The organisations featured were from a broad range of sectors and many reports had a good focus that linked the theory very well to practice. Better reports used a wide range of theory that showed a significant extension of the theory provided in lecturers. These more academically focused reports also used numerous journal articles with some reviewing the more specialist communications based journals. These reports in particular were able to more effectively assess and evaluate communications output with the degree of academic rigour required.
A criticism of some reports was the lack of academic rigour that underpinned the evaluations made. Your individual feedback will reflect this if this is the case for you. Some reports were over-descriptive and the report failed to apply the theory effectively to the business and the communications they produced. This was a considerable problem as it left the report lacking in depth of analysis. This usually results in weaker or even inappropriate recommendations where some report focused on aspects of the business like for example new market development or new product developed that lacked the necessary communications focus required.
Many report made a good attempt at addressing all aspects of the brief and these reports produced a more balanced and so effective audit of the organisations communications function. However some reports focused far too much on one aspect of communication, usually the external communications. Some students said this was because it was difficult to find out about the internal communications functions. Addressing both internal and external communications with a degree of balance was a requirement of the brief (and discussed in seminars and lectures as well). Time spent researching those aspects of the business communications processes that were more difficult to identify and evaluate would have been time well spent and would have resulted in a more effective audit of the overall communications function as was required.