Good proposed schedule.

Broad criteria Unsatisfactory Satisfactory- Good
Business report: style, fluency, persuasive Max Marks = 1 Max Marks = 2
language with assurance and precision in the Lacked clarity. Spelling and Some clarity evident, however
business report. grammatical errors evident work would benefit from closer
throughout. Work would benefit attention to expression and
from proof reading. Submission grammar. Submission attempts to
does not apply a business report apply a business report structure to
structure to its presentation. its presentation but areas for
Report items 1-4: Develop and provide an Max Marks = 5 Max Marks = 7
introduction to the plan by explaining its Knowledge of principles and Demonstrates some knowledge of
purpose and importance. The risk appetite and concepts of risk management principles and concepts of risk
risk tolerance for the company; Create an insufficient to communicate management and is able to
outline for the completed risk management intelligently about the topic. communicate this. May lack some
plan; Define the scope and boundaries of the Lacks clarity. Most responses clarity. Most responses were
plan; Develop a proposed schedule for the risk were very general with minimal general with some understanding
management planning process. or no little understanding of risk of risk appetite and risk tolerance.
appetite and risk tolerance. Scope, boundaries complete but
Scope, boundaries is lacks discussing evidence of overall
disorganized, incomplete, or risk management assessment.
lacks in evidence of overall risk
management assessment.
Report items 5-6: Identify the key roles and Max Marks = 5 Max Marks = 7
responsibilities of individuals and departments Knowledge of roles and Demonstrates some knowledge of
within the organization as they pertain to risk responsibilities with respect to roles and responsibilities and is
assessment; Develop a proposed schedule for risk assessment insufficient or able to communicate this. Lacks
the RA process. weakly communicated. Overall some clarity in defining roles.
lacks clarity. Most responses Response to schedule for RA
were very general with minimal process may be missing some
or no little understanding of how points..
to run RA process.
Report items 7-8: Carefully audit the case, Max Marks = 5 Max Marks = 7
undertake an inventory and identify Knowledge of principles and Demonstrates ability to synthesis
information assets that includes both, concepts insufficient to and apply core concepts and
Cornersea’s most significant business communicate intelligently about principles. Addresses most of
information, and the information systems the topic. Lacks clarity. Most requirements and provides some
that must be accounted for in any approach responses were very general examples, demonstrating analysis
to risk management. Identifies information with minimal or no examples and organisation of assets, threats
assets and systems of organisation most at relating back to the case assets, and vulnerabilities with good case
risk; Identifies and provides an analysis of threats and vulnerabilities. context presented.
the threats and vulnerabilities that pose the Analysis is disorganized,
greatest concern. (Identify 6 top risks) incomplete, or lacking in
evidence of asset, threat and
vulnerability assessment.
Report items 9-10: Presents likelihood and Max Marks = 5 Max Marks = 7
impact analyses for the threats and Understanding of likelihood and Demonstrates evidence of having
vulnerabilities identified. Prioritises risks and impact analyses is not understood core concepts and
presents a risk assessment table demonstrated. Lack of principles for likelihood, impact
understanding of what should be analyses and approaches to
contained in a risk assessment assessment. Core materials are
table and no other substantial understood and capacity to
approach to evaluate or synthesise is shown but report does
prioritise the material value of not extend itself to a clear
assets or the effect of threats or demonstration of mastery of all
vulnerabilities is shown. important concepts.
Referencing and use of guidelines, standards, Max Marks = 1 Max Marks = 2
frameworks and additional readings: Either did not provide an Provided a minimum of references
Demonstrated rigor of use of resources with adequate list of references OR from credible sources standards,
supporting references included a bibliography instead guidelines, frameworks Created a
& adherence to Harvard i.e. not all references were cited reference list but with significant
Guidelines in the body of the report or vice errors/omissions. Did not strictly
versa. Demonstrates very little adhere to Harvard guidelines.
evidence of having read core Provides some evidence of working
materials. Minimal or no with sources but could improve
evidence of research to support analysis of sources.


Additional feedback comments:

Very Good

Max Marks = 2.5

Good writing style. Further development of expression and clarity will enhance the work. Additional focus is needed on the precision of your communication. Submission applies most elements

Max Marks = 9

Demonstrates sound knowledge of principles and concepts of risk management and is able to articulate this. Most responses were good with a good understanding of risk appetite and risk tolerance. Scope, boundaries complete but may lack some clarity in discussing risk management assessment.

Max Marks = 9

Demonstrates good understanding of the roles and responsibilities within organization and is able to articulate this. Most responses show a good understanding of how to conduct the risk assessment and has provided a relatively complete schedule.

Max Marks = 9

Shows sound knowledge of relevant principles and concepts. Additional focus needed on precision of assessment of assets, threats and vulnerabilities because some key elements that needed to be covered are missing. Case evidence is present but could be extended/ improved.

Max Marks = 9

Sound knowledge of principles and concepts. ideas are included in the work in an appropriate manner. Demonstrates thorough understanding of standards, guidelines and frameworks for likelihood, impact analyses and risk assessment, evidence of some critical thinking shown.

Max Marks = 2.5

Provides a good body of references and is working effectively with a minimum of credible sources, standards, guidelines, frameworks. Reasonably structured reference list. May not strictly adhere to Harvard guidelines but good use of references in report.


Max Marks = 4

Excellent writing style

demonstrating precision in the

clear use of language and

expression. Submission has applied

almost all elements of a business

report structure thoughtfully and

Max Marks = 12

Evidence of excellent

understanding of risk management

processes, principles and concepts.

Excellent understanding of risk

appetite and risk tolerance with

respect to case study. Scope,

boundaries complete and clearly

discussed with respect to risk

management assessment.

Max Marks = 12

Evidence of excellent

understanding of risk assessment

process, roles and responsibilities

with the context of risk

management and specific to this

case study. Good proposed


Max Marks = 12

Evidence of an exceptionally high

standard of work demonstrating

understanding, interpretation and

application of unit concepts and

principles. Shows understanding of

integral contexts & relationships

between assets, threats &

vulnerabilities and the case. Has

identified limitations ,

assumptions, challenges for the

analysis. Demonstrates evaluation

& critical thinking.

Max Marks = 11

Demonstrates breadth and depth

of understanding, shows insights

and awareness of many deeper

more subtle aspects of the topic

and, as result, integrates

standards, guidelines and

frameworks for likelihood, impact

analyses and risk assessment

extremely well. Expand on topics/

issues in the broader evaluative


Max Marks = 4

Provides good integrated use of

multiple credible sources (two or

more ) standards, guidelines,

frameworks brought together

effectively. Excellent work with

reference list clearly demonstrated.

Adherence to Harvard guidelines.

Demonstrates a breadth and depth

of study and preparation in well

chosen sources and their use.

Original Score out of 55 0
Score out of 25 0
Late deduction (# of days) = 0
Final Mark (including deductions) 0.0
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

Buy Custom Nursing Papers