ISYS90050 IT Project and Change Management –
MANAGING CONFLICT & ETHICAL CHALLENGES – Rubrics, Semester 2, 2023
Poor Adequate Good Very Good Outstanding
Q1(a)
Handling
private data
[2 marks]
A poor attempt at
understanding the scenario
provided. Lack of clear
understanding of the ethical
issues involved. Weak
justification of the ethical
considerations. Poorly
presented, weak style of
arguments with major
inconsistencies.
A fair but insufficient
attempt at understanding
the scenario. Weak
understanding of the
ethical issues involved.
Limited justification of the
ethical considerations.
Overall structure could be
improved. Inconsistencies
in style or minor defects in
grammar and spelling.
A good attempt at assessing the
scenario. Good understanding
of the ethical issues involved.
Good justification of ethical
considerations. Reasonable
structure and flow. A consistent
style adopted.
A very good attempt at
assessing the scenario. A good
systematic approach that
identifies the ethical issues
involved. Very good
justification of ethical
considerations. Well-structured
and good flow and presentation
style enhancing the document’s
readability.
Insightful and well considered
assessment of the situation. A clear
assessment of the ethical issues
involved. A clearly illustrated ethical
considerations with logical persuasion.
Exceptional structure and flow, style,
and presentation add significantly to
readability and understanding.
Q1(b)
Managing the
concerns of the
team
[3 marks]
Very poor reflection and
explanation of an appropriate
team management approach to
resolve the situation. Lack the
ability to adopt a person’s
perspective in the formulation of
a resolution. Poorly presented.
Weak style of arguments in
general.
An insufficient reflection and
explanation of an appropriate
team management approach
to resolve the situation.
Indicated difficulty in the
ability to adopt a person’s
perspective in the
formulation of a resolution.
Poor structure with some
inconsistency in the style or
minor defects in grammar
and spelling.
A good attempt at reflection and
presentation of an appropriate
team management approach to
resolve the situation, with solid
reasoning. An indicated ability to
adopt a person’s perspective in
response to the case and in the
formulation of a resolution. A
solid structure, with some
justification, consistent
reasoning, flow for adequate
document readability.
Very good reflection and
explanation of team
management approach to
eliminate and resolve the
situation, taking account of
multiple factors and
perspectives. A clear ability to
adopt a person’s perspective in
response to the case and in the
formulation of a resolution.
Well-structured flow of
information and justification, to
enhance readability and
understanding.
Exceptional reflection and explanation
of how to resolve the situation with
ethical considerations. A very clear and
systematic approach, indicating
professionalism and best practice in
team management and in the approach to
resolution. A clear ability to accurately
adopt a person’s perspective in response
to the case and in the formulation of a
resolution. Well-articulated flow,
structure, style, and presentation which
has added significantly to readability
and understanding.
Q2(a)
Problems in
requirement
elicitation
[2 marks]
A poor attempt at
understanding the scenario
provided. Lack of clear
understanding of the problems
involved. Weak reasoning.
Poorly presented, weak style of
arguments with major
inconsistencies.
A fair but insufficient attempt
at understanding the scenario.
Weak understanding of the
problems involved. Limited
reasoning. Overall structure
could be improved.
Inconsistencies in style or
minor defects in grammar and
spelling.
A good attempt at assessing the
scenario. Good understanding of
the problems involved. Good
reasoning. Reasonable structure
and flow. A consistent style
adopted.
A very good attempt at
assessing the scenario. A
good systematic approach
that identifies the problems
involved. Very good
reasoning. Well-structured
and good flow and
presentation style enhancing
the document’s readability.
Insightful and well considered
assessment of the situation. A clear
assessment of the problems involved.
A clearly illustrated reasoning with
logical persuasion. Exceptional
structure and flow, style, and
presentation add significantly to
readability and understanding.
Q2(b)
Handling Sarah and
the requirement
elicitation
[4 marks]
Very poor reflection and
explanation of an appropriate
client management approach to
resolve the situation. Lack the
ability to adopt a person’s
perspective in the formulation of
a resolution. Poorly presented.
Weak style of arguments in
general.
An insufficient reflection and
explanation of an appropriate
client management approach to
resolve the situation. Indicated
difficulty in the ability to adopt
a person’s perspective in the
formulation of a resolution.
Poor structure with some
inconsistency in the style or
minor defects in grammar and
spelling.
A good attempt at reflection and
presentation of an appropriate
client management approach to
resolve the situation, with solid
reasoning. An indicated ability to
adopt a person’s perspective in
response to the case and in the
formulation of a resolution. A
solid structure, with some
justification, consistent
reasoning, flow for adequate
document readability.
Very good reflection and
explanation of client management
approach to eliminate and resolve
the situation, taking account of
multiple factors and perspectives.
A clear ability to adopt a person’s
perspective in response to the
case and in the formulation of a
resolution. Well-structured flow
of information and justification,
to enhance readability and
understanding.
Insightful and well-rounded arguments to
address communication with the client. A
very clear and systematic approach,
indicating professionalism and best
practice in client management and in the
approach to resolution. A clear ability to
accurately adopt a person’s perspective in
response to the case and in the formulation
of a resolution. Well-articulated flow,
structure, style, and presentation which has
added significantly to readability and
understanding.
Q3(a)
Handling
Sarah’s
design
[3 marks]
A poor attempt at understanding
the scenario provided and the
stages involved in resolving the
situation. Lack of clear
understanding and justification
of the actions involved in the
preparation and resolution of the
situation, limited consideration
of all options. Poorly presented,
weak style of arguments with
major inconsistencies.
A fair but insufficient attempt
at understanding the scenario.
Weak justification of the
actions involved in the
preparation and resolution of
the situation. Limited
consideration of all options in
the arguments. Overall
structure could be improved.
Inconsistencies in style or
minor defects in grammar and
spelling.
A good attempt at assessing the
scenario and the stages involved
in resolving the situation. Good
understanding of the requirement
for further actions with some
limited illustrative justification.
Limited explanation of
alternative options with
associated reasoning. Reasonable
structure and flow. A consistent
style adopted.
A very good attempt at assessing
the scenario and the initial
actions involved in resolving the
situation. A good systematic
approach that identifies further
actions, including illustrative
strategies. A good understanding
of the alternative actions, as
supported by reasoning. Well-
structured and good flow and
presentation style enhancing the
document’s readability.
Insightful and well considered
assessment of the situation and the initial
stages involved in resolving the situation.
A clear assessment of the pros and cons
of actions with clear justification. A very
clear and systematic approach, indicating
professionalism and best practice in
project management and in the approach
to resolution. A clearly illustrated and
strategic approach with logical
persuasion. Exceptional structure and
flow, style, and presentation add
significantly to readability and
understanding.
Q3(b)
Managing the
expectations
of the
steering
committee
and Jennifer
[4 marks]
A poor attempt at understanding
the scenario provided and the
stages involved in resolving the
situation with the steering
committee and the senior lead.
Lack of clear understanding and
justification of the actions
involved in the preparation and
resolution of the situation,
limited consideration of all
options. Poorly presented, weak
style of arguments with major
inconsistencies.
A fair but insufficient attempt
at understanding the scenario.
Weak justification of the
actions involved in the
preparation and resolution of
the situation with the steering
committee and the senior lead.
Limited consideration of all
options in the arguments.
Overall structure could be
improved. Inconsistencies in
style or minor defects in
grammar and spelling.
A good attempt at assessing the
scenario and the stages involved
in resolving the situation with the
steering committee and the
senior lead. Good understanding
of the requirement for further
actions with some limited
illustrative justification. Limited
explanation of alternative options
with associated reasoning.
Reasonable structure and flow. A
consistent style adopted.
A very good attempt at assessing
the scenario and the initial
actions involved in resolving the
situation with the steering
committee and the senior lead. A
good systematic approach which
identifies further actions,
including illustrative strategies.
A good understanding of the
alternative actions, as supported
by reasoning. Well-structured
and good flow and presentation
style enhancing the document’s
readability.
Insightful and well considered
assessment of the situation and the initial
stages involved in resolving the situation
with the steering committee and the
senior lead. A very clear and systematic
approach, indicating professionalism and
best practice in stakeholder management
and in the approach to resolution. Well-
articulated flow, structure, style, and
presentation which has added
significantly to readability and
understanding.
Q3(c)
Managing the
team
[2 marks]
Very poor reflection and
explanation of an appropriate
team management approach to
resolve the situation. Lack the
ability to adopt a person’s
perspective in the formulation of
a resolution. Poorly presented.
Weak style of arguments in
general.
An insufficient reflection and
explanation of an appropriate
team management approach to
resolve the situation. Indicated
difficulty in the ability to adopt
a person’s perspective in the
formulation of a resolution.
Poor structure with some
inconsistency in the style or
minor defects in grammar and
spelling.
A good attempt at reflection and
presentation of an appropriate
team management approach to
resolve the situation, with solid
reasoning. An indicated ability to
adopt a person’s perspective in
response to the case and in the
formulation of a resolution. A
solid structure, with some
justification, consistent
reasoning, flow for adequate
document readability.
Very good reflection and
explanation of team management
approach to eliminate and
resolve the situation, taking
account of multiple factors and
perspectives. A clear ability to
adopt a person’s perspective in
response to the case and in the
formulation of a resolution.
Well-structured flow of
information and justification, to
enhance readability and
understanding.
Exceptional reflection and explanation of
how to resolve the situation with ethical
considerations. A very clear and
systematic approach, indicating
professionalism and best practice in team
management and in the approach to
resolution. A clear ability to accurately
adopt a person’s perspective in response
to the case and in the formulation of a
resolution. Well-articulated flow,
structure, style, and presentation which
has added significantly to readability and
understanding.