University of Portsmouth

SUMS

CAM Student & Unit Management System v5.0
SUMS home page

PJE30 final year engineering project

Name of Student Student, Test(987654)   Supervisor Jim Briggs
Project title SUMS test project   Project unit PJE30 - Final year engineering project
Calculated mark Awaiting calculation   Cohort Top up 2006
Marker Jim Briggs   Capacity Supervisor Marker

Prize Nominations
Prize Justification

Category
Weight
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-100
 Comments (optional) [These may be notified to the student.] Category Mark
Statement of project's context, aims and objectives 2 Mark value: 85.0%
Analysis of problem adds new insights 		Mark value: 95.0%
Analysis of problem adds new insights 		 
Critical review of relevant literature 2 Mark value: 5.0%
Zero or a few sources mentioned, but not reviewed 		Mark value: 15.0%
Zero or a few sources mentioned, but not reviewed 		Mark value: 35.0%
Superficial review, misunderstanding the subject. Limited or inappropriate research. 		Mark value: 45.0%
Familiarity with key literature which is cited and presented according to convention 		Mark value: 55.0%
Detailed review and grasp of pertinent issues and a critical contextual overview of the literature. Confidence in understanding and using literature 		Mark value: 65.0%
Extensive use of relevant and current literature to view topic in perspective, analyse context and develop new explanations and theories 		Mark value: 75.0%
Wide reaching research showing breadth and depth of sources 		Mark value: 85.0%
Review adds new insights 		Mark value: 95.0%
Review adds new insights 		 
Methodological approach Methodological approach: To what extent does the report show that the methods used were appropriate, justified and well applied? How well does the report describe and justify appropriate methodological tools/techniques deployed or considered for deployment? 1 Mark value: 5.0%
Little/no evidence of choice or use of method or life cycle 		Mark value: 15.0%
Little/no evidence of choice or use of method or life cycle 		Mark value: 25.0%
Little/no evidence of choice or use of method or life cycle 		Mark value: 35.0%
Poor choice of methodology and life cycle, or little/no evidence of use 		Mark value: 45.0%
Methodology and/or life cycle described with some evidence of use 		Mark value: 55.0%
Thorough knowledge of theory and methods and uses this to underpin arguments and conclusions 		Mark value: 65.0%
Credible justification for use 		Mark value: 75.0%
Methodology well described, well applied and well justified 		Mark value: 85.0%
Innovative methodology or application 		Mark value: 95.0%
Innovative methodology or application 		 
Specification and discussion of the requirements Specification and discussion of the requirements: How well does the report describe and justify how the specification of the problem and its solution were arrived at? Does the report describe and explain the important requirements (and why they are important)? Are the requirements complete and consistent? Has the client approved them (implicitly or explicitly)? 3 Mark value: 5.0%
No discernable requirements 		Mark value: 15.0%
No discernable requirements 		Mark value: 25.0%
No discernable requirements 		Mark value: 35.0%
Requirements are vague, unclear or disjointed 		Mark value: 45.0%
Partial statement of requirements. Some limited indication of how they were arrived at 		Mark value: 55.0%
Full or nearly full statement of requirements. Discussion of requirements and some analysis 		Mark value: 65.0%
Relative importance of requirements is stated and justified 		Mark value: 75.0%
Requirements complete and consistent, well-conducted analysis 		Mark value: 85.0%
Adds new insight into requirements specification 		Mark value: 95.0%
Adds new insight into requirements specification 		 
Analysis and discussion of the IT design Analysis and discussion of the IT design: How well does the report demonstrate how the solution was designed including design method(s), design process(es) and outcome(s) in areas such as system architectures, databases, user interfaces, interfaces to other systems, and other areas of IT? 3 Mark value: 5.0%
No discernible design 		Mark value: 15.0%
No discernible design 		Mark value: 25.0%
No discernible design 		Mark value: 35.0%
Poor use of design methods, with little/no justification. Design not adequately explained 		Mark value: 45.0%
Some evidence of design. Some explanation of methods, processes and outcomes 		Mark value: 55.0%
Some justification of design decisions, for some areas of development 		Mark value: 65.0%
Good justification of most design decisions in most areas 		Mark value: 75.0%
Full justification and critique of design decisions in all areas 		Mark value: 85.0%
Adds new insight into design and/or methodology 		Mark value: 95.0%
Adds new insight into design and/or methodology 		 
Discussion of implementation Discussion of implementation: How well does the report describe and justify the decisions and trade-offs made, such as selection of algorithms, data structures, usability and implementation environments as appropriate? 3 Mark value: 5.0%
Little/no description of implementation 		Mark value: 15.0%
Little/no description of implementation 		Mark value: 25.0%
Little/no description of implementation 		Mark value: 35.0%
Superficial description of implementation 		Mark value: 45.0%
Description of implementation without much justification or reflection, or good command of techniques / tools 		Mark value: 55.0%
Some justification of implementation decisions made, or good command of techniques / tools used 		Mark value: 65.0%
Good justification of implementation decisions. Good command of techniques / tools used 		Mark value: 75.0%
Thorough justification of implementation decisions made 		Mark value: 85.0%
Adds new insight into implementation 		Mark value: 95.0%
Adds new insight into implementation 		 
Discussion of verification and validation 1 Mark value: 5.0%
Little/no evidence of testing or debugging having been carried out 		Mark value: 15.0%
Little/no evidence of testing or debugging having been carried out 		Mark value: 25.0%
Little/no evidence of testing or debugging having been carried out 		Mark value: 55.0%
Some justification of approaches used for testing and debugging 		Mark value: 65.0%
Good justification of approaches used in most areas 		Mark value: 75.0%
Shows that tests were well planned and fully carried out. Critical discussion of results and remedial actions taken 		Mark value: 85.0%
Adds new insight into verification and validation 		Mark value: 95.0%
Adds new insight into verification and validation 		 
Evaluation against requirements Evaluation against requirements: How well does the report describe and justify the means by which the outcome of the project was evaluated? How well is it shown whether the specification of the requirements has been satisfied? How well explained are areas where it hasn¿t? 2 Mark value: 5.0%
Little/no evidence of evaluation having been planned or carried out 		Mark value: 15.0%
Little/no evidence of evaluation having been planned or carried out 		Mark value: 25.0%
Little/no evidence of evaluation having been planned or carried out 		Mark value: 35.0%
Little attempt at evaluation 		Mark value: 65.0%
Justification of evaluation method 		Mark value: 75.0%
Convincing evidence that project meets its objectives or explanation where it doesn't. Shows awareness of limits of evaluation 		Mark value: 85.0%
Adds new insight into evaluation 		Mark value: 95.0%
Adds new insight into evaluation 		 
Evidence of project planning and management 1 Mark value: 5.0%
No planning evident 		Mark value: 15.0%
No planning evident 		Mark value: 25.0%
No planning evident 		Mark value: 35.0%
Sketchy generalised plan with no evidence of monitoring of progress 		Mark value: 45.0%
Some detail but little evidence that it has been followed. 		Mark value: 55.0%
Shows a detailed plan with timescales, resources and a work schedule for most tasks. Some evaluation of progress. 		Mark value: 85.0%
Adds new insight into project planning and management (minor publishable) 		Mark value: 95.0%
Adds new insight into project planning and management (major publishable) 		 
Attributes of the solution Attributes of the solution: Based on the demonstration of the artefact(s) and/or the evidence of the artefact(s) presented in the report or its appendices, how well do they show the quality of the artefact(s), e.g. attributes such as reliability, timeliness, maintainability, completeness, and consistency? An artefact may be a piece of software, hardware or a detailed design for one. 3 Mark value: 5.0%
Artefact is substantially incomplete 		Mark value: 15.0%
Artefact is substantially incomplete 		Mark value: 25.0%
Artefact is substantially incomplete 		Mark value: 35.0%
Artefact does not work or meets few of the requirements that could reasonably expected to be met in the time available 		Mark value: 45.0%
Artefact implements minimum functionality compared with expectation or has significant bugs 		Mark value: 55.0%
Artefact implements most of the requirements with only minor bugs 		Mark value: 65.0%
Artefact is reasonably complete and free of significant defects 		Mark value: 95.0%
Artefact meets all (or virtually all) of its requirements. Artefact is worthy of real use and/or distribution 		 
Summary, conclusions and recommendations Summary, conclusions and recommendations: To what extent are the conclusions and recommendations appropriate, original and supported by the report? How well are the outcomes of the project summarised? Are the conclusions based on analysis and understanding rather than being trite? 2 Mark value: 25.0%
No serious attempt made to address the question or problem and/or shows a serious misunderstanding of the requirements of the task 		Mark value: 35.0%
Conclusions vague, ambiguous and not based on researched material. 		Mark value: 45.0%
Some summary or statement of conclusions, but the conclusions are trite or somewhat irrelevant to the problem being addressed 		Mark value: 55.0%
Outcomes summarised. Conclusions mostly valid and related at least partially to the objectives. Some recommendations made 		Mark value: 65.0%
Conclusions all valid and relate well to all the objectives. Recommendations are valid with some justification 		Mark value: 75.0%
Demonstrates understanding of complex topic and places it in wider context 		 
Structure and presentation Structure and presentation: How well presented is the report in terms of quality of prose style; page layout; appropriate division into chapters, sections and sub-sections; use of graphics and tables; punctuation, spelling, grammar and syntax; ease of reading; enjoyability of reading? 2 Mark value: 5.0%
Acutely deficient in all aspects 		Mark value: 35.0%
Deficits in length, structure, presentation and/or prose 		Mark value: 45.0%
Logical and clear structure, well organised with good use of language and supporting material 		Mark value: 55.0%
Satisfactory presentation with respect to presentation, organisation, language, grammar, spelling, format, presentation, diagrams, tables etc. 		Mark value: 85.0%
Outstanding quality in terms of organisation, structure, use and flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, presentation, diagrams, tables etc 		Mark value: 95.0%
Outstanding quality in terms of organisation, structure, use and flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, presentation, diagrams, tables etc 		 
Overall understanding and reflection Overall understanding and reflection: In all categories, does the report show clearly and explicitly that the student has understood the material presented and the techniques used? Does the student demonstrate appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach(es) used? 3 Mark value: 5.0%
No serious attempt to address the question or problem, and/or manifests a serious misunderstanding of the requirements of the assignment. Acutely deficient in all aspects. 		Mark value: 15.0%
No serious attempt to address the question or problem, and/or manifests a serious misunderstanding of the requirements of the assignment. Acutely deficient in all aspects. 		Mark value: 55.0%
Work that attempts to address the topic with some understanding and analysis, key aspects of the subject matter covered. The majority of students might normally be expected to fall within this range. 		Mark value: 65.0%
Clear, balanced coherent critical and rigorous analysis of the subject matter. Detailed understanding of knowledge and theory expressed with clarity 		Mark value: 75.0%
Excellent work, able to express an original reasoned argument in a lucid manner by reviewing and critiquing a wide range of material. Original, critical thinking based on outstanding insight, knowledge and understanding of material. 		 
  0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100  
Mark Adjustment (You probably want to come back to fill this in after you've gone to the next page to see the computed mark.)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
 
CALCULATED MARK (Submit the form to see the calculated value)  
General comments justifying the mark (min 15 characters here, 250 total including category comments above). In particular, stress areas of strength and weakness that do not necessarily match with the categories above. [These may be notified to the student.]  
Anything that needs to be brought to the attention of the examiners (please give reasons). [These will not normally be notified to the student, but may be revealed as a result of disciplinary or other proceedings.]  
Tick here if PLAGIARISM or another unfair act is suspected (give details above)  
Click to calculate mark. (You will have the opportunity to return here and revise it.)  

V5.6.22; C; MS; MT