Overview
each person write around 400 words and reference so both of the number 2s This assignment invites your team to investigate and critically evaluate a completed Australian-based program of your choice. There are three constraints:
The program must have concluded within the last 10 years.
The case must meet the definition of a “program” as introduced in Module 1.
You cannot choose any program that you or anyone in your team has used in any assignment while at ECU.
Your team’s task is not to report what happened but to interpret, assess, and argue what the program meant whether economically, socially, politically, environmentally, or otherwise. Drawing on Zwikael and Huemann (2023) and other academic and public sources, you will develop your own definitions of value and impact, justify these interpretations, and support your position with well-sourced evidence.
No two teams will approach this task in the same way, and that’s the point. There is no single correct path, but there are more and less persuasive arguments.
You are encouraged to pursue lines of inquiry relevant to your chosen program. These may include, but are not limited to:
What strategic rationale or broader goals framed the program?
What forms of value and impact were pursued, realised, or overlooked?
Who benefited? Who didn’t?
How do different stakeholders judge success or failure?
What frameworks or models (if any) help explain the governance, decision-making, or performance of the program?
What has emerged over time as the program’s lasting legacy?
You will need to determine what questions to ask yourselves, which evidence is persuasive, and what lens or stakeholder perspectives reveal the most meaningful insights. You should also reflect on the limitations of your sources and interpretations