Research Weighting 10% No authoritative sources, no evidence of research or not relevant for the task. Very limited understanding. The research has not been linked to the main text. Less than 2 authoritative sources or sources are not relevant for the task. Limited understanding. Little evidence of meaningful integration of the 2-3 scholarly sources. Some sources lack relevance or authority but are still appropriate for the task. Adequate understanding. The research could be incorporated 3-4 scholarly sources. Sources are mostly well-chosen, authoritative and appropriate for the task. Good understanding. 4-5 scholarly sources. Sources are well-chosen, authoritative and are appropriate for the task. Excellent understanding. The research is very well integrated with the main text.

Writing Weighting 5% No consideration for presentation. Muddled writing that is very difficult to follow. Numerous grammatical errors. Multiple spelling errors. Acceptable presentation. Long winded and some clear writing presentation. Some grammatical errors. Multiple spelling errors. Tidy presentation. Mostly clear writing but at times long winded. Writing style lacks consideration. Few issues around grammar. Less than 5 spelling errors. Professional presentation. Clear writing mainly to the point. Considered writing style. Excellent grammar with only minor oversights. Less than 3 spelling errors. Polished presentation. Clear and concise writing. Mature and appropriate writing style. Excellent grammar, correct in all aspects. No spelling errors.

Organisation / logic Weighting 5% No flow. No argument. Poorly organised and difficult to read. Does not flow logically from one part to another. The argument is not clear. Generally well organised although the flow of the argument is not always logical. Argument is clear and mostly sound. Coherently organised and logical formation of sound argument. Exceptionally well structured. Logic is easy to follow. Arguments are sound and convincing.

Productivity/ Profitability Analysis Weighting 12% Clear evidence of lack of understanding of productivity and profitability analysis. Lack of knowledge and poor understanding of Case Study application. Unconvincing evaluation and poor examples. Lack of understanding of productivity and profitability analysis. Poor comprehension is demonstrated in Case Study application. Less than 2 methods with incomplete and weak examples Competent description of productivity and profitability analysis, showing reasonable understanding. Reasonable understanding is demonstrated by application to Case Study giving 2 relevant examples. Some research carried out beyond course materials.

Thorough and comprehensive description of market measurements. Very good level of understanding is demonstrated by detailed application to Case Study giving 3 methods with excellent examples. Research carried out beyond course materials. Exceptional and comprehensive description of market measurements. Extremely high level of understanding is demonstrated by detailed application to Case Study giving 3 methods with creative and insightful examples. In-depth research carried out beyond course materials.

Market Measurement s Weighting 12% Clear evidence of lack of understanding, fails to identify market measurements. Lack of knowledge of theory and poor understanding of Case Study application. Unconvincing evaluation and poor examples. Lack of understanding of market measurements. Poor comprehension is demonstrated in Case Study application. Less than 3 methods with incomplete and weak examples. Competent description of market measurements. Reasonable level of understanding is demonstrated by application to Case Study giving 3 methods with relevant examples. Some research carried out beyond course materials.

Competitor Analysis Weighting 12% Clear evidence of lack of understanding, fails to identify theoretical models. Lack of knowledge of theory and poor understanding of Case Study application. Poor understanding of models of competitor analysis. Lack of detail or link to Case Study. Weak evaluation and lack of understanding of purpose of analysis Competent description of models, and reasonable application of model to Case Study. Reasonable evaluation of purpose of analysis and link to Thorough and comprehensive description of models, and detailed application of model to Case Study. Sound evaluation of purpose of analysis and link to determination of target market. Exceptional, insightful and comprehensive description of models, and detailed application of model to Case Study. Extremely high level of understanding is shown of purpose of analysis and link to determination of target market. Unconvincing evaluation and poor examples. and link to target market. Lack of research. determination of target market. Some research carried out beyond course materials. Research carried out beyond course materials. In-depth research carried out beyond course materials.

Thorough and comprehensive environmental analysis, including details of current and future environments. Sound evaluation of at least 2 detailed points for each PESTLE element including original and detailed examples from Case Study. Research carried out beyond course materials. Exceptional, insightful and comprehensive environmental analysis, including details of current and future environments. Extremely high level of understanding is shown by evaluation of at least 2 detailed points for each PESTLE element including original and insightful examples from Case Study. In-depth research carried out beyond course materials.

Environment al Analysis Weighting 12% Clear evidence of lack of understanding, fails to identify components of environmental analysis. Lack of knowledge of theory and poor understanding of Case Study application. Unconvincing evaluation and poor examples. Poor understanding of environmental analysis. Lack of detail of current or future environments. Weak evaluation and incomplete examples. Lack of research. Competent environmental analysis, including details of current and future environments. Reasonable evaluation of at least 1 point for each PESTLE element including examples from Case Study. Some research carried out beyond course materials.

B (65-79) A (80-100) Thorough and comprehensive evaluation of market analysis theory, including details of various methods to analyse a market, and detailing market research procedures. Sound analysis of at least 2 markets relating to the Case study, showing evidence of good understanding. Research carried out beyond course materials. Exceptional, insightful and comprehensive evaluation of market analysis theory, including details of various methods to analyse a market, and detailing market research procedures. High level analysis of at least 2 markets relating to the Case study, showing evidence of exceptional understanding. In-depth research carried out beyond course materials.

Criteria E (0-39) D (40-49) C (50-64) Market Analysis Weighting 12% Clear evidence of lack of understanding, fails to identify components of market analysis theory or research procedures. Lack of knowledge of markets and poor understanding of Case Study application. Unconvincing evaluation. Poor understanding of market analysis theory. Evaluation is shallow and fails to identify complete procedures for market research. Weak analysis of markets and lack of understanding of link to Case study. Lack of research. Reasonable evaluation of market analysis theory, including various methods to analyse a market, and listing market research procedures. Reasonable analysis of at least 2 markets relating to the Case study, showing evidence of basic understanding. Some research carried out beyond course materials.

Please find the attached assignment. Need it before end of 13th according to New Zealand time. Thanks Conditions: This is a compulsory assignment. It must be submitted and makes up 20% of your final result for this paper. The completed assignment is to be submitted to your facilitator via Blackboard by the due date. Any work of others such as articles, journals, the internet or textbooks must be referenced following the latest APA referencing guidelines.