The assignment we have to do now is “PART- B” i.e. Change Control. It is a total of 5000 words. that is a group work for which we are 5 members and each member has to do 1000 words. Please refer to the case study and state necessary changes for the profit of the company.
refer he case study I attached and read the instructions carefully. i have already done part – A, so dont worry about it. just you need to focus on part B- Change control. 

At 6:00 P.M. on Thursday in late October 1998, Don Jung, an Atlay Company
project manager (assigned to the Lyle contract) sat in his office thinking about the
comments brought up during a meeting with his immediate superior earlier that
afternoon. During that meeting Fred Franks, the supervisor of project managers,
criticized Don for not promoting a cooperative attitude between him and the func-
tional managers. Fred Franks had a high-level meeting with the vice presidents in
charge of the various functional departments (i.e., engineering, construction, cost
control, scheduling, and purchasing) earlier that day. One of these vice presidents,
John Mabby (head of the purchasing department) had indicated that his depart-
ment, according to his latest projections, would overrun their man-hour allocation
by 6,000 hours. This fact had been relayed to Don by Bob Stewart (the project
purchasing agent assigned to the Lyle Project) twice in the past, but Don had not
seriously considered the request because some of the purchasing was now going
to be done by the subcontractor at the job site (who had enough man-hours to
cover this additional work). John Mabby complained that, even though the sub-
contractor was doing some of the purchasing in the field, his department still
would overrun its man-hour allocation. He also indicated to Fred Franks that Don
Jung had better do something about this man-hour problem now. At this point in
the meeting, the vice president of engineering, Harold Mont, stated that he had
experienced the same problem in that Don Jung seemed to ignore their requests for
additional man-hours. Also at this meeting the various vice presidents indicated

675

The Lyle
Construction
Project

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 675

that Don Jung had not been operating within the established standard company
procedures. In an effort to make up for time lost due to initial delays that occurred
in the process development stage of this project, Don and his project team had
been getting the various functional people working on the contract to “cut cor-
ners” and in many cases to buck the standard operating procedures of their
respective functional departments in an effort to save time. His actions and
the actions of his project team were alienating the vice presidents in charge of the
functional departments. During this meeting, Fred Franks received a good deal of
criticism due to this fact. He was also told that Don Jung had better shape up,
because it was the consensus opinion of these vice presidents that his method of
operating might seriously hamper the project’s ability to finish on time and within
budget. It was very important that this job be completed in accordance with the
Lyle requirements since they would be building two more similar plants within
the next ten years. A good effort on this job could further enhance Atlay’s chances
for being awarded the next two jobs.

Fred Franks related these comments and a few of his own to Don Jung. Fred
seriously questioned Don’s ability to manage the project effectively and told him
so. However, Fred was willing to allow Don to remain on the job if he would
begin to operate in accordance with the various functional departments’ standard
operating procedures and if he would listen and be more attentive to the com-
ments from the various functional departments and do his best to cooperate with
them in the best interests of the company and the project itself.

INCEPTION OF THE LYLE PROJECT

In April of 1978, Bob Briggs, Atlay’s vice president of sales, was notified by
Lyle’s vice president of operations (Fred Wilson) that Atlay had been awarded the
$600 million contract to design, engineer, and construct a polypropylene plant in
Louisiana. Bob Briggs immediately notified Atlay’s president and other high-
level officials in the organization (see Exhibit I). He then contacted Fred Franks
in order to finalize the members of the project team. Briggs wanted George Fitz,
who was involved in developing the initial proposal, to be the project manager.
However, Fitz was in the hospital and would be essentially out of action for
another three months. Atlay then had to scramble to appoint a project manager,
since Lyle wanted to conduct a kickoff meeting in a week with all the principals
present.

One of the persons most available for the position of project manager was
Don Jung. Don had been with the company for about fifteen years. He had started
with the company as a project engineer, and then was promoted to the position of
manager of computer services. He was in charge of computer services for six
months until he had a confrontation with Atlay’s upper management regarding the

676 THE LYLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 676

Exhibit I. Atlay and Company organization chart

CEO

Head of

Operations

VP Control

B. Knapp

VP Eng.

H. Mont

VP Purch.

J. Mabby

VP Const.

S. Russel

VP Sales

B. Briggs

Mgr. of

Proj. Mgrs.

F. Franks

Project

D. Jung

Project

Project

Process Civil Elect . Instr. Piping Scheduling Cost Control Buying Exped. Inspect. Traffic ProjectsMech.

R.. Begen R.. Stewart

677

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 677

policies under which the computer department was operating. He had served
the company in two other functions since—the most recent position, that of
being a senior project engineer on a small project that was handled out of the
Houston office. One big plus was the fact that Don knew Lyle’s Fred Wilson per-
sonally since they belonged to many of the same community organizations. It was
decided that Don Jung would be the project manager and John Neber (an experi-
enced project engineer) would be assigned as the senior project engineer. The
next week was spent advising Don Jung regarding the contents of the proposal
and determining the rest of the members to be assigned to the project team.

A week later, Lyle’s contingent arrived at Atlay’s headquarters (see Exhibit II).
Atlay was informed that Steve Zorn would be the assistant project manager
on this job for Lyle. The position of project manager would be left vacant for the
time being. The rest of Lyle’s project team was then introduced. Lyle’s project
team consisted of individuals from various Lyle divisions around the country,
including Texas, West Virginia, and Philadelphia. Many of the Lyle project team
members had met each other for the first time only two weeks ago.

During this initial meeting, Fred Wilson emphasized that it was essential that
this plant be completed on time since their competitor was also in the process of
preparing to build a similar facility in the same general location. The first plant
finished would most likely be the one that would establish control over the south-
western United States market for polypropylene material. Mr. Wilson felt that
Lyle had a six-week head start over its competitor at the moment and would like

678 THE LYLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Exhibit II. Lyle project team organizational chart

VP of Operations

F. Wilson

Project Mgr.

Asst. Project Mgr.

S. Zorn

Sr. Project Eng.

B. Dradfy

Const. Eng.

D. Able

Instru. Eng.

C. Short

Mech. Eng.

B. Henny

Elect. Eng.

J. Stert

Process Eng.

J. Tomkan

P rocure. Rep.

J. Bost

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 678

to increase that difference, if at all possible. He then introduced Lyle’s assistant
project manager who completed the rest of the presentation.

At this initial meeting the design package was handed over to Atlay’s Don
Jung so that the process engineering stage of this project could begin. This pack-
age was, according to their inquiry letter, so complete that all material require-
ments for this job could be placed within three months after project award (since
very little additional design work was required by Atlay on this project). Two
weeks later, Don contacted the lead process engineer on the project, Raphael
Begen. He wanted to get Raphael’s opinion regarding the condition of the design
package.

Begen: Don, I think you have been sold a bill of goods. This package is in
bad shape.

Jung: What do you mean this package is in bad shape? Lyle told us that we
would be able to have all the material on order within three months since this
package was in such good shape.

Begen: Well in my opinion, it will take at least six weeks to straighten out the
design package. Within three months from that point you will be able to have all
the material on order.

Jung: What you are telling me then is that I am faced with a six-week sched-
ule delay right off the bat due to the condition of the package.

Begen: Exactly.

Don Jung went back to his office after his conversation with the lead process
engineer. He thought about the status of his project. He felt that Begen was being
overly pessimistic and that the package wasn’t really all that bad. Besides, a
month shouldn’t be too hard to make up if the engineering section would do its
work quicker than normal and if purchasing would cut down on the amount of
time it takes to purchase materials and equipment needed for this plant.

CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT

The project began on a high note. Two months after contract award, Lyle sent in
a contingent of their representatives. These representatives would be located at
Atlay’s headquarters for the next eight to ten months. Don Jung had arranged to
have the Lyle offices set up on the other side of the building away from his
project team. At first there were complaints from Lyle’s assistant project manager
regarding the physical distance that separated Lyle’s project team and Atlay’s
project team. However, Don Jung assured him that there just wasn’t any available
space that was closer to the Atlay project team other than the one they were now
occupying.

Conduct of the Project 679

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 679

The Atlay project team operating within a matrix organizational structure

plunged right into the project (see Exhibit III). They were made aware of the delay

that was incurred at the onset of the job (due to the poor design package) by

Don Jung. His instructions to them were to cut corners whenever doing so might

result in time savings. They were also to suggest to members of the functional

departments that were working on this project methods that could possibly result

in quicker turnaround of the work required of them. The project team coerced the

various engineering departments into operating outside of their normal proce-

dures due to the special circumstances surrounding this job. For example, the civil

engineering section prepared a special preliminary structural steel package, and

the piping engineering section prepared preliminary piping packages so that the

purchasing department could go out on inquiry immediately. Normally, the pur-

chasing department would have to wait for formal take-offs from both of these

departments before they could send out inquiries to potential vendors. Operating in

680 THE LYLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

VP of Procurement

J. Mabby

Project (Lyle)

R. Stewart

Project

Administrative

Asst.

Mgr. of Projects
Mgr. of Buying,

Expediting, Traffic
Chief Inspector

Buyers

Inspectors

Project

Chie f

Expeditor and

Expeditors

Traffic

Personnel

Exhibit III. Atlay Company procurement department organizational chart

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 680

this manner could result in some problems, however. For example, the purchas-

ing department might arrange for discounts from the vendors based on the quan-

tity of structural steel estimated during the preliminary take-off. After the formal

take-off has been done by the civil engineering section (which would take about

a month), they might find out that they underestimated the quantity of structural

steel required on the project by 50 tons. This was damaging, because knowing

that there was an additional 50 tons of structural steel might have aided the pur-

chasing department in securing an additional discount of $.20 per pound (or

$160,000 discount for 400 tons of steel).

In an effort to make up for lost time, the project team convinced the func-

tional engineering departments to use catalog drawings or quotation information

whenever they lacked engineering data on a particular piece of equipment. The

engineering section leaders pointed out that this procedure could be very danger-

ous and could result in additional work and further delays to the project. If, for

example, the dimensions for the scale model being built are based on this project

on preliminary information without the benefit of having certified vendor draw-

ings in house, then the scale for that section of the model might be off. When the

certified data prints are later received and it is apparent that the dimensions are

incorrect, that portion of the model might have to be rebuilt entirely. This would

further delay the project. However, if the information does not change substan-
tially, the company could save approximately a month in engineering time. Lyle

was advised in regards to the risks and potential benefits involved when Atlay

operates outside of their normal operating procedure. Steve Zorn informed Don

Jung that Lyle was willing to take these risks in an effort to make up for lost time.

The Atlay project team then proceeded accordingly.

The method that the project team was utilizing appeared to be working. It

seemed as if the work was being accomplished at a much quicker rate than what

was initially anticipated. The only snag in this operation occurred when Lyle had

to review/approve something. Drawings, engineering requisitions, and purchase

orders would sit in the Lyle area for about two weeks before Lyle personnel

would review them. Half of the time these documents were returned two weeks

later with a request for additional information or with changes noted by some of

Lyle’s engineers. Then the Atlay project team would have to review the comments/

changes, incorporate them into the documents, and resubmit them to Lyle for

review/approval. They would then sit for another week in that area before finally

being reviewed and eventually returned to Atlay with final approval. It should be

pointed out that the contract procedures stated that Lyle would have only five

days to review/approve the various documents being submitted to it. Don Jung

felt that part of the reason for this delay had to do with the fact that all the

Lyle team members went back to their homes for the weekends. Their routine was

to leave around 10:00 A.M. on Friday and return around 3:00 P.M. on the follow-

ing Monday. Therefore, essentially two days of work by the Lyle project team

Conduct of the Project 681

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 681

out of the week were lost. Don reminded Steve Zorn that according to the con-

tract, Lyle was to return documents that needed approval within five days after

receiving them. He also suggested that if the Lyle project team would work a full

day on Monday and Friday, it would probably increase the speed at which docu-

ments were being returned. However, neither corrective action was undertaken by

Lyle’s assistant project manager, and the situation failed to improve. All the time

the project team had saved by cutting corners was now being wasted, and further

project delays seemed inevitable. In addition, other problems were being encoun-

tered during the interface process between the Lyle and Atlay project team

members. It seems that the Lyle project team members (who were on temporary

loan to Steve Zorn from various functional departments within the Lyle organi-

zation) were more concerned with producing a perfect end product. They did not

seem to realize that their actions, as well as the actions of the Atlay project team,

had a significant impact on this particular project. They did not seem to be aware

of the fact that they were also constrained by time and cost, as well as perfor-

mance. Instead, they had a very relaxed and informal operating procedure. Many

of the changes made by Lyle were given to Atlay verbally. They explained to

the Atlay project team members that written confirmation of the changes were

unnecessary because “we are all working on the same team.” Many significant

changes in the project were made when a Lyle engineer was talking directly

to an Atlay engineer. The Atlay engineer would then incorporate the changes into

the drawings he was working on, and sometimes failed to inform his project engi-

neer about the changes. Because of this informal way of operating, there were

instances in which Lyle was dissatisfied with Atlay because changes were not

being incorporated or were not made in strict accordance with their requests.

Steve Zorn called Don Jung into his office to discuss this problem:

Steve: Don, I’ve received complaints from my personnel regarding your
teams inability to follow through and incorporate Lyle’s comments/changes
accurately into the P & ID drawings.

Don: Steve, I think my staff has been doing a fairly good job of incorporat-
ing your team’s comments/changes. You know the whole process would work a
lot better, however, if you would send us a letter detailing each change.
Sometimes my engineers are given two different instructions regarding the scope
of the change recommended by your people. For example, one of your people will
tell our process engineer to add a check valve to a specific process line and
another would tell him that check valves are not required in that service.

Steve: Don, you know that if we documented everything that was discussed
between our two project teams we would be buried in paperwork. Nothing would
ever get accomplished. Now, if you get two different instructions from my proj-
ect team, you should advise me accordingly so that I can resolve the discrepancy.
I’ve decided that since we seem to have a communication problem regarding

682 THE LYLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 682

engineering changes, I want to set up a weekly engineering meeting for every
Thursday. These meetings should help to cut down on the misunderstandings, as
well as keeping us advised of your progress in the engineering area of this con-
tract without the need of a formal status report. I would like all members of your
project staff present at these meetings.

Don: Will this meeting be in addition to our overall progress meetings that
are held on Wednesdays?

Steve: Yes. We will now have two joint Atlay/Lyle meetings a week—one
discussing overall progress on the job and one specifically aimed at engineering.

On the way back to his office Don thought about the request for an additional
meeting. That meeting will be a waste of time, he thought, just as the Wednesday
meeting currently is. It will just take away another day from the Lyle project
team’s available time for approving drawings, engineering, requisitions, and pur-
chase orders. Now there are three days during the week where at least a good
part of the day is taken up by meetings, in addition to a meeting with his project
team on Mondays in order to freely discuss the progress and problems of the job
without intervention by Lyle personnel. A good part of his project team’s time,
therefore, was now being spent preparing for and attending meetings during the
course of the week. “Well,” Don rationalized, “they are the client, and if they
desire a meeting, then I have no alternative but to accommodate them.”

JUNG’S CONFRONTATION

When Don returned to his desk he saw a message stating that John Mabby (vice-
president of procurement) had called. Don returned his call and found out that
John requested a meeting. A meeting was set up for the following day. At
9:00 A.M. the next day Don was in Mabby’s office. Mabby was concerned about
the unusual procedures that were being utilized on this project. It seems as though
he had a rather lengthy discussion with Bob Stewart, the project purchasing agent
assigned to the Lyle project. During the course of that conversation it became
very apparent that this particular project was not operating within the normal pro-
cedures established for the purchasing department. This deviation from normal
procedures was the result of instructions given by Don Jung to Bob Stewart. This
upset John Mabby, since he felt that Don Jung should have discussed these devi-
ations with him prior to his instructing Bob Stewart to proceed in this manner:

Mabby: Don, I understand that you advised my project purchasing agent to
work around the procedures that I established for this department so that you
could possibly save time on your project.

Jung’s Confrontation 683

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 683

Jung: That’s right, John. We ran into a little trouble early in the project and
started running behind schedule, but by cutting corners here and there we’ve been
able to make up some of the time.

Mabby: Well I wish you had contacted me first regarding this situation.
I have to tell you, however, that if I had known about some of these actions I would
never have allowed Bob Stewart to proceed. I’ve instructed Stewart that from now
on he is to check with me prior to going against our standard operating procedure.

Jung: But John Stewart has been assigned to me for this project. Therefore,
I feel that he should operate in accordance with my requests, whether they are
within your procedures or not.

Mabby: That’s not true. Stewart is in my department and works for me. I am
the one who reviews him, approves the size of his raise, and decides if and when
he gets a promotion. I have made that fact very clear to Stewart, and I hope I’ve
made it very clear to you, also. In addition, I hear that Stewart has been predict-
ing a 6,000 man-hour overrun for the purchasing department on your project.
Why haven’t you submitted an additional change request to the client?

Jung: Well, if what Stewart tells me is true the main reason that your depart-
ment is short man-hours is because the project manager who was handling the
initial proposal (George Fitz) underestimated your requirements by 7,000 man-
hours. Therefore, from the very beginning you were short man-hours. Why
should I be the one that goes to the client and tells him that we blew our estimate
when I wasn’t even involved in the proposal stage of this contract? Besides, we
are taking away some of your duties on this job, and I personally feel that you
won’t even need those additional 6,000 man-hours.

Mabby: Well, I have to attend a meeting with your boss Fred Franks tomor-
row, and I think I’ll talk to him about these matters.

Jung: Go right ahead. I’m sure you’ll find out that Fred stands behind me 100
percent.

684 THE LYLE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

c17.qxd 12/21/12 7:00 PM Page 684

PROJ6003_Assessment 1 Brief_July 2019.Docx Page 1 of 9

ASSESSMENT BRIEF

Subject Code and Title PROJ6003 Project Execution and Control

Assessment Assessment 1: Change Management (2 parts)

Part A: Module 1-2 Discussion Forum

Part B: Change Control

Individual/Group Part A: Individual

Part B: Individual/Group

Length Part A: 750 words

Part B: 1500 words/student

Learning Outcomes 1. Draw on tools and techniques of sourcing project
data, develop a range of processes and measures to
manage scope, change and quality on complex global
projects.

Submission Part A: Post by end of Module 2.

Part B: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 3

Weighting 50% (Part A: 15%; Part B: 35%)

Total Marks Part A: 15 marks

Part B: 35 marks

Context:

During project execution, project managers ensure that project work is completed as specified in the
Project Management Plan and according to project requirements. Requirements may change
throughout the course of a project. Changes need to be controlled, ensuring all of their impacts upon
the project are managed effectively and are incorporated into existing management plans and project
baselines.

The process of directing and managing project work requires project managers to take on numerous
responsibilities and to exhibit characteristics such as attention to detail, constant communication and
effective leadership.

Instructions:

For this Assessment refer to the assessment case study found in Key Learning Resources.

PROJ6003_Assessment 1 Brief_July 2019.Docx Page 2 of 9

There are two parts for this assessment: 1 Discussion Forum (Part A) that prepares students to
write a Change Management Plan (Part B).

Each student will construct an initial response in approximately 500 words to the following questions

and post on the Module discussion forums. Students will be graded individually on how students

demonstrate/share project change management theories and contribute to the general discussion of

the topic over weeks 2, 3 & 4 as well as their 250-words written response. The initial and responding

posts must be submitted by the end of Module 2 (Total 750 words).

Part A: Module 1-2 Discussion Forums

Managing Project Changes

Why is change management a necessary component of project management? Consider the given case

study, critically analyse and identify key issues that could lead to any necessary changes in the project.

What processes or strategies do you think would work best to perform the identified change requests

from the case study?

Output:

Part A – Complete your posts by the end of Module 2.

Part B: Change Control

Based upon the given case study, in groups or as an individual, develop a report on change control. In
the report:

1. Identify changes required for the case study. Critically analyse their impact on scope, time,
cost, quality of the project and the techniques used to manage them.

2. Explain what processes are involved in submitting a request to deal with the changes
necessary from your analysis of the case study.

3. Identify and discuss options to satisfy each change request and any risks associated to the
options.

4. Complete the change request/control form provided or one that is used from a workplace.

The written part of your change control report should consist of 1500 words/student.

If you work in group, nominate a group leader and this group leader will submit the assessment on
behalf of the group.

Output:
Complete and submit your change control report by the end of Module 3.

PROJ6003_Assessment 1 Brief_July 2019.Docx Page 3 of 9

Learning Resources:

Heldman, K. (2013). PMP Project Management Professional Exam Study Guide (7th ed.). Indianapolis,
IN: Wiley

 Chapter 8: Developing the Project Team (Read the section on ‘Directing and Managing
Project Work’)

 Chapter 10: Measuring and Controlling Project Performance (Read the section on ‘Managing
Perform Integrated Change Control’)

 Chapter 11: Controlling Work Results (Read the sections from ‘Managing Cost Changes’ to
and including ‘Validating Project Scope’)

ProjectLibre. (n.d.). ProjectLibre: Open source replacement of Microsoft Project [Software download].
Retrieved from http://www.projectlibre.org/home

Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge
(PMBOK Guide®) (5th ed.). Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.

 Section 3.5: Executing Process Group

 Section 3.6: Monitoring and Controlling Process Group

 Section 4.3: Direct and Manage Project Work

 Section 4.4: Monitor and Control Project Work

 Section 4.5: Perform Integrated Change Control

 Section 5.5: Validate Scope

 Section 5.6: Control Scope

 Section 6.7: Control Schedule

 Section 7.4: Control Costs

 Section 11.6: Control Risks

Snyder, C. S. (2013). A project manager’s book of forms: A companion to the PMBOK guide (2nd ed.).
Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

 Change Log Template (Word document)

 Change Management Plan Template (Word document)

 Change Request Template (Word document)

Wysocki, R. K. (2012). Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme (6th ed.).
Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

 Chapter 6: How to Launch a TPM Project (sections ‘Recruiting the Project Team’ to ‘Assigning
Resources’).

 Chapter 7: How to Monitor and Control a TPM (Read the sections from ‘Managing Project
Status Meetings’ to and including ‘Putting It All Together’).

Assessment Criteria:
Please refer to the following learning rubrics for assessment criteria on each part.

PROJ6003_assessment 1 brief_July 2019.docx Page 4 of 9

Learning Rubric – Assessment 1 Part A: Modules 1-2 Discussion Forums

Assessment
Attributes

Fail
(0-49)

Pass
(50-64)

Credit
(65-74)

Distinction
(75-84)

High Distinction
(85-100)

Contributes
to
identifying
tools or
techniques
of sourcing
project data
and
developing
processes
and
measures to
manage
project
change

60%

Fails to contribute to the
identification of tools or
techniques of sourcing
data and/or developing
processes and measures to
manage project change.

Contributes an
identification of tools or
techniques of sourcing
project data.

Resembles a recall or
summary of key ideas.

Contributes an
identification of both tools
and techniques of sourcing
project data without citing
evidence from the
research or readings.

Demonstrates capacity to
explain and apply relevant
concepts.

Contributes an
identification of both tools
and techniques of sourcing
project data and analyses
or evaluates their value
towards the processes to
measure and manage
project change.

Supports personal opinion
and information
substantiated by evidence
from the research/course
materials.

Contributes an
identification of both tools
and techniques of sourcing
project data and analyses
or evaluates their value
towards the processes to
measure and manage
project change, with added
insight that extends
knowledge available from
sourced data.

Critically discriminates
between assertion of
personal opinion and
information substantiated
by robust evidence from
the research/course
materials

Constructive
feedback to
peers

30%

Fails to offer any feedback.

No support or
encouragement to peers.

No awareness or sensitivity
to diversity amongst peers.

Offers feedback but rarely
constructive or useful.

Feedback is not always
clear or specific to guide
peers.

Little support or
encouragement to peers.

Offers feedback that is
sometimes constructive or
useful.

Feedback is provided with
examples to guide peers.

Some support and
encouragement to peers.

Offers constructive
feedback regularly.

Formulates the merits of
alternative ideas or
proposals and
communicates them to
peers.

Always offers detailed
constructive feedback that
is specific and appropriate.

Expertly articulates the
merits of alternative ideas
or proposals and
communicates them
effectively to peers.

PROJ6003_assessment 1 brief_July 2019.docx Page 5 of 9

Demonstrates little
awareness of and/or
sensitivity to diversity
amongst peers.

Demonstrates some level
of awareness of and
sensitivity to diversity
amongst peers.

Offers support and
encouragement to peers.

Demonstrates a high level
of awareness of and
sensitivity to diversity
amongst peers.

Provides expert assistance,
support, and
encouragement to peers.

Consistently demonstrates
a high level of awareness
of and sensitivity to
diversity amongst peers.

Use of
academic
and
discipline
conventions
and sources
of evidence

10%

Poorly written with errors
in spelling, grammar.

Demonstrates inconsistent
use of good quality,
credible and relevant
research sources to
support and develop ideas.

There are mistakes in using
the APA style.

Is written according to
academic genre (e.g. with
introduction, conclusion or
summary) and has
accurate spelling,
grammar, sentence and
paragraph construction.

Demonstrates consistent
use of credible and
relevant research sources
to support and develop
ideas, but these are not
always explicit or well
developed.

There are no mistakes in
using the APA style.

Is well-written and adheres
to the academic genre (e.g.
with introduction,
conclusion or summary).

Demonstrates consistent
use of high quality,
credible and relevant
research sources to
support and develop ideas.

There are no mistakes in
using the APA style.

Is very well-written and
adheres to the academic
genre.

Consistently demonstrates
expert use of good quality,
credible and relevant
research sources to
support and develop
appropriate arguments
and statements. Shows
evidence of reading
beyond the key reading

There are no mistakes in
using the APA style.

Expertly written and
adheres to the academic
genre.

Demonstrates expert use
of high-quality, credible
and relevant research
sources to support and
develop arguments and
position statements.
Shows extensive evidence
of reading beyond the key
reading

There are no mistakes in
using the APA Style.

PROJ6003_assessment 1 brief_July 2019.docx Page 6 of 9

Learning Rubric – Assessment 1 Part B: Change Control Report

Assessment
Attributes

Fail
(0-49)

Pass
(50-64)

Credit
(65-74)

Distinction
(75-84)

High Distinction
(85-100)

Identifies and
analyses change and
its impacts to scope,
time, cost and
quality on global
projects

35%

Fails to contribute to
identifying or analysing
change and its impact on
the project

Contributes to identifying
tasks required to
implement change.

Demonstrates limited
awareness of possible
implications of making
change.

Minimal analysis of
change impact

Contributes to identifying
tasks and resources
required to implement
the change.

Clearly articulates the
impact of change on
projects, identifying and
analysing each of the key
change contributors.

Contributes to identifying
tasks and resources
required to implement
the change and
estimating the time
needed to complete
those tasks.

Contributes to
presenting a coherent
impact analysis.

Contributes to identifying
options to satisfy change
and assessing their
impact on project
outcome and success

Contributes to identifying
tasks and resources
required to implement
the change and provides
a project schedule to
complete those tasks.

Develops a critical
analysis and evaluation
of the impact of change
and examines associated
risks involved

Contributes to identifying
options which are
aligned with project
outcome and
stakeholder wishes, to
satisfy change and assess
impacts on project
outcome and success.

Contributes to
formulating a process to
forecast potential change
to minimise it and
develops a strategy to
manage change and
stakeholder

PROJ6003_assessment 1 brief_July 2019.docx Page 7 of 9

communications
effectively.

Develops processes
and measures to
manage changes to
scope, time, cost and
quality on complex
global projects.

40%

Fails to contribute to the
development of
processes and/or
measures to manage
changes to scope, time,
cost and quality on
complex global projects.

Identifies processes and
measures to manage
changes to scope, time,
cost and quality on
complex global projects
but resembles a recall or
summary of key ideas.

Conflates/confuses
assertion of personal
opinion with information
from the research/course
materials.

Contributes to the
development of
processes and measures
to manage changes to
scope, time, cost and
quality on complex global
projects.

Shows understanding of
integrated change
control.

Supports personal
opinion and information
substantiated by
evidence from the
research/course
materials.

Demonstrates a capacity
to explain and apply
relevant concepts.

Contributes to the
development of
processes and measures
to manage changes to
scope, time, cost and
quality on complex global
projects.

Work shows insight and
thorough understanding
of integrated change
control.

Discriminates between
assertion of personal
opinion and information
substantiated by robust
evidence from the
research/course
materials.

Well demonstrated
capacity to explain and
apply relevant concepts.

A sophisticated
understanding of the
development of
processes and measures
to manage changes to
scope, time, cost and
quality on complex global
projects effectively and
understanding of
integrated change
control.

Critically discriminates
between assertion of
personal opinion and
information
substantiated by robust
evidence from the
research/course
materials

Critically applies
concepts to new
situations/further
learning.

Identifies a framework to
foster a continuous
improvement cycle of
learning within the
organisation.

PROJ6003_assessment 1 brief_July 2019.docx Page 8 of 9

Effectively
communicates

20%

Difficult to understand
for audience, no
logical/clear structure,
poor flow of ideas,
argument lacks
supporting evidence.

No effort is made to keep
audience engaged,
audience cannot follow
the line of reasoning.

Little use of presentation
aids, or the presentation
aids and material used
are irrelevant.

Information, arguments
and evidence are
presented in a way that
is not always clear and
logical.

Attempts are made to
keep the audience
engaged, but not always
successful. Line of
reasoning is often
difficult to follow.

Presentation aids are
used more for effect than
relevance.

Information, arguments
and evidence are well
presented, mostly clear
flow of ideas and
arguments.

The audience is mostly
engaged, line of
reasoning is easy to
follow.

Effective use of
presentation aids.

Information, arguments
and evidence are very
well presented, the
presentation is logical,
clear and well supported
by evidence.

Engages the audience,
demonstrates cultural
sensitivity.

Carefully and well
prepared presentations
aids are used.

Expertly presented; the
presentation is logical,
persuasive, and well
supported by evidence,
demonstrating a clear
flow of ideas and
arguments.

Engages and sustains
audience’s interest in the
topic, demonstrates high
levels of cultural
sensitivity

Effective use of diverse
presentation aids,
including graphics and
multi-media.

Uses academic and
discipline
conventions and
sources of evidence
5%

Poorly written with
errors in spelling,
grammar.

Demonstrates
inconsistent use of good
quality, credible and
relevant research
sources to support and
develop ideas.

There are mistakes in
using the APA style.

Is written according to
academic genre (e.g.
with introduction,
conclusion or summary)
and has accurate
spelling, grammar,
sentence and paragraph
construction.

Demonstrates consistent
use of credible and
relevant research sources
to support and develop
ideas, but these are not

Is well-written and
adheres to the academic
genre (e.g. with
introduction, conclusion
or summary).

Demonstrates consistent
use of high quality,
credible and relevant
research sources to
support and develop
ideas.

There are no mistakes in
using the APA style.

Is very well-written and
adheres to the academic
genre.

Consistently
demonstrates expert use
of good quality, credible
and relevant research
sources to support and
develop appropriate
arguments and
statements. Shows
evidence of reading
beyond the key reading

Expertly written and
adheres to the academic
genre.

Demonstrates expert use
of high-quality, credible
and relevant research
sources to support and
develop arguments and
position statements.
Shows extensive
evidence of reading
beyond the key reading

PROJ6003_assessment 1 brief_July 2019.docx Page 9 of 9

always explicit or well
developed.

There are no mistakes in
using the APA style.

There are no mistakes in
using the APA style.

There are no mistakes in
using the APA Style.