Analysis of project management on an individual project

Assignment Objectives:
This assignment examines the management of an individual project and as such will draw upon the skills, concepts, and models we have discussed in the course to apply them in a real-world setting. Analysis of the project should make use of models, concepts, and frameworks from the course lectures and your wider reading.
Project Selection:
Select a project where you can collect and analyze sufficient secondary (and/or primary) data to derive meaningful and strong insights. The project may be in the public, private or third sector; small or large; completed, failed, or ongoing. The
project could be one you were are personally involved in; or one that you have observed in the media etc. This is not a typical ‘research project’, so sources may be from your selected organization’s website, your knowledge of the project, government and consultancy reports as well as academic journal articles.
When analyzing your chosen project, it typically makes sense to focus on 1-2 topic areas to allow you to get into a good level of depth. The focus should be on identifying lessons learned that are transferable to other projects
Your report should be 2,000 words (±10%) and should be typed with a font size 12, double-spaced using reference style APA v7. It should be well structured and look professional.
Rubric
Individual Written Assignment
Individual Written Assignment
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked
to a Learning
OutcomeAction
Recommendations
threshold: 2.0 pts
4.0 pts
Recommended
course of action
has strong
arguments
based in the
analysis and
issues and
includes
anticipated
consequences
and
alternatives.
3.0 pts
Recommended
course of action
is appropriate
to address
major issues,
and is linked to
the analysis.
Some
anticipated
consequences
and alternatives
are included.
2.0 pts
Recommendations
are mostly
appropriate to
address issues and
are at least
partially linked to
the analysis.
Anticipated
consequences and
alternatives are
lacking.
1.0 pts
The
recommended
course of action
could use more
connections to
the identified
issues, and the
addition of one
or more
anticipated
consequences
or alternatives
would
strengthen the
plan.
0.0 pts
Recommendations
are largely
inappropriate or
absent.
—
Individual Written Assignment
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked
to a Learning
OutcomeIssue Analysis
threshold: 2.0 pts
4.0 pts
Presents an
insightful and
thorough
analysis of all
identified issues.
Includes all
necessary
calculations.
3.0 pts
Presents an
adequate analysis
of most of the
issues identified,
but lacks depth in
some areas. Is
missing some
necessary
calculations.
2.0 pts
Presents an
adequate yet
limited analysis of
most of the major
issues identified,
but lacks depth in
several areas.
Conclusions may
lack support.
1.0 pts
The level of analysis
could use better
framing and more
depth. Factual
and/or
computational
support for the
analysis is omitted.
0.0 pts
The level
of analysis
almost
entirely
lacks
framing
and/or
depth.
—
This criterion is linked
to a Learning
OutcomeIssue
Identification
threshold: 2.0 pts
4.0 pts
Presents an accurate
and detailed
description of a
variety of problems
and opportunities that
are compelling and
insightful.
3.0 pts
Most major
issues are
identified and
adequately
discussed.
2.0 pts
Several major
issues are
identified, but
may be discussed
in a somewhat
superficial
manner.
1.0 pts
One or two major
ideas are
identified, but
there is only a
surface
discussion of
these major ideas
occurs.
0.0 pts
Fails to
identify or
adequately
discuss major
ideas.
—
Individual Written Assignment
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked
to a Learning
OutcomeOrganization
and Clarity
threshold: 2.0 pts
4.0 pts
Paper
demonstrates
concise and
consistent writing.
Transitions
between ideas are
handled well.
Formatting is
appropriate and
writing is free of
grammar and
spelling errors.
3.0 pts
Paper is
organized and
clear. Errors do
not detract
from overall
ideas. Could
have used
better
transitions
between ideas.
Some grammar
or spelling
errors.
2.0 pts
Paper lacks clear
organization.
Errors sometimes
detract from
overall ideas. Some
weak transitions
between ideas.
Grammar or
spelling errors
sometimes detract
from overall clarity
of ideas.
1.0 pts
Writing
needs
outside
support. The
main ideas
are getting
lost as a
result of the
grammar
and spelling
errors.
0.0 pts
Writing is barely
legible to the
point that ideas
are almost
entirely
overshadowed by
poor grammar
and spelling.
—
Individual Written Assignment
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked
to a Learning
OutcomeUse of Course
Concepts
threshold: 2.0 pts
4.0 pts
Demonstrates
complete command
of tools and
concepts from the
course. Makes
appropriate and
powerful
connections
between identified
issues and the
strategic concepts
studied in the
course readings
and class lectures.
3.0 pts
Demonstrates
sufficient
command of tools
and concepts from
the course. Makes
some connections
between identified
issues and the
strategic concepts
studied in the
course readings
and class lectures.
2.0 pts
Demonstrates
partial command
of tools and
concepts from the
course. Makes
limited
connections
between identified
issues and the
strategic concepts
studied in the
course readings
and class lectures.
1.0 pts
Makes only a
few, if any,
connections
between
identified
issues and
concepts from
course
readings and
class lectures.
0.0 pts
Fails to make
connections
between
identified
issues and
concepts from
course
readings and
class lectures.
—
This criterion is linked
to a Learning
OutcomeSources &
Citation
threshold: 2.0 pts
4.0 pts
Evidence and ideas
clearly refer to
subject matter and
aim of assignment,
drawn from a
range of sources,
in addition to
assigned readings
and in-class
discussions,
including scholarly
3.0 pts
Evidence and
ideas are taken
from a number
of sources and
author goes
beyond
material
presented in
class. Some
outside sources
are intended
2.0 pts
Author has used
a limited number
of sources for
evidence and
ideas beyond the
assigned readings
for the course.
Outside sources
are almost
exclusively webbased. The text
1.0 pts
Makes only
minimal use of
sources
provided by
instructor
and/or relies
exclusively on
non-scholarly
outside sources
or personal
opinion. Use of
0.0 pts
Does not provide
sources for
evidence or ideas
presented in the
paper beyond
minimal or
tangential
reference to
assigned
readings. Relies
mostly on general
—
Individual Written Assignment
Criteria Ratings Pts
books, journal
articles, research
institutions,
government
publications, and
industry
associations. All
evidence is
properly cited in
APA style in-text
citations and a
correctly
formatted
reference list.
for a general
audience
and/or are
web-based (i.e.
not scholarly).
All evidence is
properly cited
in APA style intext citations
and a correctly
formatted
reference list.
may have few intext citations to
identify the
source of
evidence or
ideas; reference
list may not be
formatted in a
consistent and/or
appropriate APA
style.
in-text citations
to document
sources may be
sporadic and
ineffective. The
reference list
includes only a
few sources and
is randomly
formatted
making sources
difficult to
identify or
locate.
or personal
opinion.
Statements or
evidence are not
supported by intext citations.
There is no
reference list, or
the reference list
is not formatted
in the
appropriate APA
manner.