Format of answer consistent No efforts made to follow Meets most editing, spacing, Meets editing, spacing, fonts, Meets almost all editing, Meets all editing, spacing, fonts, /2 with question requirements and submission and editing, fonts, and other editing and other editing spacing, fonts, and other and other editing requirements. KBS guidelines spacing, etc requirements. requirements. Some requirements. editing requirements. requirements not met. In-text referencing and Inappropriate referencing. Reasonably appropriate Good referencing, largely in- Very good referencing, 100% Excellent/appropriate /1 reference list follows Harvard Not in-line with requirements referencing, generally in-line line with requirements of in-line with requirements of referencing, 100% in-line with style and consistent with KBS of Harvard style and with requirements of Harvard Harvard style and consistent Harvard style and consistent requirements of Harvard style guidelines consistent with KBS style and consistent with KBS with KBS guidelines. with KBS guidelines. and consistent with KBS guidelines. guidelines. guidelines.

Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling, grammar and punctuation Needs more sentence variety. Little or no thought given to diction. Tone or language is conversational. Contains much informal language. Uses “I” or “you.” Contains many examples of unclear or awkward phrasing. Needs more sentence variety. Attention needed with diction. Contains informal language or conversational tone, or uses “I” or “you.” Unclear or awkward sentence phrasing. Sentence variety is adequate. Tone is appropriate. Diction is clear, but could be more effective. Language is academic, and writing is clear and effective. Very little or no unclear or awkward phrasing. Sentence variety is effective and good. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is appropriate and effective. Language is academic. Writing is clear and concise. Sentence variety is effective and sophisticated. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is sophisticated and effective. Language is academically sound. Writing is clear, concise, and strong. /2

Appropriate theory and The critique does not have Reasonable critique which Good critique examines the A very good critique, considers Fully considers all the relevant /2 research used to answer appropriate structure and lacks examines the relevant issues relevant issues and makes all the relevant issues and issues and makes significant question posed direction. No significant and makes reasonable good observations from makes important observations observations from appropriate observations made from observations made from appropriate theory and from appropriate theory and theory and research. Excellent appropriate theory and appropriate theory and research. Good writing and research. Very good writing writing and expression of research. Poor writing and research. Reasonable writing expression of arguments. and expression of arguments. arguments. expression of arguments. and expression of arguments.

Answer clearly and logically presented Serious lack of organization. Content of slides or notes pages does not refer back to or relate to main arguments. Writing is formulaic, i.e. “in conclusion,” “another example is….” Writing style could be more effective. Organization is hard to follow; there is little progression of ideas. Little or no transitions between slides. Need to more effectively weave main arguments throughout. Slides are generally well organized. Better transitions needed. The progression of ideas could be more thoughtful. Slides and note relate back to main arguments to prove argument. Ideas & arguments are well structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Sound transitions between slides and notes pages. Major arguments are effectively made. Ideas & arguments are effectively structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Excellent transitions between slides and notes. Concluding comments leave the reader thinking. Major arguments are effectively woven throughout everybody slides, with ideas always related back to main arguments. /2

Performance Evaluation Video Presentation Recommendations Recommendations demonstrate poor understanding of strategic project management concepts. Explanations for recommendations not provided or unclear or illogical. Recommendations demonstrate reasonable understanding of strategic project management concepts. Meaningful explanations for appropriate recommendations provided in mostly comprehensible language. Recommendations demonstrate solid understanding of strategic project management concepts. Relevant explanations for logical recommendations provided in comprehensible language. Recommendations demonstrate comprehensive understanding of strategic project management concepts. Proficient explanations for effective recommendations provided in clear language. Recommendations demonstrate advance level understanding of strategic project management concepts. Detailed explanations for innovative recommendations provided in clear and concise language. /9

Performance Evaluation Video Presentation Conclusions Conclusions demonstrate poor understanding of strategic project management concepts. Explanations for conclusions not provided or unclear or illogical. Conclusions demonstrate reasonable understanding of strategic project management concepts. Meaningful explanations for appropriate conclusions provided in mostly comprehensible language. Conclusions demonstrate solid understanding of strategic project management concepts. Relevant explanations for logical conclusions provided in comprehensible language. Conclusions demonstrate comprehensive understanding of strategic project management concepts. Proficient explanations for effective conclusions provided in clear language. Conclusions demonstrate advance level understanding of strategic project management concepts. Detailed explanations for insightful conclusions provided in clear and concise language. /7

Performance Evaluation Video Presentation Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) either unclear or not used at all indicating poor understanding of project performance evaluation model. Demonstrated understanding of project performance evaluation model. Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) is reasonably clear and incorporates the essential features of the basic model. Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) correctly used to accurately score and explain PPS Dimensions indicating strong understanding of project performance evaluation model. Comprehensive understanding of project performance evaluation model evident from highly accurate scoring and explanation of PPS Dimensions in Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) Demonstrated advanced level understanding of project performance evaluation model. Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) is clear, easy to interpret and incorporates features that go beyond the basic model. /7

Criteria F (Fail) 0%-49% P (Pass) 50%-64% CR (Credit) 65%-74% D (Distinction) 75% - 84% HD (High Distinction) 85%-100% Mark Assessment Content (Subject Specific) OUT OF 30 MARKS Performance Evaluation Video Presentation Strategy & Ethics Brief and inaccurate analysis indicating poor understanding strategic project management concepts. Demonstrated understanding of strategic project management concepts. Mostly accurate analysis based upon appropriately identified strategic goals and ethical standards. Meaningful analysis based upon accurately identified strategic goals and ethical standards indicating strong understanding of strategic project management concepts. Comprehensive understanding of strategic project management concepts evident from highly accurate analysis incorporating all relevant strategic goals and ethical standards. Demonstrated advanced level understanding of strategic project management concepts. Analysis is penetrating and insightful with findings that go beyond fundamental strategic goals and ethical standards outlined in the case study. /7