STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

©Australian Institute of Business Term 2 2023 1
9001SMGT

ASSESSMENT 2: STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION REPORT RUBRIC

Key Criteria	High Distinction (100–85%)	Distinction (84–75%)	Credit (74–65%)	P (64–50%)	Fail (49–0%)
Criterion 1: Overview • Provide a summary of the organisation and industry, and restate strategic priorities outlined in assessment 1. • Describe the current competitive environment. 10%	A concise and clear summary of organisation, industry and strategic priorities as outlined in assessment 1. Expert and perceptive commentary on the existing competitive environment, outlining all relevant aspects.	A concise and clear summary of organisation, industry and strategic priorities as outlined in assessment 1. Advanced commentary on the existing competitive environment, bringing some insight and outlining most relevant aspects.	Provides adequate summary of organisation, industry and strategic priorities as outlined in assessment 1, however, may lack clarity in places. General overview of existing competitive environment, however, may lack relevant detail in places.	Limited summary of organisation, industry and strategic priorities as outlined in assessment 1, but may lack sufficient detail and clarity in places. Some overview of competitive environment, however, may be outdated and/or lack relevant detail in places.	Insufficient or no summary. Insufficient or no description of the competitive environment.
Criterion 2: Recommendations • Recommend one generic strategy for your chosen organisation. • Justify your choice. 25%	Recommended strategy is logically drawn from in-depth analysis, and highly appropriate to organisational and industry contexts.	Recommended strategy is logically drawn from analysis and appropriate to organisational and industry contexts.	Recommended strategy is linked to analysis, however, may lack depth and clarity in some places.	Some aspects of recommended strategy are appropriate to organisational and/or industry context, however alternative strategies are more suitable. Analysis is limited and/or lacks relevance in places.	Insufficient or no strategy recommended. Insufficient or no analysis undertaken.
Criterion 3: Discussion • Describes organisation’s current competitive position. • Identifies existing gaps in organisation’s competitive position. • Evaluates potential strategic actions to strengthen organisation’s position 25%	Highly detailed analysis and very clear overview of organisation’s positioning in the current competitive environment. Comprehensive identification of all existing gaps in organisation’s competitive position and all relevant constraints are identified and accounted for. Proposed strategic actions are highly appropriate, convincing, and logically formed from evaluation, and addresses all gaps.	Detailed analysis and clear overview of organisation’s positioning in the current competitive environment. Comprehensive identification of existing gaps in organisation’s competitive position and most relevant constraints are identified. Proposed strategic actions are appropriate, convincing, and logically formed from evaluation, and addresses most gaps.	Clear overview of organisation’s positioning in the current competitive environment. Identifies most existing gaps in organisation’s competitive position. Proposed strategic actions are appropriate and logically formed from evaluation and address some gaps.	Overview of organisation’s positioning in the current competitive environment, however, may lack detail and/or clarity. Identification of some existing gaps in organisation’s competitive position, however significant aspects are omitted. Proposed strategic actions are appropriate but limited in scope.	Insufficient or no overview of organisation’s competitive position. Insufficient or no strategic actions proposed.

Key Criteria	High Distinction (100–85%)	Distinction (84–75%)	Credit (74–65%)	P (64–50%)	Fail (49–0%)
Criterion 4: Critical evaluation • Critically evaluate the following components in relation to chosen strategy: Ethics, Leadership, Organisational Culture, Sustainability. • Discuss implementation measures that lead to successful strategy execution. 20%	Highly integrated and in-depth critical evaluation of each component, thoroughly linked to organisational context. Expert insight when discussing effective implementation measures that result in successful strategy execution.	In-depth critical evaluation of each component, thoroughly linked to organisational context. Advanced insight when discussing effective implementation measures that result in successful strategy execution.	Some evaluation of each component but may lack logical links and/or sufficient detail. Describes several implementation measures that result in successful strategy execution.	Evaluation of at least one component but may lack logical links and/or sufficient detail. Describes at least one implementation measure that results in successful strategy execution.	Insufficient or no evaluation of components. Insufficient or no discussion implementation measures.
Criterion 5: Theory, concepts, principles • Application of relevant theories and concepts. 10%	Skilfully applies and integrates a wide range of relevant and appropriate theories from the literature to inform the analysis and evaluation.	Demonstrates a well-developed ability to apply and integrate a range of relevant and appropriate theories and concepts from the literature to inform the analysis and evaluation.	Some application and integration of relevant and appropriate theories and concepts from the literature, but the analysis and evaluation may lack supporting detail in places.	Demonstrates and emerging ability to apply and integrate theories and concepts from the literature. Supporting detail may be insufficient and/or some detail may be irrelevant to the analysis and evaluation.	Demonstrates inadequate or no ability to apply and integrate relevant theories and concepts from the literature to inform the analysis and evaluation.
Criterion 6: Communication, presentation, structure and 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.
Criterion 7: 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 are used.