Page 1 of 24
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Assessment Coursework Report
Assessment code: 010
Academic Year: 2022/2023
Trimester: 2
Module Title: Applied Project Management Solutions
Module Code: MOD006931
Level: 7
Module Leader: Martin Stevens
Weighting: 100%
Word Limit: 3,000
This excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of the
Academic Regulations:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
Assessed Learning
Outcomes:
1 Knowledge and Understanding:
Critically and evaluate the complexities of a substantial business
project, taking into account the time/cost/quality parameters and
break the project down into logical work and cost elements;
2 Knowledge and Understanding:
Critically assess and evaluate the value of advanced techniques and
processes at various stages of the project management life-cycle;
3 Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills:
Apply selected tools and techniques including computer-based
models to track project progress and expenditure against plans and
budgets in order to improve the performance of project management
on complex and/or problematic business projects, which may
include making interventions as necessary for successful trouble shooting and recovery;
4 Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills:
Demonstrate a critical awareness of the project management
profession and the specific knowledge required by successful
practitioners.
Submission Deadline: This assignment must be received by no later than 14:00 on Click here
to enter a date.
WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
• This assignment must be completed individually.
• You must use the Harvard referencing system.
• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not
exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the
excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the
piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation
6.74).
• Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on
your work.
• Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
• Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single
document.
• You must number all pages.
Page 2 of 24
SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is
submitted late – if your work is submitted on the same day as the deadline by midnight, your
mark will receive a 10% penalty. If you submit your work up to two working days after the
published submission deadline – it will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the
module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.
Work cannot be submitted if the period of 2 working days after the deadline has passed (unless
there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you
have failed the assessment.
Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause
considered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact DoS@london.aru.ac.uk A
request must normally be received and agreed by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least
24 hours prior to the deadline. See rules 6.64-6.73:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
Mitigation: The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than
five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies
Team-DoS@london.aru.ac.uk See rules 6.112 – 6.141:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
Page 3 of 24
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
This coursework assignment takes the form of an integrated piece of work
involving a sequence of tasks based upon a wholly fictitious project scenario.
The project scenario provides both an overview of the project and the specific
consultancy tasks / issues that the student is required to review, analyse and
draw conclusions from or make recommendations about.
Students are required to attempt all the tasks contained within the scenario.
Each task will be marked out of 10, plus a further mark out of 10 for the overall
quality and professionalism of the submitted report document.
Maximum mark: 100
For the purposes of the scenario, you are to assume that you are a team member
employed by a project management consultancy. Your role is of a project
assistant reporting to a project manager who will task you with a series of project
management tasks.
Each task will be part of a sequential provision of information. It may be that later
information conflicts with or provides additional data to that provided earlier in
the scenario.
You must ensure that you only use the information released thus far to answer
each question. So, for example the response to task one may only use the data
in the general scenario and task one; the response to task two may use the data
in the general scenario and tasks one and two … and so on.
The data and questions in the scenario are to enable you to prepare a draft
management progress audit report that provides a record of the changing data
about the project as it evolves. The report will be reviewed by your senior
management.
Your submission should take the form of a high-quality consultancy report
document. You may create your own corporate identity for the consultancy firm
(name, logotype, brand style etc.) and use it to create your report.
It is suggested that the report should follow the following broad structure:
Cover page
Executive summary
Table of contents
Introduction
Main body – perhaps with “chapters” for each question
References (if applicable)
Appendices (if applicable)
Page 4 of 24
Guidance:
You should read the scenario and each assignment task very carefully. Most of
the information required to complete each task is provided. However, this is a
masters level piece of work and students are expected to undertake their own
reading around the topics and to use their own skill and judgement in both the
way in which they respond to each task and the conclusions and
recommendations that they make in their report.
If you are unclear about any aspect of the work you should seek clarification as
any competent management professional would do.
Page 5 of 24
SCENARIO
The scenario described here is wholly fictitious and has been compiled solely for the
purposes of this assignment, with a certain element of “creative licence” to support the
learning objectives. Any resemblance to actual locations, buildings, companies or
personalities is coincidental.
For the purposes of the scenario, you are to assume that you are a team member
employed by a project management consultancy. Your role is of a project assistant
reporting to a project manager.
Your submission should take the form of a high-quality consultancy report document.
You may create your own corporate identity for the consultancy firm (name, logotype,
brand style etc.) and use it to create your report.
Boknafjorden Off-Shore Wind Farm
Photo: Baltic Sea by Mary Ray on Unsplash
‘NordEco’ are a joint venture energy company developing an off-shore wind farm
for the Norwegian Authorities some 30 miles west of Stavanger, Norway.
Stavanger will be the logistical and management base for the project
management and co-ordinating team.
The project will be led by Project Director Giorgi Steiner and the on-site
engineering team by Director of Engineering Erik Michelsen.
Page 6 of 24
Project Details
A. Staff Resources
An initial high level work breakdown structure has been prepared and single
point estimates of the staff and technical resource levels required for each
activity assessed:
Code: Title: Work-hours:
1 Conceptual Design – Stage A
1.1 Conceptual Design 8,750
1.2 Criteria Development 2,500
2 Detailed Design – Stage A
2.1 Definitive Design 52,000
2.2 CAD analysis 32,000
2.3 Engineering Support 45,000
3 Construction – Stages B, C, D, E, F & G
3.1 Ground surveying – land terminal 78,000
3.2 Subsea surveying 112,000
3.3 Tripod foundation structures 185,000
3.4 Turbine tower fabrication & installation 364,000
3.5 Turbine fabrication and on-shore testing 275,000
3.6 Turbine installation 185,000
3.7 Land-based trench construction 245,000
3.8 Subsea-based trench construction 364,000
3.9 Laying subsea interconnectors 225,000
3.10 Inspection and testing 125,000
Page 7 of 24
4 Project Administration – All Stages
4.1 Project Management 5,600
4.2 Project Planning & Control 4,500
4.3 Project Support Services 6,000
4.4 Procurement contracts 5,000
4.5 Construction Cost Estimate 1,200
5 Control Systems Development – Stage F
5.1 Process Development 8,750
5.2 Telemetry & SCADA 15,500
5.3 Control System Development 6,750
5.4 Control System Testing 2,600
6 Startup – Stage G
6.1 Test Preparation 1,850
6.2 Unit Testing 18,000
6.3 Operating manuals 3,500
6.4 Integrated Testing and power-up 29,800
Budget estimates for the cost of staff to undertake this work for each stage are:
1 Conceptual Design € 165
2 Detailed Design € 185
3 Construction € 155
4 Project Administration € 160
5 Control systems Development € 175
6 Start up € 165
NordEco have recognised that they may not have in-house resources to
complete a fully developed construction cost estimate (because the estimating
team may be committed elsewhere) and therefore, on a contingency basis, have
sought fee proposals from an external cost consultancy; the most favourable of
which was received from NCC Consultants, highly regarded in the sector, who
have offered to undertake the work for a fixed price of €184,450.
Page 8 of 24
B. Delivery Schedule
An outline high level project delivery schedule has also been prepared and an
assessment of the additional implementation cost estimates for each stage:
Code: Stage: Duration
(weeks):
Comments: Stage costs
(€ m)
A Design 32 3.7
B Foundation
structures
24 Scheduled to start 8 weeks
before design stage ends
52.3
C Turbine towers 20 Scheduled to start 2 weeks
before design stage ends
62.7
D Turbine fabrication,
test & installation
36 Scheduled to start as soon
as design stage ends
98.5
E Land & sub-sea
trenches
28 Scheduled to start 8 weeks
before foundation structures
stage ends
38.4
F Interconnectors 16 Scheduled to start 14 weeks
after land and sub-sea
trenches starts
25.5
G Inspection, test,
commission
12 Scheduled to start as soon
as interconnectors stage
ends
15.8
Design work on the project was planned to start on Monday 10 January 2022.
Page 9 of 24
Assignment Task One Initial Budget Estimate
(a) Prepare a project cost estimate for all the staff activities identified in the
breakdown structure, and the implementation stage costs; establishing
the summary level 2 costs as well as the total project cost. Allow a 5%
contingency within the total project cost.
(b) Make a recommendation to the Board advising if they should / should
not accept the offer to provide a construction cost estimate provided by
NCC Consultants.
10 marks
Assignment Task Two Project Gantt Chart and Budget Estimate
(a) Using the data in the high-level project delivery schedule, create a Gantt
chart for the project to enable further development of the delivery plan
and to inform key investors.
(b) Having reviewed the initial budget estimate, the project board has
decided to change the configuration of the project administration team.
Initially a small project management team will be based in London to
develop detailed plans, before relocating to Norway once the design
stage is complete, where they will join a local team of experienced
marine engineers. The marine engineers will be involved with stages B;
C; D and E only.
A further team of electrical and control system engineers will be
engaged for stages F and G.
The project management team will cost an estimated €54,000 per week;
the engineering team €50,000 per week and the electrical and control
system engineers will cost €58,000 per week.
Using the data in the high-level project delivery schedule, together with
the implementation stage costs, create an updated budget estimate,
showing your calculations and explaining any assumptions you make.
10 marks
Page 10 of 24
Assignment Task Three Tender Bid Analysis and Recommendation
(a) Following a competitive tendering process, KSB Offshore have been
appointed to execute stages B; C; D and E.
Attention must now turn to procuring a contractor to undertake stages F
and G.
KSB Offshore are very keen to ‘roll-on’ their involvement in the project
and undertake the remaining work. Nevertheless, three other companies,
with good track records have also submitted tenders: Marine Comm;
Eco-Gen and Offshore Projects.
The following bids have been received.
Contractor: KSB Offshore Marine Comm Eco-Gen Offshore Projects
Stage F € 70.00 m € 72.00 m € 78.50 m € 82.00 m
Stage G € 39.50 m € 45.00 m No bid € 47.50 m
The tenders submitted included a number of qualifications by the
bidders:
For Stage G, Marine Comm based their proposal as a co-operative
joint venture with a Canadian firm (GreenSeas) who were well
experienced in subsea operations.
Offshore Projects offered a 30% discount to the total price if both
contracts were awarded to be carried out sequentially.
Eco-Gen made a very strong commitment to using local
(Norwegian) labour and subcontractors wherever possible.
Marine Comm asserted that if it was awarded both stages, it could
complete both in six months through flexible resource
management.
Prior to inviting tenders, key selection criteria were established by senior
management in conjunction with the project board and the weightings to
be applied to each:
Criterion: Weighting:
Credibility of bid 7
Technical expertise 7
Commercial strength 4
Depth of resources 5
Relevant experience 8
Page 11 of 24
Tender submissions were reviewed and the following conclusions about
the merits of each bid reached:
Stage F
Bid:
KSB Offshore
Engineering
Comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Credibility of
Bid:
Decent bid,
very
professional
8/10
7 All core
aspects
covered well
7/10
No serious QA
issues
Technical
Expertise:
7/10 – seems
solid
4
Commercial
Strength:
6/10
Major
company, no
real concerns
– Some
concerns over
future
contracts,
may be
vulnerable in
short term.
Poor liquidity
4/10
Depth of
Resources:
7/10 4 QA Manager
in post
Relevant
Experience:
8/10 9
Bid:
Marine Comm
Engineering
Comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Credibility of
Bid:
Good bid,
complete and
professional
7/10
5 All bid
aspects
covered OK
6/10
No QA issues
Technical
Expertise:
Competent
team of
skilled
pipeline
engineers
7.5/10
7 No quality
system
present.
Internal QA
manual
Page 12 of 24
Bid:
Marine Comm
Engineering
Comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Commercial
Strength:
Well
established
company.
– A credible
well
established
business
organisation
Well financed
and managed
8/10
Depth of
Resources:
Plenty of
resources for
land-based
pipeline works
8/10
8 Poor QA/QC
Relevant
Experience:
20+ years
experience in
field 8/10
6
Bid:
Offshore
Engineering
Comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Credibility of
Bid:
Good bid, very
professional
7/10
3 A well prepared bid
document
7.5/10
Good QA
system and
expertise
Technical
Expertise:
8.5/10 4 ISO 9000
accredited
Commercial
Strength:
6/10
Seems OK
– A growing
business, no
major
concerns 7/10
Depth of
Resources:
7.5/8 Plenty
of
experienced
staff
6 Good QA
Manager and
team
Relevant
Experience:
4
Page 13 of 24
Stage G
Bid:
KSB Offshore
Engineering
Comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Credibility of
Bid:
Decent bid,
very
professional
8/10
7 All core
aspects
covered well
7/10
No serious QA
issues
Technical
Expertise:
7/10
Seems solid
4
Commercial
Strength:
6/10
Major
company, no
real concerns
– Some
concerns over
future
contracts,
may be
vulnerable in
short term.
Poor liquidity
4/10
Depth of
Resources:
7/10 4 QA Manager
in post
Relevant
Experience:
8/10 9
Bid:
Marine Comm
Engineering
Comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Credibility of
Bid:
Not a great
bid. Not very
professional
4/10
4 A sloppy and
careless bid,
full of typos
3/10
No QA issues
Technical
Expertise:
5/10
Average
4 No quality
system
Commercial
Strength:
No data
available for
GreenSeas
6/10
Maricom
seem fine but
no info was
provided for
their JV
partner 7/10
Page 14 of 24
Bid:
Marine Comm
Engineering
Comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Depth of
Resources:
GreenSeas
have more
than enough
subsea
resources but
their
commitment
to this JV is
unclear from
the bid 5/10
3 Poor QA/QC
Relevant
Experience:
Good
company but
lacking in
subsea
knowledge.
Hence the
partnership
with
GreenSeas
5/10
3
Bid:
Eco-Gen
Engineering
comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Credibility of
Bid:
Good bid, very
professional
7/10
8 A well prepared bid
document
7/10
No QA
content in bid
– serious
concern
Technical
Expertise:
Heavily reliant
on freelance
contractors
6/10
6 No quality
system
evident
Commercial
Strength:
Seems fine to
me 6/10
Fine. No
evident
issues.
Company
appears to
have plenty of
commercial
strength 9
Depth of
Resources:
Company has
a small
engineering
team and use
subcontractor
s for multiple
roles. 6/10
6 No QA staff or
systems. A
major concern
Page 15 of 24
Bid:
Eco-Gen
Engineering
comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Relevant
Experience:
Some
experience
but no major
subsea
projects in the
last 18 months
5/10
4
Bid:
Offshore
Engineering
Comment:
Construction
Comment:
Procurement
Comment:
QA Comment:
Credibility of
Bid:
Fair bid,
technical
aspects
covered 8/10
10 All
procurement
and
commercial
aspects
covered 6/10
Good QA
system and
staff expertise
Technical
Expertise:
Good track
record on
numerous
subsea
contracts
7/10
10
Commercial
Strength:
Seems fine.
6/10
– A growing
international
business, no
major
concerns 7/10
Depth of
Resources:
Competent
resources
available in
terms of staff
and
equipment
8/10
9 Good
management
team 7/10
Good QA
Manager.
Knows his job
Relevant
Experience:
Same as for
Tech.
Expertise
8/10
8
Use the information provided to analyse the bid submissions received
from each candidate company and reach a clear, in depth
recommendation for the appointment to undertake the two remaining
stages (F and G).
10 marks
Page 16 of 24
Assignment Task Four Budget for Project Management Team
(a) Giorgi Steiner has reviewed the project management resource needs for
the project and decided to re-configure the project team, which will now
comprise:
Engineering manager: € 525 per day
Construction manager: € 500 per day
QA manager: € 475 per day
Services manager: € 400 per day
Finance manager: € 395 per day
Procurement manager: € 390 per day
Day rates are inclusive of expenses and the project team is expected to
work a typical 8-hour day, five-day week.
Suitable offices in Holborn have now been leased for the period the team
is in London at a cost of € 4,000 per week.
It is intended that the six managers would be freelance project
professionals engaged through employment agencies for the duration
required. As part of NordEco’s permanent staff neither Steiner or
Michelsen are a direct cost to the project (except for their expenses at €
125 per week).
The management team would be supported by a small team of
administrative staff to act as the project support office: One Project
Administration Supervisor (€ 29 per hour), one Project Planner (€ 26 per
hour), one Project Support Officer (€ 25 per hour) and three Project
Administrators (€ 19 per hour).
Immediately after the Design stage is complete, the entire team of 13
people will relocate to Stavanger. A budget of € 35,000 is allocated for
the relocation costs.
The Stavanger office will not cost the project anything (they will share
space with the contractor’s site team, costs for which are included in their
tenders) but additional site expenses would be payable to every member
of the project team.
Well before the move to Stavanger NordEco’s Human Resources
Manager and her assistant looked around the city and have rented
several residential properties. Before this, each member of the project
team was given the choice between single or accompanied status.
Single status means they would live in Stavanger on their own in a
smaller shared house or apartment but be flown home for a long
weekend once a month at company expense (economy class).
Page 17 of 24
Accompanied status meant that the person would be allocated a larger
family house and good local schooling for children (if present) but with
business class flights home only every six months.
In the event, only the Engineering Manager, Construction Manager and
Procurement Manager chose to travel on accompanied status. No
children were involved. All the others chose single status.
These project costs in € were estimated as follows:
Expat expenses: Accommodation
per month:
Return Flights
each trip home:
Single status: £ 1,250.00 £ 230.00
Accompanied status: £ 2,350.00 £ 530.00
Giorgi Steiner and Erik Michelsen will be provided with Accompanied
status accommodation and business class flights every three months.
Prepare a detailed resource budget for the project management team,
separately identifying their costs whilst in London and when deployed to
Stavanger as well as their accommodation costs and expenses, ignoring
the possibility of public holidays or leave. Clearly state any assumptions
you make and show your calculations.
10 marks
Assignment Task Five PERT Analysis
(a) KSB Offshore have tabled a high-level project schedule for the Turbine
fabrication and test element of Stage D
Code: Description: Duration
(weeks):
Predecessors:
A Turbine Nacelles 8
B Turbine Blades 12
C Turbine Hub 6 A
D Cathodic Protection 4 A, B
E Generator 12
F Pre-assembly 4 C, D, E
G Generator Test 2 F
H Diss-assemble 3 G
Page 18 of 24
Erik Michelsen fears that the schedule is too optimistic. Nevertheless, it is
essential that the turbines are available for installation 12 weeks before
the planned end of the stage, otherwise the weather ‘window’ for the off shore works will close and the project will incur delays and additional
costs, which would affect its financial performance.
Erik considers that the optimistic and pessimistic durations are likely to
be:
Code: Description: Optimistic
Duration (weeks):
Pessimistic
Duration (weeks):
A Turbine Nacelles 6 10
B Turbine Blades 8 15
C Turbine Hub 4 7
D Cathodic Protection 4 6
E Generator 9 16
F Pre-assembly 3 5
G Generator Test 1 4
H Diss-assemble 2 4
Analyse the information and, using the PERT technique assess the
probability of the turbines being ready to install within 24 weeks (or less)
of the stage start.
10 marks
Assignment Task Six Scheduling of Site Engineers
(a) The Director of Engineering and the QA Manager are concerned that
there may be a need to deploy additional engineering / QA resources
during stages B; C; D and E to monitor the contractor as work proceeds.
Michelsen wants the following resources at his disposal:
B Foundation structures 4 staff
C Turbine towers 4 staff
D Turbine fabrication 3 staff
E Land and Sub-sea trenches 2 staff
It has yet to be decided if these team members will be recruited locally
or from the UK.
Page 19 of 24
Calculate the number of site engineers to meet these requirements and
identify the maximum number deployed in any week.
Present your findings by means of a resource histogram (column chart).
Locally recruited engineers are reported to be available at a cost of € 375
per day inclusive of expenses. Alternatively, a large pool of suitably
qualified engineers is available on an ex-patriot basis from the UK at €275
per day inclusive of expenses, but these individuals would require single
status accommodation and monthly flights home.
Determine which of these choices would be most cost effective.
10 marks
Assignment Task Seven Resource Levelling / Smoothing Options
(a) The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union means that UK
Nationals will require residence permits to work in Norway.
Norwegian Authorities have advised that they will grant a maximum of 10
permits at any time for professional staff deployed to the project.
This will affect all of the project team and the additional engineering / QA
team. However, as employees of a joint venture Anglo/Norwegian
company the requirement will not apply to Giorgi Steiner and Erik
Michelsen.
Administration staff will have their engagements terminated and they will
return to London. They will be replaced with staff recruited locally.
Determine how many of the engineering / QA team will need to be
locally recruited to not breach the permit limit.
Suggest ways in which resources could be adjusted or re-deployed
and/or if re-scheduling the project would be worthwhile.
10 marks
Page 20 of 24
Assignment Task Eight Progress Review
(a) In view of the importance of successfully delivering the project to the
Norwegian economy, the Stortinget (Norway’s Parliament) has resolved
to waive the permit limit and the project may continue as planned.
The project started on schedule on Monday 10 Jan 2022.
Work has progressed well and, is now in progress, and exactly 45 weeks
later on Friday 20 Nov 2022, Giorgi Steiner chaired a project progress
meeting at which the contractor reported the following:
Code: Stage: Progress %
Complete:
A Design 100%
B Foundation
structures
85%
C Turbine towers 75%
D Turbine fabrication,
test & installation
45%
E Land & sub-sea
trenches
12%
F Interconnectors 0%
G Inspection, test,
commission
0%
Analyse this information with respect to the project plan you prepared in
response to Task 2 – Write My Paper for Me: Cheap and High Quality Assignment Writing Service and prepare a “traffic light” progress report indicating
the status of each task on the following basis:
Red Stage in progress falling more than 5% behind plan
Amber Stage in progress (broadly in line with plan) or not yet started
Green Stage completed or at least 5% ahead of plan
Present and explain all your workings very carefully.
10 marks
Page 21 of 24
Assignment Task Nine Earned Value Analysis and Review
(a) Following the 45-week project progress meeting, the Finance Manager
(who was not present at the meeting) has now provided his financial
report of the budget expended to date (20 November 2022).
Code: Stage: Agreed
Budget (€ m):
Expenditure to
Date (€ m):
A Design 29.685 38.970
B Foundation
structures
111.039 92.350
C Turbine towers 120.000 84.625
D Turbine fabrication,
test & installation
170.745 74.610
E Land & sub-sea
trenches
98.700 13.668
F Interconnectors 66.600 –
G Inspection, test,
commission
44.000 –
Using the Earned Value approach determine the following:
1. The overall planned % progress so far
2. The overall actual % progress so far
3. The projected duration of the project based on 20 November data
4. The projected total spend on the project based on 20 November
data
Carefully set out your workings and explain your conclusions.
10 marks
Page 22 of 24
ARU GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS: LEVEL 7 –
postgraduate taught
Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous,
demonstrating independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to
evaluate, challenge, modify and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate
and focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students
producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance or display.
Mark
Bands
Outcome
Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s
Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)
Knowledge & Understanding
Intellectual (thinking), Practical,
Affective and Transferable Skills
90-
100%
Achieves
module
outcome(s)
Exceptional analysis of key issues/
concepts/ethics with very clear
originality and autonomy. Exceptional
development of conceptual structures
and argument making an exceptional
use of scholarly conventions.
Demonstrates exceptional
independence of thought and a very
high level of intellectual rigour and
consistency. Work pushes the
boundaries of the discipline and may be
considered for external publication
Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/
ethics. Exceptional development of conceptual
structures and argument, making consistent use of
scholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills,
independence of thought, an extremely high level
of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional
expressive/professional skills, and substantial
creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/
intellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of
the discipline and may be considered for external
publication
80-
89%
Outstanding analysis of key issues/
concepts/ethics with clear originality and
autonomy. Outstanding development
of conceptual structures and argument
making an exemplary use of scholarly
conventions. Demonstrates
outstanding independence of thought
and a very high level of intellectual
rigour and consistency
Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/
ethics. Outstanding development of conceptual
structures and argument, making consistent use of
scholarly conventions. Outstanding research
skills, independence of thought, a high level of
intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding
expressive/professional skills, and considerable
creativity and originality. Outstanding
academic/intellectual skills
Page 23 of 24
70-
79%
Excellent analysis of key issues/
concepts/ethics. Excellent
development of conceptual structures
and argument making excellent use of
scholarly conventions. Demonstrates
excellent independence of thought and
a high level of intellectual rigour and
consistency
Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.
Excellent development of conceptual structures
and argument, making consistent use of scholarly
conventions. Excellent research skills, indepen dence of thought, excellent level of intellectual
rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/
professional skills, and considerable creativity and
originality. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills,
and considerable creativity and originality
60-
69%
Good analysis of key issues/concepts/
ethics. Development of conceptual
structures and argument making
consistent use of scholarly conventions
Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.
Development of conceptual structures and
argument, making consistent use of scholarly
conventions
50-
59%
Sound knowledge of key issues/
concepts/ethics in discipline. Descrip tive in parts but some ability to synth esise scholarship and argument. Minor
lapses in use of scholarly conventions
Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics
in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability
to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor
lapses in use of scholarly conventions
40-
49%
A marginal
pass in
module
outcome(s)
Adequate knowledge of key issues/
concepts/ethics in discipline. Generally
descriptive, with restricted synthesis of
existing scholarship and little argument.
Inconsistent use of scholarly
conventions
Adequate knowledge of key issues/concepts/
ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with
restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and
little argument. Inconsistent use of scholarly
conventions
30-
39%
A marginal
fail in module
outcome(s).
Satisfies
default
qualifying
mark
Limited knowledge of key issues/
concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely
descriptive, with restricted synthesis of
existing scholarship and limited
argument. Limited use of scholarly
conventions.
Limited research skills impede use of learning
resources and problem solving. Significant
problems with structure/accuracy in expression.
Team/Practical/Professional skills not yet secure.
Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use
of scholarly conventions
Page 24 of 24
20-
29%
Fails to
achieve
module
outcome(s).
Qualifying
mark not
satisfied
Little evidence of knowledge of key
issues/concepts/ethics in discipline.
Largely descriptive, with little synthesis
of existing scholarship and little
evidence of argument. Little evidence
of use of scholarly conventions.
Little evidence of research skills, use of learning
resources and problem solving. Major problems
with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/
Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Little
evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Little
evidence of use of scholarly conventions
10-
19%
Deficient knowledge of key
issues/concepts/ethics in discipline.
Wholly descriptive, with deficient
synthesis of existing scholarship and
deficient argument. Deficient use of
scholarly conventions.
Deficient use of research skills, learning resources
and problem solving. Major problems with
structure/accuracy in expression.
Team/Practical/Professional skills absent.
Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Deficient
use of scholarly conventions
1-
9%
No evidence of knowledge of key
issues/concepts/ethics in discipline.
Incoherent and completely but poorly
descriptive, with no evidence of
synthesis of existing scholarship and no
argument whatsoever. No evidence of
use of scholarly conventions.
No evidence of use of research skills, learning
resources and problem solving. Incoherent
structure/accuracy in expression. Team/
Practical/Professional skills non-existent. No
evidence of academic/intellectual skills. No
evidence of use of scholarly conventions
0%
Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the
student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related
learning outcomes
