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