Criteria High Distinction (80 – 100%) Distinction (70 – 79% Credit (60 – 69% Pass (50 – 59%) Fail (0 – 49%) Research – extent and application Value 30% Mark awarded Integration and originality in the selection and handling of relevant theory to build and justify analysis. Wide range of current and relevant sources integrated in systematic way. Insightful and appropriate selection of theory from a good range of current and relevant sources to systematically build and justify analysis. Minimum paraphrasing Good selection of theory from a range of sources to build and adequately justifies analysis. Paraphrasing used throughout but accompanied by original explanations Minimum number of sources, not all current or relevant. Paraphrasing used throughout but not always accompanied by original explanations. Theory relevant but not always linked to analysis. Inaccurate, inappropriate or no use of literature. Analysis not developed. No original explanations provided. Analysis of the organisation Value 30% Mark awarded Identifies and insightfully discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Strong links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation. All aspects of the task completed in a comprehensive and cohesive manner Identifies and clearly explains areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation. All aspects of the task completed with minimal errors in cohesion Identifies and discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Discussion of some relevant issues in theory and organisational content in evaluation. All aspects of the task completed – some cohesion. Simple discussion of areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Work reflects limited engagement with organisational context or relevant theory. Not all aspects of task completed In sufficient detail. Most aspects of the task completed but assessment lacks cohesion. Poor evaluation. Significant gaps in knowledge of the theory and lack of understanding of company’s capabilities. No analysis provided. Disjointed or no discussion. Recommendations / conclusions Value 30% Mark awarded Excellent recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used in insightful way to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of the organisation’s capabilities Very good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used systematically to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of the organisation’s capabilities Good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation results / may not be linked back systematically to relevant theory Some recommendations made / not well linked to the results of the evaluation or relevant theory. Few or no recommendations made / no justification. Any recommendations made are not supported or are inaccurate. Presentation Value 10% Mark awarded Highly professional presentation – satisfies all presentation elements. Correct referencing throughout Professional presentation – minor errors in some elements. Correct referencing throughout Good presentation overall but some obvious errors. Referencing is mainly accurate Acceptable presentation – obvious errors demonstrating lack of attention to detail. Some attempt at referencing but obvious errors Referencing is absent / not systematic / incorrect Total mark out of 20 Comments: RUBRIC- MGT702 –- HRM - Group Report – Case study- 20%