Task 3a – Literature Review Based on your research on a contemporary project management issue/concept, create a literature review paper covering theoretical and applied perspectives. The review should: - Cover both the theoretical and applied aspects of the topic - Critically analyse the recent literature (year 2000>) - Identify the themes, trends, and perspectives and/or controversies - Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the literature - Identify, where possible, any gaps in knowledge - Provide a well written conclusion which addresses the major implications of the findings in relation to Project Management and the chosen topic In terms of the written presentation: - It must be academically well written - Meet the presentation standards of an academic literature review, having the following structure: o Title page, abstract, introduction, discussion, conclusion and a list of references - Use the correct discipline terminology - Adhere to the word count: 1,500 words - Use Times New Roman, size 12pt, with double spacing. - Use a minimum 10 academic and 5 non-academic references (in Harvard style – see the library for guidance) Please see the criteria sheet below for guidance: Levels of Achievement Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Criteria 1: Knowledge of chosen topic and analysis of its component parts to identify issues or claims Weight 45.00% 85 to 100 % Demonstrates comprehensive and insightful knowledge of the topic area through analysis of the relationships among statements, questions concepts or descriptions/models with the intention to express belief or judgment or experience or opinion. Highly appropriate and relevant articles used in review. 75 to 84 % Demonstrates mostly comprehensive and insightful knowledge of the topic area. Appropriate and relevant articles are selected for review. 65 to 74 % Demonstrates some knowledge of the topic area, with an element of insight. Articles selected for the review are somewhat appropriate and relevant. 50 to 64 % Basic knowledge of the topic area is demonstrated. Articles selected for the review are somewhat appropriate and relevant with some lapses in judgement. 0 to 49 % Little or no knowledge of the topic area is demonstrated and the articles selected for review lack relevance and appropriateness. Criteria 2: Evaluation of literature and synthesis of own view or argument with an application to Project Management Weight 45.00% 85 to 100 % A high level of evaluation in assessing the credibility of statements or other representations in the literature to determine the logical strength or weakness of the claims and their practicality. Along with a high level 75 to 84 % There is a level of evaluation and synthesis of the literature and its components including its strengths, weaknesses and limitations and where disagreement exists. Logical conclusions 65 to 74 % There is a level evaluation and synthesis of the literature and its components including its strengths, weaknesses and limitations and where disagreement exists, although this could have been further explored. Somewhat logical 50 to 64 % A beginning attempt has been made to evaluate and synthesise the literature and its components including its strengths, weaknesses and limitations and where disagreement exists although there are a number of omissions or 0 to 49 % There is little or no evaluation and synthesis of the literature and its components including its strengths, weaknesses and limitations and where disagreement Levels of Achievement Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail of synthesis of the secure elements into an argument enabling the drawing of reasonable and logical conclusions and the inference of reasonable consequences coming from the application of the theory to contemporary Project Management. are drawn and their application to contemporary Management/HR practice is given in some detail. Perhaps limited inference on consequences or limit links between all components. conclusions are drawn and their application to Project Management is generally stated. Inference of consequences available but links not strong. lapses in judgement. Conclusions are drawn but they may not be logical and their application to Project Management practice is given only minor consideration. No inference of consequences or limited links throughout the document. exists. No conclusions are drawn or they are illogical and/or not applied to practice. No inferences of consequences. No cohesion in the document. Criteria 3: Professional Communication Weight 10.00% 85 to 100 % The meaning is consistently clear. Use of discipline terminology is confident and assured. The level of presentation meets professional standards of the discipline, and there is a high level of attention to detail including grammar, syntax and spelling. Referencing and citations are appropriate. 75 to 84 % The meaning is clear. Use of discipline terminology is extensive and largely correct. The level of presentation meets professional standards of the discipline, and there is attention to detail including grammar, syntax and spelling. Referencing and citations are appropriate. 65 to 74 % Overall meaning is clear though there are minor instances of awkward/ambiguous expression. Use of discipline terminology is adequate. The level of presentation mostly meets professional standards of the discipline, with some lapses in detail in e.g. grammar, syntax and spelling. Referencing and/or citation errors. 50 to 64 % The intended meaning can be discerned but lacks clarity and/or examples of awkward/ambiguous expression. Limited discipline terminology with minor inaccuracies. Some professionalism but significant lapses in grammar syntax and spelling. Referencing and/or citation errors. 0 to 49 % Use of language fails to make meaning clear; many errors of grammar, syntax and spelling, range of mistakes indicating lack of editing and proofreading. Limited or incorrect use of discipline terminology. Poor referencing and citation errors