Project Management Process

Southampton Business School: Postgraduate Module Grade Descriptor

Postgraduate Grade Descriptor for MANG6310 Project Management Processes (Individual Coursework)

Percentage 0 - 34 35 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 - 79 80 - 100

Degree Class Fail Compensatable fail* Pass Merit Distinction Distinction

Business Case / Scope Development of a project plan in a case setting. Supports plan with clear, effective evidence and cogent discussion and synthesis. Weighting 45%

No evidence of business case. No supporting evidence of scope. No supporting literature. No evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Inadequate evidence of business case. Inadequate evidence of scope. Inadequate supporting literature. Inadequate evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Reasonable evidence of business case. Reasonable evidence of scope. Reasonable supporting literature. Reasonable evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Good evidence of business case. Good evidence of scope. Good supporting literature. Good evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Very good evidence of business case. Very good evidence of scope. Very good supporting literature. Very good evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Exceptional evidence of business case. Exceptional evidence of scope. Exceptional supporting literature. Exceptional evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

*Compensatable fail is only possible for compulsory or optional modules, subject to University of Southampton Progression Regulations. ** For group submissions only

2

Percentage 0 - 34 35 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 - 79 80 - 100

Degree Class Fail Compensatable fail* Pass Merit Distinction Distinction

Stakeholder / Risk Is the project plan clearly justified? Has the Weighting 45%

No evidence of stakeholder approach. No supporting evidence of risk. No supporting literature. No evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Inadequate of stakeholder approach. Inadequate supporting evidence of risk. Inadequate supporting literature. Inadequate evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Reasonable evidence of stakeholder approach. Reasonable supporting evidence of risk. Reasonable supporting literature. Reasonable evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Good evidence of stakeholder approach. Good supporting evidence of risk. Good supporting literature. No evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Very good evidence of stakeholder approach. Very good supporting evidence of risk. Very good supporting literature. Very good evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

Exceptional evidence of stakeholder approach. Exceptional supporting evidence of risk. Exceptional supporting literature. Exceptional evidence of ability to develop a cogent approach.

*Compensatable fail is only possible for compulsory or optional modules, subject to University of Southampton Progression Regulations. ** For group submissions only

3 Percentage 0 - 34 35 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 - 79 80 - 100

Degree Class Fail Compensatable fail* Pass Merit Distinction Distinction

References / Presentation / Formatting / Grammar / Spelling Is it written using a good level of English? Is it presented using appropriate references, graphics, illustrations and accurate Harvard referencing? Weighting 10%

Failed to provide evidence of appropriate academic writing. Very poor and often/mostly inarticulate. Mostly incomprehensible. No/inadequate use of graphics. No/inadequate evidence of referencing.

Inadequate level of academic writing. Significant deficiencies in expression. Inconsistent and poor use of language. Limited use of graphics. Limited referencing with numerous omissions.

Adequate level of academic writing. Adequately expressed but some inconsistencies apparent. Adequate use of language. Adequate use of graphics. Reasonable referencing but incomplete or omissions.

Good level of academic writing. Well expressed. Clear and appropriate use of language. Good use of graphics. Good referencing with minimal omissions.

Very good level of academic writing. Very well expressed. Confident and very good use of language. Very good use of graphics. Very good referencing with minimal errors.

Exceptional level of academic writing. Exceptionally competent and fluent use of expression. Confident and excellent use of language. Excellent use of graphics. Excellent referencing.

*Compensatable fail is only possible for compulsory or optional modules.