Propose the Sothema Company

Criteria Bad fail

Criteria Bad fail (40 Either of: Conclusions are drawn entirely from secondary sources low grades, Significant inaccuracies. Descriptive Of current practice Of the organisation. Two of more of: Pure theory that has not been applied < 15% - Pure description, < 25%. Highly disjointed work. Poor articulation Of the final choice. - Recommendation Of What the company already does. Proposal divorced from current strategy. - Proposal is not strategicl. Either of: - use of approaches you were taught to avoid - Only a reproduction Of the external analysis or the reliance on tools that are not taught on the module such as SWOT and a purely discursive proposal development Bare fail: 40-49% Either of: - Factual error in the developmentof survival and success factors - Minimal effort to differentiate between survival and success factors. Two of: - Issues are inappropriate, or not identified at all. - Inadequate discussion - The proposals fail to meet the definition Of "strategicl - Just cosmetic changes to the existing strategy, - Poorlyconnected tothe firm's vision, strategic resources, capabilities or environment. Either: - Core tools not used in the development Of issues, But proposal development as taught. - Appropriate processes used in the development Of issues but no Structure to aid proposal development Pass: 50-64% Either Of: - At least one plausible opportunity or threat identified. - Clear survival and success factors but potentially Without a forward focus. - At least one strategic issue identified - Clear sighted issues development but proposals are sketchy, banal or poorly connected to the issues. - A solid and realistic proposal Without showing Why it is relevant to the sues. Either: - At least4core tools and processesa used accurately. - All core tools and processesa attempted Without major error in the style Of use. Good: 65-84% Either: - At least one plausible opportunity or threat that relates back to the analysis Of the industry environment. Clear survival and success factors with a forward focus. - Pertinent identification and analysis Of resources and capabilities, focusing on their contribution to CA - Insightful discussion Of the nature Of CA linked to activity 4. - issues developed considering survival and success factors. - A cogent and robuststrategic proposal, but Without the criticality expected for distinction level work. Either: - At least 5 core tools and processes used accurately. - All core tools and processes attempted With minor error in the style Of use Excellent At least one plausible opportunity or threat that includes All Of: Relates to the analysis Of the industry environment - Considers customer desires - Differentiated survival and success factors With a forward focus All of: - Accurate and concise discussion Of the nature Of competitive advantage, - Clear linkage Of findings from the different stages Of the work. Option development reflects creativity. - Pertinent and insightful criticality. - Informative conclusions. - Accurate use Of the full range of core toolsa and processes