| University | Southern Institute Of Technology (SIT) |
| Subject | MGT605 Risk Management and Quality |
Assessed Learning Outcomes:
- LO.1 Describe and discuss the theory, practice, strategic importance, and interrelationship between quality and risk management.
- LO.2 Undertake a risk analysis and justify conclusions.
- LO.3 Compare and contrast problem-solving methods for dealing with risks and apply them to a specific scenario providing justification for the chosen approach.
Conditions:
This is a compulsory assignment and non-submission will result in failing the paper. No re-sits or resubmissions are allowed. To pass this paper an overall grade of 50% must be achieved across all assessments, attaining no less than 35% for each individual assessment.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Due date: 6pm Monday, Week 9, via Blackboard
Contribution: 45%
Word Count: 3300 words (+/- 10%), excluding referencing and appendices.
References: a minimum of 6 academically relevant sources should be used to support your work
Style: Report
Stuck! Do not Know Assessment Answers?
Hire NZ Native Experts 24/7.
Qualification outcome expectations
Research and referencing:
You are required to engage in some research into the theories or concepts underpinning this topic and use other relevant sources beyond the provided reading material in order to successfully complete this assignment. Ensure you are choosing relevant academic sources and using them well to support your arguments. Ensure you include citations and a full reference list using the latest APA guidelines.
Presentation guidelines:
Work is expected to be word-processed and submitted as a Word document or PDF, using a clear, readable font and be within 10% of the given word count (excluding any referencing). Include your name, student number and the paper code and assignment number as a header or footer. Reports should include headings or subheadings as required. Essays should include an introduction, body and conclusion. Spellchecking (NZ English) and proofreading of work prior to submission is strongly encouraged.
ASSIGNMENT TASK
Your assignment must have all of the following sections:
- Introduction (approx. 300 words)
- Literature review (approx. 1000 words):
Analyse each of the following five (5) elements of risk management.
(A quality source is AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management Systems.)
- Scope, Context and Criteria
- Risk Assessment
- Risk Treatment
- Monitoring and Reviewing
- Recording and Reporting
- Case study – read the case study, JCU Spring Concert, on pages 246 of your text (found on Blackboard) and then complete the three tasks on the top of page 246 (outlined below).
- Identify and discuss at least five (5) potential risks from the case study (approx. 500 words)
- Use risk tables similar to Figures 7.5 and 7.6 to analyse the risks you have identified
- Develop a risk register similar to Figure 7.8 to outline how you would deal with each of the identified risks.
- Risk Management Plan – undertake a risk analysis and develop a risk management plan for the JCU Spring Concert. For each identified risk, explain and justify your chosen risk mitigation approach over at least one other option (approx. 1200 words).
- Conclusion – present an overview of assignment findings and lessons learned (approx. 300 words).
Buy Custom Assignment & Homework Solutions
Pay to NZ Native Writers | Cheap Cost & Plag Free
Marking schedule
| Criteria | E (0-39) | D (40-49) | C (50-64) | B (65-79) | A (80-100) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction Weighting 5% | Introduction does not offer any context for the subject to be discussed. | Introduction is weak and does not offer much useful context for the subject to be discussed. | Satisfactory introduction with some useful content about the subject to be discussed. | Good introduction and well-presented and detailed. | Exceptionally well-presented with clear and relevant detail. |
| Literature review of project risk management Weighting 15% | Little or no discussion of risks, or very unclear. | Limited or unclear discussion of risks, or less than covered sufficiently. | Adequate discussion of all five of risks with some good detail or relevant examples. | Good discussion of all five risk areas with clear and relevant detail and/or examples. | Excellent discussion of all five risk areas with comprehensive and relevant detail, facts and examples. |
| Project risks: Weighting 10% | Little or no discussion of risks identified for the project or risks not correctly identified. | Limited or unclear discussion of risks identified for the project, or some risks not correctly identified. | Adequate identification and discussion of risks for the project. Some more detail or discussion could have been included for some risks. | Good identification and discussion of risks for the project. Would have benefited from a little more detail or discussion in one or two areas. | Excellent identification and discussion of risks identified for the project. |
| Risk Matrix: Weighting 10% | Little or no risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk matrix tools discussed in the text. | Limited or unclear risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk matrix tools discussed in the prescribed text. | Basic risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk matrix tools discussed in the prescribed text. | Good risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk matrix tools discussed in the prescribed text. | Well-articulated and comprehensive risk analysis undertaken for the case study using risk matrix tool discussed in the prescribed text. |
| Risk register: Weighting 10% | Little or no risk register developed for the case study. | Limited or unclear risk register developed for the case study. | Basic risk register developed for the case study. | Good risk register developed for the case study. | Well-articulated and comprehensive and we risk register developed for the case study. |
| Risk management plan: Weighting 25% | Little or no risk management plan developed for the case study. | Limited or unclear risk management plan developed for the case study. | Basic risk management plan developed for the case study. | Good risk management plan developed for the case study. | Well-articulated and comprehensive risk management plan developed for the case study. |
| Conclusion: overview of assignment findings and lessons learned Weighting 10% | Little or no conclusion. Content is weak and does not offer useful discussion on findings or lessons learnt. | Limited or unclear conclusion. Some content is weak and does not offer useful discussion on findings or lessons learnt. | Adequate conclusion. Basic discussion of findings and lessons learnt. Some ideas are not particularly well developed or supported. | Well-presented conclusion. Good discussion of findings and lessons learnt. One or two minor ideas are not particularly well developed or supported. | Exceptionally well-presented conclusion. Comprehensive discussion of findings and lessons learnt including evidence, facts and relevant examples presented. |
| Writing and organisation Weighting 10% | Little evidence of clear writing or structure, very difficult to follow. The research has not been linked to the main text. Numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors that have a | Some evidence of clear or structured writing. Limited evidence of meaningful integration of the research with the main text. Some grammatical and/or spelling errors that impact | Mostly clear writing that shows acceptable organisation and structure. The research could be incorporated with the main text more consistently. Few issues around grammar and/or spelling, some of | Clear writing mainly to the point. Mostly well organised and structured writing. The research is mostly well integrated with the main text. Good spelling and grammar with only minor oversights that do not impact on readability. | Clear, concise and well-structured writing throughout. All research is very well integrated with the main text. Excellent spelling and grammar correct in all aspects. |
| |significant impact on readability.|noticeably on readability.|which have a minor impact on readability.||| | |||||
| Research and Referencing Weighting 5% | Little or no evidence of research. Very limited or no referencing attempted, or none follows APA guidelines. | Sources are not relevant for the task. References and/or citations do not follow APA guidelines, or limited referencing attempted. | Some sources lack strong relevance or authority but are still appropriate for the task. References and/or citations follow some APA guidelines. | Sources are mostly well-chosen, authoritative and appropriate for the task. References and citations follow most APA guidelines. | All sources are very well-chosen, authoritative and highly appropriate for the task. References and citations follow all APA guidelines. |
|---|
In quest for a professional assignment help?
Flexible rates compatible with everyone’s budget
Get Help By Expert
Are you feeling troubled in your Risk Management Assignment Report for JCU Spring Concert Case Study? Be stress-free! AI-free assignment help NZ is here for you. Here, specialized professionals for all categories of assignments who offer you plagiarism-free and superior content. You are assured that our case study helpers will make you productive and help you achieve high grades in your academic year. Don't delay. Contact us now!
Answer
Recent Solved Questions
- Trauma Definitions Critique Assignment 2: Socio-Historical, Biophysiological, and Neurobiological Impacts on Communities
- HLTH7002 Healthcare Research Critique Assignment 1 Essay: Ethical, Legal, and Methodological Analysis in NZ Evidence-Based Practice
- HCBN 7105 Cultural Competency in Nursing Assignment: Addressing Hauora Māori and Culturally Safe Care in Aotearoa
- ePortfolio Assignment 3: Showcasing Business Professionalism in the Digital Age
- Career Development Assignment 3 Essay: Aotearoa—History, Skills & Current Challenges
- BUSS507 Assessment 3 NZX Company Analysis Assignment Report: Investment Recommendation
- Nursing Case Study Assignment: Complex Care Planning and Reflective Practice Using Gibbs Model
- Educational Leadership Assignment: Critical Analysis of Leadership Issue with Development Plan
- CONS 7822 Building Construction Assignment 2 Report: Auckland Case Study for Carbon Reduction Strategies in the Construction Sector
- CONS7822 Building Construction Assignment 4: Industry Case Study for Enhancing Site Management Practices in New Zealand