This document provides criteria for evaluating a business continuity plan assignment. It includes criteria for explaining the tasks and responsibilities of a business continuity manager, garnering buy-in for skeptical stakeholders, discussing initial activities and challenges, and meeting formatting requirements. Scoring is broken into categories such as unacceptable, meets minimum expectations, fair, proficient, and exemplary. Higher scores require more thorough, comprehensive explanations while lower scores have incomplete or insufficient responses. References and writing mechanics are also evaluated.

1. Broad criteria
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory- Good
Business report: style, fluency, persuasive
Max Marks = 1
Max Marks = 2
language with assurance and precision in the
Lacked clarity. Spelling and
Some clarity evident, however
business report.
grammatical errors evident
work would benefit from closer
throughout. Work would benefit
attention to expression and
from proof reading. Submission
grammar. Submission attempts to
does not apply a business report
apply a business report structure to

2. structure to its presentation.
its presentation but areas for
Report items 1-4: Develop and provide an
Max Marks = 5
Max Marks = 7
introduction to the plan by explaining its
Knowledge of principles and
Demonstrates some knowledge of
purpose and importance. The risk appetite and
concepts of risk management
principles and concepts of risk
risk tolerance for the company; Create an
insufficient to communicate
management and is able to
outline for the completed risk management
intelligently about the topic.
communicate this. May lack some
plan; Define the scope and boundaries of the
Lacks clarity. Most responses
clarity. Most responses were
plan; Develop a proposed schedule for the risk
were very general with minimal
general with some understanding
management planning process.
or no little understanding of risk
of risk appetite and risk tolerance.
appetite and risk tolerance.
Scope, boundaries complete but
Scope, boundaries is
lacks discussing evidence of overall

3. disorganized, incomplete, or
risk management assessment.
lacks in evidence of overall risk
management assessment.
Report items 5-6: Identify the key roles and
Max Marks = 5
Max Marks = 7
responsibilities of individuals and departments
Knowledge of roles and
Demonstrates some knowledge of
within the organization as they pertain to risk
responsibilities with respect to
roles and responsibilities and is
assessment; Develop a proposed schedule for
risk assessment insufficient or
able to communicate this. Lacks
the RA process.
weakly communicated. Overall
some clarity in defining roles.
lacks clarity. Most responses
Response to schedule for RA
were very general with minimal
process may be missing some

4. or no little understanding of how
points..
to run RA process.
Report items 7-8: Carefully audit the case,
Max Marks = 5
Max Marks = 7
undertake an inventory and identify
Knowledge of principles and
Demonstrates ability to synthesis
information assets that includes both,
concepts insufficient to
and apply core concepts and
Cornersea’s most significant business
communicate intelligently about
principles. Addresses most of
information, and the information systems
the topic. Lacks clarity. Most
requirements and provides some
that must be accounted for in any approach
responses were very general
examples, demonstrating analysis
to risk management. Identifies information
with minimal or no examples
and organisation of assets, threats
assets and systems of organisation most at
relating back to the case assets,
and vulnerabilities with good case
risk; Identifies and provides an analysis of
threats and vulnerabilities.
context presented.
the threats and vulnerabilities that pose the

5. Analysis is disorganized,
greatest concern. (Identify 6 top risks)
incomplete, or lacking in
evidence of asset, threat and
vulnerability assessment.
Report items 9-10: Presents likelihood and
Max Marks = 5
Max Marks = 7
impact analyses for the threats and
Understanding of likelihood and
Demonstrates evidence of having
vulnerabilities identified. Prioritises risks and
impact analyses is not
understood core concepts and
presents a risk assessment table
demonstrated. Lack of
principles for likelihood, impact
understanding of what should be
analyses and approaches to
contained in a risk assessment
assessment. Core materials are
table and no other substantial

6. understood and capacity to
approach to evaluate or
synthesise is shown but report does
prioritise the material value of
not extend itself to a clear
assets or the effect of threats or
demonstration of mastery of all
vulnerabilities is shown.
important concepts.
Referencing and use of guidelines, standards,
Max Marks = 1
Max Marks = 2
frameworks and additional readings:
Either did not provide an
Provided a minimum of references
Demonstrated rigor of use of resources with
adequate list of references OR
from credible sources standards,
supporting references
included a bibliography instead
guidelines, frameworks Created a
& adherence to Harvard
i.e. not all references were cited
reference list but with significant
Guidelines

7. in the body of the report or vice
errors/omissions. Did not strictly
versa. Demonstrates very little
adhere to Harvard guidelines.
evidence of having read core
Provides some evidence of working
materials. Minimal or no
with sources but could improve
evidence of research to support
analysis of sources.
responses.
Additional feedback comments:
Very Good
Max Marks = 2.5
Good writing style. Further development of expression and
clarity will enhance the work. Additional focus is needed on the
precision of your communication. Submission applies most
elements
Max Marks = 9

8. Demonstrates sound knowledge of principles and concepts of
risk management and is able to articulate this. Most responses
were good with a good understanding of risk appetite and risk
tolerance. Scope, boundaries complete but may lack some
clarity in discussing risk management assessment.
Max Marks = 9
Demonstrates good understanding of the roles and
responsibilities within organization and is able to articulate
this. Most responses show a good understanding of how to
conduct the risk assessment and has provided a relatively
complete schedule.
Max Marks = 9
Shows sound knowledge of relevant principles and concepts.
Additional focus needed on precision of assessment of assets,
threats and vulnerabilities because some key elements that
needed to be covered are missing. Case evidence is present but
could be extended/ improved.
Max Marks = 9
Sound knowledge of principles and concepts. ideas are included
in the work in an appropriate manner. Demonstrates thorough
understanding of standards, guidelines and frameworks for
likelihood, impact analyses and risk assessment, evidence of
some critical thinking shown.
Max Marks = 2.5
Provides a good body of references and is working effectively
with a minimum of credible sources, standards, guidelines,
frameworks. Reasonably structured reference list. May not

9. strictly adhere to Harvard guidelines but good use of references
in report.
Excellent
Max Marks = 4
Excellent writing style
demonstrating precision in the
clear use of language and
expression. Submission has applied
almost all elements of a business
report structure thoughtfully and
Max Marks = 12
Evidence of excellent
understanding of risk management
processes, principles and concepts.
Excellent understanding of risk
appetite and risk tolerance with
respect to case study. Scope,
boundaries complete and clearly

10. discussed with respect to risk
management assessment.
Max Marks = 12
Evidence of excellent
understanding of risk assessment
process, roles and responsibilities
with the context of risk
management and specific to this
case study. Good proposed
schedule.
Max Marks = 12
Evidence of an exceptionally high
standard of work demonstrating
understanding, interpretation and
application of unit concepts and
principles. Shows understanding of
integral contexts & relationships
between assets, threats &

11. vulnerabilities and the case. Has
identified limitations ,
assumptions, challenges for the
analysis. Demonstrates evaluation
& critical thinking.
Max Marks = 11
Demonstrates breadth and depth
of understanding, shows insights
and awareness of many deeper
more subtle aspects of the topic
and, as result, integrates
standards, guidelines and
frameworks for likelihood, impact
analyses and risk assessment
extremely well. Expand on topics/
issues in the broader evaluative
context.
Max Marks = 4

12. Provides good integrated use of
multiple credible sources (two or
more ) standards, guidelines,
frameworks brought together
effectively. Excellent work with
reference list clearly demonstrated.
Adherence to Harvard guidelines.
Demonstrates a breadth and depth
of study and preparation in well
chosen sources and their use.
Original Score out of 55
0
Score out of 25
0
Late deduction (# of days) =
0
Final Mark (including deductions)
0.0
Points: 75
Assignment 1: Continuity Planning Overview
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 60% F
Meets Minimum Expectations

13. 60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1. Explain the basic primary tasks, ongoing evaluations, and
major policy and procedural changes that would be needed to
perform as the BC lead / manager.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or incompletely explained the basic primary
tasks, ongoing evaluations, and major policy and procedural
changes that would be needed to perform as the BC lead /
manager.
Insufficiently explained the basic primary tasks, ongoing
evaluations, and major policy and procedural changes that
would be needed to perform as the BC lead / manager.
Partially explained the basic primary tasks, ongoing
evaluations, and major policy and procedural changes that
would be needed to perform as the BC lead / manager.
Satisfactorily explained the basic primary tasks, ongoing
evaluations, and major policy and procedural changes that
would be needed to perform as the BC lead / manager.
Thoroughly explained the basic primary tasks, ongoing
evaluations, and major policy and procedural changes that
would be needed to perform as the BC lead / manager.
2. Provide insight on how to plan the presentation to garner
management and Board buy-in for those who are skeptical.
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or incompletely provided insight on how to plan
the presentation to garner management and Board buy-in for
those who are skeptical.

14. Insufficiently provided insight on how to plan the presentation
to garner management and Board buy-in for those who are
skeptical.
Partially provided insight on how to plan the presentation to
garner management and Board buy-in for those who are
skeptical.
Satisfactorily provided insight on how to plan the presentation
to garner management and Board buy-in for those who are
skeptical.
Thoroughly provided insight on how to plan the presentation to
garner management and Board buy-in for those who are
skeptical.
3. Discuss the first four (4) high-level activities that would be
necessary in starting this initiative in the right direction and
describe the potential pitfalls of each.
Weight: 25%
Did not submit or incompletely discussed the first four (4) high-
level activities that would be necessary in starting this initiative
in the right direction and did not submit or incompletely
described the potential pitfalls of each.
Insufficiently discussed the first four (4) high-level activities
that would be necessary in starting this initiative in the right
direction and insufficiently described the potential pitfalls of
each.
Partially discussed the first four (4) high-level activities that
would be necessary in starting this initiative in the right
direction and partially described the potential pitfalls of each.
Satisfactorily discussed the first four (4) high-level activities
that would be necessary in starting this initiative in the right
direction and satisfactorily described the potential pitfalls of
each.
Thoroughly discussed the first four (4) high-level activities that
would be necessary in starting this initiative in the right
direction and thoroughly described the potential pitfalls of each.
4. Speculate on the most comprehensive and / or critical
challenge(s) in the infancy of this initiative and explain how to

15. overcome that challenge(s).
Weight: 20%
Did not submit or incompletely speculated on the most
comprehensive and / or critical challenge(s) in the infancy of
this initiative and did not submit or incompletely explained how
to overcome that challenge(s).
Insufficiently speculated on the most comprehensive and / or
critical challenge(s) in the infancy of this initiative and
insufficiently explained how to overcome that challenge(s).
Partially speculated on the most comprehensive and / or critical
challenge(s) in the infancy of this initiative and partially
explained how to overcome that challenge(s).
Satisfactorily speculated on the most comprehensive and / or
critical challenge(s) in the infancy of this initiative and
satisfactorily explained how to overcome that challenge(s).
Thoroughly speculated on the most comprehensive and / or
critical challenge(s) in the infancy of this initiative and
thoroughly explained how to overcome that challenge(s).
5. 8 references
Weight: 5%
No references provided
Does not meet the required number of references; all references
poor quality choices.
Does not meet the required number of references; some
references poor quality choices.
Meets number of required references; all references high quality
choices.
Exceeds number of required references; all references high
quality choices.
6. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements
Weight: 10%
More than 8 errors present
7-8 errors present
5-6 errors present
3-4 errors present
0-2 errors present