Project management fundamentals
Assessment 2: Essay
Weighting: 30%
Submission details: Online through MyUni
Task: The essay assessment will require students to:
· Investigate a particular project management topic (for example, managing the project scope, project procurement, risk management, project resourcing) or any other PMBOK knowledge area.
· Report their knowledge in respect to it.
This assessment task requires the student demonstrate how well they comprehend their chosen PMBOK knowledge area. The student can opt to research their own project.
Suggested projects:
· New Royal Adelaide Hospital Project
· Collins-class Submarine Project
· Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Project
Length and Presentation:
1,800 words (not including references and appendices)
Some things to consider to ensure a high quality essay.
· Originality and creative thought (please ensure an originality score on TurnItIn below 20%)
· Research up-to-date with topic (use a range of academic and non-academic resources 10 20 references)
· Demonstrate comprehension and understanding on project management, terminology, principles, processes and practice
· Clarity of expression, logical planning and sequence
· Quality in the overall presentation, including correct grammar, spelling and punctuation
Points 100
Submitting a file upload
Rubric
Individual project report: Marking rubric
Individual project report: Marking rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrate comprehension and understanding of Project Management, terminology, principles, processes and practice.
20.0 to >17.5 pts
Above expected level
– Excellent coverage of core concepts covered in the course – Core concepts covered in the course correctly defined with no errors – Outstanding coverage of the core concepts covered in the course
17.5 to >10.0 pts
At expected level
– Core concepts covered in the course included – Core concepts covered in the course defined – Core concepts covered in the course correctly applied
10.0 to >0 pts
Below expected level
– Core concepts covered in the course omitted – Core concepts covered in the course incorrectly defined – Core concepts covered in the course incorrectly applied
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOriginality and creative thought: Demonstrated awareness of and insight with regard to this topic.
10.0 to >8.0 pts
Full Marks
The project demonstrates understanding of the complex social and environmental challenges facing project managers.
8.0 to >5.0 pts
At expected level
Clear project topic connected to relevant societal issues
5.0 to >0 pts
Below expected level
Unclear or vague project. The project and elements of the project report are not connected to social and environmental issues facing project managers.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch and evidence.
40.0 to >34.0 pts
Above expected level
– Each paragraph has thoughtful supporting detail sentences that develop the main project idea. – Writer demonstrates logical and subtle sequencing of ideas through well-developed sections / paragraphs; transitions are used to enhance organisation. – Mastery of and creative engagement with both foundational and current relevant literature in the field.
34.0 to >20.0 pts
At expected level
– Each section has sufficient supporting detail sentences that develop the ideas/arguments. – Logical organisation, however, organisation of ideas are not fully developed. – Adequate coverage but limited as to viewpoints presented. – Reference to and discussion of foundational and current relevant supporting evidence and concepts but weak connection with examples.
20.0 to >0 pts
Below expected level
– No evidence of structure or adequate organisation. – Supporting research and evidence does not include some of the important references related to the field and subject of the study. – Incomplete or may only provide a list of arguments without being in dialogue with the literature. – Omissions and unsubstantiated interpretations. – Little evidence the candidate understands the foundational and current concepts.
40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrated quality and depth of analysis.
20.0 to >17.5 pts
Above expected level
-Analysis is rigorous, nuanced, and transparent. The key argument is tied to the essay question and course foundations. – A rigorous discussion is provided showing a high level of engagement.
17.5 to >10.0 pts
At expected level
– The analysis connects back to the key concepts covered in class but may be weak. – Evidence and examples are adequately considered but could be more thorough. – Validity of the arguments is addressed but may lack depth.
10.0 to >0 pts
Below expected level
– The analysis may be incomplete and/or poorly organised and/or implemented. – Key arguments may not be supported by the analysis.
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrated quality of writing.
10.0 to >8.5 pts
Above expected level
– The project report is engaging and clear. – Provides a focused discussion of the key arguments, situating them in the literature to draw connections or point to differences with previous work. – Makes a compelling and interesting argument. – All cited works, references (Harvard style) are done in the correct format with no errors. – No errors in punctuation, capitalisation and spelling.
8.5 to >5.0 pts
At expected level
– The report is clear and easy to read. – Some cited works, some references missing and/or style with errors (Harvard style). – Almost no errors in punctuation, capitalisation and spelling.
5.0 to >0 pts
Below expected level
– Incomplete and/or unfocused. – The connection between the arguments and research may not be established in a convincing way. – Little or no interpretation is provided or the interpretation may not fit the findings. – Few cited works, incorrect format. (Harvard style). – Many errors in punctuation, capitalisation and spelling.
10.0 pts
Total Points: 100.0
