Then explain the range of research using the authors we've looked at on the course. Finally explain how things might differ depending on the organisation and stage of the project and asset life cycle. Again, use explanations from Channel Tunnel and QLD Health. Then at the end make a conclusion - this can be whatever the students think, but should make sense in the context of what they've said in their presentation.

Criteria (2) allows them to bring the common ideas in that underpin and influence negotiation. Then criteria (3) allows them to critique the suggestions and research made by the authors on the course. Finally, criteria (4) says that they should talk in a project management context about the examples and material. But in simple terms start with Channel Tunnel and QLD Health. Then say that negotiation is based on these ideas - logic, persuasion and influence - but influenced by stakeholder agendas. All the time try to give examples - for instance in Channel Tunnel this happened... whereas in QLD Health they do that....

So, the first four items (65%) (numbers have been given here whereas they are bullets in the unit profile) are the ones that consist of course material and the student’s thoughts. The remainder (35%) is about the way that they present and have put together the written notes. So, for criteria (1) students could compare and contrast two sample organisations, such as the Channel Tunnel and maybe a government organisation (QLD Health would do). They can, of course, use other organisations if they are more familiar with them. Students don't have to be an expert in the organisations and could use their imagination supplemented by the material they've seen in the unit. The main purpose of this criteria (1) is to allow them to set the scene around the organisations and give them the basis of being able to compare and contrast.