Task 1:
Relevant theory and frameworks.


Have you selected an appropriate set of theoretical frameworks and/or method(s)? Are they appropriate?

E.g. Reference to
Strategy triangle/management models;
Porter’s Generic Strategies Framework (and its variants);
Hypercompetition and the New 7-S’s framework (D’Aveni);
Co-opetition (Brandenburg and Nalebuff)

0 to 5 points

There is little or no attempt to relate this to the theory of the module.

6 to 9 points

There is some attempt to relate this to the theory of the module, but this could have been covered in more detail, or more closely integrated into your discussion.

10 to 12 points

There is a clear and concise account of the topic, and how this relates to the theory of the module, showing clear understanding of both the subject area and the strategic frameworks.

Argument

Have you provided appropriate discussion in the context of relevant literature?

0 to 5 points

There has been little or no attempt to cite in the body of the work, or too much of a dependence on direct quotations. There is little evidence of wider research; the list of references consists mainly of websites. The reference list may be incomplete, or references are not in Harvard format.

6 to 9 points

There has been some attempt to reference in the body of the guide either by citation or acknowledging the sources of direct quotations, although this may be incomplete or not in Harvard format. You have used a number of resources, although there may be too much of a dependence on internet sources, some of which may not be reliable. The reference lists reflects the citations and quotations, although there may be some errors or omissions.

10 to 12 points

Sources have been acknowledged with correct use of citations and acknowledgement of direct quotation. The reference list reflects the citations and is in Harvard format. You have used a wide range of appropriate resources, including books and journals as well as relevant websites.

Application

Was the theory applied correctly and effectively?

Were appropriate conclusions drawn and recommendations made?

0 to 5 points

There may be evidence of research and some understanding of the subject area. However, there is little or no introduction and/or conclusion, and the report lacks structure and does not flow well.

6 to 9 points

Sound understanding of the subject area. Some attempt has been made to structure the report appropriately, although occasionally ideas fail to make sense together.

10 to 12 points

Good understanding of the subject area. The report contains a clear introduction and conclusion. The body of the report presents the arguments clearly and logically, showing a thoughtful and in depth analysis of the topic. There is good evidence of understanding. You have analysed your findings and these have been synthesised to produce a clear, well-structured report.

Category

Sub Category

Skill Name

Skill Code

Levels

Role

Strategy & architecture

Technical strategy and planning

Emerging technology monitoring

EMRG

4, 5, 6

Technical consultant

Task 2.1

Categories and levels exists for each selected skill

0 to 2 points

There is little or no familiarity with the SfIA framework

3 to 5 points

Some errors or omissions but categories and levels exists for each selected skill and there is some relation to the role.

6 to 6 points

Categories and levels exist for each selected skill and skills apply to the roles.

Task 2.2

Job spec matches 2.1
Context and activities

Evidence of research

0 to 2 points

Largely incomplete or jobs selected do not match 2.1

3 to 5 points

Some errors or omissions but generally job spec matches 2.1 and context and activities of appropriate vacancies have been provided.

6 to 6 points

Job spec matches 2.1 and context and activities of vacancies have been provided. Jobs are appropriate for recent IT graduate.

2 similar schemes exist

0 to 0 points

If schemes are provided, these are not IT graduate training schemes provided

1 to 2 points

One IT graduate training scheme provided

3 to 4 points

Two IT graduate training schemes provided

Task 2.3 discussion:

Narrative argument and application

0 to 3 points

Largely incomplete.

4 to 9 points

There has been some discussion of the schemes. However, this may centre on salary and other general issues rather than IT or computing specific issues.

10 to 12 points

All 3 schemes have been evaluated in depth, with advantages and disadvantages of each identified, and one selected, with a justification for the choice based on career opportunities.

Task 3 Relevant theory and frameworks

Have you selected an appropriate set of theoretical frameworks and/or method(s)?

Are they appropriate?

Have you explained ERP?

Is your explanation of ERP case study specific?

0 to 4 points

There is some understanding of ERP, but this has not been related to the case study organisation.

5 to 6 points

There is sound understanding of ERP, but this could have been more closely related to the case study organisation.

7 to 8 points

There is a clear and concise account of the ERP, and how this relates to the case study organisation

Argument

Have you provided appropriate discussion in the context of relevant literature?

Have you understood the nature of the problem?

Is your discussion case study specific?

0 to 6 points

There has been little or no attempt to cite in the body of the work, or too much of a dependence on direct quotations. There is little or no evidence or research into the case study organisation. The reference list may be incomplete, or references are not in Harvard format.

7 to 10 points

There has been some attempt to reference in the body of the guide either by citation or acknowledging the sources of direct quotations, although this may be incomplete or not in Harvard format. There is some evidence of research into the case study organisation. You have used a number of resources, although there may be too much of a dependence on internet sources, some of which may not be reliable. The reference lists reflects the citations and quotations, although there may be some errors or omissions.

11 to 14 points

Sources have been acknowledged with correct use of citations and acknowledgement of direct quotation. The reference list reflects the citations and is in Harvard format. It is clear that you have extensively researched the case study organisation. You have used a wide range of appropriate resources, including books and journals as well as relevant websites.

Application

Have you identified business and technical issues, benefits and problems?

Are these issues, benefits and problems case study specific?

0 to 6 points

There may be evidence of research and some understanding of the subject area. However, there is little or no introduction and/or conclusion, and the report lacks structure and does not flow well.

7 to 10 points

Sound understanding of the subject area. Some attempt has been made to structure the report appropriately, although occasionally ideas fail to make sense together.

11 to 14 points

Good understanding of the subject area. The report contains a clear introduction and conclusion. The body of the report presents the arguments clearly and logically, showing a thoughtful and in depth analysis of the topic. There is good evidence of understanding. You have analysed your findings and these have been synthesised to produce a clear, well-structured report.

Grade descriptors

In addition to the assessment criteria above the following table may assist you in understanding how we arrive at your final mark. Indeed your final mark should agree with the following grade descriptors, but note that the assessment criteria are the main means of assessment.

Mark

Descriptor

0-39%

Limited conceptual understanding with possible structural deficiencies.  Restricted use of theory within module.  Inappropriate argument leading to unreliable and invalid conclusions/recommendations

40-49%

Some confusion in purpose & aims of evaluation.  Some overall structure and conceptual understanding. Fair use of theory but arguments sometimes irrelevant, illogical or with unsupported assertions.

50-59%

Demonstrates a limited but accurate level of understanding presented in a mostly descriptive manner. The answer contains relevant interpretation and critical understanding especially at the upper end of the marking range.

60-69%

Demonstrates accurate knowledge and understanding of the subject presented in a coherent manner.  The answer contains evidence of application and interpretation.  At the upper end there is evidence of thoughtful and measured critical evaluation.

70-79%

Demonstrates a clear, comprehensively researched understanding of relevant material with some element of critical evaluation. Shows initiative in approach and rigour in the handling of information. Demonstrates originality of thought together with interpretation and application to the relevant sector

80% or above

The answer is analytical and critical. The assignment demonstrates scholarship through a depth of insight and understanding of relevant material, which is logically structured, accurate and well referenced. Originality of thought and application is evident.