You are on page 1of 6

Coursework Assignment Brief

Semester: C16 Summer 2016

Module Code: POG 360

Module Title: Oil and Gas Management Project

Programme BSc (Honours)

Level: Level 6

Awarding Body: Plymouth University

Module Leader Paul Booth

Format: Report

Presentation: No

Any special All work should be submitted as two hard copies with an
requirements: acceptable Turnitin Report

Word Limit: 10,000 words for report and maximum 500 words for
personal statement. (+/- 10%)

Deadline date for TBA


Learning outcomes  Provide a detailed analysis of the policies designed

to be examined in to achieve stated corporate objectives of one or
this assessment more organisation in the oil and gas industry, and
(please note that an examination of the problems related to resource
acquisition and deployment relevant to those
this is NOT the
assessment task)  Provide a relevant literature review on the problems
investigated and relate current management theory
to practical recommendations.
 Demonstrate a lucid and logic discourse containing
objectives of the project, methodology, relevant
literature review, recommendations for action,
appropriate references and bibliography.
 Demonstrate the elements of autonomy, personal
responsibility and critical analysis and evaluation
 Break down a project proposal into component
parts and construct a time and cost constrained
project plan towards its completion

Page 1 of 6
 Reflecting on Personal Development Planning
Percentage of This assignment is worth 100% of the total marks for the
marks awarded for module

Assessment criteria Explanatory comments on the Maximum marks

assessment criteria for each section

Aims of research Clearly defined objectives/research 10%

questions relevant to aim. Clear focus on
aims / objectives maintained throughout.
If appropriate, hypotheses defined and

Literature review Thorough review of appropriate (20%)

secondary sources; relationship between
the literature and the project explored
(i.e. justification is linked to literature)

Research Explanation and justification of an (20%)

methodology appropriate methodology – approach and
data collection techniques appropriate to
aims and research questions.

Data Analysis Appropriate analysis of data in the light of (10%)

the research objectives and questions.
Clear and analytical presentation of

Discussion - Results discussed, highlighting (10%)

significant findings and comparing theory
& practice where appropriate

Conclusions / Based on a reasonable interpretation of (10%)

recommendations both the research conducted and the
existing literature.

Critical evaluation Critical evaluation of own work. Areas for (5%)

further research identified and discussed.

Overall layout and Presentation is of an acceptable (5%)

standard, logical and adds value to the
document. Appropriate structure.

Reflection Reflection on programme is detailed and (10%)


Page 2 of 6


Assignment Task
1. Analyse one or more strategic problems in the oil and gas industries and produce a
comprehensive report detailing the objectives, methodologies, findings, analysis,
and conclusions of the research carried out above. The word length for the report
is 10,000 words.

2. Analyse the extent to which you have developed your knowledge, throughout the
course and how the course and this project has helped your employability. This
should be summarised as a personal statement of no more than 500 words and
placed in an appendix to the main document.

Total Marks for Assignment: 100

Page 3 of 6
Indicative Content
Aims of research
Define objectives/research questions relevant to aim. Maintain focus on aims/objectives
throughout. Define and explain hypotheses.
(Worth 10% of marks)
Literature review
Conduct thorough review of appropriate secondary sources. Critically explore relationship
between the literature and the project.
(Worth 20% of marks)
Research methodology
Explain and justify an appropriate methodology – approach and data collection techniques
appropriate to aims and research questions.
(Worth 20% of marks)
Data Analysis
Analysis of data in the light of the research objectives and questions. Analytical
presentation of findings.
(Worth 10% of marks)
Discuss results highlighting significant findings and comparing theory & practice
(Worth 10% of marks)
Conclusions / recommendations
Formulate conclusions and recommendations based on interpretation of both the research
conducted and the existing literature.
(Worth 10% of marks)
Critical evaluation
Critically evaluate work. Identify and discuss areas for further research.
(Worth 5% of marks)
Present work to an acceptable standard that is logical and adds value to the document.
(Worth 5% of marks)
Reflect in a detailed and insightful manner.
(Worth 10% of marks)

Page 4 of 6
Marking Criteria for Assessment at Level 6 (Bachelors Degree with Honours)
rd st st
Marks 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3 ) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1 ) 70-85 (1 )
Major gaps in Gaps in knowledge, Threshold level. Systematic Good understanding Excellent knowledge Highly detailed
Knowledge & knowledge and with only superficial Understanding of understanding of of the field(s) of and understanding of knowledge and
Understanding understanding of understanding. key aspects of field field(s) of study, as study; coherent the main concepts understanding of the
of Subject material at this Some significant of study; coherent indicated by knowledge, in line and key theories/ main theories/concepts
level. Substantial inaccuracies. knowledge, at least relevant QAA with subject concepts of the of the discipline(s), and
inaccuracies. in part informed by subject benchmark benchmark, at least in discipline(s). Clear an awareness of the
current research in statements for the part informed by awareness of the ambiguities and
the subject degree programme. current research in limitations of the limitations of
discipline. the subject discipline. knowledge base. knowledge.
Unsubstantiated Some evidence of Threshold level. Evidence of some Sound, logical, Thoroughly logical Exceptional work;
Cognitive/ generalizations, analytical Evidence of some logical, analytical analytical thinking; work, supported by judiciously selected
Intellectual made without use intellectual skills, logical, analytical thinking and synthesis and judiciously selected and evaluated
Skills of any credible but for the most thinking and some synthesis. Can evaluation. Ability to and evaluated evidence. Very high
evidence. Lack of part descriptive. attempts to analyse new and/or devise and sustain evidence. High quality quality analysis,
(e.g. analysis logic, leading to Ideas/findings synthesise, albeit abstract data and persuasive analysis, developed developed
and synthesis; unsupportable/ sometimes illogical with some situations without arguments, and to independently or independently or
logic and missing and contradictory. weaknesses. guidance. review the reliability, through effective through effective
argument; conclusions. Generalized Some evidence to An emerging validity & significance collaboration.. collaboration.
analytical Lack of any statements made support findings/ awareness of of evidence. Ability to Ability to investigate Ability to investigate
reflection; attempt to with scant views, but evidence different stances communicate ideas contradictory contradictory
organisation and analyse, evidence. not consistently and ability to use and evidence information and information and identify
communication synthesise or Conclusions lack interpreted. evidence to support accurately and identify reasons for reasons for
of ideas and evaluate. Poor relevance. Some relevant the argument. convincingly. contradictions. contradictions.
evidence) communication of conclusions Valid conclusions Sound, convincing Strong conclusions. Highly persuasive
ideas. conclusions. conclusions.
Little evidence of Evidence of little Threshold level. Knowledge, Knowledge, analysis Excellent knowledge Outstanding knowledge
Use of reading. reading and/or of References to a analysis and and evaluation of a of research informed of research-informed
Research- Views and reliance on range of relevant evaluation of a range of research- literature embedded literature embedded in
informed findings inappropriate sources. Some range of research- informed literature, in the work. the work. Consistent
Literature unsupported and sources, and/or omissions and informed literature, including sources Consistent analysis analysis and evaluation
(including non-authoritative. indiscriminate use minor errors. including sources retrieved, analysed and evaluation of of sources. High-level
referencing, Academic of sources. Academic retrieved, analysed independently with sources. High-level academic skills
appropriate conventions Academic conventions independently. accuracy and academic skills consistently and
academic largely ignored. conventions used evident and largely Academic skills assurance. Good consistently applied. professionally applied.
conventions and inconsistently. consistent, with consistently academic skills,
academic minor lapses. applied. consistently applied.

Page 5 of 6
LEVEL 6 cont… Little or no Limited evidence of Research skills: Research skills: Research skills: Research skills: Research skills:
evidence of the the graduate skills Can competently Can competently Can successfully Can very successfully Exceptionally
Graduate Skills required skills in identified in the undertake undertake complete a range of complete a range of successful in a wide
for Life and any of the programme reasonably reasonably research-like tasks, research-like tasks, range of research-like
Employment graduate skills specification. straightforward straightforward including evaluation, including evaluation, tasks, including
identified in the Significant research tasks with research tasks with with very limited with a significant evaluation, with a high
(e.g. research- programme weaknesses minimum guidance, minimum guidance external guidance. degree of autonomy. degree of autonomy
related skills; specification at evident, which but with minor Can communicate Can communicate Can communicate Can communicate
written, graphical this level. suggest that the weaknesses. effectively in a well, confidently and professionally and with an exceptionally
and oral candidate has not Can communicate range of formats, consistently in a confidently in a range high level of
communication gained the skills in a range of including orally, at range of formats, of formats, at a high professionalism, in a
skills; necessary for formats, including a standard including orally, at a standard appropriate range of formats,
group working; graduate-level orally, at a standard appropriate for standard appropriate for graduate-level including orally,
problem-solving; employment. appropriate for graduate-level for graduate-level employment. appropriate for
practical and graduate-level employment, and employment. Can work graduate-level
professional skills) employment, and with limited Can consistently professionally employment.
with limited weaknesses. work very well within a team, Can work
weaknesses. Can consistently within a team, showing leadership exceptionally well
Can generally work work effectively leading & negotiating skills as appropriate, and professionally
effectively within within a team, in a professional managing conflict and within a team,
a team, negotiating negotiating in a manner and meeting obligations. showing leadership
in a professional professional managing conflict. Is professional and skills as appropriate,
manner and manner and Is confident and flexible in managing conflict, and
managing conflict. managing conflict. flexible in identifying autonomously meeting all obligations.
Is largely confident Is confident and and defining a range identifying and Is exceptionally
and effective in flexible in of complex defining a range of professional and
identifying and identifying and problems and complex problems flexible in
defining complex defining complex applying knowledge and applying autonomously
problems and problems and and methods to their knowledge and defining and solving
applying knowledge applying knowledge solution. methods to their a range of complex
and methods to and methods to Able to take initiative solution. problems and applying
their solution. their solution. in evaluating own Able to show insight knowledge and
Able to recognise Able to evaluate strengths and and autonomy in methods to their
own strengths own strengths weaknesses in evaluating own solution.
and weaknesses and weaknesses relation to graduate- strengths and Outstanding ability to
in relation to in relation to level professional and weaknesses and evaluate own
graduate graduate practical skills, and developing strengths and
employment, with employment. act autonomously to professional and weaknesses, showing
minor areas of develop new areas of practical skills needed outstanding attributes
weakness. skills as necessary. for graduate-level for graduate-level
employment. employment.
rd st st
Marks for Level 6 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3 ) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1 ) 86-100 (1 )

Page 6 of 6