13-15, Excellent: Fulfils all requirements/Insightful analysis of five significant risks to TOTS project 10-12, Very good: Fulfils most requirements/ Sensible analysis of at least four significant risks 7-9, Reasonable:Attempts to address requirements/ Basic analysis of at least three significant risks 3-6, Lacking: Weak attempt to identify at least three risks/Little analysis 0-2, Poor/Superficial: Little or no attempt to identify significant risks 15 3 marks for each risk

6 Risk Management • Identifies valid and significant risks to the project • Provides indication of probability or risk occurring with justification • Describes impact on project if risky event occurs • Outlines an appropriate response to the risk with supporting reason • Classification of risk response (e.g. Avoidance, acceptance etc)

9-10, Excellent: Fulfils all requirements/Describes two appropriate primary and two secondary stakeholders and analyses their interests in detail 7-8, Very good: Fulfils most requirements/Describes two primary and two secondary stakeholders and their interests 5-6, Reasonable: Attempts to address most requirements/ Identifies four stakeholders and their interests, but with little detail 3-4, Lacking: Weak attempt to address requirements / Identifies stakeholders, but with no further detail 0-2 Poor/Superficial: Completely lacking in basic details/Fails to address requirements of question 10

5 Stakeholders • Identifies appropriate primary and secondary stakeholders, with supporting reasons • Determines stakeholders’ interests and balances them with needs and expectations of other stakeholders

18-20, Excellent: Applies all formulae correctly/Workings shown at each stage of calculation/Well-supported justifications for costing interpretations and decisions 14-17, Very good: Applies most formulae correctly/Workings shown/Provides valid reasons for costing interpretations and decisions 10-13, Reasonable:Applies most formulae correctly/ Most answers right but some workings missing/Provides some reasons for costing interpretations and decisions 5-9, Lacking: Missing formulae or mistakes in calculations / Does not show working/Does not provide reasons for costing interpretations and decisions 0-4, Poor/superficial: Missing formulae and/or numerous mistakes in calculations / Does not provide reasons for costing interpretations and decisions 20 a – 4 marks b – 4 marks c – 4 marks d – 8 marks

4 Costings • Applies formulas presented in course to appropriate information provided in case study • Shows correct formulas and workings for each stage of calculations • Demonstrates initiative and finds credible sources of information where necessary, with appropriate referencing • Provides justifications for any figures or requirements which may be a matter of judgement or interpretation • Clearly states any limitations or assumptions on which findings are based • Distinguishescostings based on labour sourced within the organisationand contract labour

18-20, Excellent: Fulfils all requirements/Demonstrates a high degree of initiative and provides explanations if appropriate 14-17, Very good: Fulfils most requirements/Demonstrates initiative and explains points where necessary 10-13, Reasonable: Attempts to address most requirements 5-9, Lacking: Makes weak attempt to address requirements/Does not demonstrate initiative 0-4, Poor/superficial: Makes no attempt to address requirements/No initiative shown 20

3 WBS • Presents a clearly-structured 1 page WBS • Groups tasks into 4-6 different categories • Work packages concisely described • Sub-divides tasks where appropriate • Uses initiative to include any other tasks considered necessary within project scope • Appropriate numerical system to identify tasks with unique number • Provides explanatory notes if necessary

22-25, Excellent: Fulfils all requirements/demonstrates initiative and insight in all aspects of BBC model/Application of BBC principles to TOTS situation/Recognises limitations and identifies further information required 18-21, Very good: Fulfils most requirements/demonstrates initiative and insight in most aspects of BBC model/Reasonable application of BBC principles to TOTS situation/Recognises some limitations of model and identifies further information required 13-17, Reasonable:Attempts to address most requirements/Simple application of BBC structure to TOTS situation and project/Identifies general information required 9-12, Below average: Attempts to address most requirements/Simple application of BBC structure to TOTS situation and project/Identifies general information required 5-8, Lacking: Weak attempt to answer question/Little application of BBC structure to project/Fails to identify further information required 0-4, Poor/Superficial:Very weak or no attempt to answer question/No application of BBC structure to project/Fails to identify further information required 25 5 marks for each section

2 Business case • Analyses five aspects of Better Business Case Model in turn • Identifies strategic alignment between project and TOTS other operations and provides insight into benefits and potential issues of project • Provides a framework for determining how TOTS should optimise economic returns • Outlines the factors to determine whether the project will be commercially viable • Outlinesfinancial considerations, and identifies further information necessary for decision-making • States factors which will determine whether the project is achievable and can be successfully delivered by management

Question Marking Criteria Mark allocation guide Marks allocated 1 Project Charter • Provides a concise overview of project fundamentals • Identifies the client or sponsor of the project • Clearly establishes the key purpose of the project • Defines the scope of the project at a high level, including its limitations • Outlines the constraints of the project according to available information • Includes most headings from Project Charter example 9-10, Excellent: Fulfils all requirements/Identifies all key details 7-8, Very good: Fulfils most requirements/Identifies most key details 5-6, Reasonable: Attempts to address most requirements of the question / Misses some key details 3-4, Lacking: Weak attempt to address requirementsof question / Misses key details 0-2 Poor/Superficial: Completely lacking in basic details/Fails to address requirements of question 10