Broad criteria
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory- Good
Business report: style, fluency, persuasive
Max Marks = 1
Max Marks = 2
language with assurance and precision in the
Lacked clarity. Spelling and
Some clarity evident, however
business report.
grammatical errors evident
work would benefit from closer
throughout. Work would benefit
attention to expression and
from proof reading. Submission
grammar. Submission attempts to
does not apply a business report
apply a business report structure to
structure to its presentation.
its presentation but areas for
Report items 1-4: Develop and provide an
Max Marks = 5
Max Marks = 7
introduction to the plan by explaining its
Knowledge of principles and
Demonstrates some knowledge of
purpose and importance. The risk appetite and
concepts of risk management
principles and concepts of risk
risk tolerance for the company; Create an
insufficient to communicate
management and is able to
outline for the completed risk management
intelligently about the topic.
communicate this. May lack some
plan; Define the scope and boundaries of the
Lacks clarity. Most responses
clarity. Most responses were
plan; Develop a proposed schedule for the risk
were very general with minimal
general with some understanding
management planning process.
or no little understanding of risk
of risk appetite and risk tolerance.
appetite and risk tolerance.
Scope, boundaries complete but
Scope, boundaries is
lacks discussing evidence of overall
disorganized, incomplete, or
risk management assessment.
lacks in evidence of overall risk
management assessment.
Report items 5-6: Identify the key roles and
Max Marks = 5
Max Marks = 7
responsibilities of individuals and departments
Knowledge of roles and
Demonstrates some knowledge of
within the organization as they pertain to risk
responsibilities with respect to
roles and responsibilities and is
assessment; Develop a proposed schedule for
risk assessment insufficient or
able to communicate this. Lacks
the RA process.
weakly communicated. Overall
some clarity in defining roles.
lacks clarity. Most responses
Response to schedule for RA
were very general with minimal
process may be missing some
or no little understanding of how
points..
to run RA process.
Report items 7-8: Carefully audit the case,
Max Marks = 5
Max Marks = 7
undertake an inventory and identify
Knowledge of principles and
Demonstrates ability to synthesis
information assets that includes both,
concepts insufficient to
and apply core concepts and
Cornersea’s most significant business
communicate intelligently about
principles. Addresses most of
information, and the information systems
the topic. Lacks clarity. Most
requirements and provides some
that must be accounted for in any approach
responses were very general
examples, demonstrating analysis
to risk management. Identifies information
with minimal or no examples
and organisation of assets, threats
assets and systems of organisation most at
relating back to the case assets,
and vulnerabilities with good case
risk; Identifies and provides an analysis of
threats and vulnerabilities.
context presented.
the threats and vulnerabilities that pose the
Analysis is disorganized,
greatest concern. (Identify 6 top risks)
incomplete, or lacking in
evidence of asset, threat and
vulnerability assessment.
Report items 9-10: Presents likelihood and
Max Marks = 5
Max Marks = 7
impact analyses for the threats and
Understanding of likelihood and
Demonstrates evidence of having
vulnerabilities identified. Prioritises risks and
impact analyses is not
understood core concepts and
presents a risk assessment table
demonstrated. Lack of
principles for likelihood, impact
understanding of what should be
analyses and approaches to
contained in a risk assessment
assessment. Core materials are
table and no other substantial
understood and capacity to
approach to evaluate or
synthesise is shown but report does
prioritise the material value of
not extend itself to a clear
assets or the effect of threats or
demonstration of mastery of all
vulnerabilities is shown.
important concepts.
Referencing and use of guidelines, standards,
Max Marks = 1
Max Marks = 2
frameworks and additional readings:
Either did not provide an
Provided a minimum of references
Demonstrated rigor of use of resources with
adequate list of references OR
from credible sources standards,
supporting references
included a bibliography instead
guidelines, frameworks Created a
& adherence to Harvard
i.e. not all references were cited
reference list but with significant
Guidelines
in the body of the report or vice
errors/omissions. Did not strictly
versa. Demonstrates very little
adhere to Harvard guidelines.
evidence of having read core
Provides some evidence of working
materials. Minimal or no
with sources but could improve
evidence of research to support
analysis of sources.
responses.
Additional feedback comments:
Very Good
Max Marks = 2.5
Good writing style. Further development of expression and clarity will enhance the work. Additional focus is needed on the precision of your communication. Submission applies most elements
Max Marks = 9
Demonstrates sound knowledge of principles and concepts of risk management and is able to articulate this. Most responses were good with a good understanding of risk appetite and risk tolerance. Scope, boundaries complete but may lack some clarity in discussing risk management assessment.
Max Marks = 9
Demonstrates good understanding of the roles and responsibilities within organization and is able to articulate this. Most responses show a good understanding of how to conduct the risk assessment and has provided a relatively complete schedule.
Max Marks = 9
Shows sound knowledge of relevant principles and concepts. Additional focus needed on precision of assessment of assets, threats and vulnerabilities because some key elements that needed to be covered are missing. Case evidence is present but could be extended/ improved.
Max Marks = 9
Sound knowledge of principles and concepts. ideas are included in the work in an appropriate manner. Demonstrates thorough understanding of standards, guidelines and frameworks for likelihood, impact analyses and risk assessment, evidence of some critical thinking shown.
Max Marks = 2.5
Provides a good body of references and is working effectively with a minimum of credible sources, standards, guidelines, frameworks. Reasonably structured reference list. May not strictly adhere to Harvard guidelines but good use of references in report.
Excellent
Max Marks = 4
Excellent writing style
demonstrating precision in the
clear use of language and
expression. Submission has applied
almost all elements of a business
report structure thoughtfully and
Max Marks = 12
Evidence of excellent
understanding of risk management
processes, principles and concepts.
Excellent understanding of risk
appetite and risk tolerance with
respect to case study. Scope,
boundaries complete and clearly
discussed with respect to risk
management assessment.
Max Marks = 12
Evidence of excellent
understanding of risk assessment
process, roles and responsibilities
with the context of risk
management and specific to this
case study. Good proposed
schedule.
Max Marks = 12
Evidence of an exceptionally high
standard of work demonstrating
understanding, interpretation and
application of unit concepts and
principles. Shows understanding of
integral contexts & relationships
between assets, threats &
vulnerabilities and the case. Has
identified limitations ,
assumptions, challenges for the
analysis. Demonstrates evaluation
& critical thinking.
Max Marks = 11
Demonstrates breadth and depth
of understanding, shows insights
and awareness of many deeper
more subtle aspects of the topic
and, as result, integrates
standards, guidelines and
frameworks for likelihood, impact
analyses and risk assessment
extremely well. Expand on topics/
issues in the broader evaluative
context.
Max Marks = 4
Provides good integrated use of
multiple credible sources (two or
more ) standards, guidelines,
frameworks brought together
effectively. Excellent work with
reference list clearly demonstrated.
Adherence to Harvard guidelines.
Demonstrates a breadth and depth
of study and preparation in well
chosen sources and their use.
Original Score out of 55
0
Score out of 25
0
Late deduction (# of days) =
0
Final Mark (including deductions)
0.0