BUSI1633-Final-report-assessment criteria and rubric
Criteria for Assessment
Subject - 40%
Understanding of the subject of
strategy, relevant concepts and
main tools for conducting a
strategic appraisal of an
organisation
Synthesis – 30%
Appropriate use of the case
study and relevant literature to
support strategic analysis
Structure – 20%
Report is written in coherent
Standard English, is well
structured and well presented in
an appropriate academic style.
Referencing – 10%
Report should have good and
appropriate quantity and quality
of sources and correct Harvard
referencing.
80-100 Exceptional
Exceptional systematic
understanding of strategy tools.
Exceptional acquisition of
coherent and detailed knowledge
through which strategic position
of an organisation and sources of
its competitiveness are critically
analysed. There is exceptional
evidence of engagement with the
key concepts (strategy, strategic
purpose, competitive advantage)
Profound understanding of the
case study and an exceptional
ability to integrate it into the
analysis. A wide range of current
and appropriate
literature is presented to support
strong arguments. Exceptional
ability to synthesise diverse
sources including academic and
relevant non-academic sources.
This report is exceptionally well
structured and organised. The
written English is of an extremely
high standard and observes all
academic conventions in style
and content. The report flows
exceptionally well and is a
pleasure to read.
All sources are high-quality
academic sources. Sources
employed are, without
exception, acknowledged in the
text and the reference list, using
correct citation – including
online sources. Follows an
exceptionally strongly
professional approach to
academic practice. The reference
list is also exceptional in its
breadth and depth.
70-79 Excellent
Excellent systematic
understanding of strategy
tools. Excellent acquisition of
coherent and detailed
knowledge through which the
strategic position of an
organisation and sources of its
competitiveness are critically
analysed. There is excellent
evidence of engagement with
the key concepts.
Deep understanding of the case
study and a strong ability to
integrate it into the analysis. A
wide range of current and
appropriate
literature is presented to
support strong arguments.
Excellent ability to synthesise
diverse sources including
academic and relevant non-
academic ones and integrate
those into the discussion.
Excellent structure and very
well organised ideas. The
written English is of a very high
standard and the work
observes all academic
conventions in style and
content. Excellent flow, style
and format.
All sources are good-quality
acadmic sources. Sources
employed are all acknowledged
in the text and the reference
list, using correct citation –
including online sources.
Follows an excellent,
professional approach to
academic practice. The
reference list is also excellent in
its breadth and depth.
60-69 Very Good
Very good systematic
understanding of the subject.
Coherent and detailed knowledge
of strategy tools which are
presented at a very good level
and a strong ability to draw
implications is demonstrated.
There is also very good evidence
of engagement with the key
concepts.
Good understanding of the case
study and an ability to use it for
conducting the analysis. A very
good range of appropriate
literature is used. There is also
evidence of integrating diverse
sources to support the
discussion.
A very good structure – with
clear presentation and
organisation of ideas. The work
observes almost all academic
conventions in style, content and
is presented well, mostly using
Standard English throughout.
The majority of this work uses a
style which flows well.
Most sources are very good
quality sources, with at least 10
are books and academic peer-
reviewed articles. Sources used
are almost all acknowledged in
the text and the reference list,
mostly using correct citation –
including most online sources. A
very good approach to academic
practice. The reference list is very
good in its breadth and depth.
50-59 Good
Good systematic understanding
of the subject. Detailed
knowledge of most strategy tools
which are presented at fairly
good level and an ability to draw
implications is demonstrated.
There is also good evidence of
engagement with all key
elements, with some omissions in
detail.
Overall good understanding of
the case study and using its
elements for conducting the
analysis. There is some evidence
of employing diverse sources to
support the discussion.
A good structure for the most
part. The work observes many
academic conventions in style
and content and is mostly
presented in Standard English,
with some errors and omissions.
Some sentence and/or paragraph
structure also needs revision and
this can affect the flow of the
work in places.
Sources is not always correctly
referenced within the text and/or
reference list. Almost all texts are
included in the reference list and
a good number of sources is
used.
40-49 Satisfactory
Demonstrate a satisfactory level
of understanding the subject
but it is less systematic and
provides a description rather
than an analysis. There is
limited evidence of engagement
with the key concepts. Overall a
satisfactory attempt to apply
strategy tools and draw
implications.
Satisfactory reference is made
to the case study and
background reading, but it is
limited in nature and draws on
a restricted number of authors
and/or draws on unreliable
sources. Insufficient attempt to
support the discussion.
The structure is satisfactory
overall but does need
improvement. Many errors
appear in the use of Standard
English (possibly due to poor
proof reading). Paragraphs are
not structured well and/or
organisation needs to be
structured better. The work
does not flow well in several
places and this affects clarity
The report includes citations
within the main body and has a
reference list. However, this
referencing is often inaccurate
and/or there are several
omissions. The work uses a
limited number of sources
and/or over relies on e-sources.
30-39 Fail
Confusion about the subject
itself, main frameworks and
tools and/or some omissions.
Little evidence of analysis is
provided.
There is insufficient evidence
of engagement with each key
concept.
There is a clear lack of
criticality needed at level 6.
There is a failure to engage
with the case study and/or
enough relevant literature. You
need to pay closer attention to
the case study text and read
much more widely about a
researched organisation, as
well as the subject of strategy.
Little structure and the work is
hampered by errors in
Standard English. It lacks
academic style and does not
flow well. Further proof-
reading clearly needed and
additional support for
academic writing.
The student should refer
themselves to student services
for additional support in their
writing.
The reference list has many
errors in its layout. Many
references in the main text are
incomplete or incorrect and
may be missing from the list of
references. Overall referencing
and citation skills require
significant improvement.
0-29 Fail 0 Fail
Confusion about the subject itself, Extremely poor quality
main frameworks and tools with and/or not meeting the
many omissions. criterion
Unacceptable lack of evidence of
any analysis.
Key concepts are omitted or
discussed too briefly. There is no
evidence of criticality needed at
level 6.
There is almost no evidence of Extremely poor quality
engagement with the case study and/or not meeting the
and/or relevant background criterion
reading. You need to spend time
researching and engaging with
module materials to develop an
understanding into the subject.
No structure presented and the Extremely poor quality
assessment includes a significant and/or not meeting the
number of errors in Standard criterion
English. It lacks academic-style
and this impedes flow. Further
proof- reading clearly needed and
additional support for academic
writing.
The student should refer
themselves to student services for
additional support in their writing.
The assignment lacks a reference Missing
list or it is incorrectly laid out.
Referencing system within the
report (i.e. Harvard) has not been
followed and further support with
this is strongly recommended.