Assignment 4

by Thoai Tran Gia

WORD COUNT

11456

TIME SUBMITTED

06-JAN-2014 09:46PM

CHARACTER COUNT

68244

PAPER ID

386608752

Assignment 4
GRADEMARK REPORT
FINAL GRADE

GENERAL COMMENTS

30

Instructor

/40

This is a comprehensive plan that carefully identifies

what quality means and how it will be managed. The
linkage between the quality definition, the management
strategy and the project is a strong point. Although
quality strategy is clearly identifed, it is not well argued
using the literature. Arguments do not draw from
repected quality writers and issues are not based on
documented problems. To make your plan stand up to
criticism and to justify resources needed for
implementation, your ideas need to be backed up. One
of the best ways to do this is by using the literature show why procurement is important; show why
document control is important - there is lots of good
literature on this. Good ideas are not enough - you need
to back them up.
Dispite the weakness in rationale, I felt the report was of
an excellent standard. The effort put into the quality
definitiion really paid off. Well done.
Submitted 1 day late. I've deducted 2 marks for being late.
In a project situation missing a deadline without notice
can be catastrophic - especially when you are tendering.
Make sure you hit your deadlines!

PAGE 1
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
PAGE 4

Comment 1

Good summary. Dont forget to include your recommendations.

Define your acronyms when you introduce them.

PAGE 5
PAGE 6

Comment 2

Good diagram.

Comment 2
PAGE 7
PAGE 8

Comment 3

Key issue for the quality plan.

PAGE 9

Comment 4 Excellent context section.

PAGE 10
PAGE 11

Comment 5

Good. Important that quality plan recognises this complex arrangement.

Comment 6

An excellent project overview and assumptions section. Great context and stakeholder

PAGE 12
PAGE 13
PAGE 14
PAGE 15

sections.
PAGE 16

Comment 7

Important statement.

PAGE 17
PAGE 18
PAGE 19

Comment 8

Comprehensive quality definition. Remember time and cost are usually handled
'naturally' by project processes, whereas your other dimensions tend to be handled poorly or in an ad
hoc manner. These areas need to be the focus. Great definition.
As there is a lot to think about, a summary form or diagram would make your definition easy to
communicate - remember this as you will often be talking to groups and will need a 30 second
summary.

PAGE 20
PAGE 21
PAGE 22
PAGE 23
PAGE 24
PAGE 25
PAGE 26

Comment 9

Good linkage of issue to strategy - it is clear how the potential issues will be

addressed.
Linkage to your quality definition is also excellent - I can see why the issues are quality issues!
Only improvement would be your rationale for the strategies - why will the strategies identified work?
Perhaps this comes later.
PAGE 27
PAGE 28

Comment 10

Really good prescription of what is required, but need more reasoning as to why -

use the literature!

PAGE 29
PAGE 30

Comment 11

Need to provide some evidence that document control is important. There are lots of
great references for this.
PAGE 31
PAGE 32
PAGE 33
PAGE 34

Comment 12
PAGE 35

This is also great, but where is the justification?

PAGE 36

Comment 13
PAGE 37
PAGE 38
PAGE 39
PAGE 40

Why not include PDSA here?

RUBRIC: ASSESSMENT TASK 4

ASSUMPTIONS

32 / 40

5/5

Project assumptions
UNSATISFACTORY
(0)

Assumptions are ill considered, missing, and/or largely incomplete.

SATISFACTORY
(2)

Somewhat considered, partially complete set of project assumptions. Aspects of project

execution have not been thought through. Key aspects of project execution are missing.

GOOD
(4)

Somewhat considered, complete set of project assumptions. Aspects of project execution

have not been thought through.

EXCELLENT
(5)

Well considered, complete set of project assumptions.

QUAL. DEF.

5/5

Quality Definition
UNSATISFACTORY
(0)

Unclear definition that is not specific.

SATISFACTORY
(2)

Definition is not specific. The definition uses the word 'quality'. No literature employed.

GOOD
(4)

Definition is clear and well argued. Limited literature is employed and no quality framework is
used.

EXCELLENT
(5)

Definition is clear, well argued and supported by the literature. Frameworks for quality
definition are employed.

APPLICATION

4 / 10

Application of Quality Theory and Strategy

UNSATISFACTORY
(0)

Few quality theories/strategies have been employed. Applications are incorrect or irrelevant.

SATISFACTORY
(4)

Quality theories and strategies have been employed and applied, however most seem
irrelevant or have been applied incorrectly.

GOOD
(8)

Relevant quality theories and strategies have been employed and applied. Some may have
been applied incorrectly.

EXCELLENT
(10)

Relevant quality theories and strategies have been employed and applied correctly.

CONSISTENCY
Consistency with project assumptions

5/5

UNSATISFACTORY
(0)

Quality strategies seem disconnected from the project assumptions. Quality appears to be
an 'add on'.

SATISFACTORY
(2)

Some quality strategies are inconsistent with the overall project assumptions. Quality
appears to be an 'add on'.

GOOD
(4)

Quality strategies are mainly consistent with the overall project assumptions. Quality is
partially integrated into the project.

EXCELLENT
(5)

Quality strategies are clearly consistent with the overall project assumptions. Quality is well
integrated into the project.

ASSURANCE

4/5

Degree of assurance
UNSATISFACTORY
(0)

There is little confidence that the project will deliver quality. Many risks have been
overlooked.

SATISFACTORY
(2)

A high quality plan is may be an outcome. A moderate number of quality 'risks' have not
been addressed.

GOOD
(4)

A high quality plan is likely to be an outcome. A small number of quality 'risks' have not
been addressed.

EXCELLENT
(5)

It is clear that a high quality outcome will be achieved if the quality plan is implemented.

INTEGRATION

5/5

Report Integration
UNSATISFACTORY
(0)

Report is disjointed. Presentation contains numerous errors.

SATISFACTORY
(2)

Report is somewhat disjointed. Presentation contains numerous errors.

GOOD
(4)

The report flows easily and key points are easy to find. Presentation reasonable, with minor
mistakes.

EXCELLENT
(5)

The report flows easily and key points are easy to find. Presentation is clear and clean.

LITERATURE

4/5

Literature References
UNSATISFACTORY
(0)

Minimal use of references from the literature (less than 5). Format not Harvard (RMIT).

SATISFACTORY
(2)

References are documented in the bibliography. Citations and format partially use Harvard
style (as per RMIT).

GOOD
(4)

References are documented in the bibliography. Citations and format correctly use Harvard
style (as per RMIT). References are a mix of qualities.

EXCELLENT
(5)

References are documented in the bibliography. Citations and format correctly use Harvard
style (as per RMIT). References are of a high quality and demonstrate throrough research.