| Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the above criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated. Assignment Assessment Criteria (70-100%) Work of an outstanding, excellent & v. good standard (*) (60-69%) Work of a good standard. (50-59%) Work of a pass standard. D (40-49%) Fail E (0-39%) Fail Executive Summary (10%) A critical overview with the help of Executive Summary. Bring out relevant authors, rival theories, and major debates to a very good, possibly excellent (even outstanding) standard. References beyond those identified in session sources. A synthesized overview of the Executive Summary, where good use of existing academic work and evaluation of main work is given out coherently. Some review of relevant authors, rival theories, and major debates. A reasonable overview of the Executive Summary, where satisfactory summary is given of the whole produced work. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors & major debates are presented. Evidence of suitable basic reading. Limited overview of Executive Summary. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited presentation of the whole summary. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered. Confused overview of Executive Summary. Fundamental misconceptions of how to write an Executive Summary. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of summary requirements. Introduction (15%) Introduction should explicitly bring out relevant details necessary to understand the context of strategic management practices in the organization. The business scenario paints a clear picture of current situation using facts and figure or related information from academic and non-academic sources where necessary. Introduction should bring out good relevant details necessary to understand the context of strategic management practices in the organization. The current company details discussed in the context of the strategic management. focus. The business scenario clearly described using adequate terminology. Some external sources (academic or non-academic) referenced and included to support discussion. Introduction should bring out satisfactorily the local, national, and regional context of strategic management practices in the organization. The current company details discussed in the context of the strategic management. focus. The business scenario described but has gaps. External sources (academic or non-academic) not included or poorly used. Introduction is not satisfactorily bringing out the internal and external context of strategic management practices in the organization. The current company details are not discussed in the context of the strategic management. focus. The business scenario has not been adequately described. External sources (academic or non-academic) not evidenced or minimal. Poor/insufficient use of facts and figures observed. Too few references to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought and/ or criticality. Introduction is very sketchy and does not satisfactorily bring out the vision, mission, employee size, revenues and other information required to understand the organization in the context of strategic management practices in the organization at all. Environmental Analysis and need for change (15%) Demonstrate ability to accurately apply relevant tools and frameworks to analyze and identify the various factors that have a significant influence on the organization. Has critically analyzed the factors in the external environment and evaluate their impact in the relevant business context. Demonstrates a critical understanding of how the environmental factors can have a significant effect on the strategic management process. Strategy, organizational design and lifecycle and its effect on Organizational performance accurately identified and discussed. Demonstrates excellent analytical ability. The key factors identified effectively. Demonstrates a good understanding of frameworks and tools from academic resources. Good analysis done well in respect to application of relevant strategic management frameworks. Examples of effective use of academic frameworks in order to analyse the case scenario. Examples of sound argument and logical interpretation. Strategy, organizational design and lifecycle and its effect on Organizational performance discussed Demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of environmental analyses framework and tools for analysis. Some analysis done in respect to application of relevant models, tools, and frameworks. The work is mainly descriptive but has achieved all the performance criteria. Some mention of Strategy, organizational design and lifecycle and its effect on Organizational performance but not very accurate or insightful. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal and descriptive interpretation of the tools and frameworks and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. A superficial and routine description of the factors some of which may not be logical or accurate. Strategy, organizational design and lifecycle and its effect on Organizational performance mentioned but not very accurate and superficially discussed. Fundamental misconceptions /lack of knowledge of the tools and frameworks used in analyzing the environment Limited analysis of a superficial nature only lacks any attempt at analysis, relying on description instead. Strategy, organizational design and lifecycle and its effect on Organizational performance not included in adequate detail. Strategy Identification and implementation (25%) Has conducted a detailed and accurate interpretation of the situation. Demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of the concepts and techniques for strategy formulation. The discussion, analysis and interpretation demonstrate excellent knowledge of the strategic management process and ability to formulate and evaluate strategies and consequences well thought out and addressed in detail. A detailed, logical implementation plan with an excellent understanding of the change management principles has been evidenced. The work demonstrates a good level of understanding of the situation/business scenario. Relevant concepts and theories have been utilized in the formulation. Some meaningful evaluation of the strategies within the context described. Fairly elaborate and in-depth with the different factors considered for implementation and the consequences identified and discussed. A fir use of change management principles and understanding of it evidenced. The work demonstrates a competence to apply the tools for analyses and adequately the various factors and interpret them to formulate suitable strategies in context of the business scenario described. Has some awareness and has reflected on the factors identified as well as consequences Some helpful insights and fairly good knowledge on the application of change management principles. There may be little evidence of an ability to come up with sound strategy and chart out a proper implementation plan. Formulated strategies not very related to the scenario or lacking in understanding of core issues to be resolved. Implementation plan and discussion primarily superficial and lacking in depth and adequate logic. Does not show awareness of the possible outcomes and lack a good understanding of the change management principles observed. No application of principle and concepts in the strategic management module. Strategy devised Primarily based on wrong or faulty assumptions Conclusions and interpretations of the tools confused or illogical and unsubstantiated. Implementation and understanding of change management either superficial or lacking. Possibly no real attempt to address the consequences and contemplation of the strategy or its outcomes. Leadership Styles & Org Performance (20 marks) Demonstrates a clear understanding of literature reviewed from good academic resources, peer reviewed articles and journals. Critical analysis done well in respect to application of relevant concepts and theories with adequate examples Clear evidence of independent thought and very effective use of academic frameworks in order to analyze, evaluate the relationships. There is a synthesis of the various insights. Demonstrates a good understanding of literature reviewed from academic resources. Good analysis done well in respect to application of relevant leadership styles and the relation to organizational performance. Examples of effective use of academic frameworks in order to analyze the relationship observed. Examples of sound argument and solid evidence. Demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of literature reviewed from academic resources. Some analysis done in respect to application of leadership styles to Organizational performance. The work explores and analyses issues but is not strong on the critical reflection and is mainly descriptive, Overall, it has the component and elements required to meet the performance criteria. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation of the literature, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. Recommendations (5 marks) Well-organised, logical, fully supported by evidence, recommendations clear and arise from results/discussion; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of issues. Very well-articulated recommendations of changes envisaged, and the corporate values incorporated to implement the changes. Well-organised, logical, supported by evidence, recommendations fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of assumptions and limitations of the strategy. The discussion is well articulated as recommendations of changes envisaged and the corporate values incorporated to implement the changes. Reasonably well-organised, logical, generally supported by evidence, recommendations fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; practical and feasible, with unclear or weak consideration of assumptions and limitations of the strategy identified. Recommendations of changes envisaged, and the corporate values incorporated to implement the changes just brought out satisfactorily. Poor organisation; gaps in reasoning; some obvious recommendations omitted for the list; other conclusions not especially driven by the findings but from ‘common sense’. No real implications and reflection on the recommendations of changes envisaged and the corporate values incorporated to implement the changes. Assertions little related to evidence, frequently illogical or arbitrary; recommendations if presented are disorganized; alternatives not considered; no real understanding of the need to draw conclusions, implications, and recommendations from results. Very poorly brought out recommendations of changes and the corporate values incorporated to implement the changes. Conclusion (5%) Well-organized, logical, fully supported by evidence, conclusions clear and arise from results/discussion; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of marketing issues. Recommendations driven by good deductions from findings. Well-organized, logical, supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of marketing issues. Recommendations driven by decent deductions from findings. Reasonably well-organized, logical, generally supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; practical and feasible, with unclear or weak consideration of marketing issues. Recommendations not always driven by good deductions. Poor organization; gaps in reasoning; some obvious conclusions omitted for the list; other conclusions not especially driven by the findings but from ‘common sense’. No real implications and recommendations week and incoherent. Assertions little related to evidence, frequently illogical or arbitrary; conclusions if presented are disorganized; alternatives not considered; no real understanding of the need to draw conclusions, implications, and recommendations from results. Presentation (5%) A balanced, well-structured work, generally coherent in approach. Well-written, well presented and largely free of spelling and/or typographical errors. Breadth of appropriate, current, and relevant references and correct application of the Harvard Referencing Method. A balanced, well-structured work. Overall clear well-written, well presented. Some small, repeated errors in grammar. Good application of Harvard referencing system. Breadth of appropriate, current, and relevant references and almost correct application of the Harvard Referencing. Case is cohesive, but may be hindered by inappropriate balance, structure or writing style. Some small, repeated errors in referencing or grammar. Current and relevant references and correct application of the Harvard Referencing Method. Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address the case requirements overall. Possibly lacking in balance, structure or writing style. Some repeated errors in referencing and/or grammar. Limited use of references. Significant failings in case balance, structure or writing style. Repeated possibly significant errors in referencing and/or grammar. Critical failings in case balance. Possibly lacking in coherence is unstructured and/or is badly presented. |
