Global Procurement

9/3/22, 5:18 PM Preview Rubric: Assessment 2C: Report – (BEO5307) Global Procurement – CT,SY – Victoria University
https://vucollaborate.vu.edu.au/d2l/lp/rubrics/preview.d2l?ou=1413219&rubricId=500142&originTool=quicklinks 1/6
Assessment 2C: Report
Course: (BEO5307) Global Procurement – CT,SY

Criteria
Full Marks
High
Distinction
(80-100%)
Distinction
(70-79%)
Credit (60-
69%)
Pass (50-
59%)
N (Not yet
Satisfactory
(0-49%)
Criterion
Score

Criterion
1 S
tructur
ed
synopsis
/executi
ve
summar
y p
repare
d in line
with the
purpose
of the
report,
findings,
method
ology/ap
proach,
implicati
ons for
theory,
limitatio
n of the
study
and
originalit
y (must
be part
of final
report)
2.5 points

2.25
points
Concise,
insightful,
clear and
accurate
synthesis
of all
elements
for the
Synopsis/e
xecutive
summary
including
accurate
critical
support for
the
purpose of
the report,
findings,
methodolo
gy/approac
h,
implication
s for
theory,
limitation
of the
study and
originality
(2.0 – 2.47
points)
/ 2.5
1.87
points
Clear and
accurate
synthesis
of all
elements
for the
Synopsis/e
xecutive
summary
including
accurate
critical
support for
the
purpose of
the report,
findings,
methodolo
gy/approac
h,
implication
s for
theory,
limitation
of the
study and
originality
(1.75 –
1.97
points)
1.62
points
Accurate
synthesis
of all
elements
for the
Synopsis/e
xecutive
summary
including
accurate
critical
support for
the
purpose of
the report,
findings,
methodolo
gy/approac
h,
implication
s for
theory,
limitation
of the
study and
originality
(1.5 – 1.72
points)
1.37
points
All
elements
for the
Synopsis/e
xecutive
summary
present
and
support
the
purpose of
the report,
findings,
methodolo
gy/approac
h,
implication
s for
theory,
limitation
of the
study and
originality
(1.25 –
1.47
points)
0.62
points
Elements
for the
Synopsis/e
xecutive
summary
missing
and key
elements
not
described
or
referenced
(0 – 1.22
points)

Criteria
Full Marks
High
Distinction
(80-100%)
Distinction
(70-79%)
Credit (60-
69%)
Pass (50-
59%)
N (Not yet
Satisfactory
(0-49%)
Criterion
Score

Criterion
2 Clear
identific
ation of
the
existing
commod
ity or
category
manage
ment
plans or
in their
absence
recomm
endation
s for
what
strategie
s or
plans
should
be
adopted
which
are
support
ed by
theory
5 points

/ 5
4.5 points
Succinct
and
insightful
identificati
on of the
existing
commodity
/category
manageme
nt plans or
in their
absence,
articulate
and
accurately
synthesise
d re
commen
dations for
what
strategies
or plans
should be
adopted
which are
accurately
supported
by
insightfully
chosen
theory
(4 – 4.95
points)
3.75
points
Succinct
identificati
on of the
existing
commodity
/category
manageme
nt plans or
in their
absence,
articulate
and well
synthesise
d re
commen
dations for
what
strategies
or plans
should be
adopted
which are
accurately
supported
by theory
(3.5 – 3.95
points)
3.25
points
Complete
and
accurate
identificati
on of the
existing
commodity
/category
manageme
nt plans or
in their
absence,
articulate
and well
articulate
recommen
dations for
what
strategies
or plans
should be
adopted
which are
well
supported
by theory
(3 – 3.45
points)
2.75
points
Complete
identificati
on of the
existing
commodity
/category
manageme
nt plans or
in their
absence
recommen
dations for
what
strategies
or plans
should be
adopted
which are
supported
by theory
(2.5 – 2.95
points)
1.25
points
Incomplete
or
inaccurate
identificati
on of the
existing
commodity
/category
manageme
nt plans or
in their
absence
patchy or
irrelevant
recommen
dations for
what
strategies
or plans
should be
adopted
which are
unevenly
supported
by theory
(0 – 2.45
points)

Criterion
3 D
escript
ion of
organisa
/ 5
5 points
4.5 points
Thorough
and
succinct
description
3.75
points
Thorough
description
covering
3.25
points
Descriptio
n covering
all
2.75
points
Descriptio
n covers all
elements
1.25
points
Descriptio
n covers
most

Criteria
Full Marks
High
Distinction
(80-100%)
Distinction
(70-79%)
Credit (60-
69%)
Pass (50-
59%)
N (Not yet
Satisfactory
(0-49%)
Criterion
Score

tions
supply
base
manage
ment
and
supplier
develop
ment
activitie
s and
how
these
align
with
theory,
where
activitie
s are
missing
or
incompl
ete
make
recomm
endation
s on
what
activitie
s the
organisa
tion
should
impleme
nt
covering
all
elements
all
elements
elements
with high
level of
with
minimal
detail
elements
with
missing

All
described
elements
are
insightfully
aligned to
theory
Recommen
dations for
activities
the
organisatio
n should
implement
are based
upon
identified
gaps with
a high level
of analysis
evident
(4 – 4.95
points)
All
described
elements
are
insightfully
aligned to
theory
Recommen
dations for
activities
the
organisatio
n should
implement
are based
upon
identified
gaps with
some
analysis
evident
(3.5 – 3.95
points)
detail
All
described
elements
are well
aligned to
theory
Recommen
dations for
activities
the
organisatio
n should
implement
are based
upon
identified
gaps with
some
analysis
evident
(3 – 3.45
points)
All
described
elements
are aligned
to theory
Recommen
dations for
activities
the
organisatio
n should
implement
are based
upon
identified
gaps
(2.5 – 2.95
points)
detail
All
described
elements
are mostly
aligned to
theory
Recommen
dations for
activities
the
organisatio
n should
implement
are missing
and/or
incorrect
(0 – 2.45
points)

Criteria
Full Marks
High
Distinction
(80-100%)
Distinction
(70-79%)
Credit (60-
69%)
Pass (50-
59%)
N (Not yet
Satisfactory
(0-49%)
Criterion
Score

Criterion
4 M
ethod
ology
(what
method
ology –
intervie
w,
internet/
compan
y w
ebsite
search,
short
question
naire
etc.)
2.5 points

/ 2.5
2.25
points
Methodolo
gy
concisely
explained
and fit
with
research
question
well
elucidated.
(2.0 – 2.47
points)
1.87
points
1Methodol
ogy well
explained
and
justified.
(1.75 –
1.97
points)
1.62
points
All
essential
elements
of
methodolo
gy are
present.
(1.5 – 1.72
points)
1.37
points
All basic
elements
of a
methodolo
gy are
presented.
(1.25 –
1.47
points)
0.62
points
Methodolo
gy is not
well
described
and/or
omits
several
important
elements.
(0 – 1.22
points)

Criterion
6 Clear
support
for any
assessm
ent or
recomm
endation
s from
the
literatur
e.
/ 5
5 points
4.5 points
Insightful,
clear and
accurate
critical
suggestion
s for
support,
with clear
and
relevant
support
from the
literature
(4 – 4.95
points)
3.75
points
Clear and
accurate
critical
suggestion
s for
support,
with
relevant
support
from the
literature
(3.5 – 3.95
points)
3.25
points
Mostly
clear and
accurate
suggestion
s for
support,
with some
relevant
support
from the
literature
(3 – 3.45
points)
2.75
points
Mostly
accurate,
but limited
suggestion
s for
support,
with some
practical
support
from the
literature
(2.5 – 2.95
points)
1.25
points
Limited
suggestion
s for
support,
with
minimal
support
from the
literature
(0 – 2.45
points)

Criteria
Full Marks
High
Distinction
(80-100%)
Distinction
(70-79%)
Credit (60-
69%)
Pass (50-
59%)
N (Not yet
Satisfactory
(0-49%)
Criterion
Score

Criterion
7 The
use of
suitable
referenc
es which
are
detailed
in the
body of
the
report
and a
bibliogra
phy
utilizing
the
Harvard
method
ology.
2.5 points

2.25
points
Skillful use
of high
quality,
credible,
relevant
sources to
develop
ideas.
Accurate
citations
and
references
using the
appropriat
e style. All
sources
cited.
Appropriat
e p
araphrasi
ng and use
of direct
quotes.
(2.0 – 2.47
points)
/ 2.5
1.87
points
Consistent
use of high
quality,
credible,
relevant
sources to
develop
ideas.
Accurate
citations
and
references
using the
appropriat
e style. All
sources
cited.
(1.75 –
1.97
points)
1.62
points
Demonstra
tes an
attempt to
use
credible
and/or
relevant
sources to
support
ideas.
Some
imprecise
citations
and
references
and/or
deviations
in
referencin
g style.
Most
sources
cited.
(1.5 – 1.72
points)
1.37
points
Demonstra
tes an
attempt to
use
sources to
support
ideas in
the
writing.
Incomplete
and
imprecise
referencin
g.
(1.25 –
1.47
points)
0.62
points
Sources
are poorly
or
inadequate
ly used to
support
ideas.
Incomplete
and
imprecise
referencin
g.
(0 – 1.22
points)

Criteria
Full Marks
High
Distinction
(80-100%)
Distinction
(70-79%)
Credit (60-
69%)
Pass (50-
59%)
N (Not yet
Satisfactory
(0-49%)
Criterion
Score

Criterion
9 P
resenta
tion,
writing
skills
and
content
of report
(professi
onal
writing,
grammar
, s
pelling,
quality
of
referenc
es used,
contents
of
report)
2.5 points

2.25
points
Excellent
expression
demonstra
ting
sophisticat
ion of
thought
and style.
Minimal or
no errors
in
grammar,
punctuatio
n or
referencin
g c
onvention
s.
(2.0 – 2.47
points)
/ 2.5
1.87
points
Very good
expression
with very
few errors
in
punctuatio
n, grammar
or
referencin
g. Well
structured.
(1.75 –
1.97
points)
1.62
points
Expression
is good.
Most
convention
s followed.
Logical
flow and
structure.
(1.5 – 1.72
points)
1.37
points
Expression
is generally
good.
Most
convention
s followed.
Logical
flow and
structure.
(1.25 –
1.47
points)
0.62
points
Expression
is very
poor and
contains
many
errors of
grammar
and
punctuatio
n.
Incorrect
referencin
g style.
(0 – 1.22
points)

HD
80 points minimum
D 70
points minimum
C 60
points minimum
P 50
points minimum
N 0
points minimum