Project Management Principles

3004ENG Group Assignment 1: Marking Criteria

Criterion

Standard

Missing

(0 marks)

Poor

(2 marks)

Limited

(4 marks)

Fair

(6 marks)

Competent

(8 marks)

Accomplished

(10 marks)

(1) Introduction (5%)

1.1) Content and structure

The section is not clearly presented or

appears to be missing in the report.

Introduction section does not adequately

provide the brief overview of the report. The selected project and the main tasks carried out are not

clearly explained. Page limit may or may not be

observed.

Introduction section provides only a limited overview of the report. The selected project and the tasks carried

out are mentioned with limited explanations.

Many important points appear to be missing. Page limit may or may

not be observed.

Brief overview of the report is adequately

presented. The selected project and the tasks

carried out are adequately explained. Some important points may be missing. Page

limit is adequately observed and utilised.

Brief overview of the report is well presented.

The selected project and the tasks carried out are explained well but may have minor

errors. Page limit is well observed and utilised.

Brief overview of the report is very well

presented. The selected project and the tasks

carried out are explained very well. One

page limit is very well observed and utilised

effectively.

(2) Summary of project deliverables (10%)

2.1) Content and structure

The section is not clearly presented or

appears to be missing in the report.

Key project deliverables are poorly identified,

showing an obvious lack of understanding of the project requirements. Page limit may or may

not be observed.

Key project deliverables are not clearly identified,

showing limited understanding of project requirements. Page limit

may or may not be observed.

Some key project deliverables are

identified and briefly explained but may have

missed some main points. A fair level of understanding of the

project requirements is demonstrated. Page limit is adequately

observed and utilised.

Key project deliverables are identified and

succinctly explained but may contain minor

errors. A good level of understanding of the

project requirements is demonstrated. Page limit is well observed

and utilised.

All key project deliverables are clearly identified and succinctly explained. A very good

level of understanding of the project requirements is demonstrated. Page limit is well observed

and utilised effectively.

(3) Work Breakdown Structure (35%)

3.1) List of tasks/work packages with brief descriptions

The section is not clearly presented or

appears to be missing in the report

Tasks/work packages are poorly identified and

organised, demonstrating poor

understanding of WBS concept and scope of the project. Page limit

may or may not be observed.

Some important tasks/work packages

are identified and explained but contain major errors, showing

limited understanding of the WBS concept and scope of project. Page limit may or may not be

observed.

Important tasks/work packages are

adequately identified, explained and organized given the project scope.

Acceptable level of understanding of WBS

concept is demonstrated. Page limit is adequately

observed and utilised.

Important tasks/work packages are well

identified, explained and organized given the

project scope. A good level of understanding of

WBS concept is demonstrated. Page limit is well observed

and utilised.

Important tasks/work packages are very well

identified, explained and organised with some

additional effort beyond what is expected. A very

good level of understanding of WBS

concept is demonstrated. Page limit is well observed

and utilised effectively.

3.2) WBS diagram Diagram is not included

in the report.

The diagram is poorly developed. Tasks/Work

packages are poorly presented. The style of the diagram does not

represent a conventional WBS,

showing an obvious lack of understanding of the

concept.

The diagram appears to contain some aspects of

a WBS with limited tasks/work packages included. The style of the diagram does not follow a conventional WBS, showing limited understanding of the

concept.

The diagram is presented with an

acceptable quality. The tasks/work packages

are reasonably consistent with those

identified and explained. The style of the diagram

represents a conventional WBS but may not follow the PMI

guideline.

The diagram is well developed and

presented with the tasks/work packages consistent with those

identified and explained. The style of the diagram

generally follows the PMI guideline but may contain minor errors.

The diagram is very well developed and professionally

presented. All the tasks/work packages are consistent with those identified and

explained. The style of the diagram follows the PMI guideline very well.

(4) Stakeholder identification and analysis (40%)

4.1) Stakeholder identification

The section is not clearly presented or

appears to be missing in the report

Primary and secondary stakeholders are largely

irrelevant or not adequately identified with poor or lack of

explanations.

Primary and secondary stakeholders are

somewhat irrelevant or identified but to the limited extent and

without much meaningful explanations

of each stakeholder.

Relevant primary and secondary stakeholders

are identified with adequate explanations of each stakeholder. Although this may

contain some errors and misunderstanding.

Relevant primary and secondary stakeholders

are clearly identified with good explanations

of each stakeholder. Although this may

contain minor errors and misunderstandings.

Relevant primary and secondary stakeholders

are clearly and accurately identified with very clear and succinct explanations of each

stakeholder.

4.2) Stakeholder analysis

The section is not clearly presented or

appears to be missing in the report

The stakeholder matrix is poorly constructed

and presented. Justification of

stakeholder influence/interest is

poor, showing the lack of understanding of

stakeholder analysis. Page limit may or may

not be observed.

The stakeholder matrix is constructed and

presented with limited quality. Justification of

stakeholder influence/interest is provided but this is

generally inaccurate, showing limited

understanding of stakeholder analysis. Page limit may or may

not be observed.

The stakeholder matrix is adequately

constructed and presented. Justification

of stakeholder influence/interest is mostly adequate but

may not all be accurate. Page limit is adequately observed and utilised.

The stakeholder matrix is well constructed and

professionally presented. Accurate

justification of stakeholder

influence/interest is provided. Page limit is

well observed and utilised.

The stakeholder matrix is very well constructed

and professionally presented. All

stakeholders’ influence and interest are very

accurately and thoroughly justified.

Page limit is well observed and utilised

effectively.

(5) Formatting and presentation (10%)

5.1) Overall presentation and structure

N/A

Report is poorly presented and

structured; persistent errors in grammar or

spelling.

Limited achievements in overall presentation and structure; many errors in

grammar or spelling.

Presentation and structure are reasonably

clear and consistent; some errors in grammar

or spelling.

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

Presentation and structure are very clear and professional; few or no errors in grammar or

spelling.

5.2) 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.