| Report |
| Range and use of information/sources used to develop the report. (3 marks) | Uses a very limited range of sources with limited or no citations. | Uses a large range of sources including texts, company and news reports. Sources and citations identified. | Uses a range of texts from company reports, journals, books, magazines/ newspapers and internet sources. All sources are cited in-text and end-text. |
| Market Opportunity/Problem Identification (3 marks) | Unclear market opportunity/ problem identified and no convincing explanation for why it is worth solving. | General indication of problem/market opportunity and why it mattered. | Clear statement of the market opportunity/problem that exists & persuasive case for why it matters (is worth solving). |
| Novelty of initiative, idea, concept, strategy and its fit with addressing the problem/opportunity (4 marks) | Idea or solution is not new; highly similar existing products or services are already on the market. | Somewhat new and novel idea or modification of an existing solution that could potentially improve on what exists; may need fine-tuning of idea and explanation. | Clear statement showing it’s a highly novel idea or solution that solves the problem really well, generating a “how come no one ever thought of that before?” response. |
| Uniqueness of the strategic initiative and recommendation (4 marks) | No clear statement or explanation of the value provided by the initiative proposed; the idea as described does not seem to be one that adds value for customers; or idea presents serious ethical issues. | Developed strategic concepts and initiative may provide value but there is not a clear indication of what that value is and how the organisation provides it; provides ethical idea and articulates a value proposition. | Clear statement as to the value benefit to be achieved from the proposed initiatives: what the organisation provides as a product or service and how the customer will experience that value (and how it adds value over alternative options/solutions); idea and organisation add value through a highly ethical approach/solution. |
| Market Validation (including relevant stakeholder groups) (4 marks) | Unclear market validation and analysis or unlikely to be a market for this product/service. | Some proposal on data to be gathered through market research; enough research to show it is a reasonable opportunity. | Strong market research planned identifying potential target customers; great market potential possible. |
| Feasibility (4 marks) | Unrealistic because required resources or technologies are not available and projected revenue streams inappropriate. | Some indication of issues and resources involved to make the idea feasible/workable with clear objectives and timeframes & deliverables. | Brief but clear statements showing feasibility (i.e., resources, skill sets, technologies, articulated timeframes & objectives, required funds etc.). |
| Ethical Issues Identify ethical issues in a business start-up context (4 marks) | Identifies ethical issues that have limited or no relevance to the discipline. | Identifies ethical issues that are relevant to the discipline. Provides reference to relevant context. | Identifies core and relevant ethical issues and their potential implications. Provides well researched reference to relevant contexts for new venture. |
| Overall report style/professionalism (e.g. easy to read, good flow of thoughts, interesting and well written) and layout. Sources cited correctly. (4 Marks) | Basic report with no reader engagement. There is no obvious logic and is hard to read. Minimal referencing standards met. | Report creates some interest and provides some insights and logic with a basic structure. Meets most referencing standards. | Report is well laid out and has logical flow of thoughts, is well structured and easy to read. Accurate in-text and end-text referencing. |
| Presentation |
| Structure verbal communication appropriately while expressing complex ideas (2 Marks) | Structures verbal communication with limited or no logical progression of complex ideas and/or supported conclusions. | Structures verbal communication showing some evidence of logical progression of complex ideas and some support for conclusions. | Structures verbal communication with clear, logical progression of complex ideas and well supported conclusions. |
| Use verbal delivery that is suited to the audience and context (2 Marks) | Limited use of volume and/or tone and/or pace that is appropriate to audience and context. | Uses volume, tone and pace that is appropriate to audience and context. | Consistently uses excellent volume, tone and pace. |
| Demonstrate non-verbal delivery that is suited to audience and context (2 Marks) | Demonstrates little or no use of appropriate body language and eye contact. | Demonstrates body language and eye contact that is appropriate to audience and context. | Consistently demonstrates effective body language and eye contact. |
| Make appropriate use of visual aids and media in verbal communication. (2 Marks) | Uses an inappropriate number and/or quality of visual aids and/or media. | Uses appropriate number and quality of visual aids and/or media. | Consistently uses appropriate number of good quality visual aids and/or media. |
| Engage with audience to enhance communication (2 Marks) | Demonstrates limited or no attempt to engage audience. | Interacts with audience to promote engagement using some effective techniques. | Interacts with audience using effective techniques that promote consistent engagement. |