Recommendations / conclusions Value 20% Mark awarded Few or no recommendations made / no justification. Any recommendations made are not supported or are inaccurate. Some recommendations made / not well linked to the results of the evaluation or relevant theory. Good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation results / may not be linked back systematically to relevant theory Very good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used systematically to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of the organisation’s capabilities Excellent recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used in insightful way to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of the organisation’s capabilities Presentation Value 20% Mark awarded Referencing is absent / not systematic / incorrect Acceptable presentation – obvious errors demonstrating lack of attention to detail.

Analysis of the organisation Value 30% Mark awarded Poor evaluation. Significant gaps in knowledge of the theory and lack of understanding of company’s capabilities. No analysis provided. Disjointed or no discussion. Simple discussion of areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Work reflects limited engagement with organisational context or relevant theory. Not all aspects of task completed In sufficient detail. Most aspects of the task completed but assessment lacks cohesion. Identifies and discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Discussion of some relevant issues in theory and organisational content in evaluation. All aspects of the task completed – some cohesion. Identifies and clearly explains areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation. All aspects of the task completed with minimal errors in cohesion Identifies and insightfully discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Strong links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation.

Marking Guide: Analysis 30% Theory support 30% Recommendations/conclusions 30% Presentation 10% Total mark will be scaled to a mark out of 15 Criteria Fail (0 – 49%) Pass (50 – 64%) Credit (65 – 74%) Distinction (75 – 84%) High Distinction (85 – 100%) Research – extent and application Value 30% Mark awarded Inaccurate, inappropriate or no use of literature. Analysis not developed. No original explanations provided. Minimum number of sources, not all current or relevant. Paraphrasing used throughout but not always accompanied by original explanations. Theory relevant but not always linked to analysis. Good selection of theory from a range of sources to build and adequately justifies analysis. Paraphrasing used throughout but accompanied by original explanations Insightful and appropriate selection of theory from a good range of current and relevant sources to systematically build and justify analysis. Minimum paraphrasing Integration and originality in the selection and handling of relevant theory to build and justify analysis. Wide range of current and relevant sources integrated in systematic way.

o Students are expected to attend classes with the weekly worksheets and subject support material provided in Moodle. Students should read this material before coming to class to improve their ability to participate in the weekly activities. o Students will require access to the internet and their KOI email and should have basic skills in word processing software such as MS Word, spreadsheet software such as MS Excel and visual presentation software such as MS PowerPoint. o Computers are available for student use in the Library. However these are in demand at peak times and tutorial classes may have priority use. You should therefore plan well in advance to utilise these resources. If you have your own computer, it should have internet access

kindly visit page 8 assessment 1 of file attached. company i have selected is Glaxo smith Kline. you have to prepare report from recent Financial reports. points should address: how should company deal with information in B/S and I/S contrast between internal and external resources and closures AASB contingent liability (put screenshot) conceptual Frame work(Focus base) refer auditing knowledge in this assessment from financial reports. significant accounting policy Extract what their Directors or auditors says(likelihood of success) talk about disclosures of contingent liability use index. look company's web and sustainability reports. depreciation and industry issues statement of significant policies