ACCOUNTING

7

High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory (Fail) evidence about the implementation of SAFE solution by Toronto Pearson.

implementation of SAFE solution by Toronto Pearson.

4 marks

Marking rubric for the Feasibility Analysis Report

8

High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory (Fail)

Exec.

Summary

In a concise but informative manner summarises the purpose, the background, the results of the analysis and the recommendations. The terminology used is aligned with the case description and the body of the report.

2 marks

Overall, a good summary of the report, which however does not cover one of the key elements of the report, i.e. the purpose, the background, the results of the analysis, or the recommendations.

Executive summary either lacks specificity or, on the contrary, covers certain elements of report in too much detail, which is unnecessary for a summary section.

Some key elements of the summary section are not covered at all (purpose, results, etc.).

The message of the summary section is hard to follow due to the multiple grammatical mistakes.

The content of the summary section does not serve its intended purpose due to: – abundant irrelevant information; and/or – multiple factual or grammatical errors; and/or – lack of necessary information

The executive summary either is not submitted as part of the report or its content is largely irrelevant.

9

High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory (Fail)

Purpose The purpose communicates clearly and succinctly the intended high- level objective

0.5 marks

Good articulation of the report’s purpose, however the expression could be improved due to the following reasons:

– too wordy (more than one sentence long);

– too brief;

– does not use proper terminology

The purpose of the report lacks specificity and/or contains irrelevant information.

The stated purpose is somewhat aligned with the case study, but either contains factual errors or

The purpose of the report is not presented

The purpose of the report is largely irrelevant in the context of the case study.

The purpose of the report is copied form a published source, which raises the concerns regarding plagiarism.

10

High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory (Fail)

Back- ground

The section presents sufficient information about problem context and the rationale behind the suggested software solution. The section provides necessary empirical evidence in relation to the operational context where the software solution is proposed to be implemented. The section provides a succinct and informative description of the proposed solution (no direct quotation from the case study though). The section provides sufficient evidence of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed solution based on the available knowledge of its past implementation.

3 marks

The requirements for high distinction mark are largely met, however some of the required aspects of the background are not presented, which still allows to form a well-informed opinion about the nature of the problem and the suggested solution.

The requirements for high distinction mark are addressed only partially. Some of the important elements of the requirements are not met. This may relate to the lack of sufficient level of detail when describing the problem context or the suggested solution.

The background description provided is very basic, making it difficult to come up to any conclusive arguments about the problem(s) that need to be addressed and the solution(s) suggested.

The background is either missing or cannot be used as a source of evidence of the problems experienced by the organisation and the solution(s) suggested to remedy the problems.

11

High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory (Fail)

Assump- tions made when conductin g ROI analysis

The rationale and, where appropriate, the calculations for the suggested figures inputted into the cells with double-line borders and a grey fill are presented. For example, if the figure was suggested as a product of calculations based on the available data about the use of the solution by Toronto Pearson, a quick explanation is provided about how these figures are extrapolated to the new problem context. The explanation behind each figure can be done either as a table cell or as a separate short paragraph – whatever reporting style you find most convenient. Those figures that are not substantiated by the case material may require your personal judgment. In this case, you may argue that the suggested figure is reasonable in the given context because of such and such considerations (which may be quite basic).

4.0 marks

The requirements for high distinction mark are largely met, however an explanation of one or a couple of variables is missing, erroneous and/or not well articulated

The requirements for high distinction mark are generally met, however an explanation of several variables is missing, erroneous and/or not well articulated

The requirements for high distinction mark are somewhat met, however an explanation of substantial number of variables is missing, erroneous and/or not well articulated

The assumptions are either not communicated or are largely erroneous.

12

High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory (Fail)

Results of the Analysis

The results of the Economic Feasibility (ROI) analysis are presented in a form of a concise report section where the judgement of the economic feasibility of the project will be made based on the reported level of NPV, IRR, and, if necessary, other variables calculated in the spreadsheet.

3.5 marks

The requirements for high distinction mark are largely met, however the reported levels of IRR, and/or NPV, and/or other relevant variables are not considered in the discussion of the results.

The requirements for high distinction mark are generally met, however some of the interpretations of the results are erroneous.

The requirements for high distinction mark are partially met, however the interpretation of the results is subject to multiple mistakes.

The results of the analysis are either not presented or are largely erroneous.

13

High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory (Fail)

Recomme ndations

A clear set of recommendations (or just one recommendation) are made, which take into account:

– the purpose of the analysis – the nature of the problems that

are intended to be addressed by the solution

– the economic feasibility of the suggested solution.

The requirements for high distinction mark are largely met, however the suggested recommendation somewhat lacks substance (e.g. it might not refer, where necessary, to the results of the feasibility analysis presented earlier in the report)

The requirements for high distinction mark are not always met, since the suggested recommendation lacks substance (e.g. the results of the feasibility analysis presented earlier in the report are not mentioned);

Although an attempt to substantiate the suggested recommendation is still made.

No attempt to substantiate the suggested recommendation is made.

No clear recommendation provided

3 marks

Marking rubric for the bonus mark

The following mandatory sections of the Feasibility Analysis Report are not explicitly mentioned in the marking rubrics above:

Supplementaries (if any) Reference list (if any references are used) Appendices (if any)

However, if the contents of these sections are informative, well executed and overall provide substantial support in the analysis and recommendations conveyed through the report, the assessor can add one extra mark to the assignment mark. Please note, in this case the overall mark cannot exceed 20/20.

Order now and get 10% discount on all orders above $50 now!!The professional are ready and willing handle your assignment.

ORDER NOW »»