How Can Analytical Frameworks Improve Strategic Decision-Making in [Your Organisation/Industry]? BUSR401
- Subject Code :
BUSR401
- University :
Australian Institute of Business And Technology Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
- Country :
Australia
Assessment 3
Completion requirements
To do:Make a submission
Due:Thursday, 27 February 2025, 11:55 PM
Weighting:55%
Type:Final project report
Format:Written
Length:4500 words(+10% tolerance) (including 1500 words fromAssessment 2)
Your assessment will be marked according to theAssessment 3 rubric (.pdf)
Instructions
Your final assessment task is to bring your entire research together in your final project report. You will build on Assessments 1 and 2 by addressing and incorporating the feedback that you have received. With the help of the credible academic sources (i.e. journal articles) identified and provided inAssessment 2, you will now write a review of the theories and analytical frameworks section. You will revise and incorporate the feedback received for your secondary data and selected analytical framework section. You will then describe and explain your data analysis and present and explain your findings. Finally, you will critically reflect on your findings, discuss them and the implications, and provide evidence-based recommendations. A succinct executive summary, an introduction and a conclusion section complete your final project report.
Use theFinal Report template (.docx)to write up your final project report and consult theReport structure guide (.pdf). Be sure to incorporate the feedback received from Assessments 1 and 2.
- Introduction
- Introduce your project report. Provide background information about your organisation (or industry) supported by credible sources, the problem or opportunity that you are investigating and the purpose of your research. Briefly mention the theories and analytical frameworks you are reviewing. Briefly introduce your research approach (i.e. the secondary data and the analytical framework to analyse the secondary data). The introduction must be completed with a brief overview of the structure of your report.
- Please ensure that you complete the Reference Source Informationfor each credible academic source used.
- Review of theories and frameworks
2.1. Review of business theories
- Critically examine relevant credible academic sources and briefly review two (2) relevant, narrowed down business theories that are related to your identified problem or opportunity.
- Clearly explain and justify the relevance of the theories reviewed to the problem (or opportunity).
- Please ensure that you complete the Reference Source Informationfor each credible academic source used.
2.2 Review of analytical frameworks
- Critically examine relevant credible academic sources and briefly review two (2) analytical frameworks (methods or tools) that could be applied to investigate your problem or opportunity.
- Making use of the peer-reviewed journal articles, explain the relevance of the analytical frameworks to the problem or opportunity you are investigating (i.e. justify the selection).
- Please ensure that you complete the Reference Source Informationfor each credible academic source used.
- Secondary data and analytical framework (method or tool)
- There are two parts to this section, namely the secondary data and the selected analytical framework that you will be using to analyse the secondary data to investigate your problem or opportunity.
3.1 Secondary data
- Provide a detailed description of secondary data and its sources that you are using for the investigation of the problem or opportunity.
- For each secondary data source, provide in-text citations as per theAIB Style Guide.
- For each secondary data source, explain alignment to the problem or opportunity.
- Briefly discuss limitations and potential biases of utilising secondary data. Support your discussion using at least one credible academic source.
- Tip: We suggest that you use a table to provide the details of your secondary data selection and the alignment to the problem/opportunity you are investigating.
3.2 Selected analytical framework (method or tool)
- Briefly compare the two frameworks (methods or tools) discussed in section 2.2 and select one of the two analytical frameworks to investigate your problem or opportunity. Provide a supported justification for your selection. Explain how the selected analytical framework will be applied to analyse the secondary data provided in section 3.1.
- Tip: We suggest that you use a table to provide details on how the selected analytical framework will be applied to analyse the secondary data provided in section 3.1. Do not analyse the secondary data but rather explain the steps as to how the analysis would be done.
- Analysis and findings
- In this section, you will now apply the analysis of secondary data by making use of your chosen analytical framework (method or tool).
4.1 Analysis
- Critically analyse the secondary data by applying the selected analytical framework (method or tool) as described in section 3.3. Throughout your analysis, you need to make use of and reference the secondary data that you provided in section 3.2. Any tables and figures that you include must be introduced, explained and contextualised. Tables and figures must follow the presentation and referencing guidelines of theAIB Style Guide.
4.2 Findings
- Explain and present the findings of your analysis as they relate to the investigation of your problem or opportunity. Any tables and figures that you include must be introduced, explained and contextualised. Tables and figures must follow the presentation and referencing guidelines of theAIB Style Guide.
- Discussion and implications
- In this section, you will now discuss the findings and describe the implications.
5.1 Discussion of the findings
- Critically discuss your findings related to your investigated problem or opportunity. Link your discussion of the findings to the business theories that you have reviewed in section 2.1.
- Please ensure that you complete the Reference Source Informationfor each credible academic source used.
5.2 Implications
- Based on your findings, describe the implications are for your organisation (or industry), managers and decision makers (if applicable).
- Recommendations
- Based on the discussion and implications of your findings, provide evidence-based (supported by credible academic sources) and achievable recommendations to address the investigated problem or opportunity.
- Please ensure that you complete the Reference Source Informationfor each credible academic source used.
- Conclusions
- Close your project report by briefly summarising your research process and the main findings. Briefly answer the following questions:
- Has the purpose of the research been achieved?
- What contribution have you made?
- What challenges or issues have you identified that remain unresolved?
- Reference Source Information:To be submitted as a separate document
For each credible academic source used (e.g. journal articles or textbooks), the following is required:
- A quote of what you have paraphrased in your report.
- An intext reference including the page number for that quote.
- A description of where you have used this in your assessment.
- Presentation of the credible academic sources in the order in which you used them in your assessment.
For example:
A shadow director is a person who, although not formally a member of a board, is able to exert pressure on the decisions of that board. In many jurisdictions, a shadow director can be held liable as though a legally appointed director of the company (Tricker 2019, p. 105). |
This information was used in the recommendations section of the assessment. |
For further guidance, consult theReference Source Informationentry on the Academic Study Skills site.
Requirements
- This assessment requires you to use a minimum offifteen (15)relevant and credible academic sources.
- You may also use current company, industry, government and media sources to support your statements, but these willNOTcount toward the minimum required credible academic sources for your assessment.
- Most web-based sources are not sufficiently rigorous and credible for use in academic assessments and willNOTcount toward the minimum required credible academic sources for your assessment.
- For further guidance, refer toScholarly, academic & peer-reviewed journals.
- You must appropriately acknowledge all sources of information in your assessment following theAIB Style Guide. This includes the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT. See relevant sections on 'Academic Integrity', 'Generative Artificial Intelligence' and 'Referencing' in theAIB Style GuideandAcademic Policies and Procedures.
- You may need to complete anOrganisation consent form (.docx)if you want to use your organisation's data that is not in the public domain. An authorised member of the organisation must complete this and this should be included as an appendix within your assessment submission.
ASSESSMENT 3 RUBRIC |
||||||
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
|
Introduction Introduces the project report, providing background information about the organisation (or industry), and the problem or opportunity that is investigated. Briefly introduces the theories and frameworks reviewed, the data and method applied. Provides a structure of the remainder of the project report at the end of the introduction. 5% |
Overall, the introduction is highly developed. Background information about the organisation (or industry), the problem or opportunity that is investigated, the theories and frameworks that will be reviewed, the data and method applied are highly developed. Comprehensively supported by highly relevant and credible sources. A very clear structure of the remainder of the project report is provided at the end of the section. |
Overall, the introduction is well- developed. Background information about the organisation (or industry), the problem or opportunity that is investigated, the theories and frameworks that will be reviewed, the data and method applied are well-developed. Strongly supported by relevant and credible sources. A clear structure of the remainder of the project report is provided at the end of the section. |
Overall, the introduction is reasonably clear. Background information about the organisation (or industry), the problem or opportunity that is investigated, the theories and frameworks that will be reviewed, the data and method applied are addressed reasonably well and are reasonably clear. Supported by credible sources, though in places lacks clear relevance. A structure of the remainder of the project report is provided at the end of the section. |
Overall, the introduction is adequate. Background information about the organisation (or industry), the problem or opportunity that is investigated, the theories and frameworks that will be reviewed, the data and method applied are addressed adequately. Limited use of supporting sources. Relevance may be unclear. A structure of the remainder of the project report is provided at the end of the section. |
Overall, the introduction provides very little clarity, lacks detail, or does not set the scene for the audience. Key elements are missing. Inadequate, irrelevant, or no supporting evidence. |
|
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
Review of theories Critically examines and makes use of relevant credible academic sources and briefly reviews two (2) specific, narrowed-down business theories. Clearly explains and justifies the relevance of the theories to the problem (or opportunity). Credible academic sources are used and provided in the Reference Source Information. 10% |
Two (2) specific narrowed-down business theories that have been identified are highly relevant to the identified problem or opportunity. The review, explanation, and justification are highly developed, effectively making use of and critically examining relevant credible academic sources. All credible academic sources are consistently and meticulously recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a highly consistent manner, no further development is needed. |
Two (2) specific narrowed-down contemporary business theories that have been identified are relevant to the identified problem or opportunity. The review, explanation, and justification are well- developed, effectively making use of and critically examining relevant credible academic sources. All credible academic sources are thoroughly recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a consistent manner, a few points may need further expansion. |
Two (2) specific narrowed-down contemporary business theories that have been identified are somewhat relevant to the identified problem or opportunity. The review, explanation, and justification are reasonably clear, making use of and examining relevant credible academic sources. All credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, may be occasional gaps in detail that could hinder replication. Demonstrates research in an appropriate manner, though further clarification and/or expansion are needed at some points. |
Two (2) contemporary business theories that have been identified are adequately relevant to the identified problem or opportunity. Some confusion between theories and analytical frameworks (methods or tools) may be evident. The review, explanation, and justification are adequate, and make use of academic sources. Most credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, though inconsistently with multiple errors or omissions that could make replication challenging. Further clarification and/or expansion is needed on many points. |
The review of business theory provides very little clarity or lacks detail. Confusion between theories and analytical frameworks (methods or tools) may be evident. Credible academic sources are not used and/or theories are inaccurately and/or inconsistently acknowledged. Minimal or no credible academic evidence is recorded in the Reference Source Information document, or provided sources are only vaguely related to the claims made. Demonstrates inadequate research to justify analyses. |
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
Review of frameworks Critically examines and makes use of relevant credible academic sources and briefly reviews two (2) analytical frameworks (methods or tools) that could be applied to analyse data. Clearly explains and justifies the relevance of the frameworks to the problem or opportunity. Credible academic sources are used and provided in the Reference Source Information. 10% |
Two (2) analytical frameworks (methods or tools) have been identified and are highly relevant to the identified problem or opportunity. The review, explanation, and justification are highly developed, effectively making use of and critically examining relevant credible academic sources. All credible academic sources are consistently and meticulously recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a highly consistent manner, no further development is needed. |
Two (2) analytical frameworks (methods or tools) have been identified and are relevant to the identified problem or opportunity. The review, explanation, and justification are well- developed, effectively making use of and critically examining relevant credible academic sources. All credible academic sources are thoroughly recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a consistent manner, a few points may need further expansion. |
Two (2) analytical frameworks (methods or tools) have been identified and are somewhat relevant to the identified problem or opportunity. The review, explanation, and justification are reasonably clear, making use of and examining relevant credible academic sources. All credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, may be occasional gaps in detail that could hinder replication. Demonstrates research in an appropriate manner, though further clarification and/or expansion are needed at some points. |
Two (2) analytical frameworks (methods or tools) have been identified and are somewhat relevant to the identified problem or opportunity. Some confusion between theories and analytical frameworks (methods or tools) may be evident. The review, explanation, and justification are adequate, and make use of academic sources. Most credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, though inconsistently with multiple errors or omissions that could make replication challenging. Further clarification and/or expansion is needed on many points. |
The review of analytical frameworks (methods of tools) provides very little clarity or lacks detail. Confusion between theories and analytical frameworks (methods or tools) may be evident. Credible academic sources are not used and/or theories are inaccurately and/or inconsistently acknowledged. Minimal or no credible academic evidence is recorded in the Reference Source Information document, or provided sources are only vaguely related to the claims made. Demonstrates inadequate research to justify analyses. |
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
Secondary data Provides a detailed description of the secondary data (type and sources) used to analyse the problem or opportunity. For each secondary data source, alignment to the problem or opportunity is explained. Briefly discusses limitations and potential biases as they relate to the data that is used for the analysis. Provides credible academic and non-academic sources. Reference Source Information is completed. 5% |
The description of the secondary data (type and sources) used to analyse the problem or opportunity is highly developed. The secondary data and the problem or opportunity are highly aligned. Exceptional insight in evaluating key limitations and potential bias of data, are very clearly and succinctly described and supported by credible academic sources. All credible academic sources are consistently and meticulously recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a highly consistent manner, no further development is needed. |
The description of the secondary data (type and sources) used to analyse the problem or opportunity is well-developed. The secondary data and the problem or opportunity are well aligned. Sound insight in evaluating limitations and potential bias of data. Limitations and potential biases are identified, clearly described as well as supported by credible academic sources. All credible academic sources are thoroughly recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a consistent manner, a few points may need further expansion. |
The description of the secondary data (type and sources) used to analyse the problem or opportunity is reasonably clear. The secondary data and the problem or opportunity are reasonably aligned. Good insight in evaluating limitations and potential bias of data. Most limitations and potential biases are identified, clearly described and supported by credible academic sources. All credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, may be occasional gaps in detail that could hinder replication. Demonstrates research in an appropriate manner, though further clarification and/or expansion are needed at some points. |
The description of the secondary data (type and sources) used to analyse the problem or opportunity is adequate. The secondary data and the problem or opportunity are adequately aligned. There is some recognition (identifies most obvious) of limitations and potential bias, critical areas may be over- looked. Limited use of credible academic sources to inform discussion. Most credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, though inconsistently with multiple errors or omissions that could make replication challenging. Further clarification and/or expansion is needed on many points. |
The description of secondary data (type and sources) used to analyse the problem or opportunity provides little clarity or no detail. There is little to no evidence of alignment between secondary data and the problem or opportunity. Limitations and potential bias are inadequately described. No credible academic sources are used. Minimal or no credible academic evidence is recorded in the Reference Source Information document, or provided sources are only vaguely related to the claims made. Demonstrates inadequate research to justify analyses. |
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
Chosen analytical framework (method or tool) Briefly compares the two frameworks reviewed in section 2.2 and selects one. Discusses and justifies the selection of the analytical framework by linking the selected framework to the problem or opportunity. Explains how the selected analytical framework will be applied to analyse the secondary data provided in section 3.1. Credible academic sources are used to compare as well as justify the selection of the analytical framework. Reference Source Information is completed. 5% |
The comparison of the two analytical frameworks reviewed is highly developed. The discussion and justification of the analytical framework (method or tool) chosen is highly developed. The explanation of the application of the selected analytical framework to the secondary data is highly developed. Exceptional and comprehensive critical examination of relevant literature and credible academic sources to sup-port and justify position. All credible academic sources are consistently and meticulously recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a highly consistent manner, no further development is needed. |
The comparison of the two analytical frameworks reviewed is well-developed. The discussion and justification of the analytical framework (method or tool) chosen is well- developed. The explanation of the application of the selected analytical framework to the secondary data is well- developed. Makes use of and critically examines relevant literature and credible academic sources to support and justify position. All credible academic sources are thoroughly recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a consistent manner, a few points may need further expansion. |
The comparison of the two analytical frameworks reviewed is reasonably clear. The discussion and justification of the analytical framework (method or tool) chosen is reasonably developed. The explanation of the application of the selected analytical framework to the secondary data is reasonably developed. Makes use of and critically examines relevant literature and credible academic sources to support and justify position. All credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, may be occasional gaps in detail that could hinder replication. Demonstrates research in an appropriate manner, though further clarification and/or expansion are needed at some points. |
The comparison of the two analytical frameworks reviewed is somewhat clear. The discussion and justification of the analytical framework (method or tool) chosen is adequately developed. The explanation of the application of the selected analytical framework to the secondary data is adequately developed. Makes use of credible literature to support and justify position, though relevance is not clear in places. Most credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, though inconsistently with multiple errors or omissions that could make replication challenging. Further clarification and/or expansion is needed on many points. |
The comparison of the two analytical frameworks reviewed provides very little clarity or no detail. The discussion and justification of the analytical framework (method or tool) chosen provides little clarity or no detail. No, or very little explanation of the application of the selected analytical framework to the secondary data is provided. Irrelevant or no use of literature or credible sources to support position. Minimal or no credible academic evidence is recorded in the Reference Source Information document, or provided sources are only vaguely related to the claims made. Demonstrates inadequate research to justify analyses. |
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
Analysis of the secondary data Critically analyses the secondary data by applying the selected analytical framework (method or tool). Provides clear explanations of the process of the analysis of the secondary data. In-text citations of the secondary data sources are provided. Contextualises and explains figures and tables used. 15% |
Critically analyses the secondary data by applying the selected analytical framework (method or tool) in a highly developed manner. Explanations of the process of the analysis of the secondary data (with in-text citations) is provided in a highly developed manner. Any tables and figures used are very well introduced, explained and contextualised. |
Critically analyses the secondary data by applying the selected analytical framework (method or tool) in a well-developed manner. Explanations of the process of the analysis of the secondary data (with in-text citations) is provided in a well-developed manner. Any tables and figures used are well introduced, explained and contextualised. |
Critically analyses the secondary data by applying the selected analytical framework (method or tool) in a reasonably developed manner. Explanations of the process of the analysis of the secondary data (with in-text citations) is provided in a reasonably developed manner. Any tables and figures used are reasonably well introduced, explained and contextualised. |
Critically analyses the secondary data by applying the selected analytical framework (method or tool) in an adequate manner. Explanations of the process of the analysis of the secondary data (with in-text citations) is provided in a reasonably developed manner. Introduction, explanation and contextualisation of any tables and figures used could be improved. |
Overall, the analysis and the explanation of the process of the analysis provide very little clarity or detail. |
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
Presentation of findings Explains and presents the findings of the analysis as they relate to the investigated problem or opportunity. Contextualises and explains figures and tables used. 10% |
The findings of the analysis relevant to the problem or opportunity are presented and explained in a highly developed manner. Any tables and figures used are very well introduced, explained and contextualised. |
The findings of the analysis relevant to the problem or opportunity are presented and explained in a well-developed manner. Any tables and figures used are well introduced, explained and contextualised. |
The findings of the analysis relevant to the problem or opportunity are presented and explained in a reasonably developed manner. Any tables and figures used are reasonably well introduced, explained and contextualised. |
The findings of the analysis relevant to the problem or opportunity are presented and explained in a reasonably developed manner. Introduction, explanation and contextualisation of any tables and figures used could be improved. |
Overall, the analysis and presentation of findings provide very little clarity or detail. |
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
Discussion of the findings Critically reflects on the findings and issues related to the investigated problem or opportunity. Links findings to the business theories reviewed. Credible academic and non- academic sources are used. Reference Source Information is completed. 10% |
Overall, the discussion of the findings are highly developed. Critical reflection on the findings and issues related to the investigated problem or opportunity is highly developed. Findings are linked to the business theories reviewed in a highly developed manner. Implications for the organisation (or industry) are highly developed. Credible sources (including academic) are used. All credible academic sources are consistently and meticulously recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a highly consistent manner, no further development is needed. |
Overall, the discussion of the findings are well-developed. Critical reflection on the findings and issues related to the investigated problem or opportunity is well-developed. Findings are linked to the business theories reviewed in a well-developed manner. Implications for the organisation (or industry) are well-developed. Credible sources (including academic) are used. All credible academic sources are thoroughly recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a consistent manner, a few points may need further expansion. |
Overall, the discussion of the findings are reasonably developed. Critical reflection on the findings and issues related to the investigated problem or opportunity is reasonably developed. Findings are linked to the business theories reviewed in a reasonably developed manner. Implications for the organisation (or industry) are reasonably developed. Credible sources (including academic) are used. All credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, may be occasional gaps in detail that could hinder replication. Demonstrates research in an appropriate manner, though further clarification and/or expansion are needed at some points. |
Overall, the discussion of the findings are adequate but could be further developed. Critical reflection on the findings and issues related to the investigated problem or opportunity is adequate. Findings are linked to the business theories reviewed in an adequate manner, but links could be strengthened. Implications for the organisation (or industry) are adequate. Credible sources (including academic) are used. Most credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, though inconsistently with multiple errors or omissions that could make replication challenging. Further clarification and/or expansion is needed on many points. |
Overall, the discussion of the findings provide very little clarity or detail. Credible sources (including academic) are not used and/or sources are inaccurately and/or inconsistently acknowledged. Minimal or no credible academic evidence is recorded in the Reference Source Information document, or provided sources are only vaguely related to the claims made. Demonstrates inadequate research to justify analyses. |
Implications Critically reflects on the findings and describes implications for the case organisation (or industry). Credible academic and non- academic sources are used. 5% |
Overall, the description of the implications is highly developed. |
Overall, the description of the implications is well-developed. |
Overall, the description of the implications is reasonably developed. |
Overall, the description of the implications is adequate but could be further developed. |
Overall, the description of the implications provides very little clarity or detail. |
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
Recommendations Provides evidence-based, achievable recommendations to address the investigated problem or opportunity. Credible academic and non- academic sources are used. 10% |
Recommendations to address the investigated problem or opportunity are logically derived from analysis, highly developed, highly relevant, evidence-based and achievable. Recommendations are justified by robust, credible, relevant research and evidence, demonstrating an outstanding ability to critically evaluate and synthesise complex information. All credible academic sources are consistently and meticulously recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a highly consistent manner, no further development is needed. |
Recommendations to address the investigated problem or opportunity are derived from analysis, well-developed, relevant, evidence-based and achievable. Recommendations are justified by credible, relevant research and evidence, demonstrating a high level of critical evaluation and advanced ability to synthesise complex information. All credible academic sources are thoroughly recorded in the Reference Source Information document, allowing for precise and immediate replication. Demonstrates research in a consistent manner, a few points may need further expansion. |
Recommendations to address the investigated problem or opportunity are somewhat derived from analysis, reasonably developed, relevant, evidence-based and achievable. Recommendations are justified by credible, relevant research and evidence, demonstrating good critical evaluation and some ability to synthesise complex information. All credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, may be occasional gaps in detail that could hinder replication. Demonstrates research in an appropriate manner, though further clarification and/or expansion are needed at some points. |
Recommendations to address the investigated problem or opportunity are adequate but could be further developed. Recommendations are somewhat justified by research and evidence, though relevance or link to analysis may be unclear in places. Most credible academic sources are recorded in the Reference Source Information document, though inconsistently with multiple errors or omissions that could make replication challenging. Further clarification and/or expansion is needed on many points. |
Recommendations provide very little clarity or detail and are inadequately justified. Credible sources (including academic) are not used and/or sources are inaccurately and/or inconsistently acknowledged. Minimal or no credible academic evidence is recorded in the Reference Source Information document, or provided sources are only vaguely related to the claims made. Demonstrates inadequate research to justify analyses. |
Conclusions Closes the project report and briefly summarises how the purpose of the research has been achieved. 5% |
Conclusions are highly developed, clearly derived from report content and strongly supported by the evidence presented. Articulates implications for organisation/industry and areas for future research. A summary of how the purpose of the research has been achieved is presented in a highly developed and convincing manner. |
Conclusions are well-developed. A summary of how the purpose of the research has been achieved is presented in a well- developed manner. |
Conclusions are reasonably developed. A summary of how the purpose of the research has been achieved is reasonably presented. |
The conclusions are adequate. A summary of how the purpose of the research has been achieved is presented but could be made clearer. |
Conclusions provide very little clarity or detail. |
Key Components |
High Distinction 10085% |
Distinction 8475% |
Credit 7465% |
Pass 6450% |
Fail 490% |
Referencing Style
5% |
Demonstrates a highly developed understanding of the AIB referencing style. Referencing conventions as per the AIB Style Guide have been consistently followed. The number of relevant and credible academic sources used goes well beyond the required minimum. |
Demonstrates a well-developed understanding of the AIB referencing style. Most referencing conventions per the AIB Style Guide have been consistently followed (very few minor errors in referencing conventions are noted). The number of relevant and credible academic sources goes beyond the required minimum. |
Demonstrates a good understanding of the AIB referencing style. Referencing conventions as per the AIB Style Guide have been followed appropriately (a few errors in referencing conventions are noted). Meets or exceeds the minimum required number of relevant and credible academic sources used. |
Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the AIB referencing style. Referencing conventions as per the AIB Style Guide have been followed adequately (some errors and inconsistencies in referencing conventions are noted). The minimum required number of relevant and credible academic sources is used. |
Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the AIB referencing style. Referencing conventions as per the AIB Style Guide have been inadequately followed (significant errors and inconsistencies in referencing conventions are noted). Fewer than the required number of relevant and credible academic sources is used. |
Structure, presentation, communication style, and language Uses the provided Assessment 3 template. Applies presentation and English language conventions as outlined in the AIB Style Guide to communicate clearly. 5% |
The assessment is highly professional/ highly developed in its presentation with a completely logical structure. The assessment demonstrates an excellent communication style. All conventions of written English with respect to grammar, punctuation, and spelling are followed. |
The assessment is professional/well-developed in its presentation with a logical structure. The assessment demonstrates a well-developed communication style. Most conventions of written English with respect to grammar, punctuation, and spelling are followed. |
The assessment is appropriately presented with a reasonably logical structure. The assessment demonstrates a good communication style. A few errors with respect to grammar, punctuation, and spelling are evident; however, they do not detract from the overall readability. |
The assessment is adequately presented with an adequate logical structure. Multiple errors with respect to conventions are evident. The assessment demonstrates an adequate communication style. Multiple errors with respect to grammar, punctuation, and spelling are evident, detracting significantly from the overall readability. |
The assessment is poor or unsatisfactory in its presentation and/or displays little logical structure, barely meeting AIB requirements. The assessment demonstrates a weak communication style, which barely meets or does not meet AIB requirements. |
