The report will be assessed on the following criteria:
1.    Use of models – applicability to the chosen Service systems For example, this might include:
Application of concepts, further reading? Competitive information?
Clarity of business/management research question/s and formulation of clear aims, objectives and scope.
Identify and provide relevant academic and practitioner literature, to draw inferences from the literature
2.        Depth of analysis – as opposed to description:  For example, this might include:
    Evidence of understanding of links between business strategy, the market  and service strategy  and its operating systems
    The scope of data used in the analysis and the quality of the analysis conducted, for example: Tools and Process analysis? Lean Six Sigma?Analysis of both number of mentions and importance?
    For your analysis, you need to apply at least 3 tools  : Visual Management , SPC, SIPOC, VSM, FMEA Gemba, Swim Lane Flowcharts, 5S, VOC and CTQ Tools, Changeover (SMED) procedures, CMMI, Benchmarking, Brainstorming, Affinity Diagram
    Reporting and appropriate presentation of the data generated.
3.    Extent to which the recommendations and conclusions flow from the prior analysis :
    Recommendations derived: Comprehensive, for example in terms of Strategy/services/customer/improvements8/ service innovation /business model?) Lean? Visual Management? Design for Six Sigma? Agile developments? SCRUM Model?
    Synthesis: Development of a coherent argument and critical analysis of the findings
    Relates the analysis to the academic and practitioner literature
    Findings:  generalizable, critical and/or original application of knowledge
    Conclusions/recommendations based on the analysis:
4.    CONCLUSION THE ELEVATOR PITCH  (50 words max.)
Imagine you have just bumped into the CEO of your company while travelling in the lift of your building. Suddenly you have the opportunity to convince the most powerful person in your company that your plan is a good one.  Write a brief 50 word statement of the benefit of your plan to your organisation.  Make sure you take into account the analysis and objectives youve set in this document.  This chance meeting may have a profound impact on whether your plan wins financial support but remember he/she is a busy person and wont have more than 30 seconds to listen to you!

5.    Quality of report
    Presenting professionally and integrating the sections of the plan so that it makes a coherent and persuasive argument. Well-structured? Clear text? Good appendices? Well-integrated sections?
    Coherent and concise writing? Appropriate and accurate referencing?
    Effective and well-presented figures and tables? Grammar, spelling and appropriate vocabulary?

Qualitative Assessment Criteria

Mark Range & Standard     Criteria / Descriptor
(N.B. not all may apply for each piece of work or type of assessment)
80% – 100%

Excellent     Demonstrating a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
All stated intended learning outcomes exceeded.
High capacity for critical evaluation.
Novel application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Requiring a student to have:
    Undertaken extensive further reading.
    Produced a well-structured piece of work.
    Demonstrated excellent communication skills.
    Exercised a high level of original thought.
70% – 79%

Very Good     Demonstrating an extensive knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
Many stated intended learning outcomes exceeded.
Very good capacity for critical evaluation.
Effective application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Requiring a student to have:
    Undertaken substantial further reading.
    Produced a well-structured piece of work.
    Demonstrated very good communication skills.
    Exercised a significant level of original thought.
60% – 69%

Good     Demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
All stated intended learning outcomes met, with some exceeded.
Good capacity for critical evaluation.
Competent application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Requiring a student to have:
    Undertaken some further reading.
    Produced a well-structured piece of work.
    Demonstrated good communication skills.
50% – 59%

Satisfactory     Demonstrating a satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
All stated intended learning outcomes met.
Standard critique of the subject matter.
Adequate application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Requiring a student to have:
    Undertaken adequate further reading.
    Produced an adequately-structured piece of work.
    Demonstrated basic but satisfactory communication skills.
40% – 49%

Poor     Demonstrating an inadequate knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
Most stated intended learning outcomes met.
Lacking critique of the subject matter.
Limited application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Requiring a student to have:
    Undertaken some relevant reading.
    Produced a piece of work with a simple structure.
    Demonstrated marginal communication skills
0% – 39%

Very Poor     Demonstrating a lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject and subfields.
Many stated intended learning outcomes not met.
Absence of critique of the subject matter.
Lacking application of the subject matter to a specific context.
Requiring a student to have:
    Undertaken inadequate reading.
    Produced a poorly-structured piece of work.
    Demonstrated poor communication skills.