project management
zhichen1027
Scale 1 0.25 Scale 2 0.5 Scale 3 0.75 Scale 4 1.0
Research
Research and selection of project management
theory to support the assignment 25%
There is inadequate evidence of research to support the
development of your PID. There is either:
- an over-reliance on websites, or
- lack of sources used which demonstrates a lack of
academic research (minumum requirement on the brief
was 10)
An adequate number of sources have been used to
support the development of your PID (10). However,
there is a tendancy to overrely on websites and your work
would have benefitted from further research into
textbooks and journal articles recommended in class.
A good amount of research has gone into the
development of your PID and you have met the
requirements of 10 separate quality resources. Further
research may have strengthed your report in several
areas, which have been highlighted on your script.
You have clearly researched beyond what has been presented
to you in class, and have integrated this into your work
extremely well (PM theory). Not only have you provided a well
constructed list of references, but it is clear in your work that
you have understood the research you have undertaken, which
includes peer-reviewed journal articles.
Application
Appropriate application of project management
techniques 40%
No-/very little evidence of understanding project
management tools and techniques. Some irrelavant
material has been presented, and / or fails to
demonstrate logic.
There is an adequate attempt in application of project
management tools and techniques, however some or
your application is incomplete.
There is a good attempt in application of tools and
techniques in the PID, supported by some theory. One
or several sections could have built on application of
tools, which has been highlighted on your script.
A clear and convincing application of tools and techniques is
presented, with evidential support of theory. Demonstrates
original and creative thinking.
Clarity
Clarity and credibility of proposals 15%
There are few clear links between statements/sections of
your work.
Relationships between statements/sections of your work
are reasonably coherent.
Relationships between statements and sections are
generally easy to follow, and there is a sound structure.
The entire work is clearly structured, addresses the topic with
confidence and is succinct.
Gantt Chart
Gantt chart 10%
Poorly presented Gantt chart which is either irrelavent to
the project, does not carry the minimum of 10 tasks or
looks incomplete.
Adequate Gantt chart which has the minimum of 10
tasks, however improvements could be made (either in
relation to highlighting dependencies, milestones or logic
of task flow).
A well presented Gantt chart which has the minimum of
10 tasks. May have been strengthened either in relation
to task flow, highlighting milestones or dependencies
(please see comment on Gantt chart). However, overall
this meets the requirements well.
Excellent Gantt chart which highlights all dependencies and
tasks flow in a logical order. Well done.
Layout
Structure, layout and presentation, including
spelling and grammar 5%
Poorly presented with errors throughout. There is a lack
of structure and / or there are many spelling and
grammatical errors. Please ensure you quality check your
work before submission.
Adequately presented PID with some structure, however
there is room for much improvement in relation to layout
and / or spelling/grammar which has been highlighted on
your script.
A well laid out PID and the majority of you work looks
well structured and professional. There are some minor
errors in relation to layout and/or spelling/grammar which
have been highlighted on your script.
Excellent presentation of your work. Clear, consistent and
quality checked for errors. Looks professional.
Referencing
CU Harvard referencing and use of in-text
citations 5%
A poor attempt at CU Harvard Referencing and use of in-
text citations. Please refer to the guide:
http://www.coventry.ac.uk/Global/03%20Study%20sectio
n%20assets/Academic%20Support/CAW/Sept%2013_%
20Harvard%20Guide%20v3%200%202.pdf
A fair attempt at CU Harvard Referencing and use of in-
text citations however either, or both needs some
improvement.
See the CU Harvard Referencing Guide:
http://www.coventry.ac.uk/Global/03%20Study%20sectio
n%20assets/Academic%20Support/CAW/Sept%2013_%
20Harvard%20Guide%20v3%200%202.pdf
A good attempt at CU Harvard Referencing and use of in-
text citations. There are a few minor errors, some of
which have been noted on your script.
Excellent use of in-text citations and referencing is well
presented at the end, in alphabetical order by author surname.
You have followed CU Harvard referencing guidelines carefully.
Well done.