Literature Review of Agile project management

1

Marking Criteria – PMRM Semester 2 Coursework A (ENGM60050) REVIEW OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL PAPERS

1 2 3 4 5 6 Missing Poor Fail Fail Pass Merit Distinction Introduction (10 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1-3 Marks (1–39%)

4 Marks (40-49%)

5 Marks (50%-59%)

6 Marks (60-69%)

7-10 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Introduction: Focus,

Context and Scope of Review

Missing or content doesn’t match allocated dissertation topic.

Most elements missing. Content incoherent, very unclear or superficial. Lacking references.

Some key elements are missing. Mainly unclear. Superficial description but lacks sufficient clarity. Many statements unsupported with references.

Key elements included, though would benefit from more detail or clarity. Description of review focus, context and scope provide an adequate overview. Justification may be missing. Sources referenced.

Provides a good level of detail and clarity. Explanation of review focus, context and scope provide a meaningful overview and shows some justification. Sources mostly referenced.

Provides a clear and reasoned explanation and overview of the study, justifying chosen focus, explaining the context and scope and indicating deeper critical engagement. Sources fully referenced.

Search strategy (10 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1-3 Marks (1–39%)

4 Marks (40-49%)

5 Marks (50%-59%)

6 Marks (60-69%)

7-10 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Keywords  Search Tools  Search / Selection

Strategy

Missing or content doesn’t match allocated dissertation topic.

Most elements missing. Either keywords or description of search/selection process are absent. Content incoherent, very unclear or superficial.

One or two key elements are missing. Mainly unclear. Superficial description of search and selection process but lacks sufficient clarity.

Basic keywords, search tools and search strategy all described superficially, but would benefit from more detail or clarity. Justification may be missing.

Explanations of keywords, search tools and search strategy are all described clearly and in sufficient detail, with some justification given.

Explanations of keywords and tools and search strategy give clear and reasoned explanation, indicating deeper critical engagement.

Critical Analysis of 3 Academic Journal Papers (60 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1-23 Marks (1–39%)

24-29 Marks (40-49%)

30 – 35 Marks (50%-59%)

36 – 41 Marks (60-69%)

42 - 60 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Title/Reference  Rationale  Summary  Critique and

Comparison with Related Papers

 Conclusions

Missing or content doesn’t match allocated dissertation topic.

Many of the required elements are missing. Content is incoherent, very unclear or superficial. Poor quality writing – difficult to comprehend. Poor or absent referencing. No or minimal reference to additional sources. Generally includes assertions rather than referenced evidence.

Summary of the key findings of the papers given but content lacks clarity and lacks any critical analysis. Some key elements may be missing. Minimal reference to additional sources. Partly coherent. Frequent errors in spelling, grammar, structure, formatting or referencing. Includes some poor paraphrasing or pasted in sentences.

All required content is included OR if some elements are missing, others are good quality. Some use of additional sources. Adequate summary of the papers but reviews may be lacking in critical analysis. Comparison of papers may be superficial rather than adding further insight. Some evidence is referenced. Mostly coherent. May lack clarity occasionally. Minor errors in spelling, grammar, structure, formatting or referencing, but adequate.

All required elements are included and explained. Clear summary of the papers and authors’ approaches. Good use made of additional sources. Some useful comparison of papers and/or critical engagement leading to a meaningful conclusion. Most evidence is referenced. Generally good spelling, grammar, structure, formatting and referencing is correct. No instances of poor paraphrasing.

All required elements are included and fully explained. Excellent summary and critique of the papers and authors’ approaches. Comparison of papers is logical and clear with appropriate and insightful use of additional sources leading to a meaningful conclusion. Evidence is fully referenced. Excellent standard of writing. Spelling, grammar, structure, formatting, referencing are all accurate. No pasted in content or poor paraphrasing.

Conclusions (20 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1-7 Marks (1–39%)

8-9 Marks (40-49%)

10-11 Marks (50%-59%)

12-13 Marks (60-69%)

14-20 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Overall

conclusions from all paper reviews

 Further implications, e.g. for professional practice or research

Missing

Conclusions are unclear or extremely brief, or statements are unrelated to the previous reviews of academic papers.

Conclusions presented are either a very superficial summary of previous points or they are not clearly drawn from the previous reviews of academic papers. May be only partially coherent.

Key points from the paper reviews are summarised with some attempt at further insight or synthesis of ideas and suggestions. Writing is mostly coherent.

Clear summary of synthesised key points, showing some deeper analysis or new insights (applications or research gaps). Good use of academic language.

Clear, comprehensive and insightful summary of synthesised key points. Excellent use of academic language (content publishable with only minor edits).

2

 Whilst there are no marks for referencing, up to 10 marks may be lost for poor presentation and referencing errors.  Core papers do not have to be from project management-related journals or strictly about project management/ management of projects, but the student must demonstrate the relevance of the papers chosen for the

study of project management/ management of projects/ project studies. Core papers must also be peer-reviewed journal articles. HBR and “Procedia” articles are not allowed.