address
• What is the motivation for the project (consider both personal and professional relevance)
Goals and Objectives (approx. 150 words)
• Articulate the overall goals of the project
• Link objectives to the goals (SMART)
Problem Solution/Project Details (approx.
1700 words). (Remember : Feasibility and
Practicality is paramount)
• This is where you need to explain YOUR group’s solution to the problem
• A detailed plan is required about each and every stage of the project/problem solution.
• Try and justify your solution by researching other (similar) initiatives that have been successful.
• Where there are differences with other projects, justify why your project is different, and how you believe your project ideas will lead to successful implementation
Identification of Key Stakeholders
(approx. 200 words)
• Identify key stakeholders as per the
Moscardo 2013 typology model
Budget & Funding (approx. 200 words)
• Identify the source/s of funding (if needed)
• Prepare a budget (as realistic as possible)
Issues, Challenges and Contingencies (approx.500 words).
• What are some issues and challenges that may occur?
• Outline contingency plans for identified issues
Ethical considerations (approx. 200 words)
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
(approx. 300 words)
Conclusion (approx. 250 words)
v
Assessment instructions This assessment is a group assignment that is an extension to assessments 1 and 2 and represents the culminating piece of work for the unit and a capstone to your studies. In this assessment, the group will submit a final report based on refining your ideas identified in your draft proposal. Though this is a group assessment, individual students may be awarded different grades, dependent on their contribution and participation
Readings for the assessment
This resource can be found online through any browser
List or links to relevant readings:
United Nations: UN Sustainable Development Goals
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-developmentgoals/
Grading Criteria / Rubric The marking rubric for this assessment is shown below.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF___________________________________________________ Assessment 3 Final Proposal – Marking Rubric
Criteria HD (85-100) D (75-84) CR
(65-74) PASS (50-64) FAIL (0-49)
Criteria 1
(Weighting 20%)
Project presentation and relevance Clear, well-articulated and realistic project that is relevant and innovative. It encapsulates the ICMS ethos and the student’s own social responsibility philosophy Project clearly identified with some details that are relevant to the course, the student’s career and the ICMS ethos A project is identified, but there is a lack of cohesion with regard to
its social, ethical or environmental impact and the ICMS ethos, though it appears to be relevant to the student’s career direction The identified project is somewhat limited in its breadth or potential impact and incorporates very limited ethical or
professional considerations The selected project is not relevant to the ethos of ICMS nor to the broader social, environmental and ethical drivers resulting from the course. It is superficially presented with minimal or no links to real-world context
Criteria 2
(Weighting 20 %)
Project implementation plan A project implementation plan exists that is well thought-out, easy to follow and is practical. The plan is feasible and all elements are exceptionally well considered and there is
comprehensive alignment with the realities of the problem being addressed A project implementation plan exists that is well thought-out, easy to follow and is practical. Most elements of the plan are feasible however there are some gaps with alignment and the realities of the problem being addressed Some evidence of good planning but some of the practicalities of the
project are
questionnable. The plan
does not contain all the essential elements and/or the elements lack feasibility in terms of the achieving the realities of the problem being addressed. A superficial plan is presented with little connection to the resources, timelines or realties of the problem being addressed. It does not employ professional planning approaches and lacks clarity Limited information is provided as the basis for a plan with limited prospects to be evaluated for practical application. There is very limited or no use of professional planning tool and techniques and no apparent in-depth analysis of what is required to achieve the plan’s goals
Criteria 3
(Weighting 20 %) Connection to and impact of the project on the UN
Sustainable
Development
Goals There exists a direct and valid connection between the goals of the project and the UN Sustainable Development Goals exemplified through the targets set by the project A link between the project and the Un Sustainable Development Goals exists, but the targets of the project only partially align to those goals. There is no clarity on how the targets will be met A minor link exists between the project and
the UN Sustainable development goals. The link appears to be superficial and lacks the depth that provides readers with confidence in the project Very limited or no link exists between the project and the UN
Sustainable
Development Goals. The link is not supported by rational targets that are resourced and timed. There is potential for mis-interpretation of the project There is no link between the targets of the project and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The project stands isolated from the ethical, social or environmental imperatives that the UN goals set. The project is superficial in its targets
Criteria 4?
(Weighting 20%) Project rationale and argument The report is professional and comprehensive in its
articulation of the problem being addressed. It provides clear, meaningful and relevant reasons for the importance of the project and provides the reader with context Arguments supporting
the validity of the project exist, though some may
not be practical or achievable. Some context is provided, but the reader is left to complete the picture through other sources, not from the proposal
itself Inconsistent or weak arguments for the rationale for the projectl are used. They do not provide a comprehensive or accurate picture of the state of play regarding the problem being addressed and there is limited or no context Disparate, disconnected statements are made in support of the project and its underlying
project, but there is
limited or no evidence that research and consideration have been
given to this rationale,
which may be impractical or irrelevant There is no rationale or argumentation in support of the project. The reason for the project and its impact are absent and there is no context for the reader to assess the credibility of the proposal
Criteria 5
(Weighting 20%) Language, format and correctness of spelling and grammar Few, if any errors of punctuation, spelling and format Some typical errors are evident, but overall the writing is correct Several spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors exist in the writing which lacks consistently correct formatting Many spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors exist in the writing. Incorrect
formatting and inconsistent treatment of word usage Very high levels of spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors exist in the writing. Very low level of professional styling in presenting the work and significant inconsistency in the use of words

Subject Title Capstone
Subject Code BUS301A
Assessment Title Final Project Presentation
Graduate Capabilities 5. Skilled Collaboration
6. Agile Leadership
7. Independent Self-Management
Learning Outcome/s a) Evaluate theoretical concepts/constructs to develop a project plan to address issues part of UN Sustainable Development Goals b) Appraise the feasibility of a sustainable initiative
c) Synthesise your skills and knowledge working collaboratively in an interdisciplinary project
d) Integrate ethical judgment into your initiative addressing the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
Assessment type (group or individual) Group
Weighting % 25%
Word count 15 slides (+/- 10%)
Due day Week 11 and 12
Submission type Submit into Moodle, with Peer Evaluation ?
In-class presentation ?
Format/layout of assessment Report:
ICMS Cover Page
Project Table of Contents
Background to the Problem & Relevance to
UN Sustainable Development Goals
Project Details and Plan
Key Challenges and Contingencies
Budget and Funding
Future (possible) project extensions v
v
v
v
v
v
v

Assessment instructions This assessment is a group assignment that is an extension to assessments 1, 2 and 3 and represents the culminating piece of work for the unit and a capstone to your studies. In this assessment, the group will present its findings to a panel comprised of the lecturer and two external members from industry, academia, politics, social action or other fields of endeavour. The committee will ask you questions, challenge your project and stimulate debate over the efficacy of the project and your potential contributions as a graduating professional to its solution. Your responses and defence of the project will be used by the lecturer to mark this work. Though this is a group assessment, individual students may be awarded different grades, dependent on their contribution, participation and responses to challenges from the committee.
The assessment requires that you present the project, the results you have reached and the relevance of these results to the UN
Sustainable Development Goals. You will do this with 15 slides and will have 15 minutes for the group to present its findings. The committee will then have 5 minutes of time per group to pose questions and challenge the project, which you will need to defend.
Readings for the assessment
This resource can be found online through any browser
List or links to relevant readings:
United Nations: UN Sustainable Development Goals
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-developmentgoals/
Grading Criteria / Rubric The marking rubric for this assessment is shown below.
Assessment 3 Final Project Presentation– Marking Rubric
Criteria HD (85-100) D (75-84) CR
(65-74) PASS (50-64) FAIL (0-49)
Criteria 1
(Weighting 20%)
Project presentation and relevance Clear, well-articulated and realistic project that is relevant and innovative. It encapsulates the ICMS ethos and the student’s own social responsibility philosophy Project clearly identified with some details that are relevant to the course, the student’s career and the ICMS ethos A project is identified, but there is a lack of cohesion with regard to
its social, ethical or environmental impact and the ICMS ethos, though it appears to be relevant to the student’s career direction The identified project is somewhat limited in its breadth or potential impact and incorporates very limited ethical or
professional considerations The selected project is not relevant to the ethos of ICMS nor to the broader social, environmental and ethical drivers resulting from the course. It is superficially presented with minimal or no links to real-world context
Criteria 2
(Weighting 20 %)
Project implementation plan A project implementation plan exists that is well thought-out, easy to follow and is practical. The plan uses professional planning tools and aligns with the timelines set-out by the group The plan incorporates some aspects of professional planning and is in some places relevant and practical, but lacks a
comprehensive alignment with the realities of the problem being addressed Limited use of project
planning and
implementation
techniques is used. The plan does not contain all the elements required to
assess its
implementation potential A superficial plan is presented with little connection to the resources, timelines or realties of the problem being addressed. It does not employ professional planning approaches and lacks clarity Limited information is provided as the basis for a plan with limited prospects to be evaluated for practical application. There is very limited or no use of professional planning tool and techniques and no apparent in-depth analysis of what is required to achieve the plan’s goals
Criteria 3
(Weighting 20 %) Connection to and impact of the project on the UN
Sustainable
Development
Goals There exists a direct and valid connection between the goals of the project and the UN Sustainable Development Goals exemplified through the targets set by the project A link between the project and the Un Sustainable Development Goals exists, but the targets of the project only partially align to those goals. There is no clarity on how the targets will be met A minor link exists between the project and
the UN Sustainable development goals. The link appears to be superficial and lacks the depth tat provides readers with confidence in the project Very limited or no link exists between the project and the UN
Sustainable
Development Goals. The link is not supported by rational targets that are resourced and timed. There is potential for mis-interpretation of the project There is no link between the targets of the project and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The project stands isolated from the ethical, social or environmental imperatives that the UN goals set. The project is superficial in its targets
Criteria 4?
(Weighting 20%) Group work, coordination and leadership Very well coordinated group work that is clearly based on planning and scope split. The group works holistically as one unit with each member clearly demonstrating an understanding of the whole. Leadership traits are displayed often and with breadth to a range of contingencies facing the group Collaboration and coordination exist in most cases and the group is able to navigate some of
the contingencies it faces. Group members know most, but not all of the content, of their work Some coordination exists within the group. Some group members recall some of the content, but there is a lack of clear and systematic coordination. Leadership is occasionally displayed by some members Very limited or no coordination exists within the group. There is no clear or consistent display of leadership and the group functions as a set of individuals Group formation has not matured and there is a
clear lack of coordination, collaboration and
leadership. Individual
members know some of
their content, but fail to identify with the broader work. Group values are absent
Criteria
5 (Weighting
20%)
Presentation style, interaction with the audience and response to questions Convincing and attractive presentation that captures the attention of the audience and is pleasing to listen to. Informative, clear and emotionally intelligent presentation of the subject matter. Grounded responses to questions An attractive presentation that indicates effort in the presentation of materials. Audience interactions and eye contact are inconsistent and responses to questions are sometimes inconclusive Presentation by the group that lacks attraction, but fulfils the basic requirements of a presentation. Team members do not present with passion and do not establish a connection with the audience Low levels of interaction with the audience or the subject matter. Much reading from sheets and a lack of
contextualisation in the delivery of work A clear lack of ability to present to an audience with limited or no coordination, monotone approaches to communication and errors or repeats in the subject matter. Limited or
no responses to questions from the audience to a depth and breadth expected of the topic