©Australian Institute of Business Term 2, 2023 1
9001SMGT
| ASSESSMENT 1: REVIEW OF THEORIES AND FRAMEWORKS REPORT |
| Key Criteria | High Distinction (100–85%) |
Distinction (84–75%) | Credit (74–65%) | P (64–50%) | Fail (49–0%) |
| Criterion 1: Overview. • Provides background information on organisation and industry. • Analysis of the organisation’s vision, mission, and values against relevant strategic management principles. • Identify and evaluate the alignment of vision, mission, and values to the organisation’s strategic objectives. 20% |
Concise overview of organisation and industry that provides comprehensive context. Clear articulation of current vision, mission, values, and strategic objectives. Accurately evaluates alignment of vision, mission, and values to strategic objectives. Clearly articulates compelling reasons for the importance of vision, mission, and values and their strategic alignment. |
Concise overview of organisation and industry that provides comprehensive context. Clear articulation of current vision, mission, values, and strategic objectives. Evaluates alignment of vision, mission, and values to strategic objectives, and articulates valid reasons for the importance of vision, mission, and values and their strategic alignment. However, these points could be further developed in some places. |
Overview of organisation and industry that provides context but may contain some irrelevant detail. Current vision, mission, values, and strategic objectives are articulated, but may lack detail in places. Evaluates alignment of vision, mission, and values to strategic objectives and articulates reasons for the importance of vision, mission, and values and their strategic alignment. However, some points may lack sufficient detail and depth. |
Overview of organisation and industry that provides limited context, further explanation would provide greater clarity. Current vision, mission, values, and strategic objectives are articulated, but may lack detail and clarity in many places. Attempts to evaluate alignment of vision, mission, and values to strategic objectives, but may lack valid reasons for the importance of vision, mission, and values and their strategic alignment. |
Insufficient or no overview of selected organisation. Insufficient or no description of vision, mission, values and strategic objectives. Insufficient or no evaluation of alignment. |
| Criterion 2: Theories & Frameworks. • Understanding of framework/s. • Integration and synthesis of relevant theories, concepts, and principles from academic literature. 20% |
Comprehensively and clearly describes all key features of the framework/s. Skilfully applies and integrates relevant strategic management theories, concepts, and principles to in-depth review and analysis of framework/s. Discussion includes expert analysis of appropriate use and limitations of the framework/s in the context of strategic management. |
Clearly describes all key features of the framework/s. Applies and integrates relevant strategic management theories, concepts, and principles to review and analyse framework/s. Discussion includes analysis of appropriate use and limitations of the framework/s in the context of strategic management. |
Describes most key features of the framework/s but may omit significant features. Applies relevant strategic management theories, concepts, and principles to review and analyse framework/s. Discussion identifies some limitations of the framework/s in the context of strategic management. |
Describes some features of the framework/s, though may lack detail in places. Applies relevant strategic management theories, concepts, and principles to review and analyse framework/s. Discussion identifies at least one limitation of the framework/s in the context of strategic management. |
Insufficient or no description of framework/s. |
©Australian Institute of Business Term 2, 2023 2
| Key Criteria | High Distinction (100–85%) |
Distinction (84–75%) | Credit (74–65%) | P (64–50%) | Fail (49–0%) |
| Criterion 3: Application of frameworks & critical analysis. • Apply required framework/s (i.e. Porter’s Five Forces, VRIN, SWOT) to conduct an organisational analysis. 25% |
Skilfully applies multiple frameworks to expertly identify and extract meaningful data for evaluation. VRIN table is presented clearly, with accurate and precise detail addressing all relevant key points. |
Skilfully applies several frameworks to identify and extract meaningful data for evaluation. VRIN table is presented clearly, with accurate detail addressing most relevant key points. |
Adequately applies framework/s to identify and extract data for analysis, however, some points may lack relevance. VRIN table is presented clearly, addressing some key points, but may contain some irrelevant detail. |
Developing ability to appropriately apply framework/s but may lack sufficient or relevant data to evaluate. VRIN table is present, but several aspects may be irrelevant or inaccurate. |
Insufficient or no application of framework/s. Insufficient or no VRIN table present. |
| Criterion 4: Discussion • Identifies critical strategic issues and organisational priorities. • Discussion is linked to application of frameworks and critical analysis. 25% |
Expert insight when discussing and describing critical issues, accounting for variable context and multiple perspectives. Logical conclusions derived from critical analysis. Comprehensively identifies and explains all issues arising from internal/external factors. |
Advanced insight when discussing and describing key issues, accounting for multiple perspectives, some points could have been extended for greater clarity. Logical conclusions derived from critical analysis. Identifies and explains most issues arising from internal/external factors. |
Some insight when discussing and describing issues, however, some points may lack sufficient clarity and depth. Some conclusions derived from critical analysis, but some points require further explanation to articulate link. Identifies and explains some issues arising from internal/external factors but may omit important detail. |
Describes a limited number of issues, however, some may lack relevance and/or detail. Conclusion/s limited in detail and may lack logical link to critical analysis. Identifies a limited number of issues arising from internal/external factors, but some points may lack relevance. |
Insufficient or no discussion of issues. Insufficient or no analysis. Insufficient or no identification of issues. |
| Criterion 5: Communication, presentation, structure & language. 5% |
Excellent communication style, demonstrating clear and precise academic writing at an advanced standard. Presentation and structure and completely logical. All conventions of written English grammar, punctuation and spelling are followed. |
Very good communication style, demonstrating clear and precise academic writing at a high standard. Presentation and structure and mostly logical. All conventions of written English grammar, punctuation and spelling are followed. |
Good communication style, demonstrating emerging academic writing ability. Presentation and structure and reasonably logical. Very few errors in written English grammar, punctuation and/or spelling are evident. |
Communication style is limited and hinders meaning in places. The presentation and structure are adequate, but linkages between paragraphs may be lacking. Noticeable errors in written English grammar, punctuation and/or spelling impede clarity in places. |
Communication style is inappropriate for the task. Presentation and structure do not meet the task requirements. Significant errors in written English grammar, punctuation and/or spelling frequently impede meaning. |
©Australian Institute of Business Term 2, 2023 3
| Key Criteria | High Distinction (100–85%) |
Distinction (84–75%) | Credit (74–65%) | P (64–50%) | Fail (49–0%) |
| Criterion 6: In-text citations and referencing. 5% |
Author-date referencing style is consistent with the AIB Style Guide. All sources are acknowledged. Selection and use of sources add compelling value to the analysis and show extensive reading on the topic. The number of credible references used goes well beyond the required minimum. |
Author-date referencing style is consistent with the AIB Style Guide. Most sources are acknowledged. Selection and use of sources add significant value to the analysis and show extensive reading on the topic. The number of credible references used goes moderately beyond the required minimum. |
Author-date referencing style is mostly consistent with the AIB Style Guide, but there are minor inconsistencies. Most sources are acknowledged. Selection and use of sources add value to the analysis. The minimum number of credible references is used. |
Demonstrates some control over author-date referencing style as per the AIB Style Guide, but with noticeable inconsistencies. Some sources are acknowledged. Some sources do not add value to the analysis. The minimum number of credible references is used. |
Insufficient or no application of author-date referencing style as per the AIB Style Guide. Very few or no sources are acknowledged. All/most sources are not credible or scholarly and their use adds little value to the analysis. Fewer than the required number of credible references is used. |