Startup Business Plan & Feasibility Report for Entrepreneurs
- Subject Code :
MKT206
- University :
Australian Institute Of Higher Education Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
- Country :
Australia
ASSIGNMENT SPECIFICATION
Subject Code |
MKT206 |
Subject Name |
Introduction to Entrepreneurship |
Semester #, year |
Semester 1 2025 |
Assessment # |
2 |
Due Date |
Week 9 |
Weightage |
30% |
Total Marks |
100 |
Group/ Individual |
Group (Group of 3) |
Assessment Type (Report/ Essay/ Case Study/ Presentation, etc.) |
Report |
Word Limit |
3500 words (+/-10%) |
Document Submission Type Accepted |
doc/docx/pdf |
Learning Objectives Assessed in this assignment |
SLO1, SLO3, SLO4, SLO5 |
Cross Reference to BBIS Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) |
CLO1, CLO3, CLO5, CLO6 (Developed) |
Cross Reference to BBM Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) |
CLO1, CLO2, CLO3, CLO4, CLO5, CLO6 (Developed) |
Assignment Format and Layout |
1. Use the Coversheet Template to prepare your assignment (Available for download from your subjects assessment instructions page in your LMS) 2. Save your document with the following naming convention: studentnumber_coursecode_A1.doc/docx/pdf o E.g.: AIIHE00000_ECO101_A1.docx 3. Number all pages in the bottom-right corner, starting with the second page. 4. Font and Size: o Use a legible font such as Times New Roman, Arial, or Calibri. o Use a 12-point font size for the main text. 5. Margins: o Set 1-inch (2.54 cm) margins on all sides of the document. 6. Line Spacing: o Use single-spacing for the entire document, including the title and reference pages. 7. Alignment: o Align text to the left, not justified. |
Referencing Style |
Harvard |
How students will be assessed |
Based on the Assessment Rubric |
AI assessment scale
? |
NO AI |
AI must not be used in any part of the assessment completion. Student solely rely on their knowledge, understanding and skills Knowledge gathered by research, must be cited |
? |
AI- ASSISTED IDEA GENERATION |
No AI content is allowed in the final submission. AI can be used for brainstorming and generating ideas. If ideas/ claims generated from AI tools is used, the ideas/ claims need to be backed up by evidence (reference) |
? |
AI- ASSISTED EDITING |
AI used in improving clarity or quality of work (improved language structure) for final output. No new content generated by AI is allowed. The original work by student must be submitted as an appendix (attachment) |
? |
AI TASK COMPLETION AND HUMAN EVALUATION |
AI can complete certain parts of the total task defined in the assessment brief. Students critique the content and proper citation is used to evaluate the content legitimacy. AI contents must be cited |
? |
FULL AI |
AI is used as co-pilot in assessment completion. AI is used to demonstrate efficient collaboration with technology to enhance creativity. AI tool acknowledgement in the assessment |
ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
Students will identify a start-up opportunity and develop a 3500-word project plan. The plan must cover a feasibility analysis, business model, market research, and execution strategy. The project requires teamwork, research, and strategic thinking to present a viable entrepreneurial opportunity.
Suggested Report Structure:
- Title Page Project title, student names, course
- Executive Summary Overview of the project, key findings, and
- Introduction Background, purpose, and significance of the business
- Business Opportunity Identification Explanation of the problem being solved, value proposition,
and unique selling points.
- Market Research & Analysis Industry overview, target market, competitor analysis, and customer
insights.
- Feasibility Study Financial viability, legal considerations, and risk
- Business Model & Strategy Revenue model, marketing plan, operational strategy, and
- Implementation Plan Steps to execution, timeline, and resource
- Challenges & Risk Management Potential obstacles and mitigation
- Conclusion & Recommendations Summary of findings and suggested next
- References Properly formatted citations and
- Appendices Any supporting documents, charts, or additional
RUBRICS
Criteria |
HD (85% and above) |
D (75 84%) |
C (65 74%) |
P (50 64%) |
F (0- 49%) |
Business Opportunity Identification and Feasibility Analysis.
40% |
Identifies a highly innovative and viable entrepreneurial opportunity. Thorough feasibility study with strong data and risk assessment. |
Identifies a viable business opportunity with minor weaknesses. Good feasibility study with some minor gaps in data or risk assessment. |
Identifies a business opportunity with some feasibility concerns. Basic feasibility analysis with limited depth. |
Business idea is weak or lacks originality. Feasibility analysis is weak or lacks data. |
The business idea is vague, impractical, or not well-explained. No feasibility analysis was presented. |
Business Model and Strategy
40% |
Well-defined business model with clear strategy and execution plan. |
The business model and strategy are mostly clear with some minor gaps. |
The business model is present but lacks details in strategy. |
A poorly defined business model with unclear execution strategy. |
No viable business model or strategy was presented. |
Professional Communication
20% |
- Exceptionally well- organised, clear, and professional report. - Writing is free from grammatical and spelling errors. - Harvard AGPS referencing is applied flawlessly, with all sources accurately cited and integrated. |
- Report is well structured and easy to follow, with only minor organisational lapses. - Writing is clear with only a few grammatical or spelling errors that do not impede understanding. - Most references are correctly formatted according to Harvard AGPS, with only minor inconsistencies. |
- Overall structure is adequate but may lack clarity or coherence in places. - Contains some noticeable grammatical or spelling errors that may distract from the content. - Referencing shows basic compliance with Harvard AGPS, but with several errors or inconsistencies. |
- Significant issues with organisation and clarity make the report difficult to follow. - Frequent grammatical and spelling errors detract from the professionalism of the work. - Referencing is inconsistent or poorly executed, with many errors in applying the Harvard AGPS style. |
- Poorly structured, disorganised, and very difficult to read. - Writing is marred by persistent grammatical and spelling errors that severely impede communication. - Little to no adherence to Harvard AGPS referencing, with numerous errors that compromise academic integrity. |
