Project Management Team Performance
| 1.
Review and discussion of successful team performance |
No mention of successful team performance | Extremely limited mention of successful team performance. No review of discussion of successful team performance | limited mention of successful team performance some
contextualisation offered, incomplete and superficial points raised |
Descriptive background and context, sufficient number of points raised | Appropriate
contextualisation and background thoughtful identification and framing of key issues |
Thorough examination and contextualisation of key issues, well defined an framed with practical examples | Rigorous critical contextualisation underpinned with theory. Thorough identification of issues | Exemplary contextualisation, meticulously framed |
| Review and discussion of disruptive issues | No attempt at identification of Disruptive issues or contextualisation of issues | Some issues alluded to without clarification | 3 issues described but limited discussion or review | Sufficient discussions of assumptions and issues | Appropriate description and some critical exploration of assumptions and issues | Good Critical discussion of assumptions and issues | Rigorous examination of assumptions and issues | Insightful and rigorous examination of assumptions and issues |
| Discussion of extent and nature of the management of the disruptions. Considering prevention, monitoring and action | No discussion of the management of disruption | Extremely limited discussion of the management of disruption | Some discussion of the management of disruption, some consideration of prevention, monitoring and action | Sufficient discussion of the management of disruption, sufficient consideration of prevention, monitoring and action | Appropriate discussion of the management of disruption, appropriate consideration of prevention, monitoring and action | Good critical discussion of the management of disruption, good consideration of prevention, monitoring and action | Rigorous discussion of the management of disruption, rigorous consideration of prevention, monitoring and action | Authoritative discussion of the management of disruption, insightful consideration of prevention, monitoring and action |
| Conclusions are evidence based and supported through logical discussion | No conclusions evident | Very limited conclusion that have tenuous links to the discussion | Some conclusions drawn but are more opinionated than evidence based | Appropriate conclusions drawn from discussion | Careful conclusions drawn from discussion | Thoughtful and critical conclusions drawn | Reflective conclusions drawn from discussion | Illuminating and insightful conclusions drawn |
| Presentation
Essay is well structured, logical and organised |
Unstructured, illogical flow, disorganised | Poor structure disrupted flow. Limited logical flow | Some structure and logical flow, buts too jumbled | Adequate structure and flow, acceptable organisation | Clear structure and organisation. Coherent and logical flow | Good structure and organisation. Critical flow and connectivity between elements | Excellent structure and organisation. Fluent and precise connectivity between elements | Outstanding structure and organisation. Authoritative connectivity between elements |
| Appropriate academic language, spelling, grammar syntax | Inappropriate language and syntax unacceptable grammar and spelling | Very poor usage of language, syntax and spelling; extremely poor grammar | Poor use of academic language, too many spelling errors, bad grammar | Acceptable, language, grammar and syntax. Still needs to be more academic | Consistent and coherent use of academic language. Appropriate syntax, few spelling or grammatical errors | Good use of academic language. Precise syntax. No grammatical or spelling errors | Excellent use of academic language, sophisticated syntax. Excellent spelling and grammar | Complex language and syntax. Outstanding grammar |
| Consistent and appropriate referencing and in text citation | No referencing apparent | Very references, inappropriate sources, poor in text citation. Poor use of Harvard style | Some references and in text citation.
Not in the Harvard style or inconsistently applied |
Adequate Harvard referencing, but still some inconsistences, some inappropriate sources. Adequate in text citations | Accurate Harvard referencing, confident in text citation, more needed | Through and careful referencing. Precise in text citations | Sophisticated referencing and in text citations | Authoritative referencing and in text citations |
joyce
0
