Marking scheme for IRDR0003 Scenario

• This is an individual report worth 70% of 1750-word individual report + Bibliography
(AKA: do not count the Bibliography at the end of the text in the word count). Use the
course readings to support your rationale.
• Be consistent in the referencing and follow ONE stile between APA, Harvard, Chicago
with text author-date system. Audience: technical, mixed both academic and non-
academic. Penalties applies for inconsistencies in the style and wrong technical
language.
• NO copy and paste from existing reports or website are allowed. If you want to mention
anything specific to highlight a point, please report it according to rules and not use that
to use extensively. For example: A recurrent problem is that interdependent networks
have been ‘‘consistently pushed to the edge of their design envelopes, under pressure
to maximise, if not optimise, their performance’’ (Schulman et al. 2004).

Part Inadequate
(F)

Inadeguate
0-39%


Fail (D)

Insufficient;
unsatisfactory.

40-49%
Pass
C: 50-54%
C+:55-59%

Differentiation:
C-> Barely
sufficient; barely
Satisfactory
fragmented clear
thinking barely
sufficient standard
of work.
C+ Fully
sufficient; fully
satisfactory Some
evidence of clear
thinking but
variable standard
and lacks insight

Merit
B: 60-64
B+:65-69%

Differentiation:
B Good work.
B Very Good,
thoughtful work.

Distinction
A: 70-80
A+: 80+
A++:90+

Essay that could be
published fully or in
part e.g. in a blog,
or a comment.

Differentiation:
A Excellent.
A+ Outstanding
to professional
standard.
A++ Exceptional
to professional
standard.

Introduction
and rationale
Lack of
understanding of, or
focus, on key
elements
distinguishing the
organisation and its
context.

The rationale is
wrong and/or
presents substantial
conceptual
misunderstandings/i
nconsistencies with
DRR literature

Assumptions and
limitations are
conceptually
wrong/inconsistent,
Limited understanding
of, or focus, on the
elements distinguishing
the topic and its
context.

The rationale is weak
and/ or presents partial
misunderstandings/inc
onsistencies with the
literature.

Assumptions and
limitations are partially
wrong/inconsistent,
very limitedly
explained or reported.

If it’s an empirical
paper, the
The core aspects
distinguishing the
topic and its contexts
have been
understood and
addressed, thought
this remain
somehow superficial.

The rationale is
correct, sufficiently
solid and reported. If
it’s an empirical
paper, the
methodology is ok,
but there are some
substantial gaps.

Assumptions and
limitations are
Good understanding
of the topic and its
context.

The rational is clear,
solid, and shows a
good understanding
of its components.

Assumptions and
limitations are well
explained or reported.

If it’s an empirical
paper, good
methodology with
minor improvements
needed.
Advanced/ in-depth
understanding of the
topic and its contexts
used to highlight
distinguishing
elements of the case.

These are used
outstandingly to
support a consistent
and solid rationale.

Assumptions and
limitations are
explained or reported
up to professional
standards.

not explained or not
reported.
If it’s an empirical
paper, the
methodology is
inconsistent.
methodology has some
substantial problems.
sufficiently explained
or reported.


If it’s an empirical
paper, solid
methodology.
Development
and
conclusions
The analyse and
evaluation of the
topic and its
implications is
inadequate.

Limited or no use of
relevant sources to
support the
development of the
rationale.

The points made
have not been
justified or
supported,
limited organisation
of facts and ideas.

Either no argument
or argument
presented is
inappropriate and
irrelevant.
Conclusions absent
or irrelevant.


The analysis and
evaluation of the topic
implications is not
always adequate.

There are gaps in the
use of relevant sources
used to support work.
Limited evidence of a
critical approach to key
issues and ability. The
points made have not
fully justified or
supported, limited
organisation of facts
and ideas.

An indirect response to
the task set, towards a
limitedly relevant
argument and
conclusions.





Sufficient analysis
and evaluation of the
threats and their
implications.

Relevant sources
used to support
argument/discussion
.

Some evidence of
critical approach to
key issues and ability
to evaluate
arguments. The
points made have
been sufficiently
justified or
supported.

Facts and ideas are
organised but still
somehow
fragmented.
A reasonable
response to the task
sets with a limited
sense of argument
and partial
conclusions.
Good analysis and
development of risk
analysed. Relevant
sources used
effectively to support
argument/discussion
Clear evidence of
critical approach to
key issues and some
ability to evaluate
arguments.
A sound response
with a reasonable
argument and
straightforward
conclusions, logical
conclusions.
Complex work
developed analysing
the key issues of the
topic analysed.
Relevant sources used
effectively to support
argument/discussion
Strong evidence of
critical approach to
key issues and some
ability to evaluate
arguments.
Exceptional response
with a convincing,
sophisticated
argument with precise
conclusions.
Content,
style, and
other
The writing style
and the use of
terminology
seriously detract
from conveying the
ideas and concepts.
Penalty applies to a
diffused and
persistent use of
inappropriate
terminology/
technical
vocabulary.

The work is so
over/under length
to compromise the
goal of the task.

Inconsistent
referencing and /or
use of multiple
reference style.
Using Wikipedia or
similar
The writing style and
the use of terminology
detract from conveying
the ideas and concepts
Penalty applies to a
diffused use of
inappropriate language
of technical vocabulary
and concepts.

The work is
significatively
over/under length.

Inconsistent
referencing and/or use
of multiple reference
style.

The writing style and
the use of
terminology is
generally right but
occasionally detracts
from conveying the
ideas and concepts.
Minor penalty
applies to a localised
use of inappropriate
language of technical
vocabulary and
concepts. Occasional
inconsistent
referencing and/or
reference style.

Length exceeded but
within the tolerance
limit, or quite under
the length expected.
The writing style and
the use of
terminology is
generally correct and
conveys idea and
concepts.

Length within the
limit, well used.
The writing style and
the use of
terminology
outstanding.
Additional bonuses
may apply to use of
technical
language/terminology
that is used so well to
highlight a full
mastery of the topic.
Length within the
limit, used efficiently
and to the point.