Project management
Jess-93
example.pdf
QM
QM
QM
QM
QM
FINAL GRADE
88/100 Assignment 2
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
Key f indings are quite well identif ied, nevertheless, the lessons learnt are not specif ically stated.
Main f indings and lessons learnt are not clearly summarised. | 1. Exec Sum
T hese two aspects are usually the mo st impo rtant and interesting parts o f an executive summary.
PAGE 3
Geolocation f igures needed | 2. Proj Sum So me f igures sho wing geo graphical lo catio n o f bo th pro jects wo uld be helpf ul.
PAGE 4
Comment 1 | 3. Sim / Dif f Need to give specif ic example f ro m the case.
Project selection model? | 3. Sim / Dif f Pro ject selectio n mo del co uld have been identif ied mo re clearly.
OK
Comment 2 | 6.1 Pres&Illu T able requires numbering and captio n
PAGE 5
QM
QM
QM
QM
Contractual relationships diagram? | 3. Sim / Dif f A diagram sho wing co ntractual realtio nship wo uld be helpf ul.
OK
PAGE 6
Comment 3 Excellent
PAGE 7
OK
PAGE 8
PAGE 9
PAGE 10
PAGE 11
Comment 4 | 4.1 ProEval C Excellent!
PAGE 12
Key f indings are quite well identif ied, nevertheless, the lessons learnt are not specif ically stated. | 5. Rep Sum
PAGE 13
RUBRIC: 30 0 4ENG 20 14 ASSIGNMENT 2
1. EXEC SUM (10%)
MISSING (0)
POOR (2)
LIMIT ED (4)
FAIR (6)
COMPET ENT (8)
ACCOMPLISHED (10)
2. PROJ SUM (15%)
MISSING (0)
POOR (2)
LIMIT ED (4)
FAIR (6)
COMPET ENT (8)
ACCOMPLISHED (10)
3. SIM / DIFF (25%)
MISSING (0)
8 .8 2 / 10
8 / 10
Executive Summary - Co ntent and structure
Executive summary is missing f ro m the repo rt.
Executive summary do es no t adequately pro vide the o verview o f the repo rt as required in the assignment instructio ns. Page limit may o r may no t be o bserved.
Executive summary pro vides o nly limited o verview o f the repo rt as required in the assignment instructio ns. Page limit may o r may no t be o bserved.
Overview o f the repo rt is adequately presented as required in the assignment instructio ns. So me impo rtant po ints appear to be missing. Page limit is adequately o bserved and utilised.
Overview o f the repo rt is well presented as required in the assignment instructio ns. Key elements o f the repo rt, including main f indings/lesso ns learnt are presented ef f ectively but may co ntain so me erro rs. Page limit is well o bserved and utilised.
Overview o f the repo rt is well presented as required in the assignment instructio ns. Key elements o f the repo rt, including main f indings/lesso ns learnt are presented clearly, succinctly and ef f ectively. Page limit is very well o bserved and utilised.
8 / 10
Summary o f the selected pro jects - Co ntent and structure
T his sectio n is no t clearly presented o r appears to be missing f ro m the repo rt.
Summary do es no t pro vide adequate o verview o f bo th pro jects with po o r o r irrelevant explanatio ns. Page limit may o r may no t be o bserved.
Summary pro vides limited o verview o f bo th pro jects. T his is suppo rted by limited explanatio ns. Page limit may o r may no t be o bserved.
Summary pro vides reaso nable o verview o f bo th pro jects. T his is suppo rted by adequate explanatio ns. Page limit is adequately o bserved and utilised.
Summary pro vides a go o d o verview o f bo th pro jects. T his is suppo rted by clear, co ncise and relevant explanatio ns. Page limit is well o bserved and utilised.
Summary ef f ectively pro vides a very go o d o verview o f bo th pro jects. T his is suppo rted by very clear, co ncise and relevant explanatio ns. Page limit is well o bserved and utilised.
8 / 10
Pro ject management similarities and dif f erences - Co ntent and structure
T his sectio n is no t clearly presented o r appears to be missing f ro m the repo rt.
POOR (2)
LIMIT ED (4)
FAIR (6)
COMPET ENT (8)
ACCOMPLISHED (10)
4 .1 PROEVAL C (18%)
MISSING (0)
POOR (2)
LIMIT ED (4)
FAIR (6)
COMPET ENT (8)
ACCOMPLISHED (10)
4 .2 PROEVAL T (17 %)
MISSING (0)
POOR (2)
LIMIT ED (4)
FAIR (6)
Similarities and dif f erences are po o rly identif ied and elabo rated as required in the instructio ns.
Similarities and dif f erences are identif ied and elabo rated, but are unclear and suppo rted by limited evidence. Instructio ns are no t well o bserved.
Similarities and dif f erences are identif ied and elabo rated as required in the instructio ns. T his is suppo rted by f actual evidence but no t clearly relevant o r signif icant.
Similarities and dif f erences are well identif ied and elabo rated. T his is well suppo rted by relevant f actual evidence.
Similarities and dif f erences are very well identif ied and elabo rated. T his is suppo rted by signif icant, relevant and accurate f actual evidence.
10 / 10
Pro jects Evaluatio n - Co ntent and structure
T his sectio n is no t clearly presented o r appears to be missing f ro m the repo rt.
Pro ject evaluatio n is po o rly presented and do es no t f o llo w the instructio ns. Evaluatio n lacks evidential suppo rt. T he better pro ject may o r may no t be identif ied.
Pro ject evaluatio n is presented but may no t f o llo w all the instructio ns and depends o n limited evidential suppo rt. T he better pro ject may o r may no t be identif ied.
Pro ject evaluatio n is adequately presented as required in the instructio ns, and is based o n reaso nable evidential suppo rt. T he better pro ject is identif ied but may no t be clear.
Pro ject evaluatio n is well presented as required in the instructio ns, and is based o n so und theo retical and evidential suppo rt. T he better pro ject is clearly identif ied.
Pro ject evaluatio n is very well presented as required in the instructio ns, and is based o n extensive and accurate evidential suppo rt. T he better pro ject is clearly identif ied.
10 / 10
Pro jects Evaluatio n - T heo retical suppo rt and judgement
Pro ject evaluatio n lacks theo retical suppo rt. No evidence o f critical judgment.
Pro ject evaluatio n is based o n minimal theo retical understanding and suppo rt. Minimal evidence o f critical judgment.
Pro ject evaluatio n is based o n limited theo retical understanding and suppo rt. Limited evidence o f critical judgment.
Pro ject evaluatio n is based o n f air theo retical understanding and suppo rt. So me evidence o f critical judgment.
COMPET ENT (8)
ACCOMPLISHED (10)
5. REP SUM (5%)
MISSING (0)
POOR (2)
LIMIT ED (4)
FAIR (6)
COMPET ENT (8)
ACCOMPLISHED (10)
6.1 PRES&ILLU (4 %)
MISSING (0)
POOR (2)
LIMIT ED (4)
FAIR (6)
COMPET ENT (8)
ACCOMPLISHED (10)
6.2 GEN FORM (3%)
Pro ject evaluatio n is based o n so und theo retical understanding and suppo rt. Co mpetent level o f critical judgment is demo nstrated.
Pro ject evaluatio n is based o n advanced theo retical understanding and suppo rt. High level o f critical judgment is demo nstrated.
8 / 10
End o f repo rt summary - Co ntent and structure
T his sectio n is no t clearly presented o r appears to be missing f ro m the repo rt.
Key f indings and lesso ns learnt are suf f iciently lacking in the summary. Page limit is no t adequately o bserved and utilised.
Key f indings and lesso ns learnt are no t clear and presented to a limited extent. Page limit may no t be adequately o bserved and utilised.
Key f indings and lesso ns learnt are satisf acto rily presented. Page limit is adequately o bserved and utilised.
Key f indings and lesso ns learnt are presented reaso nably well and ef f ectively. Page limit is well o bserved and utilised.
Key f indings and lesso ns learnt are presented very clearly and ef f ectively. Page limit is very well o bserved and utilised.
8 / 10
Overall presentatio n and structure. Use o f illustratio ns and appendix (if any)
N/A
Repo rt is po o rly presented and structured; persistent erro rs in grammar o r spelling. Illustratio ns/tables and appendix are po o rly used.
Limited achievements in o verall presentatio n and structure; many erro rs in grammar o r spelling. Limited ability in using appro priate illustratio ns/tables and appendix; many erro rs evident.
Presentatio n and structure are reaso nably clear and co nsistent; so me erro rs in grammar o r spelling. Acceptable use o f illustratio ns/tables and appendix with captio ns pro vided; so me erro rs evident.
Presentatio n and structure are clear and co nsistent thro ugho ut; so me mino r erro rs in grammar o r spelling. Go o d use o f illustratio ns/tables and appendix with co mplete and accurate captio ns pro vided; mino r erro rs o bserved.
Presentatio n and structure are very clear and pro f essio nal; f ew o r no erro rs in grammar o r spelling. Very ef f ective use o f illustratio ns/tables and appendix with co mplete and accurate captio ns pro vided; no erro rs o bserved.
10 / 10
General f o rmatting requirements
MISSING (0)
POOR (2)
LIMIT ED (4)
FAIR (6)
COMPET ENT (8)
ACCOMPLISHED (10)
6.3 REFERENCE (3%)
MISSING (0)
POOR (2)
LIMIT ED (4)
FAIR (6)
COMPET ENT (8)
ACCOMPLISHED (10)
N/A
Fo rmatting requirements are generally igno red.
Fo rmatting requirements are no t well o bserved.
Fo rmatting requirements are adequately o bserved.
All f o rmatting requirements are generally well o bserved.
All f o rmatting requirements are very well o bserved.
10 / 10
Ref erencing and use o f ref erencing style
No o r very limited ref erencing attempted.
So urces are no t appro priately cited; standard ref erencing style is no t used.
Limited so urces are cited with co mmo nly o ccurring erro rs and lack o f accuracy; standard ref erencing style is used to a limited extent.
Appro priate so urces are mo stly cited with a reaso nable degree o f accuracy; standard ref erencing style is used but no t very co nsistent; so me erro rs evident.
Appro priate so urces are accurately cited thro ugho ut with mino r erro rs; in- text citatio ns and ref erence list are co rrectly based o n standard ref erencing style with mino r inco nsistency.
Appro priate so urces are accurately cited thro ugho ut with f ew o r no erro rs; in- text citatio ns and ref erence list are co nsistent and co rrectly based o n standard ref erencing style.
