IBUS1101: Global Business – Semester 1, 2025

Assessment Instructions and Rubric

Assessment Individual / Assessment LOs Length Weight Due Due Closing

Name Group Conditions Time Date Date
Project Group Compulsory 1, 2, 3, 1500 20% 8:00 AM 5 May, 23 May,
Analysis & 4, 5, 6 Words 2025 2025
Reflection

Project Analysis & Reflec3on, submission:

You will undertake this assessment in your chosen group. Each group needs to select a firm with a strong
preference for a listed company. The group must inform their tutor of the firm they selected, then research the
company and develop a strategy to enter a specific host country market with a selected product or service.

Creating a structured assessment that includes strong arguments demonstrating critical thinking, analysis, and
evaluation of the strategy will enhance the assessments.

The analysis and reflec3on report must:

• Be a maximum of 1500 words in length, exceeding 1500 words can aFract a word count penalty – excluding
the Reference list,
• The first page of the submission must include the group number (for example, CC01.4), the first and last names
of all team members, and their Student ID numbers (SID) on the first page,
• Each group will nominate one member of the group, to submit their assessments – ONLY one submission is to
be made by each group,
• This is a scholarly task and needs to be supported with appropriate research this should include a minimum of
1 peer-reviewed journal ar3cle from the Australian Business School Deans Council (ABDC) Journals, less than
10 years old,
• Ensure that you apply theory, frameworks, ideas and concepts that we have studied during the semester, and
• Evaluate, reflect, and criNcally analyse the Submission, research and lessons learned.

This project will require you to work in your group to evaluate and analyse the lessons learned, the research and
course knowledge learned. Provided in a well-structured and arNculated submission, in the form of MS Word
document (.doc, .docx) ONLY.

The use of any AI-generated tools must be acknowledged as per the University’s Academic Integrity Policy (2022).
The report:
• Must not exceed the maximum word count of 1500 words, excluding the Reference list,
• Submissions must be in MicrosoV Word, file type .doc or .docx only, all other file types might be
referred to Academic Integrity,
• The assessment must be submiFed in English,
• The file submiXed must have a name that consists of the unit code, tutorial code and the student ID
number (SID), an example could be “IBUS1101_CC01_123456789”,
• Ensure you submit the correct file and not a work file,
• Late penal3es will apply aVer the due date, and Nme 08:00 05/05/2025. Refer to the rubric for details.
DO NOT LEAVE SUBMISSION UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE. Your Guide to all the business school rules for
assessment submissions is available on the USYD Resolu3ons on Assessments page,
• Ensure you review the Academic Integrity Policy (2022) and Academic Integrity Procedures (2022),
• Ensure you read the rubric (pages 4 – 7) carefully, as this is what will be used to grade your paper.

Ensure you review the Academic Integrity Policy (2022) and Academic Integrity Procedures (2022).

1
NB1: Each submission will be graded against the rubric. Ensure you have looked at the rubric carefully before
beginning to construct your paper and before submi[ng it.

NB2: While it is important to consider historical data, data sources used should only include data not older than 10
years.

Assessment Criteria

Please make sure you read the rubric (pages 4 – 7) carefully as this is what will be used to grade your paper.

Requirements for submission:

• Must be submitted on the IBUS1101 Canvas site under “Assignments” and “Project analysis and
reflection”,
• Appropriate referencing throughout the report, in-text citations and in the Reference list, using the APA 7 E
Referencing using the University of Sydney has an APA 7th Edition guide. In-text citations and the
Reference list are to be included in the submission as per APA 7E,
• Research should be using relevant, quality research, not based simply on the organisation’s web pages. It is
important to use high-quality sources, including ABDC peer-reviewed journal articles – refer to the
minimum requirements as stated in the rubric – under Research. Other quality industry sources might be
useful.
• Written submissions must be submitted through Turnitin,
Penal3es:
• The late submission penalty is in line with the Business School policy which can be found at:
http://sydney.edu.au/business/currentstudents/policy
• Word length is in line with the Business School policy, which can be found at:
hXp://sydney.edu.au/business/currentstudents/policy
• Academic dishonesty and plagiarism are in line with the Business School policy which can be found at:
http://sydney.edu.au/business/currentstudents/policy

Group forming and group work:

• Team working is one of the six core Learning Outcomes for IBUS1101,
• Working in a group, negotiating roles, and managing workload is an essential skill in the workforce,
• Groups will be responsible for negotiating roles and managing their work in the group,
• The teaching team will regularly offer advice and support in tutorials,
• In tutorials, you will meet with your group and discuss your project. Minutes must be recorded and
produced (if requested) each week of these meetings to ensure both progress and accountability. These
need to be uploaded to the Canvas group page – when available,
• We expect that individuals in groups will work actively to overcome barriers that arise. However, any
substantial problems in groups should be raised with your tutor as soon as possible,
• If a group believes that there is an evident and substantial disparity in contributions – these groups may be
able to engage in a peer assessment and moderation of grades at the discretion of the Unit Coordinator.
The decision by the Unit Coordinator is final,
• Peer reviews could be undertaken, on a case-by-case basis and require substantive evidence of both
disparity in contribution and efforts to ameliorate difficulties. As such, if you run into difficulties that you
feel may warrant a peer review, then you must raise these with your tutor in the weeks before submission
– and/or as early as possible. All decisions on whether (or not) to engage in a Peer Review process or to
impose a penalty on a non-contributing student/s are subject to the decision of the Coordinator. If a Peer
Review process commences, it might lead to the withholding of marks until the review is concluded and

2
 • We expect each student to make every effort to communicate clearly, contribute fairly, and treat each
other with the utmost respect. As the group had agreed and as per the Student Charter:
o 8 (2) (f) work collaboratively and contribute equitably to group work, projects and other learning
experiences;

Group feedback will be provided for this assessment via:

• Comments will be provided in Canvas as part of the marking process, and
• If further details are required, schedule a consultation with your tutor and ask for additional feedback.

Learning outcomes for this case study include: LO1, LO2, LO3, LO4, LO5, LO6

3
IBUS1101 – Project analysis and reflec@on Rubric

Task Descrip,on: For this assessment, you will need to research and select a firm, research and select a host country and recommend the product and service to introduce to the
market. In the process consider the detailed instruc,ons included in the “Project analysis and reflec,on” and provide detailed, strong arguments, analysing, explaining, and cri<cally
evalua<ng the decisions and strategies selected. These need to be evidenced by peer-reviewed sources (ABDC Journals) less than 10 years old.
You will be required to undertake general and academic research, apply theore<cal frameworks, and cri<cally analyse the context and/or organisa<on.
Please see Canvas for the full list of assignment instruc<ons once they are uploaded.
(Δ GQ stands for Graduate Quali1es)
ASSESSMENT Full Marks HD D C HP P F LF No Marks
CRITERIA* High Dis,nc,on Credit High Pass Pass Fail Low Fail
Dis,nc,on
Understanding and Demonstrates an Demonstrates a Demonstrates Demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates Demonstrates a The analysis is No evidence of
applica/on of excep.onal comprehensive a thorough good sa.sfactory an ability to lack of correct lacking or extremely appropriate
theory/concepts & understanding of understanding of understanding understanding understanding iden.fy some understanding of superficial, analysis.
frameworks theory with extensive theory with well- of theory with of theory, with of theory. reliable theory with demonstra.ng a
(theory) applica.on. Well- developed clearly sound Integra.on is informa.on, inconsistent or weak understanding
explored cri.que of applica.on. Well- developed applica.on. The not always however, it is minimal of the different
20 marks theory through explored cri.que applica.on. analysis is relevant or somewhat applica.on. orienta.ons’
outstanding of theory through Well-informed founded on applied. descrip.ve. businesses may
(Δ GQ Cri/cal integra.on of quality integra.on of cri.que some Depth, adopt.
thinking and sources in the quality sources in through the integra.on of strength of
problem solving Submission. the Submission. integra.on of some relevant argument &/or
And GQ relevant sources in the accuracy are
Informa/on and sources in the Submission. therefore
digital literacy) Submission. lacking.
Evalua/on and Demonstrates an Demonstrates a Demonstrates Demonstrates a Demonstrates a Demonstrates The evalua.on & The evalua.on & No evidence of
jus/fica/on of excep.onal ability to comprehensive a thorough good ability to sa.sfactory an ability to jus.fica.on is jus.fica.on is appropriate
strategies and evaluate and jus.fy ability to evaluate ability to evaluate and ability to evaluate and superficial due to lacking or extremely evalua.on or
decisions made. all relevant and jus.fy all evaluate and jus.fy some evaluate and jus.fy, some being descrip.ve superficial, jus.fica.on.
informa.on, enabling relevant jus.fy most relevant jus.fy some informa.on. with liLle demonstra.ng a
20 marks a very robust and informa.on, relevant informa.on, relevant However, it is connec.on weak
excep.onal enabling a strong, informa.on, enabling a informa.on. somewhat between understanding.
(Δ GQ arguments well-explored enabling well- developed Arguments descrip.ve. evidence and
Cri/cal Thinking & addressing all arguments thought-out argument could be Depth, evalua.on.
Problem Solving assessment task addressing all arguments addressing further strength of
Inven/veness requirements. assessment task addressing some of the strengthened, argument &/or
Influence requirements. most of the assessment & less accuracy are
Informa/on & assessment task descrip.ve. therefore
digital literacy) task requirements. lacking.
requirements.

4
Reflec,on on Provides an Provides a Provides a Provides a Provides a Provides a Provides a very Fails to provide a Provides no
Group analysis excep<onal comprehensive good sa<sfactory basic limited limited proper reflec<on evidence of
reflec<on on group reflec<on on reflec<on on reflec<on on reflec<on on reflec<on on reflec<on on on group reflec<on on
20 marks submission, group group group group group group submission or group
excellently submission, submission, submission, submission, submission, submission, connect to course Submission. No
(Δ GQ wriMen connec<ng to consistently connec<ng to with basic with basic with limited with minimal outcomes. connec<on to
communica/on,
course outcomes. connec<ng to course connec<on to connec<on to connec<on to connec<on to Inconsistent with course
work effec/vely in
diverse sePngs,
Highly consistent course outcomes. course course course course research content outcomes. No
analyse, and GQ with research outcomes. Somewhat outcomes. outcomes. Is outcomes. outcomes. Very and ra<onale. consistency with
Cultural content and Generally consistent Somewhat inconsistent Very inconsistent Lacks structure research
competence And ra<onale. consistent with with research inconsistent with research inconsistent with research and development. content and
GQ Influence) Reflec<on is research content and with research content and with research content and Makes no use of ra<onale. No
excep<onally clear, content and ra<onale. content and ra<onale. content and ra<onale. Lacks Learning Hub structure or
structured, and ra<onale. Reflec<on is ra<onale. Lacks clear ra<onale. clear structure resources. development.
well-developed. Reflec<on is generally Reflec<on has structure and Lacks clear and Provides No use of
Makes exemplary clear, clear and basic development. structure and development. numerous errors Learning Hub
use of Learning structured, and structured. structure and Makes development. Makes no use of in cita<on and resources. No
Hub resources. well-developed. Makes development. minimal use Makes Learning Hub reference list. cita<on or
Provides flawless Makes good use sa<sfactory Makes limited of Learning minimal use resources. reference list.
in-text cita<on and of Learning Hub use of use of Hub of Learning Provides
comprehensive resources. Learning Hub Learning Hub resources. Hub numerous
reference list. Provides minor resources. resources. Provides resources. errors in
errors in Provides Provides numerous Provides cita<on and
cita<on and several errors no<ceable errors in numerous reference list.
reference list. in cita<on errors in cita<on and errors in
and reference cita<on and reference list. cita<on and
list. reference list. reference list.
Clarity of This wri<ng This wri<ng This wri<ng This wri<ng The wri<ng The wri<ng is This wri<ng This wri<ng had This wri<ng was
expression and demonstrates an demonstrated demonstrated demonstrates Demonstrates a sa<sfactory, demonstrated liQle or no unclear and it
effec,ve excep.onal use of a comprehensive a thorough a good sa.sfactory whilst the very liQle business style. It was not possible
communica,on business wri<ng business wri<ng understanding understanding understanding meaning was business style. was unclear to the to discern
in the form of style. The style. The of business of business of business generally It was unclear extent that the meaning due to
professional organisa<on and organisa<on wri<ng style wri<ng style. wri<ng style apparent, the to the extent meaning oRen not problems with
wri,ng skills. formaOng were and formaOng with Informa<on including wri<ng that the understandable. the likes of
presented in an were presented appropriate was appropriate lacked meaning was at There was liQle to wri<ng, syntax,
20 marks excep<onally clear in a clear & language. The appropriately organisa<on. appropriate <mes not no organisa<on of or organisa<on.
& organised organised organisa<on categorised. organisa<on understandable. ideas &
(Δ GQ wriZen manner that aided manner that & formaOng and/or There was very informa<on.
communica,on) in communica<on. aided in of limited liQle
communica<on. informa<on organisa<on of
5
 was logical & business ideas &
purposeful. style. informa<on.
Research Quality Various sources Various sources Sources from Sources from Sources from Minimum General sources Minimal general No internal or
of sources and used from outside from outside outside the outside the outside the requirement from outside sources from external
effec,ve use the class including the class, class class including class are used met with the class have outside the Unit’s material from
demonstrated. more than one high including more including at one peer including one sources used been used resources have the unit has
15 marks quality peer than one peer least one reviewed peer reviewed from Unit’s and/or unit been used. No been used.
reviewed academic reviewed peer academic academic resources resources but unit resources
(GQ Informa,on business journal academic reviewed business business plus have not ac<vely used
and digital references. business academic journal journal addi<onal included one and/or cited with
literacy And GQ Addi<onal high- journal business refences are references, outside peer reviewed requirement of
Cri,cal Thinking quality relevant references are journal effec<vely however, resources, academic using peer
and Problem research is evident. used references used. there is including one business journal reviewed
Solving and GQ Source quality and excep<onally used well to Addi<onal limited use or quality ABDC reference (<10 academic business
Integrated credibility has been well to support support relevant over-use of peer years old). journal ar<cles
professional, cri<cally argument. argument. research is the same reviewed not been met.
ethical, and considered. Overall Addi<onal Addi<onal evident. sources which academic
personal iden,ty) research is relevant relevant limits quality. business
excep<onal and research research journal
could not be incorporates incorporates reference
improved. credible and credible and (<10 years
high-quality high-quality old).
sources. sources.

6
Referencing. All cita<ons All cita<ons referenced. Most All cita<ons referenced. Need Some Most or all points are not supported Not included
5 marks referenced. All references are formaQed to cite more oRen for the cita<ons not by references. Most cita<ons are not
references are correctly and consistently in APA points from same source (e.g., in reference referenced or items in reference list
(GQ Oral and formaQed correctly 7th ed. Style. within same paragraph). list or are not cited. Most or all references
wriZen and consistently in Reference list is mainly reference list not formaQed correctly in APA 7th ed
communica,on APA 7th ed. Style. formaQed correctly and items not style.
And GQ consistently in APA 7th ed. cited. Most
Integrated Style. arguments
professional, are not
ethical, and supported by
personal iden,ty) references.
Few
references
are formaQed
correctly and
consistently
in APA 7th
ed. Style.

Word count and penalty Late Penalty Appendix/Appendices Contribu/on

Where the word length is exceeded, a penalty If the Submission is submiLed late, a penalty of It is suggested that appendix/appendices will only Following submission but prior to the release
of 10% of the total marks will be applied. A 5% (equa.ng to 5 marks out of a total 100 marks) reduce the quality of the submission. Therefore, it of grades, if a group believes that there is an
further 10% will be lost for each 10% over- per day will be applied up to 10 calendar days, is recommended that they are not used. evident and substan.al disparity in
aSer which a mark of zero is applied. Refer to the contribu.on – these groups may be able to
length thereaRer.
Assessment Task Instruc.ons for details. engage in a peer assessment and modera.on
of grades. All decisions are at the discre.on of
the Unit Coordinator.

*NB: Each increment includes the previous lower increments’ criteria description, building on the previous requirements.