1
Assessment Specification
Assessment Title Assessment 2
Unit Title Project Management Dissertation (Distance learning)
Unit Code BSS037-6 Number of Credits 45
Unit Leader Dr Teslim Oyegoke Bukoye
Assessment Weighting (%)
or % contribution to
assessment component
100% - 12,000 words
Issue Date Academic week 1
Submission Deadline Assessment 2:
- Dissertation (individual report) (Mon 31st July 2017
via Breo turn-it-in latest by 10:00pm).
Procedure for/where to
submit work (including file
name format for TurnItIn
where applicable)
Via TurnitIn unless otherwise advised.
Required file naming formats are described below.
Expected Return Date Three official weeks after submission
Description of
Assessment Task
Students will be provided with a list of possible research areas
to choose from. The final research topic (and area) should be
agreed with the supervisor.
The dissertation will build on the interim (proposal) report
earlier submitted.
Assessment 2 – Dissertation individual report
The one final summative 12,000 word dissertation report
should be written as proper dissertation and should address
the following:
Introduction and theoretical background
Conceptual analysis
Evidence and argument
Conclusion
Recommendations2
Implications
Presentation
Please ensure that the file is the final version of your
document and not a draft. Drafts submitted by mistake will be
marked as your assignment. Resubmission at a later date can
only ever achieve a maximum of DIn the final presentation slides, If the deliverables are more
than 50% copied then this will be viewed as an E-grade
Note:
The highest levels of presentation are expected for all
assignments and poor presentation will be penalised. The
‘Harvard’ system of referencing should be used in your work.
PAD offers advice on BREO on the Harvard referencing
system.
All assignments should also be submitted electronically via
TurnItIn on BREO unless otherwise specified. Where files are
sent to the tutor directly, a receipt will be provided.
All files submitted on Turn-it-in should be named in the
following way:
Assignment {number} _ (assignment type e.g.
/report/presentation/H&S assessment } _ {group name} _
{student number}
No late submission is accepted unless proper approval is
provided. Late work will be treated in accordance with the
regulations of the Modular Credit Scheme contained in the
Student Handbook and at www.student.beds.ac.uk.
Unit Learning Outcomes
assessed:
Students will need to:
Demonstrate a depth of knowledge of project management
theory and practice and research methods.
Define a research topic, develop a proposal to solve a
problem, select and design appropriate methodological
approaches, perform appropriate analysis on the
data/information (quantitative and/or qualitative) collected,
and produce appropriate conclusions and recommendations
based on the findings from the research.
Word Limit Dissertation – 12,000 words3
Resources/Support
Available
Students are encouraged to use the course material,
recommended and background reading and additional web
resources to address the brief.
Assessment Criteria Students will have to:
Appropriately review the literature related to the problem;
Select, design and implement an appropriate methodological
approach;
Perform appropriate analysis on the data/information
(quantitative and/or qualitative) collected, and produce
appropriate conclusions and recommendations based on the
findings from the research.
Peer / Self Assessment
Required
No
Details of how feedback will
be provided
Grading matrices will be used for the presentation and final
report.
The individual grades and feedback are available on Breo
after moderation by another tutor.
Referral assignment If you fail this assignment (as a result of non-submission or
poor academic performance), you will be required to
undertake a referral assignment using another project brief
with similar questions, and capped at 40% (i.e. Marginal
Pass).4
MSc PM_the project_assessment 2_ Interim presentation and proposal report_grading matrix
Section in
Dissertation
/ Grade
A Grade level
70+
Good
60-69
Clear Pass
50-59
Marginal Pass
40-49
Refer /Fail
Introduction
and/or Theoretical
Background
(10%)
Overall aim & reason
clearly stated; strategic
importance to
organisation and/or
theory high, & clearly
presented; objectives
clearly stated &
relevant; issues (and
thesis, if any) entirely
appropriate, with the
approach to be taken
clearly described,
appropriate & rigorous;
organisational
background interesting
& relevantly stated.
Overall aims &
objectives clearly stated;
strategic relevance
indicated; most of the
issues (and thesis)
indicated; approach
generally appropriate
with some argument
possible over its rigour;
organisational
background relevantly
stated.
Overall aim can be
inferred but some lack of
clarity in objectives;
strategic or wider
relevance can be discerned
with some assumptions
necessary; approach not
entirely clear and/or
justified; organisational
/theoretical background a
description without
consistent demonstration
of relevance.
Overall aim and/or
objectives in some doubt;
uncertainty over strategic
or broader relevance;
approach unclear with
some arbitrariness
discernible; key aspects of
the organisational
/theoretical background
appear to be omitted.
Overall, reader placed in a
position of having to
assume or guess at some
elements of the above
components.
Aim unclear, some or all
objectives missing; little or no
strategic relevance as stated;
approach unstated, confused
and/or arbitrary;
organisational /theoretical
background, where present,
irrelevant/ reads like a
company brochure. Overall,
the reader left in a position of
guessing or ignorance over
above components.
Conceptual
Analysis
(20%)
Material reviewed from
all appropriate sources;
scholarly, professional &
practitioner detail
consistently high, with
good evidence of
originality; material
followed logically,
systematically &
persuasively with direct
relevance to objectives.
Almost all sources used
& generally understood;
scholarly, professional &
practitioner detail high
with occasional
omissions with respect to
the argument; some
originality; generally
systematic presentation
without complete
persuasiveness; generally
relevant to objectives.
Some sources omitted but
with reasonable grasp of
those consulted & with
sensible relevance to the
argument; no particular
originality; some
unevenness in
presentation; occasional
doubt as to relevance to the
objectives.
Omission of sources
relevant to objectives,
some seriously so; some
misunderstanding;
argument not following a
clear thread, unconvincing
where discernible, with
little attempt to summarise
the gist; objectives rarely
referred to.
Key sources omitted, much
misunderstanding; argument
must be guessed at, with little
or no case made; reader
confused as to the thrust of the
argument, having to refer
constantly to the objectives
and/or conclusions, where
available
Evidence and
Argument
Methodology crystal
clear & entirely
Methodology generally
sound, limitations
Issues of methodology
mentioned with incomplete
Methodology confused
with description of
Little or no awareness of
methodology; methods &5
(30%) justifiable, with
awareness of
limitations; research
design explicitly
discussed, interesting, &
exactly appropriate to
objectives and/or thesis;
sampling appropriate &
as complete as possible;
methods & techniques
appropriate & well
executed. Results drive
the argument onwards,
completely & fairly;
contrary findings used
to illuminate or extend
the argument. Librarybased projects provide a
crystal-clear rationale
for approach taken;
draw on published
sources as evidence in
support of argument
seamlessly &
completely, with any
gaps in the evidence
being noted & handled
with flair.
mentioned, research
design dealt with as an
issue & appropriate to
objectives; sampling
appropriate & complete
enough for the purpose;
methods appropriate,
with occasional
incompleteness or lapse
in technique. Results
substantiate the
argument/test a thesis,
with some triangulation
attempted, and are
generally fair with
occasional unawareness
of scope and/or
limitations. Librarybased projects provide an
explicit rationale for the
approach taken, drawing
on published sources as
evidence in support of
the argument seamlessly
& completely, with any
gaps in the evidence
being noted & acceptably
handled.
awareness of limitations;
research design
considered; sampling
occasionally incomplete or
unconsidered; methods &
techniques show
occasional errors in use &
interpretation. Results
related to the argument,
but without deep
awareness of limitations in
supporting/ progressing the
argument; triangulation not
attempted: a one-source set
of evidence. Library-based
projects provide a rationale
for the approach taken;
they draw on published
sources as evidence in
support of the argument;
though there are occasional
lapses or gaps in the
evidence, the bulk of the
evidence is sound.
methods & techniques;
unaware of or confused
about research design;
sampling incomplete;
methods & techniques
appropriate enough but
insufficiently interpreted
with some errors apparent
Results patchy, &
presented without
progressing the argument;
assertions occasionally
presented as evidence;
largely descriptive with
little critical awareness; no
triangulation. Librarybased projects may attempt
a rationale for the
approach taken but this
may be weak; in drawing
on published sources as
evidence in support of the
argument there are lapses
or gaps in the evidence,
but the argument holds
water tolerably.
techniques inappropriate or
incomplete; unaware of
research design; sampling
unconsidered as an issue;
Results unsystematically
presented, doing little if
anything to progress the
argument; unwarranted
assertions rather than
evidence; illogical, with
appreciable non-sequiturs; no
critical awareness. Librarybased projects provide a weak,
or no, rationale for the
approach taken; evidence from
published sources in support
of the argument is very weak,
or unacceptable, and the
argument, if any, cannot be
sustained.6
Conclusions
(10%)
Logically derived &
fully supported by
previous evidence, wellorganised; evidence of
originality with respect
to the argument;
alternatives fully
discussed & dealt with;
utility, scope &
relevance critically
considered; strategic
consequences
understood & presented;
all with reference back
to aims & objectives
Logically derived &
generally supported;
evidence of organisation;
less strong evidence of
originality; some
alternatives discussed;
reference to utility, scope
& relevance; strategic
consequences
considered; reference
back to aims &
objectives.
Logically derived &
supported but with no
great originality or
organisation other than a
list; little discussion of
alternatives; gaps in issues
concerning utility, scope &
relevance; reference to
strategic issues but perhaps
not explicitly or fully
competently; some
reference to aims and
objectives.
Not completely logical;
gaps in reasoning; some
obvious conclusions
omitted from the list; value
of own work not fully
demonstrated &
alternatives little
considered; little
awareness of further work
required; strategic
relevance little understood;
achievement of objectives
mentioned but
unwarranted.
Based on assertions &
uncertain evidence.
frequently illogical or
arbitrary; conclusions
disorganised; mistaken
views, if any, of the value of
the work; alternatives not
considered; strategic
relevance unmentioned or
merely asserted; little
discernible relevance to
objectives.
Recommendations
(10%)
Driven obviously by the
conclusions as best
related to strategy;
eminently practical,
feasible given resources,
with possibility of
paying for themselves
clearly outlined; some
creativity & originality
present. Where
implementation &
evaluation possible, a
clear account of what
was achieved, successes
& failures with reasons
given & related to the
foregoing; the ‘value
added’ outlined, with a
logical rationale &
discussion.
Based clearly on the
conclusions; practical,
feasible given resources,
which are explicitly
considered. Where
implementation &
evaluation possible, an
account of what was
achieved, some
discussion of successes
& failures with reasons,
and an attempt to relate
to the foregoing.
Related to the conclusions;
generally feasible, with
some consideration of
costs & practicalities.
Where implementation &
evaluation possible, some
account of what was
achieved, with gaps in
discussion of reasons for
successes & failures, with
insufficient discussion of
the latter.
Little relationship to
Conclusions; feasibility
and practicality
incompletely dealt with;
leads the reader to wonder
if they might not have been
possible ‘by commonsense’ without the need for
the study. Substantial work
would be required for
implementation and
evaluation.
Scarcely related to
conclusions; serious
impracticalities; costs not
thought through; a ‘common
sense’ list, with some doubts
about the sense. The reader
would be seriously worried
about any attempt to
implement the
recommendations as stated.
discussion of the latter.7
Implications
(e.g. policy and
practice)
(10%)
Clearly & obviously
derived from the
Conclusions; shown to
follow necessarily; with
some creativity &
originality in the
derivation; the reader
being encouraged
thereby to look at the
topic or subject-matter
differently than before.
Where implications
exist to policy, practice
and methods/theories (if
possible), these are
spelled out in a
thoroughly convincing
way.
Clearly & obviously
derived from the
Conclusions; shown to
follow necessarily from
the Conclusions; the
reader being encouraged
thereby to re-examine the
way s/he regards the
topic or subject-matter.
Where implications exist
to policy, practice and
methods/theories (if
possible), these are
mostly spelled out.
Clearly stated as stemming
from the Conclusions and
shown to be consistent
with them. Where
implications exist to
policy, practice and
methods/theories (if
possible), some are spelled
out.
Some of the more obvious
implications of the
Conclusions mentioned;
concern for the consistency
of the argument, but
incomplete; few if any
implications exist to
policy, practice and
methods/theories (if
possible), mentioned.
Implications ignored, or where
mentioned, little attempt, or
unsuccessful attempt, to show
that they follow from the
Conclusions; little or no
awareness of the broader
implications to policy,
practice and methods/theories
(if possible).
Presentation
(10%)
Fully documented &
styled according to the
brief; text free from
spelling & grammatical
solecisms; vocabulary
appropriate to topic with
all specialist terms
defined; illustrations &
tables well prepared;
data presentation
logically integrated into
discussion in body of
text/appendices;
appendices relevant.
Fully documented &
styled according to the
brief; free from major
faults of spelling &
grammar; vocabulary
appropriate; illustrations
& tables well prepared;
data generally integrated
into discussion.
Some incompleteness of
documentation, e.g.
appendices, bibliographic
items; carelessness in
spelling; vocabulary &
style lacking polish but
understandable;
illustrations & tables
adequate; data
occasionally misplaced
without detracting from the
thrust of the argument.
Some incompleteness of
documentation, e.g.
appendices; bibliography
incomplete; carelessness in
spelling & grammar;
vocabulary & style
uncomfortable but on
balance acceptably
conveying meaning; some
data, illustrations & tables
missing.
Documentation seriously at
fault: missing, misplaced,
difficult to find one’s way
around; persistent errors in
spelling & grammar,
solecisms or occasional failure
in conveying meaning;
typescript messy with
uncorrected errors; key data,
illustrations & tables missing;
bibliography incomplete.