Use of Related Academic Literature
Marker A:
The literature reviewed develops the arguments concerning the use of the BSC firstly to guide organisational strategy and then, slightly less convincingly, as a means of measuring and guiding employee performance. The role of BSC in the banking sector is discussed and a gap established.
Marker B:
Tendency to be descriptive rather than critical. For example, limited awareness of the context of the research papers. Over reliance on a small number of authors especially Kaplan and Norton who will possibly have a biased view as to the usefulness of the BSC. Although a comprehensive reference list, not many authors cited in the literature review. Remember to use ?et al? when citing more than 2 authors. If at least one of your research questions was focused on your literature review it might have helped develop a more critical approach.
Methodology/Theoretical Framework
Marker A:
The methodology section is competently written, however there are a few points that should have been more fully addressed. Firstly, the adoption of a positivist methodology is taken almost as a ?given?. The nature of the study, in some ways, lends itself to the use of a qualitative methodology. The reasons for adopting a positivist stand should therefore have been more fully discussed. The claim that the results will be generalisable across the three banks needs further justification. For example what is the statistical significance of the sample? Addressing this may be difficult given the non-probability sampling methods employed. Finally, the research should recognise that the data produced by the use of Likert scales is ordinal in nature, which limits the application of inferential statistics.
Marker B:
You need to justify your research choices based on your research questions and demonstrate why that is the correct approach. How did you design your questionnaire? Pilot? What about bias, validity and reliability?
Analysis/Findings
Marker A:
Although a range of statistical tests have been applied to the data collected, it is not clear that the respondents have a clear understanding of the questions that they were being asked. This, at best, limits the validity of the findings. The analysis is also conducted on ordinal data which doesn?t necessarily support the level of analysis conducted without confirming that the ordinates are equally spaced.
Marker B:
You give details of the demographics of your respondents but how do they reflect the profile of the three banks? What about differences between the banks? Was there any difference in any of the results based on the demographical sub-groups e.g. did educational attainment affect the findings? Why did you choose the particular statistical tests? In the appendix you show that there was a significant difference between the means of the NCB and Al Rahhi responses to whether the BSC led to an increase in employee satisfaction but you have not discussed that in your report.
Conclusions
Marker A:
Although the conclusions are very brief, there is some acknowledgment of the potential shortcomings of the adopted approach.
Marker B:
Short discussion but you demonstrate some awareness of the limitations of your research. You do not mention your literature review.
Structure, Presentation, Scholarly Conduct
Marker A:
The dissertation is well presented with evidence of width of reading. The quality of the research may have been improved had supervisory advice regarding the adoption of a wholly positivist approach been considered.
Marker B:
Overall well presented. Be consistent in your tenses and watch your word choices. Your table/figure numbering needs to follow a consistent style. Do not just copy tables out of SPSS
General Comments
Marker B:
There were a number of areas that were not clear, especially around your methodology. Your questionnaire assumes that all the respondents know what the BSC is and how it is being implemented in their organization. Is this the case? How long has it been in use/ are the banks at the same stage of development with it? Why did you choose those particular banks? Your questions ask either ?do you understand? or ?are you familiar with? which are not the same thing. Would respondents admit to not understanding? Whilst you might have considered these things, it is not covered in your report. Similarly, although you have produced an extensive reference list, you do not cite many of them in your literature review. Remember we can only mark you on what you have written.
