Performance Evaluation Video Presentation
Microsoft Word - MBA641_T2_2018_Assessment_3_Student_Information_v1 Assessment Information COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Assessment Information Subject Code: MBA641 Subject Name: Strategic Project Management Assessment Title: Performance Evaluation Video Presentation Weighting: 40% Total Marks: Time Limit: Due Date: 40 15 minutes Monday of Week 13, 11:55pm AEST . Assessment Description . You are required to read a case study based on a fictional company and prepare a Performance Evaluation Video Presentation based on the information contained in the case study. The case study will be provided to you in due course. You will be required to include a minimum of 15 references in your Performance Evaluation Video Presentation at least 5 of which must come from academic journals or textbooks. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. 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 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 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 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 Structure Format and Presentation OUT OF 10 MARKS COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Assessment Marking Rubric 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 Appropriate theory and research used to answer question posed The critique does not have appropriate structure and lacks direction. No significant observations made from appropriate theory and research. Poor writing and expression of arguments. Reasonable critique which examines the relevant issues and makes reasonable observations made from appropriate theory and research. Reasonable writing and expression of arguments. Good critique examines the relevant issues and makes good observations from appropriate theory and research. Good writing and expression of arguments. A very good critique, considers all the relevant issues and makes important observations from appropriate theory and research. Very good writing and expression of arguments. Fully considers all the relevant issues and makes significant observations from appropriate theory and research. Excellent writing and expression of arguments. /2 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 Format of answer consistent with question requirements and KBS guidelines No efforts made to follow submission and editing, spacing, etc requirements. Meets most editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Some requirements not met. Meets editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets almost all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets all editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. /2 In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines Inappropriate referencing. Not in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Reasonably appropriate referencing, generally in-line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Good referencing, largely in- line with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Very good referencing,