Quality Management

1

MGMT19105 Quality Management – Assessment 2 – Marking Rubric
Criteria 6 (Excellent) 5 (Very Good) 4 (Good) 3 (Satisfactory) 2 (Unsatisfactory) 1 (Poor) 0 (Not Shown)
Clear identification of the
quality- issue in
the selected organisation
and discussion of two (2)
quality management
tools, and their relevance
to the identified quality
issues.
30% weight
All key issues expertly
identified and canvassed.
Superior ability to reason
logically and impartially
from gathered information
and reach reliable and
trustworthy conclusions.
Highly proficient and
scholarly use of a wide
range of relevant sources
of knowledge and data.
Scholarly application of
relevant principles,
concepts, methods and
theories relevant to the set
task.
Most key issues identified.
Ability to reason logically
and impartially from
gathered information and
reach reliable and
trustworthy conclusions.
Scholarly use of a wide
range of sources of
knowledge.
Competent application of
relevant principles,
concepts, methods and
theories relevant to the set
task.
An acceptable number of
issues identified.
Reasons logically, skilfully
and impartially from
gathered information and
reaches logical
conclusions.
Good use of a range of
sources of knowledge.
Application of principles,
concepts, methods and
theories relevant to the set
task.
Some key issues
identified.
Reasons logically from
gathered information and
reaches logical
conclusions.
Good use of sources of
knowledge.
Application of some
principles, concepts,
methods and theories
relevant to the set task.
Few key issues identified.
Critical analysis below
standard.
Insufficient use of sources
of knowledge.
Some application of
principles, concepts,
methods and theories
relevant to the set task.
No key issues identified.
Critical analysis not
evident.
Limited use of sources of
knowledge.
Limited application of
principles, concepts,
methods and theories
relevant to the set task.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.
Clear discussion about
the implementation of
two (2) quality
management tools.
25% weight
Well-structured and
concise written logical
arguments.
Arguments are developed
in a scholarly fashion
supported by clear
evidence.
Structured and logically
developed arguments.
Arguments are clearly
supported by evidence.
Structured and logically
developed arguments.
Arguments are supported
by evidence.
Some structure is evident.
Arguments are somewhat
developed.
Arguments are somewhat
easy to understand.
Arguments are somewhat
supported.
Structure and clarity is an
area needing
improvement.
Arguments are not well
developed.
Arguments are not easy to
understand.
Arguments are not well
supported.
Structure and clarity is an
area needing significant
improvement.
Arguments, if evidenced,
are not developed or
supported.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.
Clear flow of thought
throughout the report
with a convincing
executive summary;
clear and succinct
purpose described in the
introduction; relevant
structure and content
within the body of the
report; and a clear and
succinct conclusion.
15% weight
Well-written with a clear
flow of thought, a pleasure
to read.
Excellent introduction,
providing a very clear
purpose which ensures all
areas relevant to the topic
are clearly outlined.
Excellent structure and
content within the body of
the report.
The assessment presents
an excellent summary of
the ideas presented,
drawing clear and well
thought-out conclusions.
The flow of thought is very
good.
Paragraphs are well linked.
Good introduction, the
purpose is clear and crisp.
Good structure and
content within the body of
the report.
The assessment presents
a very good summary of
the ideas presented,
drawing fairly clear and
well-thought-out
conclusions.
The flow of thought is
good.
Paragraphs are reasonably
linked.
Ok introduction, the
purpose is clear.
Ok structure and content
within the body of the
report.
The assessment presents
a fairly detailed and
focused summary of the
ideas presented, providing
some evidence of
conclusions.
The flow of thought is ok.
Paragraphs are reasonably
linked.
Fair introduction, the
purpose is somewhat
clear.
Fair structure and content
within the body of the
report.
The assessment
somewhat provides
detailed and focused
summary of the ideas
presented, drawing limited
conclusions.
It is difficult to follow the
flow of thought.
The use of paragraphs is
insufficient.
Substandard introduction.
The purpose is unclear.
Substandard structure and
content within the body of
the report.
The assessment provides
limited evidence of the
ideas presented, drawing
no clear conclusions.
The flow of thought is a
significant improvement
area. The use of
paragraphs is a significant
improvement area.
Non-existent introduction.
The purpose is not
described.
Limited structure and
content within the body of
the report.
The assessment fails to
provide any clear evidence
of the ideas presented,
drawing no clear
conclusions.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.

2

Criteria 6 (Excellent) 5 (Very Good) 4 (Good) 3 (Satisfactory) 2 (Unsatisfactory) 1 (Poor) 0 (Not Shown)
Critical review skills and
integration of relevant
literature. A minimum of
five (5) academic and
professional references
must be used
10% weight
Critical use of sources.
Utilises current,
appropriate, and credible
sources which strongly
support the student’s
argument throughout.
Critical use of sources.
Utilises mostly current,
appropriate, and credible
sources which mostly
support the student’s
argument throughout.
Mostly critical use of
sources.
Utilises some current,
appropriate and credible
sources which at times
support the student’s
argument throughout.
Somewhat critical use of
sources. Five (5) relevant
resources used.
Utilises few current,
appropriate and credible
sources which provide
limited support to the
student’s argument
throughout.
Uncritical use of resources.
Utilises few appropriate
and credible sources which
provide limited support to
the student’s argument
throughout.
Uncritical use of
resources.
Utilises no current,
appropriate and credible
sources.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.
Appropriate in-text
referencing and
reference list. Adherence
to CQUniversity APA
Reference Style. Correct
paraphrasing.
10% weight.
Superior skill
demonstrated in use of
correct referencing style.
Excellent paraphrasing.
Skills demonstrated in use
of correct referencing style
Very good paraphrasing.
Reasonable skills in use of
correct referencing style
and paraphrasing.
Some inaccuracies in use
of correct referencing style
and paraphrasing.
Referencing is insufficient. Referencing contains
significant inaccuracies.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.
Clarity of expression,
grammar and spelling.
Appropriate presentation
format within the word
limit: 1000 words (±10%).
10% weight.
Scholarly use of correct
language throughout.
Correct grammar, spelling
and punctuation.
Report expertly and
scholarly set out.
Correct use of language.
Few grammar, spelling and
punctuation mistakes.
Report expertly set out.
Generally correct use of
language.
Few grammar, spelling and
punctuation mistakes.
Report well set out.
Generally, reasonably
correct use of language.
Frequent grammar,
punctuation and spelling
mistakes. Use of
inappropriate language.
Report set out in fair
manner.
Insufficient use of
language and syntax.
Several spelling mistakes.
Little evidence of proof
reading.
Report format inadequate.
Less than 900 words.
Significant inaccuracies in
use of language and
syntax.
Many spelling mistakes.
No evidence of proof
reading.
Report format inadequate.
Less than 900 words.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.

Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  RES820 Literature Landscape Discussion

(USA, AUS, UK & CA Ph. D. Writers)

CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS

Order from Australian Expert Writers
Best Australian Academic Writers

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER