19109596 script.

docx
by Muhammad Hammad Javed

FILE 181794_MUHAMMAD_HAMMAD_JAVED_19109596_SCRIPT _2621402_174

5476678.DOCX (26.8K)
T IME SUBMIT T ED 02-OCT -2017 12:04AM (UT C+1100) WORD COUNT 3099
SUBMISSION ID 855179897 CHARACT ER COUNT 15623
19109596 script.docx
GRADEMARK REPORT

FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS

/0 Instructor
[It is perplexing to me as to why your group have
decided to tackle the questions the way you had.
T he questions were f ramed around Project Purple,
the project leadership challenges that existed in the
dif f erent phases of the project lif ecycle, your
analysis on how ef f ective were the leadership
actions, and f inally what would be your
recommendations f or similar projects in the f uture?
Your group spent a signif icant amount of time on
marketing, market assessment, customer evaluation
and so on; topics that were not covered in this
subject. You have very brief ly addressed Steve Jobs
team leadership skills and the challenges of
managing stakeholders, however you did not explore
these issues f urther other than mentioning them in
passing. It was good that you attempted to address
the challenges based on the PMBoK project lif ecycle.
Although, whilst the importance of planning was
discussed, no actual Project Purple examples were
cited. Using actual project stage examples would
have strengthened your analysis. In terms of project
secrecy, most commercial organisations do that
when it comes to innovative initiatives, Apple was
(and is) no dif f erent, theref ore this aspect of the
project was not specif ically a leadership challenge
per se. In f act, keeping product development a
secret was almost within their corporate DNA as
described by T ony Fadell, the then Senior Vice
President of iPod, in Jobs biography. It is unclear
how Design, organising and negotiation, which you
have slotted into the midst of the lif ecycle
challenges discussion, f it in the PMBoK Project
Lif ecycle f ramework. A point of correction, the
design of the iPhone was not similar to any of the
Apple products at the time. It was not similar to the
Mac computer, iMac, iPod or iPad, which came af ter
iPhone 1. T he claim of similarity was incorrect. As a
matter of f act, the design of the iPhone was
considerably more dif f icult; Apple was not a mobile
phone manuf acturer until then and was not in the
telecommunication industry sector. Furthermore, the
design of hard and sof tware were not outsourced
as claimed. Steve Jobs liked and wanted complete
control of those assets, it was not within his nature
to do so. If Apple did obtain those capabilities via
 contracting, please quote the source(s). T he
Execution stage of a project means the actual
development and production of the iPhone in this
instance (Project Purple). Marketing was not
traditionally part of a project, unless the project was
a business development one. Similarly, project
leaders dont normally involve in product launch
unless it is a commercial or business development
project. Even then, it is normally the project owner as
a minimum. Whilst the recommendations were sound,
how did they specif ically relate to Project Purple,
which only concerned with the conceptual
development to the production stage, and other
issues presented were outside the scope of the
project? I have a sense f rom the presentation that
your f ocus was much broader than just Project
Purple and as a result you have included challenges
that were not part of that project. T his has caused
your presentation to f lounder and to f eel disjoint at
times. By f ocusing on Project Purples activities
would have served you better. Lastly, the presenter
should be commended. It was clear, audible, except
in a f ew places, and comprehensible. Good work.]

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

PAGE 4

PAGE 5

PAGE 6

PAGE 7

PAGE 8
RUBRIC: ASSESSMENT TASK 3 0 /0

CRIT ERION 1 (25%) 0/0

Presentation addresses the questions provided (25% of total mark)

EXCELLENT Questions are addressed with good understanding and conceptual development.
() Demonstrates critical thinking and/or thoughtf ul evaluation. No misunderstandings or
omissions. Sharp f ocus on relevant details. (21-25 marks)

VERY GOOD Questions are addressed with good understanding and conceptual development. No
() major misunderstandings or omissions. Very good f ocus on relevant details. (17-20
marks)

GOOD Questions are broadly addressed. May be some minor omissions or places f or minor
() clarif ication. Mostly accurate understanding of questions. (15-16 marks)

ACCEPTABLE Questions broadly addressed but some parts superf icially treated or moderate
() misunderstanding. (13-14 marks)

UNACCEPTABLE Substantial portions of questions not addressed. Misunderstands questions. (<13

() marks)

CRIT ERION 2 (25%) 0/0

Leadership analysis (25% of total mark)

EXCELLENT Group presentation provides an insightf ul analysis of the ef f ectiveness of the

() leadership actions. Excellent recommendations that are have excellent logic and
reasoning. No or very minimal errors in reasoning or logic. (21-25 marks)

VERY GOOD Group presentation provides a very good analysis of the ef f ectiveness of the
() leadership actions. Very good recommendations that have very good logic and
reasoning. Minimal errors in reasoning or logic. (17-20 marks)

GOOD Group presentation provides a good analysis of the ef f ectiveness of the leadership
() actions. Good recommendations that have good logic and reasoning. May have some
mostly minor errors in logic or reasoning. (15-16 marks)

ACCEPTABLE Group presentation provides an adequate analysis of the ef f ectiveness of the

() leadership actions. Adequate recommendations, but logic and/or reasoning could be
improved. May have some mostly minor some errors in reasoning and logic. (13-14
marks)

UNACCEPTABLE Poor or missing analysis of the ef f ectiveness of the leadership actions; Little or no
() attempt to propose recommendations. Major errors in reasoning and/or logic. (<13
marks)

CRIT ERION 3 (25%) 0/0

Use of evidence (25% of total mark)

EXCELLENT Presentation is supported by accurate interpretation of appropriate evidence. Uses

() evidence in clear, accurate and appropriate way, demonstrating critical or thoughtf ul
selection of evidence. Evidence is f rom high quality sources. (21-25 marks)

VERY GOOD Presentation is supported by accurate interpretation of appropriate evidence. Uses

() inf ormation in mostly clear, accurate and appropriate way. Evidence is mostly f rom
high quality sources. (17-20 marks)

GOOD Presentation is mostly supported by accurate interpretation of appropriate evidence.

() Uses inf ormation in mostly clear, accurate and appropriate way. Evidence is of mostly
good quality throughout, or some sections very good quality and others more
superf icial or lower quality. (15-16 marks)

ACCEPTABLE Presentation is somewhat supported by accurate interpretation of appropriate

() evidence. Interpretation of evidence is generally accurate. Some good quality evidence
but tendency to use superf icial or lower quality evidence. (13-14 marks)

UNACCEPTABLE Presentation is not supported by appropriate evidence, or misinterprets, or

() misunderstands evidence that is presented. Conclusions are inconsistent with
evidence, or based on poor reasoning and logic. (<13 marks)

CRIT ERION 4 (25%) 0/0

Presentation skills (25% of total mark)

EXCELLENT Presentation is of excellent quality. Inf ormation structure and sequence is logical and
() easy to f ollow. Inf ormation is organised in a clear, coherent, and integrated manner
(both within and across speakers). All group members speak, and all use clear and
appropriate language. (21-25 marks)

VERY GOOD Presentation is of very good quality. Inf ormation structure and sequence is logical
() and easy to f ollow. Inf ormation is organised in a clear, coherent, and integrated
manner (both within and across speakers). All group members speak, and all use clear
and appropriate language. (17-20 marks)

GOOD Presentation is of good quality. Inf ormation is mostly structured and sequenced in a
() logical and easy to f ollow manner (both within and between speakers). All group
members speak, and most use clear and appropriate language. (15-16 marks)

ACCEPTABLE Presentation is of adequate quality. Inf ormation is structured and sequenced well
() enough to make sense (both within and between speakers). All group members
speak, and some use clear and appropriate language. (13-14 marks

UNACCEPTABLE Presentation is of poor quality, with lack of logical sequence. Lack of integration
() across speakers. Little to no evidence of planning and collaboration, or not all
members speak. (<13 marks)
19109596 script.docx
ORIGINALITY REPORT

% 12
SIMILARIT Y INDEX
% 9
INT ERNET SOURCES
% 0
PUBLICAT IONS
% 11
ST UDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
achieveiconic.com
Int ernet Source % 3
2
Submitted to Monash University
St udent Paper % 1
3
Submitted to Associatie K.U.Leuven
St udent Paper % 1
4
Submitted to Yosemite Community College
District
% 1
St udent Paper

5
Submitted to Institute of Graduate Studies,
UiTM
% 1
St udent Paper

6
Submitted to University of Sussex
St udent Paper % 1
7
Submitted to University of Sydney
St udent Paper % 1
8
Submitted to Laureate Higher Education Group
St udent Paper % 1
9
Submitted to Middlesex University
St udent Paper % 1
10
espace.library.uq.edu.au
Int ernet Source % 1
11
vikingdays.com
Int ernet Source % 1
12
Submitted to American Public University
System
<%1
St udent Paper

13
davidkramer.wordpress.com
Int ernet Source <%1
14
gdesklet.gnome.com
Int ernet Source <%1
15
Submitted to CSU Northridge
St udent Paper <%1

EXCLUDE QUOT ES OFF EXCLUDE MAT CHES OFF

EXCLUDE OFF
BIBLIOGRAPHY