MGT5ARPAssessment 2 Case Study - Short Report Format - Criteria Rubric – Weighting: 35%
Student Name: / Student ID / Total: /35N 49 or less% / D 50-59% / C 60-69% / B 70-79% / A 80-100% / Your Score
Introduction (10) / No clear purpose, scope or limitations or identification of the case study; No diagnostic process to analyse the performance in the organisational case.
No clear organisation/order of all sections of the report. / Basic outline of purpose, scope and limitations;
Basic outline of case study and diagnostic processto analyse the performance in the organisational case.
Reasonable organisation/order of each section of the report. / Clear and concise purpose, scope and limitations;
Good descriptionof case study relative to the diagnostic process– well identified areas relevant to the performance in the case study organisation;
Succinct organisation/order of each section of the report. / Clear and purposeful outline of purpose, scope and limitations;
Advanced description of case study relative to the diagnostic process– well identified areas relevant to the performance in the case study organisation;Clear and concise organisation/order of each section of the report. / Excellent outline of purpose, scope and limitations;
Excellent description of case study relative to the diagnostic process– well identified areas relevant to the performance in the case study organisation;
Outstanding organisation/order of each section of the report.
0-4.5 / 5-5.5 / 6-6.5 / 7-7.5 / 8-10
Diagnostic Process of analysing the case study
and the evident approaches to performance management systems and practices in the Case Study (40) / No evidence of evaluating the approaches to performance management systems and practices;
No summary of main theories and concepts;
No critical analysis of the literature. / Basic ideas formulated and linked to approaches to performance management systems and practices;
Fundamental theories and concepts summarised.
Simple analysis of the literature. / Ability to conceptualise and then apply and basically evaluate concepts and theories relative to performance management systems and practices;
Evidence of critical analysis. / Clear and concise ideas well evaluated and linked to performance management systems and practices;
Evidence of comprehensive critical analysis. / Report expertly outlines the area for analysis and the performance management systems and practice approaches in the case study;
High level of interpretative and analytical ability to critically analyse literature.
0-19.5 / 20-23.5 / 24-27.5 / 28-31.5 / 32-40
Comparison of at least two performance management system and practicesfor the Case Study. Argue for one performance management system or a hybrid of two or more performance systems (20) / No demonstrated ability to compare or build performance tools/measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case.Little to no evidence of literature support. / Demonstrates basic ability tocompare or build performance tools/measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case.
Basic evidence of literature support. / Demonstrates consistent ability to compare or develop useful performance tools/measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case.
Evidence of beyond minimum literature support. / Demonstrates thoroughly consistent ability to compare and develop valuable performance tools/measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case.
Extensive literature support. / Demonstrates outstanding ability tocompare and develop highly functional and valuable performance tools/measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case.
Highly interpretative literature support.
0-9.5 / 10-11.5 / 12-13.5 / 14-15.5 / 16-20
Conclusion and recommendation of performance management system and practicesto be implemented at the case study organisation (10) / Conclusion does not summarise the report;
No clear recommendations or solutions – not linked to performance management / Reasonably clear summary of the report relative to performance management; Basic argument and recommendations for the best performance approaches/tools/measures for the case study organisation. / Above average ability to summarise the report relative to performance management;
Sound argument and recommendations for the best performance approaches/tools/measures for the case study organisation. / Ability to make sound evaluation of the report relative to performance management;
Good ability to argue and make sound recommendations for the best performance approaches/tools/measures for the case study organisation. / An insightful and comprehensive summary of the report relative to performance management;
Outstanding capacity to argue and make recommendations for the best performance approaches/tools/measures for the case study organisation.
0-4.5 / 5-5.5 / 6-6.5 / 7-7.5 / 8-10
Research and Referencing (10) / Inadequate reading and research – less than 15contemporary (beyond 2007)refereed journal articles;
Research is evident but is inappropriate or irrelevant;
Numerous referencing errors throughout the document and the reference list. / Minimal reading and research – basic 15 contemporary (beyond 2007) refereed journal articles;
Limited use of relevant research, demonstrating little engagement with literature;
Average and sometimes inconsistent application of referencing with some errors throughout the document and the reference list. / Reading and research beyond set minimum.
Use of relevant research to support findings;
Reasonable application of referencing throughout the document and the reference list. / Evidence of wide reading and research;
Evidence of critical and analytical use of relevant literature;
Good application of referencing throughout the document and the reference list. / Evidence of extensive reading and research;
Relevant literature used critically and analytically, presenting a balance of perspectives
Excellent application of referencing throughout the document and the reference list.
0-4.5 / 5-5.5 / 6-6.5 / 7-7.5 / 8-10
Report Format, Clarity, Presentation and Proof-reading (10) / No use of formal short report style;
Inadequate application of academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic;
Unacceptable level of grammar, punctuation and or spelling. / Presentation adequate, but not fully consistent with appropriate academic/ short report style;
Adequate application of academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic;
Some errors in grammar, punctuation and/or spelling. / Presentation consistent with academic/short report style;
Good application of academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic;
Generally, good grammar, punctuation and spelling. / Presentation thoroughly consistent with academic/short report style;
Consistent application of academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic;
Very accurate grammar, punctuation and spelling. / Outstanding presentation thoroughly consistent with high standards in writing academic/short report style;
High facility with academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic;
Comprehensively accurate grammar, punctuation and spelling.
0-4.5 / 5-5.5 / 6-6.5 / 7-7.5 / 8-10
Use the following to check that you have refereed journal articles -
The site can be used with the LTU License on campus but not always accessible off campus.