Guidelines for Presentation Reports (40%)
IT & Business Alignment
The breakup of marks in this assessment item will be 50 percent for the presentation and 50 percent for the write-up (around 1000-1500 words).
Your report should reflect the following structure:
Brief Introductory Statement
• Paper title
• Author
• Citation, etc.
• Research problem and/or purpose of the paper
Important Points and Arguments Presented
Strengths and weaknesses of the paper under review
• Rigour, relevance and overall quality of the research of the paper including:
• Overall assessment of the reliability of the results or claims
Overall Assessment of the paper under review
• Significance of findings for IT and Business Alignment practice.
• What have I learned that I did not know when I started?
• How has the author confronted and challenged my current understanding or extended it into areas I have never thought about before?
• How has the manuscript deepened my conceptualisation of some aspect of IT and Business Alignment?

Marking Sheet for Report and Presentation (40%)
IT and Business Alignment Name:
Assessment Criteria
less than 50 Pass
50-64 Credit
65-74 Distinction
75-84 High Distinction
85 plus
Introduction
(5%) Context not clear. Context defined, but more clarity required. Context clear and reasoning evident. Context well explained and supported. Context well explained and supported. Originality evident.
Uses the academic resources to illustrate issues in contemporary ICT management
(25%)
Reference to literature lacking and/or inappropriate. Relevance not clear. Some suitable reference to the literature with some discussion. Literature evaluated and analysed. Central issues are addressed. Literature well understood , evaluated and analysed. Effective evaluation and analysis evident. Excellent range of contemporary and seminal literature effectively presented, evaluated and analysed. Literature from related areas utilised for innovative links.
Critically evaluates principal historical and current approaches to the study of ICT management
(25%) No/Little analysis or evaluation evident, pure description and ‘lists’ from literature. No relevant examples used. Some analysis and evaluation evident but still very descriptive. No real synthesis of ideas and literature. Any examples given only add a little to the depth of the argument. Good analysis and evaluation with little description. Some good synthesis of ideas and literature. Examples add clarity to the argument. Very good analysis and evaluation. Ideas and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated. All ideas thoroughly considered. Excellent analysis and evaluation. Ideas and examples synthesized with new ideas being formulated.
Outlines the tasks and competencies required in the practice of ICT management
(25%) Theory unlinked to practice of ICT management. The practice of ICT management is identified in terms of tasks and competencies. Any reference to the complexity of managerial life is made only briefly. In discussing the practice of management its complexity is highlighted. Complicating factors are introduced and linked to discussion of the tasks and competencies required of ICT managers. The practice of ICT management in the 21st Century is thoroughly presented with reference to the theory. Tasks and competencies are identified within context and complicating factors clearly identified. The role of the ICT manager is discussed and complexities identified with a discussion that references a range of theoretical and practical examples. There are clear links to a wide range of theoretical ideas. Originality evident.
Conclusion
(10%) No/Poor conclusions. Some conclusions but not well developed. Not acting as a synthesis of the essay/presentation. Clear conclusions developing out of the essay/presentation and clarifying the overall outcomes. Clear conclusions developing out of the essay/presentation, clarifying the arguments made & optimizing the overall outcomes. Clear concise conclusions developing out of the essay/presentation, clarifying the arguments made & optimizing the overall outcomes.
Presentation, style and layout and Accuracy of sourcing, citation and referencing
(10%) Poor presentation, little or no referencing, poor structure, not in essay format. Reasonable presentation and referencing. Structure of the essay needs to be tighter. Good presentation, structure and consistent, accurate referencing. Excellent presentation, structure and totally accurate referencing. Excellent presentation, structure and totally accurate referencing.
General Comments: