Criteria Not attempted Needs improvement Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent Executive summary, 300 words. Outline of the key findings and strategic direction. (6 marks). Failed to include an outline of the report’s key findings. (0-1.7 marks) A brief summary that did not cover some of the key findings in the report. Generally this section read more like an introduction than an executive summary. (1.8-2.9 marks) An adequate summary that could have been further developed and expressed in a more concise manner. (3-3.5 marks) A good summary with key findings outlined. A more concise and strategic outline would have improved this section. (3.6-4.1 marks) A very good summary: Succinct and providing the reader with a clear overview of the report. (4.2-4.7 marks) An excellent executive summary: Comprehensive and outlining clearly all the key findings and providing a strategic overview. (4.8-6 marks) Introduction, 400 words. Brief description of the reasons for undertaking the study – the value of undertaking a strategic review of the business; an introduction to the business and its macro environment and industry. (8 marks). Failed to set out a relevant rationale for undertaking a strategy report. Inadequate introduction to the business and its environments. (0-2.3 marks) A brief or partial rationale provided, demonstrating limited understanding of the purpose of a strategy report. A partial introduction to the business and its environments. (2.4-3.9 marks) An adequate rationale for undertaking the strategy report. A fair introduction to the business and its environments that could have been further developed. (4-4.7 marks) A sound rationale and comprehensive introduction to the business and its environments. (4.8-5.5 marks) A strong rationale and insightful introduction to the business and its environments. (5.6-6.3 marks) A strong and compelling rationale and an insightful and strategically focussed introduction to the business and its environments. (6.4-8 marks) Methods, 200 words. Description of techniques of data collection & analysis; types & number of data sources to evaluate the quality & validity of the data. Structure,presentation quality of writing, formatting & sections; referencing (12 marks) Failed to collect and analyse a sufficient number and range of relevant data sources upon which to undertake the required analysis for the report. Poor grammar and poor written expression, report format unclear and lacks coherence, referencing insufficient and poorly done. Collection and analysis of some relevant data sources, providing limited data on which the report was based. Grammar and written expression needs improvement, report format has limited clarity and coherence, referencing also limited. (3.6-5.9 marks) Adequate collection and analysis of a sufficient number and variety of relevant data sources. Adequate level of grammar and written expression, report format and referencing fair but could be further developed. (6-7.1 marks) Good collection and analysis of a sound number and variety of relevant data sources. Proficient level of grammar and written expression with sufficient referencing. (7.2-8.3 marks) Very good collection and analysis of a strong number and variety of relevant data sources. Strong level of grammar and written expression, well referenced. (8.4-9.5 marks) Comprehensive collection and rigorous analysis of a very strong number and variety of relevant data sources. Excellent standard of grammar and written expression with very strong referencing. (9.6-12 marks)(0-3.5 marks) Business strategy statement, 300 words. Describe the mission, vision, objectives, scope, and advantage of the business; strategy statement in 35 words or less. (12 marks). Failed to demonstrate an appropriate description of the components of a business strategy statement and the 35 word summary was unclear and weak. (0-3.5 marks) Some elements of the business strategy statement were sufficiently described and the 35 word summary had some clarity and engagement. (3.6-5.9 marks) Adequate description of the business strategy statement and the 35 word summary had sufficient clarity and persuasiveness. (6-7.1 marks) Good description of the elements of the business strategy statement and the 35 word summary clear and compelling. (7.2-8.3 marks) Very good description of the elements of the business strategy statement and the 35 word summary very clear and very compelling. (8.4-9.5 marks) An exemplary description of the elements of the business strategy statement and the 35 word summary extremely clear, compelling, and persuasive. (9.6-12 marks) External analysis, 800 words 1. PESTEL analysis and factor ratings. Overall impact of these factors on industry growth & consumer demand 2.Key Five forces. 3.Strategy canvas with comparison 3.CSFs 4. Role of innovation in the industry (20 marks) Poor description and rating and evaluation of the PESTEL factors in terms of impact on industry growth and consumer demand. Key forces from the five forces analysis not clearly identified and assessed in terms of impact on industry profitability. Strategy canvas and CSF’s not clearly illustrated and identified. Innovation not clearly identified. (0-5.9 marks) Partial or somewhat unclear description and rating and evaluation of the PESTEL factors in terms of impact on industry growth and consumer demand. Key forces from the five forces analysis partially identified and assessed in terms of impact on industry profitability. Strategy canvas not adequately illustrated and CSF’s partially or weakly identified. Innovation partially identified. (6-9.9 marks) Adequate description and rating and evaluation of the PESTEL factors in terms of impact on industry growth and consumer demand. Fair identification and assessment of the key forces from the five forces analysis in terms of impact on industry profitability. Strategy canvas and CSF’s adequately illustrated and identified. Innovation adequately identified. (10-11.9 marks) Good description and rating and evaluation of the PESTEL factors in terms of impact on industry growth and consumer demand. Key forces from the five forces analysis clearly identified and assessed in terms of impact on industry profitability. Strategy canvas and CSF’s clearly illustrated and identified. Innovation illustrated and identified. (12-13.9 marks) Very good description and rating and evaluation of the PESTEL factors in terms of impact on industry growth and consumer demand. Key forces from the five forces analysis very clearly identified and assessed in terms of impact on industry profitability. Strategy canvas and CSF’s very clearly illustrated and identified. Innovation very clearly illustrated and identified. (14-15.9 marks) An excellent description and rating and evaluation of the PESTEL factors showing clearly and strategically the impact on industry growth and consumer demand. Key forces from the five forces analysis very clearly identified and strategically assessed in terms of impact on industry profitability. Strategy canvas and CSF’s very clearly and specifically illustrated and identified. Innovation very clearly and specifically identified and illustrated. (16-20 marks) Strategic capability, 400 words. 1. Value chain analysis. 2. SWOT analysis. (12 marks). A generic value chain analysis that fails to show the cost and value metrics for each value chain activity for the business. A vague and A value chain analysis that shows some cost and value metrics for each value chain activity for the business. A general SWOT analysis that An adequately specific and applied value chain analysis that shows most cost and value metrics for each value chain activity for the business. A A specific and applied value chain analysis that shows the cost and value metrics for each value chain activity for the business. A clear, concise, A very specific and applied value chain analysis that shows clearly the cost and value metrics for each value chain activity for the business. A An excellent value chain analysis that shows clearly and insightfully the cost and value metrics for each value chain activity for the business. An extremely clear, concise, and rated (relative to competitors) SWOT analysis. (9.6-12 marks)un-rated SWOT analysis. (0-3.5 marks) lacks specificity and ratings. (3.6-5.9 marks) reasonably clear, concise, and rated (relative to competitors) SWOT analysis. (6-7.1 marks) and rated (relative to competitors) SWOT analysis. (7.2-8.3 marks) very clear, concise, and rated (relative to competitors) SWOT analysis. (8.4-9.5 marks) Strategy and culture, 400 words. 1. Cultural web. 2. The relationship between culture and strategy. (12 marks). A very weak cultural web diagram with a poor or weak description of the relationship between culture and strategy that fails to illustrate the cultural elements that either support or constrain the strategy. (0-3.5 marks) A weak or partial cultural web diagram with some description of the relationship between culture and strategy, illustrating in part the cultural elements that either support or constrain the strategy. (3.6-5.9 marks) An adequate cultural web diagram with a fair description of the relationship between culture and strategy, illustrating most of the cultural elements that either support or constrain the strategy. (6-7.1 marks) A clear, concise, and applied cultural web diagram with a strong description of the relationship between culture and strategy, illustrating the cultural elements that either support or constrain the strategy. (7.2-8.3 marks) A very clear, concise, and applied cultural web diagram with a very strong description of the relationship between culture and strategy, illustrating the cultural elements that either support or constrain the strategy. (8.4-9.5 marks) An excellent cultural web diagram that is clear, concise, and applied, with a strong and insightful description of the relationship between culture and strategy, illustrating very clearly the cultural elements that either support or constrain the strategy. (9.6-12 marks) Strategic direction, 450 words. One most viable strategic direction and how this direction: a.) Responds to the industry and macro environments. b.) Matches strengths to opportunities to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. (12 marks). A non-viable or weak strategic direction chosen that does not follow from the preceding analyses and fails to: - respond to the industry and macro environments, - match strengths to opportunities to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. (0-3.5 marks) A weak strategic direction that follows in part the preceding analyses and is shown in part to: - respond to the industry and macro environments, - match strengths to opportunities to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. (3.6-5.9 marks) A reasonably viable strategic direction chosen on the basis of the preceding analyses and is shown to: - respond to the industry and macro environments, - match strengths to opportunities to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. (6-7.1 marks) A viable strategic direction chosen on the basis of the preceding analyses and is clearly shown to: - respond to the industry and macro environments, - match strengths to opportunities to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. (7.2-8.3 marks) A very viable strategic direction chosen on the basis of the preceding analyses and is clearly shown to: - respond to the industry and macro environments, - match strengths to opportunities to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. (8.4-9.5 marks) A viable and optimal strategic direction chosen carefully on the basis of the preceding analyses and is very clearly shown to: - respond to the industry and macro environments, - match strengths to opportunities to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. (9.6-12 marks) Conclusion, 250 words. Overall summary of one key finding from each of the sections above. Should be coherent A weak and unclear summary of one or only a few key finding from each of the report A partial general summary of one key finding from some of the report sections. Not A reasonably comprehensive and clear summary of most of the key finding from each of the report sections. A comprehensive and clear summary of one key finding from each of the report A very comprehensive and very clear summary of one key finding from each of the report An excellent conclusion: Comprehensive, clear, compelling and summarises one key finding from each of the report sections. Very coherent and cogent.and cogent. (6 marks). sections. Incoherent and not convincing. (0-1.7 marks) coherent or cogent. (1.8-2.9 marks) Reasonably coherent and cogent. (3-3.5 marks) sections. Reasonably coherent and cogent. (3.6-4.1 marks) sections. Very coherent and cogent. (4.2-4.7 marks) (4.8-6 marks) Overall Score N N P C D HD