UC 9181 CMA 362 Strategic Management Assessment Criteria for Assessment 3 S2,2014

Student Name (s) ID(s) Company

High Distinction
Exceptional 80-100 / Distinction
Excellent 70-79 / Credit
Above av. 60-69 / Pass
50-59 / Fail
0-49
Understanding and application of theory and processes
/ 3 marks / Evidence of comprehensive knowledge and understanding; masterful application of relevant skills and academic ability. / Evidence of very good level of knowledge and understanding, very good application of relevant skills and academic ability / Evidence of good knowledge and understanding, good application of relevant skills and academic ability / Evidence of adequate knowledge and understanding; satisfactory application of relevant skills and academic ability; / Insufficient evidence of knowledge, understanding and skills, and/or academic ability
Identification of what parts need to change when implementing the strategies
/ 1 marks / Outstanding coverage of which parts of the company need to change / Detailed coverage of which parts of the company needs to change / Creditable coverage of which parts of the company needs to change / Addresses most areas of the company that need to change / Inadequate or very limited identification of which parts of the company needs to change
Structure, Culture Reward system; leadership style related to implementing strategies
/ 4.5 marks / Outstanding coverage of what needs to change related to structure, culture, reward systems, leadership style, and presented new ones expertly. Very clear justification supported by a wide range of references. / Detailed coverage of what needs to change related to structure, culture, reward systems, leadership style and presented new ones excellently. Very good justification supported by a range of references / Creditable coverage of what needs related to change structure, culture, reward systems, leadership style and presented some new ones. Reasonable justification supported by references / Addresses most areas that need to change related to structure, culture, reward systems, leadership style and presented adequate new ones. Limited or no justification given. / Inadequate or very limited identification of what needs to change related to structure, culture, reward systems, leadership style but no new aspects presented. No justification given.
Systems, Skills, and Staff related to implementation of strategies,
/ 4.5 marks / Outstanding coverage of what needs to change related to systems, skills, and staff and presented new ones expertly. Very clear justification supported by a wide range of references. / Detailed coverage of what needs to change related to systems, skills, and staff and presented new ones. Very good justification supported by a range of references / Creditable coverage of what needs related to change systems, skills, and staff and presented new ones. Reasonable justification supported by references / Addresses most areas that need to change related to systems, skills, and staff and presented adequate new. Limited or no justification given. / Inadequate or very limited identification of what needs to change related to systems, skills, and staff but no new aspects presented. No justification given.
Monitoring and control required to implement the strategies
/ 2 marks / Outstanding coverage of the methods that could be used to monitor and control implementation. Expert justification of recommended methods supported by a wide range of academic references. / Comprehensive coverage of the methods that could be used to monitor and control implementation. Very good justification of recommended methods supported by a range of references. / Creditable coverage of the methods that could be used to monitor and control implementation. Reasonable justification of recommended methods supported by academic references / Addresses the recommended methods to monitor and control. Limited or no justification given. / Inadequate or very limited recommended methods to monitor and control. No justification given.
Specific Issues related to Implementation of the strategies
/ 3 marks / Outstanding discussion on the issues that must be considered including stakeholder reaction. Expertly supported by a wide range of academic references. / Comprehensive discussion on the issues that must be considered including stakeholder reaction. Excellently supported by a range of references. / Creditable discussion on the issues that must be considered including stakeholder reaction. Creditably supported by academic references / Addresses most of the issues that must be considered including stakeholder reaction. Limited or no support given. / Inadequate or very limited discussion on the issues that must be considered including stakeholder reaction. No support given.
Methods of evaluation; Developing responses to evaluation results
/ 3 marks / Outstanding discussion on possible methods of evaluating strategies and responses; Suitable methods recommended and exceptional responses developed. Expertly supported by a wide range of academic references. / Comprehensive discussion on possible methods of evaluating strategies and responses to the evaluation. Very good method recommended and justified; Excellent responses developed supported by academic references / Creditable discussion on possible methods of evaluating strategies and responses to evaluation.
Good method recommended and justified; Responses developed supported by academic references / Discussed some methods of evaluating strategies and responses; Acceptable method recommended but with limited justification; Passable responses developed supported by textbook reference. / Possible methods of evaluating strategies or responses to the evaluation not identified. Poor or no method recommended and no justification; Inadequate responses developed or not supported.
Analysis and application of external and internal information
/ 3 marks / Outstanding research and analysis of all parts external and internal situations. Sophisticated conclusions made about the external and internal situations. / Excellent research and analysis of all parts external and internal situations. Good conclusions made about the external and internal situations. / Some good research and analysis of all parts external and internal situations. Accurate conclusions made about these situations / Basic research and analysis of most parts external and internal situations. Limited conclusions made about these situations. / Inadequate or limited research done. No or inaccurate analysis of all parts external and internal situation. No conclusions made about these situations.
Discussion and range of tools and theories used in this assignment
……/3 marks / Outstanding debate on all the theories and tools used, well supported by a wide range of academic sources. / Discussion clearly and accurately evaluates the appropriateness of the tools and theories with substantial use of references to support discussion / Discussion clearly and accurately debates the appropriateness of the models and tools. Some references used to support discussion. / Discussion is accurate and / or adequate; fair justification provided for the theories and tools. Limited use of references to support discussion/debate. / Discussion is inaccurate and /or inadequate, with no/limited justification of appropriateness the theories and tools. No/too few academic references used to support discussion/debate.
Report Structure, referencing, spelling
/ 3 marks / Outstanding standard.
Demonstrates a high level of expertise at writing a report. No errors. Exceeds requirement for appropriate citations and references. Exemplary use of Harvard referencing style both in-text and reference list. / Very good standard. Clear expression, accurate spelling and punctuation, citations are used throughout the report to support points made. Reference list reflects excellent citations and follows Harvard referencing style accurately / Good standard. Grammar, spelling and punctuation are accurate. Writing style is clear. Referencing is of a good standard both in-text and the reference list and follows Harvard referencing style mostly. / Satisfactory standard. Some spelling, grammar errors. Adequate writing style. Referencing is adequate in-text and in the reference list and Harvard referencing style attempted. / Unsatisfactory standard. Very poor in-text referencing. Poor or no reference list. Many spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. Unclear writing style.

Total /30

Comments: