Decision Making and Analysis in Projects

Jan 2022-v1 ©Ramesh Vahidi-2021-2 MANG6312

Postgraduate Grade Descriptor for MANG6312, Decision Making and Analysis in Projects 21-22 Percentage / Degree Class

Report Section Criteria 0 - 34 35 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 - 79 80 - 100

Fail Compensatable fail* Pass Merit Distinction Distinction

Report Introduction Weighting 20%

Introduction should clearly and precisely inform the audience of the followings:

- The report aim and objectives;

- The reason(s) why you selected this particular project and this particular decision(s);

- Background to the project and the project objectives;

- Background to the decision and the decision(s) objectives;

- Briefly inform the reader of which aspects of the decision will be discussed in this report.

No evidence of understanding of the report’s aim/objectives. No or very limited definition of project and decision, missing basic details and precision. No or inadequate evidence of theoretical knowledge of DM in PM. No or inadequate evidence of search and knowledge about the selected project. No or inadequate evidence of search and knowledge about the selected decision. Very poorly structured without using any concepts and tools and inaccurate, irrelevant and invalid project/decision info.

Limited and patchy evidence of reasonable understanding of the report’s aim/objectives. Unclear definition of project and decision with limited details and precision. Limited and patchy evidence of theoretical knowledge of DM in PM. Limited and patchy evidence of search and knowledge about the selected project. Limited and patchy evidence of search and knowledge about the selected decision. Poorly structured by very limited use of concepts and tools and very limited accurate, relevant and

Adequate evidence of reasonable understanding of the report’s aim/objectives. Fairly clear definition of project and decision with good level of details and precision. Adequate evidence of enough theoretical knowledge of DM in PM. Adequate evidence of search and knowledge about the selected project.

Adequate evidence of search and knowledge about the selected decision. Fairly structured by inconsistent use of concepts and tools and some accurate, relevant and valid project/decision info.

Good evidence of competent understanding of the report’s aim/objectives.

Clear definition of project and decision with very good level of details and precision. Good evidence of competent theoretical knowledge of DM in PM. Good evidence of search and knowledge about the selected project.

Good evidence of search and knowledge about the selected decision. Appropriately structured by good use of concepts and tools and mostly accurate, relevant and

Clear evidence of deep understanding of the report’s aim/objectives.

Very clear, comprehensive and precise definition of project and decision. Numerous evidence of deep theoretical knowledge of DM in PM. Numerous evidence of extensive search and knowledge about the selected project. Numerous evidence of extensive search and knowledge about the selected decision. Highly structured by very good use of concepts and tools and very accurate, relevant and valid project/decision information.

Very Clear evidence of exceptionally deep understanding of the report’s aim/objectives. Exceptionally clear, comprehensive and precise definition of project and decision.

Numerous evidence of exceptionally deep theoretical knowledge of DM in PM. Numerous evidence of exceptionally extensive search and knowledge about the selected project. Numerous evidence of exceptionally extensive search and knowledge about the selected decision. Fully structured with maximum use of concepts & tools. Most accurate,

Jan 2022-v1 ©Ramesh Vahidi-2021-2 MANG6312

2

valid project/decision info.

valid project/decision info.

relevant, valid project/decision info.

Report Section

Body of the Report: Decision Analysis Weighting 55%

Breadth and depth of search and identification of the main aspects of the selected decision.

No evidence of investigation and identification.

Irrelevant discussions with no focus on the decision.

No attention to details.

Very limited evidence of investigation and identification.

Few aspects generally addressed with limited discussion.

Limited attention to details.

Adequate evidence of some investigation and identification of the project/decision issues.

A few main or obvious aspects generally addressed with some discussions.

Some attention to details.

Good evidence of fairly extensive investigation and identification of the project/decision issues.

Main and other relevant aspects addressed with good and some in-depth discussions.

Good attention to some details.

Very good evidences of extensive investigation and identification of the project/decision issues.

Main and extensive relevant aspects addressed with in- depth discussions.

Very good attention to details.

Very Clear evidence of exceptionally extensive investigation and identification.

Extensive range of main and relevant aspects addressed with in-depth discussions.

Exceptional attention to details.

Breadth and depth of search and identification of theoretical concepts and tools relevant to this analysis.

No evidence of investigation and identification.

Irrelevant discussions with no focus on the relevant theories.

No attention to details.

Very limited evidence of investigation and identification.

Few aspects generally addressed with limited discussion.

Limited attention to details.

Adequate evidence of some investigation and identification of the relevant theoretical aspects.

A few main or obvious aspects generally addressed with some discussions.

Some attention to details.

Good evidence of fairly extensive investigation and identification of the relevant theoretical aspects.

Main and other relevant aspects addressed with good and some in-depth discussions.

Good attention to some details.

Clear evidences of extensive investigation and identification of the relevant theories.

Main and extensive relevant theoretical aspects addressed with in-depth discussions.

Very good attention to details.

Very Clear evidence of exceptionally extensive investigation and identification.

Extensive range of main and relevant aspects addressed with in-depth discussions.

Exceptional attention to details.

Jan 2022-v1 ©Ramesh Vahidi-2021-2 MANG6312

3 Structured and in-depth use of theoretical concepts and tools in the analyses.

No use of theoretical concepts and tools.

Too limited or no evidence of basic or intuitive appreciation of the module DM in PM.

Very limited use of theoretical concepts and tools.

Limited or some evidence of basic and intuitive appreciation of DM in PM.

Sporadic use of theoretical concepts and tools.

Some evidence of basic and intuitive appreciation of DM in PM.

Fairly consistent and fairly extensive use of theoretical concepts and tools.

Clear evidence of systematic and supported intuitive appreciation of DM in PM.

Consistent and extensive use of theoretical concepts and tools.

Extensive evidence of systematic and well- supported intuitive appreciation of DM in PM.

Exceptionally consistent and extensive use of theoretical concepts and tools.

Extensive evidence of exceptionally systematic and fully supported intuitive appreciation of DM in PM.

Quality of analytical and critical reflections in terms of: depth, breadth consistency, relevance and clarity.

Very poor and no/too limited evidence.

Poor and limited evidence.

Adequate and some evidence.

Good and clear evidence.

Extensive and clear evidence.

Exceptionally extensive and very clear evidence.

Balance between theoretical and project details.

Focuses merely on theories.

or

Focuses merely on project data.

Focuses heavily on theories with limited attention to project.

or

Focuses heavily on theories on project data with limited attention to theories.

Focuses on both theories and project data in to different extents, evidenced by some partial support of theories with project data and vs.

Good and reasonable balance between theories and project data, evidenced by wide support of theories with project data and vs.

Very good and reasonable balance between theories and project data throughout, evidenced by comprehensive support of theories for project data and vs.

Exceptional balance between theories and project data throughout, evidenced by full and exceptionally well- supported theories and project data.

Quality and range of consulted sources.

No evidence of consulting module readings or further valid readings.

Limited evidence of consulting module readings or further valid readings.

Mostly depends on invalid readings.

Adequate evidence of consulting some module readings and/or further valid readings. Low (if any) dependence on invalid readings.

Good evidence of consulting most of the module readings and/or several further valid readings. No dependence on invalid readings.

Clear evidence of consulting a wide range of the module readings and several further valid readings.

Only used valid and a number of key sources.

Very Clear evidence of consulting an exceptionally wide range of the module readings and several further valid readings.

Only used key sources and gone extensively beyond.

Jan 2022-v1 ©Ramesh Vahidi-2021-2 MANG6312

4

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

Criteria

Report Conclusion

Weighting 25%

Conclude the report by your findings through:

- Identifying the short- and long-term impacts of the decision outcome and the way it was made on the project failure and its overall outcome.

- Discussing how the deficiencies in decision making in this project could have been prevented (based on your knowledge of the decision making in project management).

- Reflection on how the learnings from this decision analysis would impact your decision making in project environment.

- Any other significant and relevant learning from this study, such as applicability of decision making concepts and tools in real project environment.

No evidence of learning from and reflections on the case.

Limited evidence of learning from and reflections on the case.

Adequate evidence of learning from and reflections on the case.

Good evidence of some deep learnings from and reflections on the case.

Clear evidences of deep learning from and reflections on the case.

Very clear evidence of exceptionally deep learning from and reflections on the case.

No evidence of learning from and reflections on the case.

Mostly presented an insufficient summary.

Presented a brief summary of some report findings.

Presented a precise summary of most of the key report findings.

Presented a precise and well-articulated summary of all the key report findings.

Presented a precise and exceptionally well-articulated summary of all the key report findings.

Reflections not relevant to the body of the report.

Reflections have limited relevance to the body of the report.

Reflections have some relevance to the body of the report.

Reflections highly relevant to the body of the report.

Reflections fully supported by/relevant to the body of the report.

Reflections fully and exceptionally supported by/relevant to the body of the report.

Reflections too superficial.

Reflections superficial. Parts of the reflections provide sufficient depth.

Most to all parts of the reflections go into appropriate depth.

All parts of the reflections go into appropriate depth with some level of originality.

All parts of the reflections go into depth exceptionally and presented with some novel ideas.

Reflections not supported and/or in contrast with the analysis findings.

Reflections rarely consistent and/or supported by the main findings of the analysis.

Reflections mostly consistent with and supported by the main analysis findings.

Reflections highly to fully consistent with and supported by the main analysis findings.

Reflections fully consistent and very well-supported with the analysis findings.

Reflections fully consistent with and exceptionally well- supported by the analysis findings.