MGT5ARP Assessment 2 Case Study - Short Report Format - Criteria Rubric – Weighting: 35% Student Name: Student ID Total: /35 N 49 or less% D 50-59% C 60-69% B 70-79% A 80-100% Your Score Introduction (10) No clear purpose, scope or limitations or identification of the case study; No diagnostic process to analyse the performance in the organisational case. No clear organisation/order of all sections of the report. Basic outline of purpose, scope and limitations; Basic outline of case study and diagnostic process to analyse the performance in the organisational case. Reasonable organisation/order of each section of the report. Clear and concise purpose, scope and limitations; Good description of case study relative to the diagnostic process– well identified areas relevant to the performance in the case study organisation; Succinct organisation/order of each section of the report. Clear and purposeful outline of purpose, scope and limitations; Advanced description of case study relative to the diagnostic process– well identified areas relevant to the performance in the case study organisation; Clear and concise organisation/order of each section of the report. Excellent outline of purpose, scope and limitations; Excellent description of case study relative to the diagnostic process– well identified areas relevant to the performance in the case study organisation; Outstanding organisation/order of each section of the report. 0-4.5 5-5.5 6-6.5 7-7.5 8-10 Diagnostic Process of analysing the case study and the evident approaches to performance management systems and practices in the Case Study (40) No evidence of evaluating the approaches to performance management systems and practices; No summary of main theories and concepts; No critical analysis of the literature. Basic ideas formulated and linked to approaches to performance management systems and practices; Fundamental theories and concepts summarised. Simple analysis of the literature. Ability to conceptualise and then apply and basically evaluate concepts and theories relative to performance management systems and practices; Evidence of critical analysis. Clear and concise ideas well evaluated and linked to performance management systems and practices; Evidence of comprehensive critical analysis. Report expertly outlines the area for analysis and the performance management systems and practice approaches in the case study; High level of interpretative and analytical ability to critically analyse literature. 0-19.5 20-23.5 24-27.5 28-31.5 32-40 Comparison of at least two performance management system and practices for the Case Study. Argue for one performance management system or a hybrid of two or more performance systems (20) No demonstrated ability to compare or build performance tools/ measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case. Little to no evidence of literature support. Demonstrates basic ability to compare or build performance tools/measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case. Basic evidence of literature support. Demonstrates consistent ability to compare or develop useful performance tools/measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case. Evidence of beyond minimum literature support. Demonstrates thoroughly consistent ability to compare and develop valuable performance tools/measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case. Extensive literature support. Demonstrates outstanding ability to compare and develop highly functional and valuable performance tools/measures/practices and overall performance management system for the organisational case. Highly interpretative literature support. 0-9.5 10-11.5 12-13.5 14-15.5 16-20 Conclusion and recommendation of performance management system and practices to be implemented at the case study organisation (10) Conclusion does not summarise the report; No clear recommendations or solutions – not linked to performance management Reasonably clear summary of the report relative to performance management; Basic argument and recommendations for the best performance approaches/ tools/measures for the case study organisation. Above average ability to summarise the report relative to performance management; Sound argument and recommendations for the best performance approaches/ tools/measures for the case study organisation. Ability to make sound evaluation of the report relative to performance management; Good ability to argue and make sound recommendations for the best performance approaches/ tools/measures for the case study organisation. An insightful and comprehensive summary of the report relative to performance management; Outstanding capacity to argue and make recommendations for the best performance approaches/ tools/measures for the case study organisation. 0-4.5 5-5.5 6-6.5 7-7.5 8-10 Research and Referencing (10) Inadequate reading and research – less than 15 contemporary (beyond 2007) refereed journal articles; Research is evident but is inappropriate or irrelevant; Numerous referencing errors throughout the document and the reference list. Minimal reading and research – basic 15 contemporary (beyond 2007) refereed journal articles; Limited use of relevant research, demonstrating little engagement with literature; Average and sometimes inconsistent application of referencing with some errors throughout the document and the reference list. Reading and research beyond set minimum. Use of relevant research to support findings; Reasonable application of referencing throughout the document and the reference list. Evidence of wide reading and research; Evidence of critical and analytical use of relevant literature; Good application of referencing throughout the document and the reference list. Evidence of extensive reading and research; Relevant literature used critically and analytically, presenting a balance of perspectives Excellent application of referencing throughout the document and the reference list. 0-4.5 5-5.5 6-6.5 7-7.5 8-10 Report Format, Clarity, Presentation and Proof-reading (10) No use of formal short report style; Inadequate application of academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic; Unacceptable level of grammar, punctuation and or spelling. Presentation adequate, but not fully consistent with appropriate academic/ short report style; Adequate application of academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic; Some errors in grammar, punctuation and/or spelling. Presentation consistent with academic/short report style; Good application of academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic; Generally, good grammar, punctuation and spelling. Presentation thoroughly consistent with academic/short report style; Consistent application of academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic; Very accurate grammar, punctuation and spelling. Outstanding presentation thoroughly consistent with high standards in writing academic/short report style; High facility with academic genre, generic structure relevant to topic; Comprehensively accurate grammar, punctuation and spelling. 0-4.5 5-5.5 6-6.5 7-7.5 8-10 Use the following to check that you have refereed journal articles - www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ The site can be used with the LTU License on campus but not always accessible off campus.