Project management

3004ENG Group Assignment 2: Marking Guide

Criterion

Standard

Missing

(0 marks)

Poor

(2 marks)

Limited

(4 marks)

Fair

(6 marks)

Competent

(8 marks)

Accomplished

(10 marks)

(1) Executive Summary (10%)

1.1) Content and structure Executive summary is

missing from the report.

Executive summary does not adequately

provide the overview of the report as required in

the assignment instructions. Page limit

may or may not be observed.

Executive summary provides only limited overview of the report

as required in the assignment instructions. Page limit may or may

not be observed.

Overview of the report is adequately presented

as required in the assignment instructions. Some important points appear to be missing.

Page limit is adequately observed and utilised.

Overview of the report is well presented as

required in the assignment instructions.

Key elements of the report, including main findings/lessons learnt

are presented effectively but may contain some

errors. Page limit is well observed and utilised.

Overview of the report is well presented as

required in the assignment instructions.

Key elements of the report, including main findings/lessons learnt are presented clearly,

succinctly and effectively. Page limit is very well observed and

utilised.

(2) Summary of selected projects (15%)

2.1) Content and structure

This section is not clearly presented or

appears to be missing from the report.

Summary does not provide adequate overview of both

projects with poor or irrelevant explanations. Page limit may or may

not be observed.

Summary provides limited overview of both

projects. This is supported by limited

explanations. Page limit may or may not be

observed.

Summary provides reasonable overview of both projects. This is

supported by adequate explanations. Page limit is adequately observed

and utilised.

Summary provides a good overview of both

projects. This is supported by clear,

concise and relevant explanations. Page limit

is well observed and utilised.

Summary effectively provides a very good

overview of both projects. This is

supported by very clear, concise and relevant

explanations. Page limit is well observed and

utilised.

(3) Project management similarities and differences (25%)

3.1) Content and structure

This section is not clearly presented or

appears to be missing from the report.

Similarities and differences are poorly

identified and elaborated as required

in the instructions.

Similarities and differences are identified and elaborated, but are unclear and supported

by limited evidence. Instructions are not well

observed.

Similarities and differences are identified

and elaborated as required in the

instructions. This is supported by factual

evidence but not clearly relevant or significant.

Similarities and differences are well

identified and elaborated. This is well supported by relevant

factual evidence.

Similarities and differences are very well

identified and elaborated. This is

supported by significant, relevant and accurate

factual evidence.

(4) Project management evaluation (35%)

4.1) Content and structure

This section is not clearly presented or

appears to be missing from the report.

Project evaluation is poorly presented and does not follow the

instructions. Evaluation lacks evidential support. The better project may

or may not be identified.

Project evaluation is presented but may not

follow all the instructions and depends on limited evidential support. The better project may or may not be identified.

Project evaluation is adequately presented

as required in the instructions, and is

based on reasonable evidential support. The

better project is identified but may not be

clear.

Project evaluation is well presented as

required in the instructions, and is

based on sound theoretical and

evidential support. The better project is clearly

identified.

Project evaluation is very well presented as

required in the instructions, and is

based on extensive and accurate evidential support. The better

project is clearly identified.

4.2) Theoretical support and judgment

Project evaluation lacks theoretical support. No

evidence of critical judgment.

Project evaluation is based on minimal

theoretical understanding and support. Minimal

evidence of critical judgment.

Project evaluation is based on limited

theoretical understanding and

support. Limited evidence of critical

judgment.

Project evaluation is based on fair theoretical

understanding and support. Some evidence

of critical judgment.

Project evaluation is based on sound

theoretical understanding and support. Competent

level of critical judgment is demonstrated.

Project evaluation is based on advanced

theoretical understanding and

support. High level of critical judgment is

demonstrated.

(5) End of Report Summary (5%)

5.1) Content and structure

This section is not clearly presented or

appears to be missing from the report.

Key findings and lessons learnt are

sufficiently lacking in the summary. Page limit is

not adequately observed and utilised.

Key findings and lessons learnt are not

clear and presented to a limited extent. Page limit may not be adequately observed and utilised.

Key findings and lessons learnt are

satisfactorily presented. Page limit is adequately observed and utilised.

Key findings and lessons learnt are

presented reasonably well and effectively.

Page limit is well observed and utilised.

Key findings and lessons learnt are

presented very clearly and effectively. Page

limit is very well observed and utilised.

(6) Other criteria (10%)

6.1) Overall presentation and structure. Use of illustrations and appendix (if any)

N/A

Report is poorly presented and

structured; persistent errors in grammar or

spelling. Illustrations/tables and

appendix are poorly used.

Limited achievements in overall presentation and structure; many errors in

grammar or spelling. Limited ability in using

appropriate illustrations/tables and appendix; many errors

evident.

Presentation and structure are reasonably

clear and consistent; some errors in grammar or spelling. Acceptable

use of illustrations/tables and appendix with captions provided; some errors

evident.

Presentation and structure are clear and consistent throughout; some minor errors in grammar or spelling.

Good use of illustrations/tables and

appendix with complete and accurate captions provided; minor errors

observed.

Presentation and structure are very clear and professional; few or no errors in grammar or spelling. Very effective

use of illustrations/tables and appendix with complete and accurate captions

provided; no errors observed.

6.2) General formatting requirements

N/A Formatting requirements

are generally ignored. Formatting requirements

are not well observed.

Formatting requirements are adequately

observed.

All formatting requirements are

generally well observed.

All formatting requirements are very

well observed.

6.3) Referencing No or very limited

referencing attempted.

Sources are not appropriately cited;

standard referencing style is not used.

Limited sources are cited with commonly occurring errors and

lack of accuracy; standard referencing

style is used to a limited extent.

Appropriate sources are mostly cited with a

reasonable degree of accuracy; standard

referencing style is used but not very consistent;

some errors evident.

Appropriate sources are accurately cited

throughout with minor errors; in-text citations and reference list are

correctly based on standard referencing

style with minor inconsistency.

Appropriate sources are accurately cited

throughout with few or no errors; in-text

citations and reference list are consistent and

correctly based on standard referencing

style.