Organisation/ logic Weighting 5% No flow. No argument. Poorly organised and difficult to read. Does not flow logically from one part to another. The argument is not clear. Generally well organised although the flow of the argument is not always logical. Argument is clear and mostly sound. Coherently organised and logical formation of sound argument. Exceptionally well structured. Logic is easy to follow. Arguments are sound and convincing. Writing Weighting 5% No consideration for presentation. Muddled writing that is very difficult to follow. Numerous grammatical errors. Multiple spelling errors. Acceptable presentation. Long winded and some clear writing presentation. Some grammatical errors. Multiple spelling errors. Tidy presentation. Mostly clear writing but at times long winded. Writing style lacks consideration. Few issues around grammar. Less than 5 spelling errors. Professional presentation. Clear writing mainly to the point. Considered writing style.

Basic understanding of Stakeholder concepts. Identified adequately key stakeholders relevant to the procurements. There are a few major errors in stakeholder analysis table and Power/interest grid There are adequate techniques, tools and actions applying for 4 engagement plans. There are a few major errors in the plans. Adequate explanation but still generic Good understanding of Stakeholder concepts. Identified adequately key stakeholders and a few additional stakeholders relevant to the procurements. There are some minor errors in stakeholder analysis table and Power/interest grid There are adequate techniques, tools and actions applying for 4 engagement plans. There are some minor errors in the plans. Well explanation. Excellent understanding of Stakeholder concepts. Identified adequately key stakeholders and many additional stakeholders relevant to the procurements. There are a few minor errors in stakeholder analysis table and Power/interest grid There are adequate techniques, tools and actions applying for 4 engagement plans. There are a few minor errors in the plans. Explanation in high detailed and good application of tools, techniques in the plan.

Stakeholder management plan Weighting 9% Clear evident of lack of understanding of Stakeholder concepts. Fail to identify key stakeholders relevant to the procurements. There are many major errors in stakeholder analysis table and Power/interest grid There are many errors in techniques, tools and actions applying for 4 engagement plans. Lack of explanation Lack of understanding of Stakeholder concepts. Identified inadequately key stakeholders relevant to the procurements. There are some major errors in stakeholder analysis table and Power/interest grid There are inadequate techniques, tools and actions applying for 4 engagement plans. There are some major errors in the plans. Inadequate explanation

Basic understanding of procurement. At least 2 procurement activities. Adequate procurement’s scope, requirements and acceptance criteria, delivery time but still generic Basic understanding of source selection. Identified adequately key criteria relevant to the procurements. Good understanding of procurement. At least 3 procurement activities. Clear and well detailed procurement’s scope, requirements and acceptance criteria, delivery time Good understanding of source selection. Identified adequately key criteria and a few additional criteria relevant to the procurements. Excellent understanding of procurement. At least 3 procurement activities. Clear and well detailed procurement’s scope, requirements and acceptance criteria, delivery time., adopted relevant industrial standard for acceptance criteria. Excellent understanding of source selection. Identified adequately key criteria and many additional criteria relevant to the procurements.

Procurement management plan Weighting 9% Clear evident of lack of understanding of procurement. Only 1 procurement activity. Unclear procurement’s scope, requirements and acceptance criteria, delivery time Clear evident of lack of understanding of source selection. Fail to identify key criteria relevant to the procurements. Lack of understanding of procurement. At least 2 procurement activities. Inadequate procurement’s scope, requirements and acceptance criteria, delivery time Lack of understanding of source selection. Identified inadequately key criteria relevant to the procurements.

Basic understanding of risk concepts. Identified adequately key risks. There are a few major errors in evaluate risk impact and risk response Basic understanding of risk analysis. There are a few major errors in risk analysis. Adequate explanation of risk impact estimation but still generic Good understanding of risk concepts. Identified key risks and additional potential risks. There are some minor errors in evaluate risk impact and risk response Good understanding of risk analysis. There are some minor errors in risk analysis. Adequate and clear explanation of risk impact estimation Excellent understanding of risk concepts. Identified all key and potential risks in good detail. There are a few minor errors in evaluate risk impact and risk response. Excellent understanding of risk analysis. There are a few minor errors in risk analysis. Highly detailed and well explanation of risk impact estimation. Good application of estimation tools

Risk management plan Weighting 9% Clear evident of lack of understanding of risk concepts. Fail to identify key risks. There are many major errors in evaluate risk impact and risk response. Clear evident of lack of understanding of risk analysis. There are many major errors in risk analysis. Lack of explanation of risk impact estimation Lack of understanding of risk concepts. Identified inadequately key risks. There are some major errors in evaluate risk impact and risk response. Lack of understanding of risk analysis. There are some major errors in risk analysis. Inadequate explanation of risk impact estimation

Communication management plan Weighting 9% Clear evident of lack of understanding of developing communication models. Fail to identify key internal communication information of project. There are many major errors in models. Lack of understanding of developing communication models. Can only identify some key internal communication information of project. There are some major errors in the models Basic understanding of developing communication models. Can identify all key internal communication information of project. There are a few major errors in the models Good understanding of developing communication models. Can identify all key and necessary internal communication information of project. There are some minor errors in the models Excellent understanding of developing communication models. Can identify all key and necessary internal and external communication information of project. There are a few minor errors in the models

Good understanding of assigning responsibility. The roles are assigned adequately for activities. There are some minor errors in role assignment There are some minor errors in the HR calendar. The calendar is correctly organized and clear to read. Excellent understanding of assigning responsibility. The roles are assigned adequately for activities. There are a few minor errors in role assignment There are a few minor errors in the HR calendar. The calendar is highly organized and detailed.

Human Resource management plan Weighting 9% Clear evident of lack of understanding of assigning responsibility. There is no link between the role and activities. There are many major errors in role assignment There are many major errors in the HR calendar. The calendar is poorly organised and difficult to read. Lack of understanding of assigning responsibility. The roles are assigned inadequately for activities. There are some major errors in role assignment There are some major errors in the HR calendar. The calendar is poorly organised and difficult to read. Basic understanding of assigning responsibility. The roles are assigned adequately for activities. There are a few major errors in role assignment There are a few major errors in the HR calendar. The calendar is correctly organized and clear to read.

Quality management plan Weighting 5% Clear evident of lack of understanding of quality concepts. There is no link between quality metrics and the requirements. Poor quality of checklist. Lack of understanding of quality concepts. The quality metrics covered the requirements inadequately. Quality checklist provided inadequately tools to verify the quality. There are some major errors in the checklist and metrics Basic understanding of quality concepts. The quality metrics covered the requirements adequately. Quality checklist provided adequately tools to verify the quality. There are a few major errors in the checklist and metrics Good understanding of quality concepts. The quality metrics covered the requirements adequately. Quality checklist provided adequately tools to verify the quality. There are some minor errors in the checklist and metrics Excellent understanding of quality concepts. The quality metrics covered the requirements in good detailed. Quality checklist provided good tools to verify the quality. There are a few minor errors in the checklist and metrics

The project deliverables covered all the project objectives. Most of the deliverables are traceable or measureable Good understanding of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) diagram. The WBS can cover all of the deliverables. The diagram is well organized there are a few errors in WBS structure The requirements covered the deliverables in good details. Most of the requirements provide clear acceptance criteria. The project deliverables covered all the project objectives in depth which shown exceptional understanding of the projects. There aren’t any untraceable or unmeasurable deliverables Excellent understanding of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) diagram. The WBS can cover all of the deliverables in great details. The diagram is well organized and there is a few minor error The requirements covered the deliverables in good details. Most of the requirements provide clear acceptance criteria and adopted from standards applied in the same industry

Scope management plan Weighting 10% There is not a clear link between the deliverables and the project objectives. All deliverables are untraceable or unmeasurable. Clear evidence of lack of understanding of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) diagram. There is no clear link between the WBS and the deliverables There is not a clear link between the requirements and deliverables. The requirements don’t provide any specific acceptance criteria. The deliverables covered inadequately the project objectives. Only a few of the deliverables are traceable or measureable Lack of understanding of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) diagram. The WBS can only cover some of the deliverables. The diagram is poorly organised and difficult to read. The requirements covered inadequately the deliverables in details. There are many unclear acceptant criteria of requirements. The deliverables covered most of the project objectives. Many of the deliverables are traceable or measureable

B (65-79) A (80-100) The project overview is covered all information provided by the Project charter. Elaborate on some sections within the Project Charter that need further detail The project overview is covered all information provided by the Project charter. Elaborate on some goals & objectives within the Project Charter that need further detail Good understanding of project organization shown by not only be able to identify key roles & authorities but also necessary support roles & authorities. There is some mismatching between roles and authorities. The diagram is coherently organised The project overview is covered all information provided by the Project charter. Elaborate on all sections within the Project Charter that need further detail The project overview is covered all information provided by the Project charter. Elaborate on all goals & objectives within the Project Charter that need further detail Excellent understanding. Exceptional ability to identify and matching all roles and authorities necessary for the project. There is only a few of mismatching between roles and authorities. The diagram is exceptionally well structured

Criteria E (0-39) D (40-49) C (50-64) Introduction Weighting 10% The project overview is unclear. There is not a clear link between the project overview and the project charter The project’s objectives are unclear. There is not a clear link between the project objectives and the goals in project charter Clear evidence of lack of understanding of project organization necessary for a project. Fails to identify key roles & authorities. The project overview covered inadequately information provided by the project charter The project objectives covered inadequately the goals provided by the project charter Lack of understanding of project organization. Can only identify some key roles & authorities. The diagram is poorly organised and difficult to read The project overview is covered all information provided by the Project charter The project overview is covered all goals provided by the Project charter Basic understanding of project organization. Identify all key roles & authorities. The diagram is generally well organised

Paper Number and Title: MGT113 – Introduction to Project Management Level 5, 15 credits, Lear ning outcome: number(s) L.O 1 Evaluate and apply project management tools to create a project plan Conditions: This is a compulsory assignment. It must be submitted and it makes up 25% of your final result for this paper. The completed assignment is to be submitted to your facilitator via Blackboard by the due date.