10-19% Attempt made but choice of criteria shows serious flaws and little evidence of understanding. Attempt made but conducted analysis shows serious flaws and little evidence of understanding. Attempt made but choice of evidence shows serious flaws and little evidence of understanding. Attempt made but recommendation given shows serious flaws and little evidence of understanding. 0-9% Very poor or no attempt at choosing any criteria. Very poor or no attempt at conducting analysis. Very poor or no attempt at giving any example. Very poor or no attempt at providing any recommendation.

30-39% Choice of criteria incomplete and/or flawed. Not logically sound. Conducted analysis incomplete and/or flawed. Not logically sound. Example given incomplete and/or flawed. Not logically sound. Recommendation given incomplete and/or flawed. Not logically sound. 20-29% Poor choice of criteria and/or very few of them. Some serious flaws or omissions. Poor analysis conducted and/or very few criteria compared. Some serious flaws or omissions. Poor example given and/or lack of consistence in illustrating analysis. Some serious flaws or omissions. Poor and/or very short recommendation given. Some serious flaws or omissions.

50-59% Sensible criteria selection. Only minor omissions or flaws in method logic. Reasonable completed analysis. Only minor omissions or flaws in method logic. Sensible example given. Only minor omissions or flaws in method logic. Reasonably completed recommendation. Only minor omissions or flaws in reasoning logic. 40-49% Valid attempt made at choosing criteria. Some omissions, the logic of the selection is basic with areas for improvement. Valid attempt made at conducting analysis. Some omissions, the logic of the selection is basic with areas for improvement. Valid attempt made at giving an example. Some omissions, the logic of the illustrated analysis is basic with areas for improvement Valid attempt made at providing a recommendation. Some omissions, the logic of the reasoning is basic with areas for improvement

60-69% Many relevant criteria identified. Logic relatively sound. Any errors are minor. Selection shows some creativity but other optimal choices and/or a better literature study are possible. Analysis completed. Logic relatively sound. Any errors are minor. Work shows some creativity but better literature study is possible. Good example given. Any errors are minor. Work shows some creativity with areas for improvement. Sound and a generally completed recommendation. Logic relatively sound. Any errors are minor. Work shows some creativity but better reasoning is possible.

80-89% Criteria identified with very good evidence of originality and evidence of literature research. Analysis conducted with excellent evidence of originality and evidence of literature research. Excellent example given with a good degree of originality. Recommendation provided with excellent evidence of originality. 70-79% Criteria identified extremely well. They are accurate and logically sound. Analysis conducted extremely well. Logically sound and accurate analysis. Extremely good example given. Logically sound and accurate. Extremely good recommendation given. Logically sound and accurate reasoning.

IMAT3423 Assignment Mark/Feedback Sheet Framework of criteria of comparison – 25% Comparative analysis of the approaches – 25% Case study (example) – 25% Recommendation – 25% 90-100% Exceptional criteria identification displaying an excellent degree of originality, creativity and problem-solving ability. Exceptional analysis conducted displaying an excellent degree of originality, creativity and problem-solving ability. Exceptional example given displaying an excellent degree of originality, creativity and problem-solving ability. Exceptional recommendation provided displaying an excellent degree of originality, creativity and problem-solving ability.

A report including a comparison table, where the criteria and analysis are included. Please note, your recommendation must be accompanied by critical analysis and supported by sufficient number of criteria and arguments to prove your understanding of the differences and the application of the discussed development methods. The main report (excluding title page, table of contents and reference list / bibliography) should not exceed 2,000 words.