Assignment 1
Assignment 1
Criteria Ratings Pts
Introduction

– Clearly define the needs for IT for e-supply chain coordination.

10.0 to >8.0 Pts

EXCEPTIONAL — 1) Introduction establishes context and engages the reader in a way that demands to be read. 2) The objective/direction of the report is clearly stated and well presented.

8.0 to >6.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS — 1) Introduction is well defined well structured. 2) Order and structure are present, but could be made a little clearer or better presented.

6.0 to >4.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATELY— 1) Introduction is presented but the content is not well presented. 2) The direction in this assignment is not well explained.

4.0 to >2.0 Pts

MARGINALLY DEMONSTRATED — 1) Introduction fails to set context or engage reader. 2) Choice of areas included in the introduction is irrelevant.

2.0 to >0 Pts

NOT DEMONSTRATED — 1) Little attempts to explain/define the purpose of writing this assignment.
10.0 pts
Discussion on “How”

Outline how the IT has benefited the business in their e-supply chain coordination

20.0 to >16.0 Pts

EXCEPTIONAL — 1) Clearly identifies and insightfully analyses how IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination. 2) Demonstrates exceptional knowledge an understanding in addressing how.

16.0 to >12.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS — 1) Clearly identifies how IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination and analyses them adequately.

12.0 to >8.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATELY — 1) Demonstrates understanding between how and why IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination. However, the connections on how and why to improve eSC coordination are not in-depth enough.

8.0 to >4.0 Pts

MARGINALLY DEMONSTRATED — 1) The questions about how are identified and analysed, but lack of in-depth explanation. 2) Some evidence does not support the point or inappropriate.

4.0 to >0 Pts

NOT DEMONSTRATED — 1) Does not clearly identify or analyse the main outlines (How). 2) No evidence of how IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination provided.
20.0 pts
Discussion on “Why”

Outline why the IT has benefited the business in their e-supply chain coordination

20.0 to >16.0 Pts

EXCEPTIONAL — 1) Clearly identifies and insightfully analyses why IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination. 2) Demonstrates exceptional knowledge an understanding in addressing why.

16.0 to >12.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS — 1) Clearly identifies why IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination and analyses them adequately. 2) Demonstrates good understanding and knowledge in the questions why.

12.0 to >8.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATELY — 1) Demonstrates understanding between why and how IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination. However, the connections on why and how to improve eSC coordination are not in-depth enough.

8.0 to >4.0 Pts

MARGINALLY DEMONSTRATED — 1) The questions about why are identified and analysed, but lack of in-depth explanation. 2) Little research is apparent and weak evidence of the questions “why” provided .

4.0 to >0 Pts

NOT DEMONSTRATED — 1) Does not clearly identify or analyse the main outlines (Why). 2) No evidence of why IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination provided.
20.0 pts
Discussion on ‘how’ to compete.

How can a company/businesses use IT in eSC coordination to compete in this environment

20.0 to >16.0 Pts

EXCEPTIONAL — 1) Clearly identifies the IT in use eSC coordination, embedded or implicit aspects of the roles.

16.0 to >12.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS — 1) Demonstrates good understanding of how can a company use IT in eSC coordination to compete in this environment.

12.0 to >8.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATELY — 1) With brief discussions how can a company use IT in eSC coordination to compete in this environment? 2) The writer may include information that is not directly relevant to the objective.

8.0 to >4.0 Pts

MARGINALLY DEMONSTRATED — 1) Does not offer adequate discussion about how and why IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination and to compete in a competitive environment.

4.0 to >0 Pts

NOT DEMONSTRATED – 1) Does not demonstrate connection on how and why IT has benefited businesses in eSC coordination. 2) Exploration of issue is superficial or trivial.
20.0 pts
In-depth research.

In-depth research conducted in the selected topic

15.0 to >12.0 Pts

EXCEPTIONAL — Exceptional research conducted beyond in the assigned tasks.

12.0 to >9.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS — 1) Substantial research conducted to prove an in-depth understanding and discussion in the selected topic.

9.0 to >6.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATELY — 1) Adequate research conducted to understand the selected topic and to address the objectives in the assignment.

6.0 to >3.0 Pts

MARGINALLY DEMONSTRATED — 1) Minimum research conducted but still inadequate to address the selected topic.

3.0 to >0 Pts

NOT DEMONSTRATED — 1) Little or no research conducted in the selected topic.
15.0 pts
Conclusion

10.0 to >8.0 Pts

EXCEPTIONAL — 1) Conclusion is insightful and conclusive. 2) Insightful plan to leverage topic, concise and drawing well from the discussion and evidence.

8.0 to >6.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS — 1) Conclusion is appropriate. Rich insights and impactful and drawing well from the discussion and evidence.

6.0 to >4.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATELY — 1) Reflective conclusion, highlight key aspects of the topic.

4.0 to >2.0 Pts

MARGINALLY DEMONSTRATED — 1) Poor summarising and generic or somewhat irrelevant conclusions. Stating basics rather than highlighting insights.

2.0 to >0 Pts

NOT DEMONSTRATED — 1) Little or no reflection on impacts of the case. 2)Unclear conclusions or not relevant to the topic.
10.0 pts
Referencing & Formats

Demonstration of proper citing and referencing in Harvard style, appropriate formats in the report

5.0 to >4.0 Pts

EXCEPTIONAL — 1) Excellent referencing style, in-text citation and report format.

4.0 to >3.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS — 1) In-text citation or referencing style needs to be improved.

3.0 to >2.0 Pts

MET REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATELY — 1) In-text citation and referencing style needs to be improved

2.0 to >1.0 Pts

MARGINALLY DEMONSTRATED — 1) In-text citation or referencing style needs to be improved. report format is incorrect.

1.0 to >0 Pts

NOT DEMONSTRATED — 1) Incorrect in-text citation, referencing style and formats.
5.0 pts
Total points: 100.0