BUSI1633_001130589 by Dang Duy (pdf)

BUSI1633_001130589
by Dang Duy
Submission date: 31-Mar-2021 06:53PM (UTC+0100)
Submission ID: 148489049
File name: BUSI1633_001130589_1303761_1433022643.pdf (191.18K)
Word count: 4866
Character count: 28432

1
7

13

13

10

10

1
19

16
17

1
1

18

1
1
2
4
5
8
9
11
12
15

3
3
6
14

10%
SIMILARITY INDEX
7%
INTERNET SOURCES
3%
PUBLICATIONS
7%
STUDENT PAPERS
1 2%
2 1%
3 1%
4 1%
5 1%
6 1%
7 1%
BUSI1633_001130589
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
Submitted to University of Greenwich
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Northumbria at
Newcastle
Student Paper
economictimes.indiatimes.com
Internet Source
Submitted to University of Sheffield
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Adelaide
Student Paper
Eliza Sharma, Neerja Nigam, Subhankar Das.
"Measuring gap in expected and perceived
quality of ICT enabled customer services: a
systematic study of top ten retailers of India",
International Journal of Applied Systemic
Studies, 2020
Publication
Submitted to University of Bradford
Student Paper

8 <1%
9 <1%
10 <1%
11 <1%
12 <1%
13 <1%
14 <1%
15 <1%
16 <1%
17 <1%
18 <1%
19 <1%
Submitted to University of Hertfordshire
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Ulster
Student Paper
www.electronicsb2b.com
Internet Source
link.springer.com
Internet Source
www.auessays.com
Internet Source
www.northsouth.edu
Internet Source
www.researchgate.net
Internet Source
www.ijsrp.org
Internet Source
myassignmenthelp.com
Internet Source
repository.nwu.ac.za
Internet Source
www.cbmsbm.com
Internet Source
www.coursehero.com
Internet Source

Exclude quotes Off
Exclude bibliography Off
Exclude matches Off

FINAL GRADE
70/100
BUSI1633_001130589
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
PAGE 4
PAGE 5
PAGE 6
PAGE 7
PAGE 8
PAGE 9
PAGE 10
PAGE 11
PAGE 12
PAGE 13
PAGE 14
PAGE 15
PAGE 16
PAGE 17

PAGE 18
PAGE 19
PAGE 20

RUBRIC: INDIVIDUAL REPORT
FOCUS (20%)
UNSATISFACTORY
(20)
NEEDS WORK
(40)
SATISFACTORY
(60)
VERY GOOD
(80)
EXCELLENT
(100)
SYNTHESIS (30%)
UNSATISFACTORY
(20)
NEEDS WORK
(40)
SATISFACTORY
(60)
VERY GOOD
(80)
EXCELLENT
(100)
SOUNDNESS (30%)
UNSATISFACTORY
(20)
NEEDS WORK
(40)
SATISFACTORY
(60)
VERY GOOD
(80)
0 / 100
0 / 100
Does the report stay within and fulfil the topic parameters?
None or little focus.
Report is a tad all over the place and requires more focus.
Report has decent focus which could be improved.
Very good focus with clearly stated intention and objectives.
Excellent focus that stays on topic.
0 / 100
Does the report bring together the literature to support strategic analysis?
Very little literature used (under two citations)
Some synthesis, but the literature needed tightening.
There is decent analysis of the literature. More critical analysis of top rated peer
reviewed journals are needed as well as the case study analysis.
There is a deep level understanding of the literature albeit more top rated
journals could be employed. Strategic analysis clearly identified.
Excellent synthesis that links the literature to previous subtopics and the main
theme as well as excellent use of strategic analysis frameworks.
0 / 100
Does the report indicate a comprehensive understanding of the topic area and literature discussed?
No understanding of the topic or critical analysis of the literature.
Literature is somewhat discussed, but there needs to be more critical analysis of
peer reviewed citations.
There is decent understanding and comprehension of the literature and topic
area.
There is very good analysis of the case study with appropriate discussion of the
literature.

EXCELLENT
(100)
CLARITY (10%)
UNSATISFACTORY
(20)
NEEDS WORK
(40)
SATISFACTORY
(60)
VERY GOOD
(80)
EXCELLENT
(100)
MECHANICS (10%)
UNSATISFACTORY
(20)
NEEDS WORK
(40)
SATISFACTORY
(60)
VERY GOOD
(80)
EXCELLENT
(100)
Excellent comprehension of peer reviewed literature and its application to the
case study.
0 / 100
Is the report well organised and logically constructed to achieve synthesis while being mindful of the
needs of the reader
No clarity provided.
Some clarity provided. Needs greater organisation generally.
There is a decent attempt at logical construction although sub-points could better
link back to each other and the main topic.
Very good organisation and structure.
Excellent clarity and organisation which achieves synthesis and is mindful of the
reader.
0 / 100
Mechanical Soundness Is the report clearly written, spell checked and grammatically sound and
referenced appropriately?
Extremely poorly written.
Very poorly written. Do not use contractions and watch paragraph and sentence
structure.
Report is an easy read, but some sentence structure and paragraph structure
require improvement. Do not use contractions or end sentences in prepositions.
Very good mechanics albeit some minor grammatical issues which could be
rectified with more proof reading.
Virtually no mechanical errors. Excellently written.