7BSP1266 Dissertation – Project Management CW3 Assessment Brief 2025 | UOH

e.g.

Points

Presentation, Design and Structure

20

Harvard Referencing/Intellectual Curiosity

20

Content and Findings

20

Business Application

20

Discussion/ Analysis

20

Total

100

POSTER Presentation

Presentation design & structure

Intellectual Curiosity (Quality of academic sources).

Use of Harvard Referencing

Content/ Terms/ Findings/ Definitions/ Calculations

Business Application & Integration of Data/Literature

Task details

Clear presentation design, message & structure in line with the brief, word limit of ..1200 words.  

Harvard style in-text citation (& Reference List on reverse)

Use a minimum of 10  sources  

Content included as per brief.

Integration & application of information from coursework guidance/module site

Marks

20

20

20

20

90 – 100

Outstanding

Outstanding innovative, appealing and effective design. Finished to a professional standard. Maintains reader’s interest with creative use of varied graphics, e.g. figures & tables, appropriate colour, legible font, size & style. No grammatical / spelling errors.

Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core and recommended resources.

Outstanding standard of referencing within text and consistent use of Harvard referencing system.  Accuracy of in-text references and full details shown in reference list on reverse of poster. Images fully referenced and comply with copyright.  

Outstanding exploration of topic showing excellent knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research.

Impressive choice & range of appropriate content.

Outstanding business insight and application.

Outstanding integration of literature/data into work.  Very impressive breadth and depth.  

80 - 89

Excellent

Excellent, innovative, eye-catching effective design. Easy to follow with clear title and message. Creative use of range of graphics, e.g. figures & tables, appropriate colour, legible font, size & style. No grammatical / spelling errors.

Excellent selection of quality sources. Evidence of independent searching beyond core & recommended resources.

Excellent standard of referencing within text and consistent use of Harvard referencing system.  Accuracy of in-text references and full details shown in reference list on reverse of poster.  Images fully referenced and comply with copyright.   

Excellent level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated.

Evidence of appropriate research.

Covers all relevant points & issues.

Excellent business insight and application.  Excellent integration of literature/data into work.  Impressive breadth and depth.

70 - 79

Very Good

Very good, eye-catching, effective & easy to follow with a clear title and message. Use of a range of graphics, e.g. figures, tables, appropriate colour, legible font, size & style. May contain a minor grammatical /spelling error.

Very good selection of quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used.

Very good standard of referencing within text and consistent use of Harvard referencing system.  Accuracy of in-text references and full details shown in reference list on reverse of poster.  Images fully referenced and comply with copyright.  

Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated.

Covers most relevant points & issues.

Few errors / omissions in content/calculations.

Very good business insight and application.  Very good integration of literature/data into work.  Very good use of literature/data with breadth and depth.

60 - 69

Good

Good: Interesting, neat & clear. Some use of creative design graphics, e.g. figures, tables, appropriate colour, legible font size & style. Minor grammatical/ spelling errors only.

Good selection of mostly quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading.

Good standard of referencing within text and consistent use of Harvard referencing system.  Accuracy of in-text references and full details shown in reference list on reverse of poster.  Images referenced, and copyright acknowledged.  

Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented.

Good knowledge & understanding is demonstrated.

Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations.

 Good business insight and application.  Good integration of literature/data into work.  Good use of literature/data with adequate breadth and depth.

50 - 59

Clear Pass

Satisfactory:  Basic poster to meet the purpose. Limited visual impact and design. Some use of graphics &/or colour. Content may not all be clear. Some grammatical & / or spelling errors which can impede understanding.

See CASE with feedback

Satisfactory:  Some quality sources used.  Research did not go beyond recommended sources.  

Satisfactory referencing within text and some inconsistent use of Harvard referencing system. Some unreferenced images.

See CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic.  Addresses most of the task. Some errors / omissions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research.

Satisfactory business insight and application. Limited integration of literature/data.  Use of literature/data but limited in breadth or depth

40 - 49

Marginal Fail

Weak:  Lacks visual impact.  Weak structure & muddled design and message. Content contains inaccuracies. Grammatical/spelling errors 

Must see CASE with feedback

Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality. Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors and inconsistently applied, which includes unreferenced images.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Weak: Limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question.

Does not meet all of the learning outcomes.

Weak: Unsatisfactory evidence of business application and insight.  Work needs to show better links between practical application and theory.   

20 – 39

Clear Fail

Inadequate: Inappropriate style

Poorly presented – either too cluttered or too limited. Content largely inaccurate. Grammatical/spelling errors obscure meaning of text.        

Must see CASE with feedback

Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading.

Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors/inconsistencies/omissions. Images do not acknowledge copyright.     

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Meets few of the learning outcomes.

Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application and insight.  Some literature irrelevant to topic.

0 – 19

Little or Nothing of merit

Nothing of merit: Without visual impact. Inappropriate style. Either too cluttered or too limited. Content largely irrelevant or unclear. Many grammatical/spelling errors.        

Must see CASE with feedback

Nothing of merit: No evidence of research.  No use made of recommended reading.  Sources are irrelevant or of poor quality.  No or little attempt to use Harvard referencing in text or for images.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated. Content used irrelevant / not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes.

Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate business application and insight.  

KEY

ACTIONS

To achieve a higher grade, next time you need to… (Where to go?) Who can help?)

1.

2.

3.