Criteria to be Assessed
|
HD
|
DI
|
CR
|
PS
|
FL
|
Use of relevant innovation literature to design and justify innovation framework
Value 30%
|
Integration and originality in the selection and handling of relevant theory to build and justify framework. Wide range of sources integrated in systematic way.
|
Insightful and appropriate selection of theory from a good range of sources to systematically build and justify framework.
|
Good selection of theory from a range of sources to build and adequately justifies useful framework.
|
Framework developed but limited research or framework incomplete in areas. Lacks justification of choice of elements.
|
Inaccurate or inappropriate use of literature on innovation. Framework not developed.
|
Critical evaluation of chosen organisation
Value 30%
|
Identifies and insightfully discusses areas of strength and weakness in innovation capabilities. Strong links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation.
|
Identifies and clearly explains
areas of strength and weakness in innovation capabilities.
Links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation
|
Identifies and discusses areas of strength and weakness in innovation capabilities. Discussion of some relevant issues in theory and organisational content in evaluation.
|
Simple discussion of areas of strength and weakness in innovation capabilities. Works reflects limited engagement with organisational context or relevant theory. Not all aspects of task completed in sufficient detail.
|
Poor evaluation.
Significant gaps in knowledge of innovation and lack of understanding of company’s capabilities.
|
Recommendations to address areas of weakness
Value 30%
|
Excellent recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used in insightful way to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of innovation capabilities
|
Very good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Used theory systematically to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of innovation capabilities
|
Good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation results / may not have linked back systematically to relevant theory
|
Some recommendations made / not well linked to the results of the evaluation or relevant theory
|
No recommendations made / no justification
|
Referencing using APA
Value 5%
|
Referencing is consistently accurate
|
Referencing is mainly accurate
|
Referencing is mainly accurate
|
Some attempt at referencing
|
Referencing is absent / not systematic
|
Presentation
Value 5%
|
Polished and imaginative approach / very professionally presented
|
Logically organised / professionally presented /
|
Shows organisation and coherence.
|
Attempted to organise in a logical manner
|
Disorganised / incoherent
|