Strategic Issue Identification.
(5 Marks)
|
Unable to identify a strategic issue. Analysis presented in the case report is incomplete or irrelevant; presents little if any analysis in important areas. Favours description over analysis. No strategic issues justified or reasons for the choice on an issue very unclear.
|
Can identify a strategic issue but lacks capacity to justify and fully explain how and why it is important to continued competitive success. Adequately analyses information relating to case report with only minor inconsistencies, irrelevancies, or omissions. Lists strategic issues but requires further stronger links to the analysis undertaken.
|
Clearly identifies a strategic issue and justifies and explains how and why addressing that issue is crucial to continued competitive success. Complete and comprehensive information presented with extended relevant analysis undertaken.
|
Identifies & evaluates the key elements in business strategy in a competitive market.
(5 Marks)
|
Management strategy is not identified, or understood, in significant respects; description of important characteristics of the, market, marketing, and strategic positioning strategy is vague and lacking detail.
|
Management strategy is outlined, but less than fully evaluated; the report summarises and describes, but is missing key relevant specifics regarding the business management strategy and value proposition. Some understanding of the key external/internal elements of competitive success in a changing industry and market context.
|
Clearly outlines and evaluates the reasons for the change in competitive performance identifying key internal/external/intrapreneurial elements in the revival. Insightful analysis of industry/market position, strategic resources and capabilities and overall strategy for revival of the business model.
|
Ability to identify & evaluate 1-2 options to address strategic issues facing the business
(5 Marks)
|
Presents few solutions, or options in the case report; solutions, or strategies are inconsistent; ideas are presented in a vague or rudimentary manner.
|
Presents solutions/options, alternatives, or strategies that are logical and consistent with the evidence.
|
Effectively applies appropriate measures, and/or strategic concepts in justifying solutions/options in the case report. Solutions, alternatives, are clear based on evidence.
|
Final Recommendations & Justification
(5 marks)
|
Final Recommendations or options not made or explained.
|
Basic final recommendations but with some gaps in supporting explanation on link to competitive advantage.
|
Comprehensive and sound final recommendations supported with a clear explanation on the link to competitive advantage.
|
Range and use of information/ scholarly sources used to develop the report including scholarly sources. Sources cited.
(5 marks)
|
Uses a very limited range of sources with limited or no citations.
|
Uses a large range of sources including texts, company and news reports. Sources and citations identified.
|
Uses an extensive range of texts from company reports, journals, books, magazines/ newspapers and internet sources. All sources are cited in-text and end-text.
|
Overall report style (e.g. easy to read, good flow of thoughts, interesting and well written) and layout. Referencing Standards are correct.
(5 Marks)
|
Basic report with no reader engagement. There is no obvious logic and it is hard to read. Limited citation and inaccurate referencing. Relies on other’s ideas or secondary sources too heavily.
|
Report creates some interest and provides some insights and logic with a basic structure. Some use of in-text and end-text citations and limited errors. Tends to restate and describe in parts as opposed to original analysis support with data.
|
Report is well laid out and has logical flow of thoughts, is well structured and easy to read. Accurate referencing with in-text and end-text citations. Use of sources is to evidential support for own original arguments.
|