Module Title – Technology Project Management

Academic Year: 2020/21
Module Code – CIS7008
Module Title – Technology Project Management
Credit Value- 20
Term 1
Module Leader: Stuart McNeil
Assessment Brief
Assessment Title: Technology Project Management –
critique
Hand-in details are displayed on the module Moodle
WE ARE
#CARDIFFMET

Contents Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Assessment Requirements / Tasks …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Learning Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
EDGE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Assessment Structure ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
Submission Details………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Feedback……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Marking Criteria……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Assessment Criteria …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Additional Information……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Referencing Requirements (Harvard)………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
Mitigating Circumstances……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Unfair Practice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10

Assessment Requirements / Tasks
Write 5000 words.
Using the 3 papers from the titles list below, write a 1500-word critique of each. You should evaluate
the points made, giving your own opinions where appropriate.
The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one
example.
Introduction
Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:
Author Title Journal/Text
Zaheer, R.A.,
Tanveer, A. and
Fatima, H.M., 2016
An Agile, Intelligent and Scalable
Framework for Global Software
Development.
World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology,
International Journal of Computer,
Electrical, Automation, Control and
Information Engineering, 10(4), pp.628-
635.
Bjørn, P., 2016. New fundamentals for CSCW
research: from distance to politics.
interactions, 23(3), pp.50-53.
Coram, M. and
Bohner, S., 2005,
April.
The impact of agile methods on
software project management.
In 12th IEEE International Conference
and Workshops on the Engineering of
Computer-Based Systems
(ECBS’05) (pp. 363-370). IEEE.
Berger, H. and
Hatton, T., 2013.
Outsourcing of ‘On-Site’User Support–
A Case Study of a European Higher
Education Centre.
In 7th International Conference on
Knowledge Management in
Organizations: Service and Cloud
Computing (pp. 255-266). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.
Al-Adwan, A. and
Berger, H., 2013.
Understanding Physicians’ Adoption
of EMR: An Extended Technology
Acceptance Model the Case of: Jordan.
Association for Information Systems
AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) UK
Academy for Information Systems
Conference Proceedings 2013
Thorne, S., 2013. The misuse of spreadsheets in the
nuclear fuel industry: The falsification
of safety critical data using
spreadsheets at British Nuclear Fuels
Limited (BNFL).
Journal of Organizational and End User
Computing (JOEUC), 25(3), pp.20-31.
• Name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the
author/creator.
• Describe the main argument or purpose of the work.
• Explain the context in which the work was created. This could include the social or political
context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between
the work and the creator’s life experience.
• Have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be. For
instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.
Summary
Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using
techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the
critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.
Critical evaluation
This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work,
evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you
would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting
would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look
at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.
A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work
and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in
light of its purpose.
Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:
• Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
• What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
• What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the
purpose?
• What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
• What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
• How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it
effective?
• Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail
to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?
This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your
ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the
technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the
weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical
question in individual paragraphs.
To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and
you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your
evaluation of the work.
Conclusion
This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:
• A statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
• A summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation
was formed.
• In some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.
Reference list
Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style
to use.

Checklist for a critique
Have I:
• Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
• Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
• Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
• Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall
purpose?
• used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my
assessment of elements of of the work?
• formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
• used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
• used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate
referencing style?
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of this module, students should be able to:
Critically evaluate techniques for managing people, mitigating risk, estimating cost and ensuring
quality and methodologies for project management
Critically review balances between project variables, such as time, cost, quality and scope
EDGE
The Cardiff Met EDGE supports students in graduating with the knowledge, skills, and attributes that
allow them to contribute positively and effectively to the communities in which they live and work.
This module assessment provides opportunities for students to demonstrate development of the
following EDGE Competencies:
ETHICAL
DIGITAL Digital management methods are examined and used throughout the
module and tasks.
GLOBAL Perspectives of global software development (GSD) are examined and
discussed. Task involves reasoning of multi-cultural teams in multiple
countries.
ENTREPRENEURIAL
Assessment Structure Part 1: Report
Title page
Introduction – Clearly introduce what the essay is about; Provide a context; justify why this
area is important. Clearly outline how the question will be address (plus conclusion *)
5
List of contents
Summary
Critical evaluation – Paper 1 – write a 1500-word critique 30
Critical evaluation – Paper 2 – write a 1500-word critique 30
Critical evaluation – Paper 3 – write a 1500-word critique 30
Conclusion *
References
Appendices
Writing – Evidence of:
Format: Arial 12pt, 1.5 line spaced, justified; Pagination; Grammar, spelling, punctuation;
Writing style (sentence structure, paragraph structure, flow of narrative)
5
Submission Details
Please see Moodle for confirmation of the Assessment submission date.
Submission will be by 4:00pm on the deadline day.
Any assessments submitted after the deadline will not be marked and will be recorded as a NonAttempt.
The assessment must be submitted as a zip file / pdf / word document through the Turnitin
submission point in Moodle
Your assessment should be titled with your Student ID Number, module code and assessment id, e.g.
st12345678 CIS4000 WRIT1
Feedback
Feedback for the assessment will be provided electronically via Moodle, and will normally be
available 4 working weeks after initial submission. The feedback return date will be confirmed on
Moodle.
Feedback will be provided in the form of a rubric and supported with comments on your strengths
and the areas which you improve.
All marks are preliminary and are subject to quality assurance processes and confirmation at the
Examination Board.
Further information on the Academic and Feedback Policy in available in the Academic Handbook
(Vol 1, Section 4.0)
Marking Criteria
70 – 100%
(1st)
The requirements detailed in the specification are met fully.
In particular, the contents laid out are all present and are of a high standard. The
report is formatted to contain all relevant sections. The report is excellently
presented, coherently written, with a good logical flow of content.
Higher grades of A will show evidence of creativity & extra effort such as reading
around the subject or commenting on the merits or otherwise of the system
documented.
60-69%
(2:1)
The content will be complete and will be to a competent but less exacting standard
than for an 70+.
In general, the report will contain all the essential sections, it will be well written
but the high standard may be less consistent in some sections of the report than
others.
50-59%
(2:2)
The content will be complete, and will be of an acceptable level. The report will
contain all the essential sections, written to an average level.
40-49%
(3rd)
Both the content will be to an acceptable level, although there may be minor
omissions and inconsistencies.
35-39%
(Narrow
Fail)
Content and presentation are lacking in most aspects.
<35%
(Fail)
Content and presentation are lacking in all aspects.
Assessment Criteria
Those used will be the generic taught Bachelor’s degree assessment and grading criteria as found in
the Academic Handbook [Table A of section 04.3 of the Academic Handbook].
An adapted summary is provided below:
To achieve a grade 40-49%:
Overall, the work is acceptable, but the answer demonstrates a limited understanding of the issues
being addressed. There is some relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical aspects,
but this is patchy. A few significant errors may be present. There is a very limited use made of the
available literature. The answer is not well planned and there is little development of argument. It
lacks clarity of expression and there is evidence of much irrelevant material included.
The lower range (40-45) would be given to answers where relevant factual knowledge is poor and/or
awareness of theoretical issues is poor and confused. Many significant errors may be present. The
submission is poorly planned, with little clear train of thought or development of an argument. Much
of the answer may be irrelevant
To achieve a grade 50-59%:
The work is well presented demonstrating understanding of most of the essential issues. There is a
basis of factual knowledge and/or of relevant theoretical aspects. Errors may be present, but the
overall framework of the answer is sensible. Most of the issues being addressed are discussed with
reference to the literature available, and the answer shows planning in its construction, with a clear
train of thought or development of an argument.
To achieve a grade 60-69%:
The work demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the issues being addressed and the factual
information is mostly complete. There is a sound basis of factual knowledge and/or theoretical issues
with few significant errors or omissions. The issues being addressed are dealt with in a systematic
way, but may demonstrate limitation in the critical approach.
To achieve a grade 70 – 100%:
The submission gives a comprehensive and accurate coverage of the issues to be addressed, without
significant omissions or errors. There is evidence of a very good understanding of the complexities of
the topic being addressed, and there is a sound basis of relevant factual knowledge and/or theoretical
aspects involved. Most of the important issues are dealt with in a detailed, specific and systematic
way, and there is evidence of some original thinking in the answer derived from a critical appraisal of
the material collected. The literature has been intelligently and systematically collected and
reviewed.
Additional Information
Referencing Requirements (Harvard)
The Harvard (or author-date) format should be used for all references (including images).
Further information on Referencing can be found at Cardiff Met’s Academic Skills website.
Mitigating Circumstances
If you have experienced changes or events which have adversely affected your academic performance
on the assessment, you may be eligible for Mitigating Circumstances (MCs). You should contact your
Module Leader, Personal Tutor or Year Tutor in the first instance.
An application for MCs, along with appropriate supporting evidence, can be submitted via the
following link to the MCs Dashboard
Applications for MCs should ideally be submitted as soon as possible after circumstances occur & at
the time of the assessment. Applications must be submitted before the relevant Examination Board.
Further information on the Mitigating Circumstances procedure is available in the Academic
Handbook (Volume 1, Section 5)
Unfair Practice
Cardiff Metropolitan University takes issues of unfair practice extremely seriously. The University
has distinct procedures and penalties for dealing with unfair practice in examination or nonexamination conditions. These are explained in full in the University’s Unfair Practice Procedure
(Academic Handbook: Vol 1, Section 8)
Types of Unfair Practice, include:
Plagiarism, which can be defined as using without acknowledgement another person’s words or
ideas and submitting them for assessment as though it were one’s own work, for instance by copying,
translating from one language to another or unacknowledged paraphrasing. Further examples
include:
• Use of any quotation(s) from the published or unpublished work of other persons, whether
published in textbooks, articles, the Web, or in any other format, which quotations have not
been clearly identified as such by being placed in quotation marks and acknowledged.
• Use of another person’s words or ideas that have been slightly changed or paraphrased to
make it look different from the original.
• Summarising another person’s ideas, judgments, diagrams, figures, or computer programmes
without reference to that person in the text and the source in a bibliography or reference list.
• Use of services of essay banks and/or any other agencies.
• Use of unacknowledged material downloaded from the Internet.
• Re-use of one’s own material except as authorised by the department.
Collusion, which can be defined as when work that that has been undertaken with others is
submitted and passed off as solely the work of one person. An example of this would be where
several students work together on an assessment and individually submit work which contains
sections which are the same. Assessments briefs will clearly identify where joint preparation and joint
submission is specifically permitted, in all other cases it is not.
Fabrication of data, making false claims to have carried out experiments, observations, interviews or
other forms of data collection and analysis, or acting dishonestly in any other way.
WE ARE
#CARDIFFMET