(Weighting 20%) Project proposal and relevance Clear, well-articulated and realistic project that is relevant and innovative. It encapsulates the ICMS ethos and the student’s own social responsibility philosophy Project clearly identified with some details that are relevant to the course, the student’s career and the ICMS ethos A project is

Criteria 1
(Weighting 20%) Project proposal and relevance Clear, well-articulated and realistic project that is relevant and innovative. It encapsulates the ICMS ethos and the student’s own social responsibility philosophy Project clearly identified with some details that are relevant to the course, the student’s career and the ICMS ethos A project is identified, but there is a lack of cohesion with regard to
its social, ethical or environmental impact and the ICMS ethos, though it appears to be relevant to the student’s career direction The identified project is somewhat limited in its breadth or potential impact and incorporates very limited ethical or
professional considerations The selected project is not relevant to the ethos of ICMS nor to the broader social, environmental and ethical drivers resulting from the course. It is superficially presented with minimal or no links to real-world context
Criteria 2
(Weighting 20 %)
Project implementation plan A project implementation plan exists that is well thought-out, easy to follow and is practical. The plan uses professional planning tools and aligns with the timelines set-out by the group The plan incorporates some aspects of professional planning and is in some places relevant and practical, but lacks a
comprehensive alignment with the realities of the problem being addressed Limited use of project
planning and
implementation
techniques is used. The plan does not contain all the elements required to
assess its
implementation potential A superficial plan is presented with little connection to the resources, timelines or realties of the problem being addressed. It does not employ professional planning approaches and lacks clarity Limited information is provided as the basis for a plan with limited prospects to be evaluated for practical application. There is very limited or no use of professional planning tool and techniques and no apparent in-depth analysis of what is required to achieve the plan’s goals
Criteria 3
(Weighting 20 %) Connection to and impact of the project on the UN
Sustainable
Development
Goals There exists a direct and valid connection between the goals of the project and the UN Sustainable Development Goals exemplified through the targets set by the project A link between the project and the Un Sustainable Development Goals exists, but the targets of the project only partially align to those goals. There is no clarity on how the targets will be met A minor link exists between the project and
the UN Sustainable development goals. The link appears to be superficial and lacks the depth that provides readers with confidence in the project Very limited or no link exists between the project and the UN
Sustainable
Development Goals. The link is not supported by rational targets that are resourced and timed. There is potential for mis-interpretation of the project There is no link between the targets of the project and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The project stands isolated from the ethical, social or environmental imperatives that the UN goals set. The project is superficial in its targets
Criteria 4?
(Weighting 20%) Proposal rationale and argument The proposal is professional and comprehensive in its
articulation of the problem being addressed. It provides clear, meaningful and relevant reasons for the importance of the project and provides the reader with context Arguments supporting the validity of the proposal exist, though some may not be practical or achievable. Some context is provided, but the reader is left to complete the picture through other sources, not from the proposal itself Inconsistent or weak arguments for the rationale for the proposal are used. They do not provide a comprehensive or accurate picture of the state of play regarding the problem being addressed and there is limited or no context Disparate, disconnected statements are made in support of the proposal and its underlying
project, but there is
limited or no evidence that research and consideration have been
given to this rationale,
which may be impractical or irrelevant There is no rationale or argumentation in support of the proposal. The reason for the project and its impact are absent and there is no context for the reader to assess the credibility of the proposal
Criteria 5
(Weighting 20%) Language, format and correctness of spelling and grammar Few, if any errors of punctuation, spelling and format Some typical errors are evident, but overall the writing is correct Several spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors exist in the writing which lacks consistently correct formatting Many spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors exist in the writing. Incorrect
formatting and inconsistent treatment of word usage Very high levels of spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors exist in the writing. Very low level of professional styling in presenting the work and significant inconsistency in the use of words