Length: 2500 words
Format: Report (Word doc. only)
Weighting: 40% of total unit marks
Submission: Through Turnitin the Assessment Details section of the unit Black Board site
Referencing: Harvard (provide in text citation and reference list)
Background
In your future employment many of you will be required to investigate a stakeholder engagement issue (or an opportunity), apply your engineering expertise and management skills by way of an analysis of the situation, and then report to your organization’s leadership or a client upon the facts you found and what you conclude should be done.
This assessment item is the opportunity for you as an engineer to demonstrate your ‘stakeholder thinking’ management skills. You are to make a written business-style report that articulates a stakeholder engagement plan specific to one of the questions or tasks that are set for the current session.
The topic areas
At the commencement of each Session students are provided with a list of Assessment 3 Questions and tasks. The list for each Session is formed having regard to the themes that are being emphasized in teaching across the MEM/MBA Course, the interests of the students, and emerging and topical issues. The topic areas from which the questions and tasks are drawn are as follows:
- Smart city stakeholders
- Stakeholders in Local government
- Stakeholders in risk management
- Stakeholders in resilience engineering
- Stakeholders in engineering asset management
- Stakeholders in social licence to operate
- Stakeholders in stewardship of critical infrastructure
- Stakeholders in engineering for sustainability
You must gain the written approval (email) of your Tutor for the topic before submitting your paper for Assessment 1. This is so you can focus your efforts in Assessments 1 and 2 on components of your Assessment 3 paper, and that your Tutor can provide guidance specific to your needs. This coordination across assessment items will increase your skills and you will achieve a better result in Assessment 3.
The task
The focus of this Report is how the organisation manages the relationship with their stakeholders. You must apply Stakeholder theory throughout this assignment.
This written business style report must focus on stakeholder engagement processes in engineering management contexts and demonstrate your critical analysis of facts drawn from academic and grey literatures and your capability to design and articulate a stakeholder engagement plan. You will need to present the critical analysis, explain how you conducted the analysis, and give clear and appropriate explanation and justification of concrete recommendations.
The Report
- The Report is to be 2500 words in length.
- The objective of the structure and format is to achieve the best possible communication with the reader. Think of the reader. Use
headings to ‘sign-post’ what is coming and to provide a ‘skeleton’ of what your report is about. Examine some journal articles and see
how those authors use headings/sub-headings.
- The Report is to be written with an Introduction section and then headings and sub-headings. Typically, you will have major sections about each of the key elements of your assignment question or topic and then a major section which brings these together, followed by a Conclusions section that contains very clear, specific recommendations. As an engineer you are required to form conclusions on an issue and make viable, precise recommendations. Your reputation depends on this.
- Attach the coversheet that SCU requires all students to place on the front of all Assignments.
- Commence your report with a title-page. The title-page is the front page that all authors put on the reports and submissions that they write as professionals. The title-page contains a title, plus your name as author.
- The Header and Footer must contain your name, student number, Unit number i.e. MNG93100 and the page number.
General guiding information
- Start writing early and discuss often with your Tutor.
- Ensure that you access the SCU Library for assistance and finding the best possible journals and other materials.
- Focus on the current academic literature i.e. last 10 years.
- Please communication by a range of forms i.e. provide graphs, tables, charts, and images.
- References, tables, charts, and appendices are not included in the word count.
- Please review the attached Marking Rubric so that you meet all the requirements.
- Have regard to the ‘Grasp of core unit theory’ marking criteria. For the highest marks for that criteria you must demonstrate deep, accurate understanding. To be able to go deeply into issues and still stay within the 2500 max word limit you must limit the number of issues upon which you focus.
| PROJ5005 Marking Rubric: Assessment 3 (Report) | ||||
| Excellent 85%‒100% | Very Good 75%‒84% | Good 65%‒74% | Satisfactory 50%‒64% | Unacceptable 0%‒49% |
| Analysis: The Assignment demonstrated exceptional critical analysis techniques.20/100 | The Assignment demonstrated very good critical analysis techniques. | The Assignment demonstrated good critical analysis techniques but with some errors. | The Assignment demonstrated critical analysis techniques but with some errors. could have been improved. | The Assignment Demonstrated little critical analysis techniques. |
| Research Method and analysis tools explained: Critical and comprehensive explanation of how the matter was analysed was provided.10/100 | Comprehensive explanation of how the matter was analysed was provided. | Good explanation of how the matter was analysed was provided. Some key information was missing. | Good explanation of how the matter was analysed was provided. Some key information was missing. | Little and inappropriate explanation of how the matter was analysed. |
| Response to assigned topic: The Assignment responded directly to the topic and to every separate part of the topic in an exceptionally balanced manner with no irrelevant material.20/100 | The Assignment responded directly to the topic and to every separate part of the topic in a balanced manner with minimal irrelevant material. | The Assignment responded directly to the topic and to every separate part of the topic in a reasonably balanced manner. A small amount of irrelevant material. Some issues not properly developed. | Overall the Assignment responded directly to the topic but with some digressions and irrelevancies. Some aspects of the topic were not developed properly. Some less important aspects may have been overlooked. | Taken as a whole, the assignment did not respond adequately to the topic. Important aspects were overlooked and/or much of the material was irrelevant. |
| Grasp of core unit theory: The Assignment demonstrated deep, accurate understanding of unit principles and concepts at a very high level of sophistication.10/100 | Demonstrated deep, accurate understanding of unit principles and concepts. | Demonstrated accurate understanding of unit principles and concepts, although a little superficial or flawed in places. | Sound grasp of unit principles and concepts. Perhaps one-dimensional and superficial in places and perhaps some misconceptions. | One or more important unit concepts or principles seriously misunderstood, or no relevant theoretical framework established. |
| Academic & Industry sources: Assignment was supported with appropriate peer reviewed academic journals (12 minimum from last 10 years) and other quality sources. 20/100 | Assignment was supported with appropriate peer reviewed academic journals (10 minimum from last 10 years) and other quality sources. | Assignment was supported with appropriate peer reviewed academic journals (8 minimum from last 10 years) and other quality sources. | Assignment was supported with appropriate peer reviewed academic journals (6 minimum from last 10 years) and other quality sources. | Assignment was not supported with the minimum number of appropriate items. |
| Structure and English expression: The Assignment was very comprehensive and had excellent structure with no errors. Spelling, syntax and grammar completely correct. 10/100 | The Assignment was comprehensive and had very good structure with some errors. Spelling, syntax and grammar generally correct although there were two or three minor errors. | The Assignment had sound structure and appropriate content but with some errors. Spelling, syntax and grammar generally correct although there were more than three minor errors. | The Assignment consisted of suitable information, had generally suitable structure although some aspects could have been improved. Spelling, syntax and grammar acceptable but there were frequent minor or serious errors. | The Assignment did not have suitable structure and information. Unacceptably high number of minor and/or numerous serious errors in spelling, syntax and/or grammar. |
| In-text referencing: Harvard referencing system used with 100% accuracy. 5/100 | Harvard referencing system used with high level of accuracy. | Harvard referencing used correctly although with some errors. | Harvard referencing used correctly although with some significant errors. | No referencing or many serious errors in using Harvard referencing. |
| Reference list: Reference list comprehensive and had no errors.5/100 | Reference list comprehensive with no omissions but some minor errors. | Reference list had one or two omissions and/or significant errors. | Reference list had more than two omissions and/or significant errors (but a small number). | Reference list had numerous errors and/or omissions (or is missing). |
| PROJ5005 Stakeholder Engagement in Engineering Assessment 3 |
Get expert help for Stakeholder Engagement in Engineering and many more. 24X7 help, plag-free solution. Order online now!
