SIM335: Management of Projects (Academic Year 2013/14)
Task 1
1. 8 marks. 1 points to be taken off for each wrong node.
A maximum of 5 wrong nodes, after which the student gets 0 for the question.
Marks will be deducted for poor presentation.
Please note: Marks are only awarded if the methodology for Activity on the Node – detailed in Project Management, Field and Keller (2007. p. 197. p.198 & p. 391) is used.
Please note; Marks are only awarded if the timings are in days – not dates
2. 3 marks for explaining how the timings were determined .
3 marks for explaining how the float was determined.
Please note: Marks are only awarded if timings for all activities are included on the network diagram, and the explanation given. This approach is detailed in Project Management, Field and Keller (2007. p. 197. p.198 & p. 391)
3. 3 marks for correct project duration and explanation.
3 marks for correct critical path and explanation.
4. 4 marks for correct earliest date (and explain how the figure was calculated).
5. a) 1 mark for the correct identification of the effect on the duration of the whole project, 1 mark for right reason
b) 1 mark for the correct identification of the effect on the duration of the whole project, 1 mark for right reason
c) 1 mark for the correct identification of the effect on the duration of the whole project, 1 mark for right reason
6. 10 marks for the discussion concerning the limitations of network diagrams
Up to 2 marks awarded (per limitation) for the identification and explanation of five limitations
Total: 40 marks
SIM335: Management of Projects (Academic Year 20012/13)
Task 2
Criteria 70% + 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% <40%
Use of relevant theory
Indicative weighting = 40% of 60 mark
(24 marks) The report identifies all the relevant theories to answer to complete the task. The theories used are described in detail. There is clear evidence that course notes, books and other sources are used. Theories used are significant in listing the activities required to successfully plan and manage a major project. The report identifies most of the relevant theories to answer to complete the task. On the whole, the theories used are described in detail. There is clear evidence that course notes and books are used. Theories used are largely significant in listing the activities required to successfully plan and manage a major project. On the whole, the report identifies the relevant theories required to answer to complete the task. The theories used are sometimes described in detail. Overall, there is clear evidence that course notes and books are used. Theories used are significant in listing the activities required to successfully plan and manage a major project. The report identifies some of the relevant theories to answer to complete the task. The theories used are partly described. There is some evidence that course notes, and books are used. Theories used are sometimes significant in listing the activities required to successfully plan and manage a major project. The report fails to identify the relevant theories to answer to complete the task. The theories used are not described. There is no evidence that course notes, books or other sources are used. Theories used are not significant in listing the activities required to successfully plan and manage a major project.
Analysis
Indicative weighting = 40% of 60 mark
(24 marks) There is evidence of extensive research from a variety of sources to provide better understanding to the background of the task. A structured argument is taken for the points made by combining relevant theories with information researched or provided in the task. The conclusions are clear and link into the requirements of the task. There is evidence of some extensive research from a variety of sources to provide better understanding to the background of the task. A structured argument is taken for the points made, often by combining relevant theories with information researched or provided in the task. The conclusions on the whole are clear and link into the requirements of the task. There is evidence of some research to provide better understanding to the background of the task but sources are not extensive. There is some structured argument taken for the points made. The relevant theories are not always combined with information researched or provided in the task. The conclusions are not clear and have only limited linkages into the requirements of the task.
There is evidence of limited research being conducted to provide better understanding to the background of the task but sources are not extensive. There is limited structured argument taken for the points made. There are only limited combinations of the relevant theories with information researched or provided in the task. The conclusions are descriptive and do not link into the requirements of the task. There is no evidence of research from a variety of sources to provide better understanding to the background of the task. There is no structured argument taken for the points made. The relevant theories are not combined with information researched or provided in the task. The conclusions are unclear and only descriptive. Conclusions also do not link into the requirements of the task.
Presentation and Structure
Indicative weighting = 20% of 60 mark
(12 marks) The presentation is clear. There are no or few spelling or grammatical errors. The report has been referenced correctly, using the Harvard style of referencing. A word count is provided at the end of the report and is within the limit of 2000 words. The report is text double-spaced.
The structure of the project is clear, cohesive and logical. Each section has been clearly structured using sub-headings (signposts) and these follow a logical order. Additional diagrams and other subsidiary information are shown in the appendices and properly referenced. Appendices are relevant and are able to provide a better understanding to the report. The presentation is on the whole clear, there are no or few spelling or grammatical errors. The project has been referenced correctly, using the Harvard style of referencing. A word count is provided at the end of the report and is within the limit of 2000 words. The report is text double-spaced.
The structure of the project is on the whole clear, cohesive and logical. Each chapter has been clearly structured using sub-headings (signposts) and these on the whole follow a logical order. Additional diagrams and other subsidiary information are shown in the appendices and properly referenced. Appendices are mostly relevant and are able to provide a better understanding to the report. The presentation is partially clear. There are occasional spelling and or grammatical errors. The project has not always been referenced correctly, using the Harvard style of referencing. A word count is provided at the end of the report but is not within the limit of 2000 words. The report is text double-spaced.
The structure of the project is not entirely clear, cohesive or logical. Each section has partially been clearly structured using some sub-headings (signposts) but it is difficult to follow. Additional diagrams and other subsidiary information are sometimes shown in the appendices but not always properly referenced. Appendices are occasionally relevant and are at times able to provide a better understanding to the report.
The clarity of the presentation of the project is limited. There are spelling and or grammatical errors. The project has not been referenced correctly, using the Harvard style of referencing. The layout is loose and was difficult to follow.
The structure of the project is not clear, cohesive or logical. Each chapter has been limited structured using some or no sub-headings (signposts), which made it very difficult to follow. Additional diagrams and other subsidiary information are not shown in the appendices and not properly referenced. Appendices are irrelevant and are not able to provide a better understanding to the report. The presentation is unclear. There numerous spelling or grammatical errors. The report has not been referenced correctly, using the Harvard style of referencing. A word count is not provided at the end of the report and is not within the limit of 2000 words. The report is not text double-spaced.
The structure of the project is unclear, inconsistent and illogical. Sections are not clearly structured using sub-headings (signposts) and do not follow a logical order. Additional diagrams and other subsidiary information are not shown in the appendices and not properly referenced. Appendices are irrelevant and are not able to provide a better understanding to the report.
Total: 60 marks
Place this order with us and get 18% discount now! to earn your discount enter this code: special18 If you need assistance chat with us now by clicking the live chat button.