Wide range of appropriate sources (at least 10) appropriately analysed, applied and discussed. Variety of appropriate sources (at least 10) appropriately analysed, applied and discussed. Clear evidence of research and application of textbook concepts. References are used in a purely descriptive way indicating limitations of understanding. No evidence of research or irrelevant sources cited.

List of References fully compliant with Harvard AGPS referencing method. List of References compliant with Harvard AGPS referencing method with some minor lapses. List of References sources are mostly correct. Minor errors in referencing method. Gaps in List of References – including incorrect structure and missing references included in the in-text references. Unsatisfactory List of References. Few or no references or inconsistent reference method. This may be the result of plagiarism.

In-text referencing fully compliant with Harvard AGPS referencing method. In-text referencing compliant with Harvard AGPS referencing method with some minor lapses. In-text sources are mostly referenced correctly. Minor errors in referencing method. Gaps in in-text referencing – including incorrect structure and missing references included in the List of References. Unsatisfactory in-text referencing. Few or no references or inconsistent reference method. This may be the result of plagiarism. No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Conclusions & Recommendations professionally developed. Clearly provides a summary of the main points or findings of the report, and are consistent with the outline given in the Introduction. Conclusions & Recommendations mostly professionally developed. Clearly provides a summary of the main points or findings of the report, and are consistent with the outline given in the Introduction. Conclusions & Recommendations mostly provides a summary of the main points or findings of the report, and are consistent with the outline given in the Introduction. Some flaws in the Conclusions & Recommendations’ summary of the main points or findings of the report, or the consistency with the outline given in the Introduction Poor formatting, or missing elements in the Conclusions & Recommendations’ summary of the main points or findings of the report, or the consistency with the outline given in the Introduction No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Provides excellent discussion of a relevant reference and two arguments to suggest that service improvement is more than just process improvement. Clearly discusses a relevant reference and two arguments to suggest that service improvement is more than just process improvement. Adequate discussion of a relevant reference and two arguments to suggest that service improvement is more than just process improvement. Limited discussion of a relevant reference and two arguments to suggest that service improvement is more than just process improvement. Incomplete or inappropriate discussion of a relevant reference and two arguments to suggest that service improvement is more than just process improvement. No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Provides excellent discussion of the relevant ITIL service lifecycle, best practices and examples of execution at the case study. Clearly discusses the relevant ITIL service lifecycle, best practices and examples of execution at the case study. Adequate discussion of the relevant ITIL service lifecycle, best practices and examples of execution at the case study. Limited discussion of the relevant ITIL service lifecycle, best practices and examples of execution at the case study. Incomplete or inappropriate discussion of the relevant ITIL service lifecycle, best practices and examples of execution at the case study. No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

REPORT SECTION 1 25 22 18 14 10 0 Provides excellent discussion of the relevant ITIL processes and their KPIs as identified in the case study. Clearly discusses the relevant ITIL processes and their KPIs as identified in the case study. Adequate discussion of the relevant ITIL processes and their KPIs as identified in the case study. Limited discussion of the relevant ITIL processes and their KPIs as identified in the case study. Incomplete or inappropriate discussion of the relevant ITIL processes and their KPIs as identified in the case study. No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Appendices are clearly labelled and referenced. Appendices used to provide appropriate supporting material Adequate use of appendices to improve report readability. Appendices not clearly identified or referenced. REPORT: INTRODUCTION 5 4 3.5 2.5 1.5 0 Introduction professionally developed and broken into logical sections. Clearly provides the purpose of the report, the limitations (hindrances) encountered, and an overview of the case study. Introduction mostly professionally developed and broken into logical sections. Clearly provides the purpose of the report, the limitations (hindrances) encountered, and an overview of the case study. Introduction broken into logical sections. Mostly provides the purpose of the report, the limitations (hindrances) encountered, and an overview of the case study. Some flaws in the Introduction structure, the purpose of the report, the limitations (hindrances) encountered, or an overview of the case study. Poor formatting, or missing elements in the Introduction, the purpose of the report, the limitations (hindrances) encountered, or an overview of the case study. No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Excellent clarity of expression. Grammar and spelling accurate suitable tone and style for target audience. Expression fluent. Grammar and spelling accurate except for minor lapses in target audience focus. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate at times language is unclear and/or unsuitable for target audience. Grammar and/or spelling contains errors. Language is poorly executed or uses too much jargon. Frequent mistakes in grammar and/or spelling. Style not appropriate for target audience. Title page and table of contents / list of tables / list of figures accurate and show professional appearance. Title page and table of contents / list of tables / list of figures accurate. Adequate title page and table of contents / list of tables / list of figures. Some flaws in title page and/or table of contents / list of tables / list of figures. Poor formatting, or missing title page, table of contents / list of tables / list of figures.

5 4 3.5 2.5 1.5 0 Report Structure shows professional presentation of material resulting in clarity of message and information. Report Structure carefully and logically organised. Report Structure shows organisation and coherence. Report Structure shows some attempt to organise in a logical manner. Report Structure is Disorganised / incoherent. No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Submission Guidelines Attach the report document in Microsoft Word or PDF file format using the naming convention below, to your online assignment submission in the Report 2 area on the CIS5308 StudyDesk before midnight Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST) on the day the assignment is due. Upon completion of the submission process, check your UMail email account for an automatically generated confirmation email (if you do not have an email account, print out the Submission Complete screen before exiting the Submission System). You must check that the file name and file size are listed correctly - if there is a problem with either, please email the course examiner immediately. If you have difficulties submitting through the StudyDesk Assignments submission tool, email the course examiner immediately for instructions on an alternative course of action. Any submissions after the due date is considered Late Submission and will be dealt accordingly.

Ensure that your reports are fully referenced, including any reference to the text book. Your report should include in-text references and a List of References. Do not repeat verbatim large slabs of information from other sources such as the text – you must put the ideas/information in your own words. Report 2 Specification Report 2 requires you to read the following case study, and then draw on the course materials and other academic resources (e.g. journal/ conference papers, books) to answer the following questions. For the purpose of this assignment, assume the role of consultant(s) who have been hired by the case organisation (Zurich) to contribute to a review of ITIL service improvement at the organisation. You will prepare a report for the CIO of Zurich.

Team work Students are encouraged to work in teams to complete the assignment as teamwork is an important skill required by industry. You may choose to work alone. USQ provides an online team building workshop that includes strategies to build a team and effective management of teamwork. If you opt to work as a team: • The same marks will be awarded to both students. • No team can exceed more than two students. • It is up to you to find a team-mate and this can usually be achieved in class or through a request on the Study Desk. • Only one team member should submit the assignment. • You must provide the student names and student numbers of both team members on the title page of the report.

This assignment must be your own work. It is acceptable to discuss course content with others to improve your understanding and clarify requirements, but solutions to assignment specification must be done on your own. You must not copy from anyone, including tutors and fellow students, nor allow others to copy your work. All Assignments will be checked using collusion monitoring tools to ensure that each assignment is the original work of the submitting student.