| Executive Summary |
| No Executive Summary section has been provided.1points |
A description of the paper is provided. However, more information about background, purpose, method, results, and conclusion could be provided.2points |
A lengthy or short description of the paper is provided. including background, purpose, method, results, and conclusion.3points |
An accurate and concise description of the paper is provided. including background, purpose, method, results, and conclusion.4points |
An accurate and concise description of the paper is provided in table or dot point format. including background, purpose, method, results, and conclusion.5points |
|
| Introduction Clear overview of paper, demonstrates importance of topic, provides background information about the company’s situation. |
| The background presented is not relevant to the situation or it is not appropriately adapted for the purpose of the assignment.1points |
The background provided is appropriate for the purpose of the report. However, it is not necessarily well- suited to the purpose of the assignment.2points |
The background is provided and it is appropriate for the purpose of the report. However, the background could be presented more clearly and concisely.3points |
Background information is at times unclear or uninteresting. Relevance to risk engineering could be more clearly articulated. The purpose statement could be stated more clearly and concisely. Main discussion points could be more clearly articulated.4points |
Background information is engaging and leads to a clear purpose statement. Relevance to risk engineering is articulated well. The purpose statement is clear and concise. Two or three main discussion points are clearly identified in the purpose statement.5points |
|
| Literature Review/Application of the ISO 31000 standards. Contains information about the research and theory involved in the paper and the current methods and techniques relevant to the topic. Describes the ISO 31000 standard applications in the context of the assignment project. |
| No literature review has been provided or sources are not related to the topic.1points |
Details about article selection are lacking or wordy. Number and type of articles are not included. Number of sources in the review is less than 5.3points |
Details about article selection are occasionally unclear or wordy. Number and type of articles included could be more clearly stated. More sources could have been included.5points |
Concise details are provided about article selection, including search engines, search terms, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Number and type of articles included are clearly stated. Variety of sources about the topic is very good. More details could have been provided.7points |
Concise details are provided about article selection, including search engines, search terms, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Number and type of articles included are clearly stated. Variety of sources and attention to detail about the topic is exemplary.10points |
|
| Analysis of risks and opportunities associated with the project and Selection of new method/technology for the assignment project. Presents the choice of Management methodology based on the analysis of the company’s management system. Provides a discussion about the proper risk management system for the case. |
| The benefits achieved from the use of the chosen management system and the extent of possible improvements have not been quantified and/or discussed. No logical link Between the situation and Theory can be found.1points |
A small number of likely benefits achievable with the use of the chosen management system have been quantified and discussed.The discussion could be based on the risk management process. (identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring and control) This may have been supported with the use of graphs and/or diagrams.10points |
A reasonable range of likely benefits achievable with the use of the chosen system have been quantified and discussed. The discussion is following the risk management process. (identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring and control). This has been well supported with the use of graphs and/or diagrams. A comparison to the performance of conventional management has been provided across a number of key areas. The link Between the situation and Theory is established.20points |
A broad range of likely benefits achievable with the use of the chosen system have been quantified and discussed very well. The discussion is following the risk management process. (identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring and control). This has been well supported with the use of graphs and/or diagrams. A comparison to the performance of conventional methods has been provided across a number of key areas. The link Between the project and standard is clear.30points |
A broad range of likely benefits achievable with the use of the chosen management system have been quantified and discussed extremely well. The discussion is following the risk management process. (identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring and control).This has been well supported with the use of graphs and/or diagrams. A comparison to the performance of conventional methods has been provided across a number of key areas. The link Between the project and standard is well established and evident.40points |
|
| Diagrams/ Charts Used appropriate diagrams to effectively illustrate performance and improvement levels |
| No, or very few, diagrams have been used to illustrate the case or the proposal. Quality and clarity of the diagrams used may be poor. Diagrams may have been used that are not directly referred to in the text.1points |
A small number of relevant and appropriate diagrams have been used to illustrate the case and improvement levels associated with the proposed system. More graphs and/or diagrams would have been beneficial. Quality and clarity of the diagrams used is satisfactory. Some improvements to their appearance or clarity may have been beneficial. In-text references to, and discussion of, diagram content could be improved.4points |
Relevant and appropriate diagrams have been used to illustrate the case and improvement levels associated with the risk management system chosen. More graphs and/or diagrams would have been beneficial. Quality and clarity of the diagrams used is good. The diagrams used support the report text, however some improvements to the appearance or clarity may have been beneficial. In-text references to, and discussion of, diagram content could be improved.6points |
Highly relevant and appropriate diagrams have been used to illustrate the case and improvement levels associated with the proposed management system. Quality and clarity of the diagrams used is very good. The diagrams used support the report text, however some minor improvements to the appearance or clarity would have been beneficial.12points |
Highly relevant and appropriate diagrams have been used to illustrate the case and improvement levels associated with the management system chosen. Quality and clarity of the diagrams used is excellent. The professional design and layout greatly facilitates the understanding of the diagrams and supports the report text.15points |
|
| Discussion/Conclusion Identified and described some of the potential barriers and challenges to implementing the proposed risk management approach. |
| None of the main points associated with the case or the proposed risk engineering approach have been summarised.1points |
A summary of the main points is clearly articulated. Implications for risk engineering practice could be more clear.2points |
A summary of the main points is well articulated. Implications for risk engineering practice are relevant and clear.4points |
A summary of the main points is articulated. Implications for risk engineering practice are clear.5points |
A summary of the main points associated with the project and the proposed risk engineering approach is clearly articulated. Implications for risk engineering practice are logical, relevant, and clear.5points |
|
| Mechanics Presented in a concise, professional and well- structured manner |
| No logical structure and poor presentation. Significant improvements are needed to the structure of the report and the quality of its presentation. The length of the report may be well under or well over the suggested length.1points |
A reasonably well structured report although further structural improvements could be made. The report is also lacking in certain other areas (such as conciseness or presentation). The report may be well above or below the suggested length.4points |
A well structured report although further structural improvements would have been beneficial. The report would also have benefited from improvements to the presentation and may be well above or below the suggested length.6points |
A professional report that is well structured. However, some minor improvements in certain areas (such as conciseness or presentation) would have been beneficial.8points |
A highly professional report that is extremely well structured, uses appropriate headings and is to the point.10points |
|
| References Integrated references to relevant literature |
| No or minimal references or citations present. A much larger range of references is needed as well as associated citations to relevant sources and information to support your argument. References are particularly important in supporting claims made about the possible benefits achievable with the use of the prefabrication system chosen.1points |
A limited range of references listed ( |
A reasonable range of references listed (~10) but limited use of citations throughout the report. Several more key references could be included as well as much greater use of citations to relevant sources and information to support your argument. Also avoid referring extensively to websites if this is the case.6points |
A reasonable range of references listed (~10) and good use of citations throughout the report. Several more key references could be included as well as further citations to relevant sources and information to support arguments. Also avoid referring extensively to websites if this is the case.8points |
A very broad range of references listed (>10) and extensive use of citations throughout the report. These have been used extremely well to highlight key points and to support arguments. |
|
