Written by our assessment team: what the criteria mean in practice, the evidence that works, and where learners get caught out.
What this unit is really about
Unit 306 is a four-outcome unit where the knowledge is broad but the practical part is bounded: LO4 asks you to contribute to delivering a project against targets, not to run a programme. "Contribute to" is deliberate — you can evidence this as a project team member or workstream lead, not only as the project manager.
Two constraints to check before you choose it. Criterion 4.5 requires you to contribute to the monitoring of a budget within a project, so you need visibility of some financial figure. And criterion 4.6 requires you to contribute to the evaluation of a project, which means it has to finish — or at least reach a reviewable milestone — inside your enrolment.
The evidence that works
| Learning outcome | Evidence that works well |
|---|
| LO1 — lifecycle and roles | The lifecycle stages as your organisation runs them, plus the roles named in the spec guidance: project board member, sponsor, project manager, team lead, team member, subject matter experts, administrator |
| LO2 — deliver against targets | Tools and their application, resource management, risks and issues, risk analysis techniques, and how tools are used to monitor progress |
| LO3 — quality management | A definition of project quality management and the approaches your sector uses |
| LO4 — contribute to delivery | The actual artefacts: plan or Gantt chart, RAID or risk log, milestone tracking, budget monitoring you contributed to, and the closing review |
The strongest 306 portfolios are mostly artefacts with short commentaries. A Gantt chart with your annotations of where it slipped and what you did evidences 4.1 and 4.4 in a page. A risk register with dates showing when each risk was raised, scored and mitigated evidences 4.3 far better than prose describing risk in the abstract.
Getting risk and quality right
Criterion 2.4 asks for risk analysis tools and techniques, so name and use specific ones rather than talking generally about risk. Probability-and-impact scoring, a risk matrix, RAG rating, a RAID log, root-cause techniques such as five whys or a fishbone diagram all qualify — and the honest observation that your organisation scores risk by judgement rather than by formal probability is worth making if it is true.
For quality (LO3), distinguish the three things learners routinely merge: quality planning (what "good" means for this project, agreed up front), quality control (checking the output against it), and quality assurance (checking the process that produces it). If your sector works to a standard — ISO 9001, a client specification, a regulatory requirement — anchor the answer there.
Useful reading