Project Procurement and Risk Management Assignment
Construct a 1,000-1,250-word response that addresses the following:
1. Read the “Franklin Equipment, Ltd.” case study 11.3 in chapter 11 of the textbook. Respond to Questions 1 through 4 of the case.
2. Discuss strategies for conflict resolution for stakeholders that you believe would be applicable for this case.
3. Finally, discuss how the key challenges raised on the case could be framed within a Christian perspective. In other words, how could the key challenges in the case be addressed using Christian principles? (CWV/IFLW).
Be sure to cite three to five relevant scholarly sources in support of your content. Use only sources found at the GCU Library or those provided in Topic Materials.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the
LopesWrite Technical Support articles
for assistance.
Rubic_Print_
Format
| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points | ||||||||
| MGT-440 | MGT-440-O500 | Project Human Resources and Communications Management Assignment | 60.0 | ||||||||
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned | |||
| Content | 70.0% | ||||||||||
| Read the “Franklin Equipment, Ltd.” case study 11.3 in chapter 11 of the textbook. Respond to Questions 1 through 4 of the case. Q. 1 Evaluate the criteria FEL uses to assign managers to project teams. What efficiencies do these criteria create? What are the resulting problems? | 5.0% | Response does not evaluate the criteria FEL uses to assign managers to project teams. | Response attempts to evaluate the criteria FEL uses to assign managers to project teams but is inadequate; explanation of the efficiencies and resulting problems is irrelevant and/or incomplete and is lacking evidence to support claims. | Response evaluates the criteria FEL uses to assign managers to project teams in an adequate manner; explanation of the efficiencies and resulting problems is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | Response evaluates the criteria FEL uses to assign managers to project teams in a clear and coherent manner; explanation of the efficiencies and resulting problems is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims. | The response evaluating the criteria FEL uses to assign managers to project teams is expertly written; explanation of the efficiencies and resulting problems is comprehensive and insightful with relevant details to support claims. | |||||
| Q. 2 Why is it even more important that project team members work well together on international projects such as Project Abu Dhabi? | Response does not evaluate why it is more important that project team members work well together on International projects. | Response attempts to evaluate why it is more important that project team members work well together on International projects but is inadequate; explanation is irrelevant and/or incomplete and is lacking evidence to support claims. | Response evaluates why it is more important that project team members work well together on International projects in an adequate manner; explanation is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | Response evaluates why it is more important that project team members work well together on International projects in a clear and coherent manner; explanation is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims. | The response evaluating why it is more important that project team members work well together on International projects is expertly written; explanation is comprehensive and insightful with relevant details to support claims. | ||||||
| Q.3 Discuss the dilemma that Jobe now faces. | Response does not discuss the dilemma that Jobe faces. | Response attempts to discuss the dilemma that Jobe faces but is inadequate; explanation is irrelevant and/or incomplete and is lacking evidence to support claims. | Response discusses the dilemma that Jobe faces in an adequate manner; explanation is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | Response discusses the dilemma that Jobe faces in a clear and coherent manner; explanation is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims. | The response discussing the dilemma that Jobe faces is expertly written; explanation is comprehensive and insightful with relevant details to support claims. | ||||||
| Q.4 What should Jobe recommend to Gatenby? | Response does not discuss what Jobe should recommend to Gatenby. | Response attempts to discuss what Jobe should recommend to Gatenby but is inadequate; explanation is irrelevant and/or incomplete and is lacking evidence to support claims. | Response discusses what Jobe should recommend to Gatenby in an adequate manner; explanation is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | Response discusses what Jobe should recommend to Gatenby in a clear and coherent manner; explanation is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims. | The response discussing what Jobe should recommend to Gatenby is expertly written; explanation is comprehensive and insightful with relevant details to support claims. | ||||||
| Discuss strategies for conflict resolution for stakeholders that you believe would be applicable in this case. | 20.0% | Response does not discuss strategies for conflict resolution for stakeholders that would be applicable in this case. | Response attempts to discuss strategies for conflict resolution for stakeholders that would be applicable in this case but is inadequate; explanation is irrelevant and/or incomplete and is lacking evidence to support claims. | Response discusses strategies for conflict resolution for stakeholders that would be applicable in this case in an adequate manner; explanation is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | Response discusses strategies for conflict resolution for stakeholders that would be applicable in this case in a clear and coherent manner; explanation is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims. | The response discussing strategies for conflict resolution for stakeholders that would be applicable in this case is expertly written; explanation is comprehensive and insightful with relevant details to support claims. | |||||
| Discuss how the key challenges raised on the case could be framed within a Christian perspective. In other words, how could the key challenges in the case be addressed using Christian principles? | A discussion of how the key challenges in the case could be addressed using Christian principles is not present. | The discussion of how the key challenges in the case could be addressed using Christian principles is inadequate. The explanation is irrelevant and/or incomplete and is lacking evidence to support claims. | The discussion of how the key challenges in the case could be addressed using Christian principles is adequate. The explanation is somewhat limited and lacks some details to support claims. | The discussion of how the key challenges in the case could be addressed using Christian principles is clear and coherent. The explanation is strong with sound analysis and appropriate details to support claims; demonstrates understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic. | The discussion of how the key challenges in the case could be addressed using Christian principles is expertly written. The explanation is comprehensive and insightful with relevant details to support claims; demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. | ||||||
| Be sure to cite three-five relevant sources in support of your content. Utilize the GCU Library and external sources for your research. | 10.0% | No outside sources are cited. | Some sources may be cited but they are not scholarly and/or relevant. | Three to five relevant sources are cited in a loosely connected, vague way. | Three to five relevant sources are cited in a clear, well-connected way. | Three to five relevant, sources are cited and are flawlessly integrated into the essay to support the content. | |||||
| Organization and Effectiveness | |||||||||||
| Paragraph Development and Transitions | Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed. | Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident. | Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. | A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose. | There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. | ||||||
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | ||||||
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. | ||||||
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | ||||||
| Total Weightage | 100% |
MGT-440 Topic 5 Project Procurement and Risk Management Assignment – ONL-TO
Scoring Guide
Grading Criteria
Points
Comments
Assignment Instructions:
NOTE: Refer to the Instructions for Citrix in the Course Materials.
Ensure that the Risk Assessment Form, Risk Severity Matrix, and Risk Response Matrix are included in the same Microsoft Excel file. Submit your Microsoft Excel file and your Microsoft Word file. Ensure that your last name is in your file names.
Complete Case 7.3 Trans LAN Project in Larson and Gray by responding to Questions 1, 2, and 3. Combine items 1 and 2 into a single Risk Assessment Form (see Figure 7.6 in Larson and Gray) and use Microsoft Excel to complete this item. Use Microsoft Excel for the Risk Response Matrix (see Figure 7.8 in Larson and Gray) for question 3. Note that additional items may be added to the Risk Assessment Form and the Risk Response Matrix.
0/15
Did not provide a list of potential risks and document them in a risk assessment or create a supporting risk response matrix to provide response and contingency plans for each risk.
In addition to the requested items in the case, complete the following:
1. Based on the risks that you identified on the Risk Assessment Form, create a Risk Severity Matrix (see Figure 7.7 in Larson and Gray). Note that additional information beyond the information shown in Figure 7.7 may be provided. Use Microsoft Excel to complete this item.
0/15
Did not provide a risk severity matrix that would enable you to better understand the risks that should command the most attention in the project.
2. Make any assumptions and document them as necessary to complete the aforementioned items.
0/10
Did not document any assumptions content
3. Based on the information in Appendix 12.1 in Larson and Gray, evaluate what type of contract(s) might be applicable to this project if you were to outsource certain aspects of your project to suppliers. Ensure that you justify your supplier contractual decisions based the inherent risks related to your selected contract type(s). Make any assumptions and document them accordingly. Ensure that at least 350 words are provided. APA formatting is not required. Place your responses into a Microsoft Word file.
0/20
Did not provide any analysis on what you would want to outsource or determine the best contract type for that.
Total
0/60
0%
©2018. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.