Impact of Technological Innovation on Strategic Opportunities and Threats

Below pass

40-49%

50-59%

60-69%

70-79%

80%+

Breadth of

relevant ideas,

concepts and

frameworks

(weight: 40%)

The paper does not

address the brief

specifically. It may contain

generic statements,

possibly linked to, or

informed by, disciplines

that are somewhat related

to the module, but it does

not meet the requirement

of relevance to the brief.

The paper includes few

ideas, concepts or

frameworks from at least 3

of the subject areas listed

in the brief, but those

ideas, concepts or

frameworks are not always

used in a way that is

correct or relevant way.

The paper includes ideas,

concepts or frameworks

from 3 of the subject areas

listed in the brief, and most

of those ideas, concepts or

frameworks are employed

in ways that are correct

and relevant to the brief.

The paper includes ideas,

concepts or frameworks

from 4 of the subject areas

listed in the brief, and most

of those ideas, concepts or

frameworks are employed

in ways that are correct

and relevant to the brief.

The paper includes ideas,

concepts or frameworks

from 5 of the subject areas

listed in the brief, and most

of those ideas, concepts or

frameworks are employed

in ways that are correct

and relevant to the brief.

The paper includes key

ideas, concepts and

frameworks from all of the

subject areas listed in the

brief, and clear ability to

apply those ideas and

concepts to the case in

ways that are correct and

relevant.

Depth of

analysis and

critical thinking

(weight: 40%)

No or limited evidence of

understanding the brief.

Some of the concepts

covered in the lectures

may have been merely

mentioned and/or used in

a generic way (as in a

mechanical exercise of

‘box-ticking’) rather than

actually applied

thoughtfully to make a

point or build an argument.

The ideas, concepts or

frameworks used in the

paper are understood only

at an elemental level. The

student has not applied

them to the case in order

to really make a point or

build an argument.

Good understanding of the

ideas, concepts or

frameworks used in the

paper. Most of those

ideas, concepts or

frameworks are applied to

the case thoughtfully to

make a coherent point or

build a clear argument, but

some important elements

of conceptual uncertainty

or confusion still exist.

Complete understanding

of the ideas, concepts or

frameworks used in the

paper. Clear ability to

employ most of those

ideas, concepts and

frameworks critically to

build one strong and

coherent argument. Only

minor or occasional

elements of conceptual

uncertainty or confusion.

Deep and complete

understanding of the

ideas, concepts and

frameworks used in the

paper. These are applied

to the case in a critical

way. The student may

have tried to explore some

possible interrelationships

between key ideas,

concepts and frameworks.

No elements of conceptual

uncertainty or confusion.

As for the previous level

plus the ability to use

independent, critical

thinking to explore

thoroughly and effectively

the possible

interdependences

between - or conflicting

managerial indications

arising from - the ideas,

concepts and frameworks

used in the paper.

Presentation

(weight: 20%)

Poor presentation.

Grammatical (including

syntactical) errors and/or

frequent typos, and/or an

inadequate writing style

(e.g. excessively informal)

undermine the ability to

convey complete

meanings and/or to make

a point. Referencing is

systematically inaccurate.

Modest level of

presentation. Numerous

grammatical errors and/or

typos undermine clarity

and proper sense-making,

but the paper conveys at

least one clear point or

part of a possible

argument. Partly incorrect

referencing. Broadly

adequate style.

Acceptable level of

presentation. Some

grammatical errors and/or

typos may be present but

they do not undermine the

ability to convey definite

meanings or to make a

clear point. Mostly correct

referencing and adequate

style.

Good level of presentation.

Only sporadic grammatical

errors and/or typos.

Sentences are well

thought through and

convey definite meanings,

which concur to build a

clear argument. Mostly

correct referencing and

adequate style.

Very good quality of

writing and very accurate

presentation. No or very

sporadic grammatical

errors/typos. Thoughts are

expressed in a clear and

concise way. Correct and

accurate referencing.

Adequate and clear writing

style.

As for the previous level

plus: (1) a writing style that

is not only clear and

adequate but it also makes

the paper easy and

pleasant to read; and (2)

the ability to synthesise

and weave together a

broad range of concepts

while preserving clarity.