MGB341 Assessment 2 CRA – 40%

Criteria High Distinction (7) Distinction (6) Credit (5) Pass (4) Fail (3 or below)

100% – 85% 84% – 75% 74% – 65% 64% – 50% 49% – 0%

Assurance of Learning Goal KS1.2: Apply technical and technological skills appropriate and effective for real world business purposes and contexts (i.e. use of an industry standard - AS/NZS:5050)

Accurate use of the
AS/NZS:5050 to support
your plan.
Mark out of 10
The risk management plan
demonstrates a systematic
application of risk principles and
the business continuity standard
(as outlined in the AS/NZS:5050).
The accurate identification and
justification of project objectives,
benefits, hazards and unknown
factors demonstrates an
articulate understanding of how
the project interfaces with the
organisation’s goals and
stakeholder environment.
Identification and articulating of
appropriate levels of
administrative reviews, and
management response to the
different levels of risk possible for
the project have been tailored to
the risk appetite of the
organization.
The risk management plan mostly
demonstrates a systematic
application of the of risk
principles and the business
continuity standard (as outlined
in the AS/NZS:5050).
Project objectives, benefits,
hazards and unknown factors are
detailed and justified, and link to
the organisation’s goals and
stakeholder environment.
Identification and articulating of
appropriate levels of
administrative reviews, and
management response to the
different levels of risk possible for
the project have been detailed
alongside the risk matrix defined
for the project. A risk appetite
statement has also been
provided, however the link
between response levels and risk
appetite could be improved.
The risk management plan
applies a range of risk
principles and the business
continuity standard (as outlined
in the AS/NZS:5050).
Project objectives, benefits,
hazards and unknown factors
have been listed, although are
sometimes lacking justification
or linking to the organisation’s
goals and/or stakeholder
environment.
The frequency of
administrative reviews, and
levels of managerial response
required for the differing levels
of risk possible for the project
have been detailed to support
the risk matrix, although it’s
difficult to understand the risk
appetite of the organization or
how this links to the response
levels you’ve defined.
The risk management plan
applies risk management
terminology and appears to link
to the concepts detailed in the
business continuity standard
(AS/NZS:5050).
Project objectives, benefits,
hazards and unknown factors
have been listed, although there
is little justification and/or linking
to the organisation’s goals and/or
stakeholder environment.
The frequency of administrative
reviews, and levels of managerial
response required for the
differing levels of risk possible for
the project have been detailed to
support the risk matrix, however
the risk appetite of the
organization has not been
discussed.
The risk management plan shows
little or no application of the
AS/NZS:5050.
There is little demonstrated
understanding of the objectives of
the project, its intended benefits,
hazards, and unknown factors.
The proposed plan fails to provide
a clear process for identifying,
analyzing, evaluating and treating
threats.
The proposed plan fails to provide
a process for identifying an
appropriate level of managerial
response for treating threats.
The proposed plan fails to detail
administrative review processes
for reviewing, updating and
assigning responsibility for known
threats for the Threat Register.

Assurance of Learning Goal HO2.1: Investigate real world business issues and situations through the effective analysis, evaluation and synthesis of theory and practice

Tailoring of processes and
frameworks to the
organisation’s context in
your Risk Management Plan
Mark out of 10
Your use of evidence-based
justification, with clear
documentation of your extensive
investigation and underlying
assumptions combine to risk
management structure that is
underpinned by an infallible logic
that makes it difficult to
challenge your proposed plan.
Evidence/sources have been used
to document and justify
assertions. Logical assumptions
have also been identified and
used to support your discussion
and decisions for the structure of
your proposed plan.
The proposed plan draws upon
a small but informative range
of sources as its evidence-base.
Your logic and assumptions are
documented, although are
sometimes not easy to follow in
your discussion.
An evidence-based approach to
formulating your risk
The proposed plan draws upon a
range of sources as its evidence-
base, however these have been
from questionable sources,
which reduces the validity or
support of your discussion. Your
logic and assumptions are
documented, although some of
these are not always consistent
Critical risk principles/ models/
frameworks are missing from your
discussion. There is limited to no
use of sources to support your
assertions.
Assumptions and logic are not
documented, which limits the
ability of future analysts to
understand or work with your

Assurance of Learning Goal SE 5.2: Demonstrate and apply knowledge of socially responsible behaviour in analysing and addressing business issues in national and international business contexts.
Formulating and justifying
your recommendations for
treating the project’s
current risk rating
Mark out of 10
Assurance of Learning Goal PC 3.1: Use information literacy skills, and communicate effectively and professionally in written forms and using media appropriate for diverse purposes and contexts.
Structure and writing style
of the report and use of
APA referencing
Mark out of 10
Senior managers would
commend you for your report
and and readily incorporate your
recommendations into the
operating framework of the
project.
Comprehensive consideration
and application of risk principles
and business continuity standard
in formulating and justifying your
recommendations. The
recommendations demonstrate a
clear commitment to protecting
strategic goals while also
protecting societal interests (i.e.
preservation of life, sustainability
concerns, etc.)
The overall presentation of the
document is equivalent to a
professional consultancy report.
The report is logically organised
and addresses all aspects of the
task. Writing style is concise,
purposeful and highly
professional. All sources are
accurately and appropriately
acknowledged and the use of
APA referencing is flawless.
Your risk management plan is
unlikely to be challenged by
senior managers.
Clear consideration and
application of risk principles and
business continuity standard in
formulating recommendations.
There is some imbalance
between the strategic goals and
societal interests that have been
highlighted in your
recommendations.
The overall presentation of the
document is almost equivalent to
a professional consultancy report.
The report is logically organised
and addresses all aspects of the
task. Writing style is concise,
uses the technical language of
risk and mostly fit for purpose. All
sources are appropriately
acknowledged and there is a high
level of accuracy in the use of
APA referencing.
management plan, but is
incomplete and likely to be
challenged by senior managers.
Risk principles and the business
continuity standard have been
used to structure much of the
discussion in formulating and
justifying the recommendations
provided in the report.
Discussion for how the
recommendations enable the
organization to meet its
strategic goals is provided, as is
discussion for how the
recommendations appreciate
or impact societal interests.
The report is well organised
with only minor errors or
omissions. Writing style is
mostly professional although
there are some lapses in
conciseness and purpose. Most
sources are acknowledged and
there are only minor
inaccuracies in the use of APA
referencing.
with accepted norms in risk
management.
Due to the limited evidence-base
supporting your analysis, senior
managers would likely require
you to revise your plan before
accepting your proposed plan
and recommendations.
Risk principles and the business
continuity standard have been
referred to in the formulating
and/or justification of
recommendations, however
there is limited depth of
discussion identifying how the
recommendations meet the
organisation’s strategic goals
and/or the societal interests at
stake with respect to managing
the risk.
The report is organised but there
may be some aspects of the task
where the requirements are not
met (i.e. missing an executive
summary; etc.). Writing style is
somewhat professional although
the use of technical language is
inaccurate at times. There are
omissions in source
acknowledgement and some
inaccuracies in use of APA
referencing.
proposed structure. There is little
to no evidence supporting your
proposed plan and
recommendations.
Accordingly, senior managers
would require the report and
corporate threat register entry to
be started from scratch.
Little / no identification of
stakeholder interests or application
of risk principles and/or business
continuity standard in formulating
the recommendations for the risk
management plan.
Document is not logically organised
or the writing style shows little
regard given for professional
presentation. There is a lack of
acknowledgement of sources and
use of APA referencing is not
evident or is inaccurate.