Tiêu đề Team E.pdf ✅

Criteria and loadings F (0) F (0-4) D (4-5.4) C (5.5-6.9) B (7-8.4) A (8.5-10) GROUP E Overview of the customer (20%) Articulating relevant and key characteristics of the organisation Non-submission OR Plagiarism OR No overview provided Does not provide adequate elements of the organisational overview Includes only a few basic facts (e.g., name, establishment year) but omits most required items Presentation is fragmented with little or no coherent timeline or summary of key data (2020–2024) Covers most required elements Provides high-level financial figures for 2020–2024 but without full context or clear formatting OR no provision of financial information without reasonable explanations Presents a well-organised overview with all elements Includes organisational chart or HR summary plus charter capital and owners’ equity Financial indicators for 2020–2024 are complete, correctly labeled, and easy to interpret OR reasonable explanations of the absence of financial information Delivers a comprehensive, precisely formatted overview that integrates every elements Timeline highlights key milestones vividly. Organisational chart is accurately and well-presented; financial indicators (2020–2024) are thoroughly analysed 6.5 Analysis of the customer (25%) Analysing both the external and internal environments of the organisation Applying relevant theories and frameworks Non-submission OR Plagiarism OR No examination of either the internal or exteral environment Analysis restates and at best paraphrases existing information on the organisation’s internal and external environments, demonstrating no analytical and critical thinking No relevant theories/frameworks are applied Analysis remains at a descriptive level, providing an overview of one environment (internal or external) but not both and failing to show how they interact Theories/frameworks are misapplied or applied superficially in a way that adds no value (e.g., listing out the framework elements without engaging with data/evidence) Analysis summarises the key features of the organisation’s internal and external environments with reasonable clarity Theories/frameworks are applied with inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies Analysis provides a clear and evidence-based examination of both internal and external environments Relevant theories/frameworks are accurately applied to generate key insights Analysis provides a comprehensive, evidence-based and nuanced assessment of all relevant internal and external environmental elements Highly relevant theories/frameworks are well applied and synthesised to offer a comprehensive and deep analysis of the organisation 6.5 Analysis of the pain points (15%) Identifying the pain points Analysing and articulating their implications for the customer Non-submission OR Plagiarism OR No pain points identified Pain points are are irrelevant, vague and not built upon the organisational analysis Pain points are overly general or loosely tied to the organisational analysis; failure to articulate why these issues matter Pain points are logically linked to the organisational analysis and supported by evidence; root causes linked to both environments are briefly touched upon without being fully explored Pain points are coherently presented and grounded in the organisational analysis of both the internal and external environments; specific internal and external environmental linkages are well-articulated and discussed Pain points are accurately identified considering their relative importance to the organisation, demonstrating evidence-based and original interpretation; root causes are well-articulated with strategic implications of both environments, ideally hinting at the solutions that will be the topic of the next report 6.5 Research (20%) Academic and non-academic research Non-submission OR Plagiarism OR No research evident Minimal research: citations are from non-peer- reviewed and/or non-credible sources Evidence is provided without being linked to any argument, demonstrating superficial or very limited understanding of the organisation Basic research: citations are largely from peer-reviewed and/or credible sources Evidence is used sporadically and as standalone facts rather than integrated into arguments, demonstrating partial understanding of the organisation Satisfactory research: citations are from peer- reviewed and/or credible sources Evidence appropriately, timely and clearly substantiates specific parts of arguments, demonstrating good understanding of the organisation Good research: citations are from recognised peer-reviewed and/or highly credible sources Evidence is smoothly integrated into arguments to advance analysis, demonstrating solid and well- informed understanding of the organisation Excellent research: citations are from top-tier peer- reviewed and/or highly credible sources Evidence is insightfully and critically discussed, demonstrating deep, nuanced and original understanding of the organisation 5.4 Structure and organisation (10%) Executive summary, sections and paragraphing Non-submission OR Plagiarism OR No structure No clear organisational structure: sections (if any) are disorganised; chunking is poorly done Executive summary fails to provide a comprehensive and concise overview of the report’s main arguments Limited structure is present; chunking is acceptable but unremarkable Executive summary provides a simple and brief outline of what the report will cover without clarity and adequate details Sections are logically ordered; chunking is appropriate and timely Executive summary provides a good outline of what the report will cover, including the main arguments while excluding some important details Sections are explicitly linked and flow smoothly; chunking is solid Executive summary provides a succinct, comprehensive summary of every main argument and its placement in the report Sections are well-arranged with seamless transitions; chunking is exemplary Executive summary provides a fully detailed and well- articulated summary of all core arguments, perfectly mirroring the report’s structure 6.9 Written expression (5%) Appropriate academic English at the undergraduate level Non-submission OR Plagiarism OR No meaningful or comprehensible materials Uses everyday or non-academic language; frequent grammar/formatting errors; many sentences are poorly constructed or unclear Generally attempts academic tone; several grammar/formatting mistakes; most sentences make sense but lack polish Consistently academic style with only minor errors; sentences are correctly formed throughout and convey meaning clearly Strong academic English; very few errors; sentences are well structured and clear Fluent, error-free academic writing; concise and precise; consistently sophisticated, capable of handling complex concepts 6.5 References (5%) Accuracy, consistency, adequacy and compliance with the APA 7th referencing method Non-submission OR Plagiarism OR No in-text citations AND reference list Either the reference list or in-text citations is not provided OR No or few in-text references are used, or references are mostly inaccurate or untimely; the references do not conform to APA 7th; the reference list does not match the in-text citations Several in-text citations present but inconsistently formatted; partial adherence to APA 7th; reference list and in-text citations only partially align In-text citations and the reference list entries generally follow APA 7th with minor errors; all sources cited in text appear in the list (and vice versa) Citations are complete, timely, and correctly formatted in APA 7th; in-text and reference list fully match; sources are well integrated Exemplary and flawless APA 7th formatting; in-text citations and reference list perfectly aligned and seamlessly integrated into the narrative 2 Final mark 6.1