Business Consultancy Project Formative Coursework Assessment brief 2026 | BPP

Module

Learning

Outcome

Fail (0-39%)

Low Fail (40-49%)

Pass (50-59%)

Merit (60-69%)

Distinction (70-79%)

High Distinction (80-

100%)

The project lacks a clear purpose, scope, or aim, with little or no connection to organisational or industry strategy.

Demonstrates inadequate understanding of strategic importance; the chosen area of focus is irrelevant, outdated, or unjustified.

Shows no evidence of using theories, frameworks, or academic literature to underpin the project formulation.

Contextual analysis is absent or incorrect, with no awareness of the wider organisational environment.

Arguments are descriptive, incoherent, and unsupported by credible evidence. Work is poorly structured, lacks academic rigour, and fails to demonstrate postgraduatelevel criticality.

The project is formulated in a very limited way, with only superficial relevance to organisational or strategic concerns.

Purpose and aims are vague, poorly articulated, or lack logical connection to the area of focus.

Shows weak knowledge of relevant theories, frameworks, or literature; references are minimal or inappropriate.

Contextual understanding is partial, with limited reference to organisational setting or industry environment.

Arguments are weak, lacking clarity and depth, with minimal critical evaluation.

Structure and presentation are inconsistent, with frequent errors in expression and referencing.

The project is formulated with a clear purpose and scope, showing basic relevance to organisational or industry strategy.

Purpose and aims are identifiable but may be simplistic or underdeveloped.

Demonstrates an adequate knowledge base with some use of relevant theories and literature, though application may be limited.

Contextual analysis is present but largely descriptive, with limited critical insight into the organisational or industry environment.

Arguments are coherent but basic; some evidence supports claims but lacks depth or evaluation. Structure is functional, with satisfactory clarity and acceptable use of Harvard referencing, though errors may be present

The project is well formulated with clear alignment to organisational and industry strategy.

Purpose and aims are well defined and logically justified with supporting evidence.

Demonstrates good engagement with relevant theories, frameworks, and academic literature; application is appropriate though may not be consistently critical.

Contextual analysis reflects an understanding of both organizational and industry environment, with some evaluation of significance.

Arguments are well developed, coherent, and supported by credible evidence. Structure is clear and professional, with consistent use of academic conventions and accurate Harvard referencing.

organisational and industry environment, with some evaluation of significance.

Arguments are well developed, coherent, and supported by credible evidence. Structure is clear and professional, with consistent use of academic conventions and accurate Harvard referencing.

The project is excellently formulated with strong and explicit alignment to strategic priorities at both organisational and industry level.

Purpose and aims are sophisticated, robustly justified, and grounded in a critical

understanding of management challenges.

Demonstrates excellent knowledge of theories, frameworks, and literature, applying them critically to justify project formulation.

Contextual analysis is comprehensive, showing critical evaluation of the organisation’s internal and external environment, and integrating relevant strategic issues.

Arguments are persuasive, logically structured, and supported by strong, credible evidence.

Academic writing is of a high standard, with fluent expression and consistently accurate referencing.

The project formulation is outstanding, original, and demonstrates exceptional strategic insight and innovation.

Purpose and aims are highly sophisticated, innovative, and directly address complex, realworld organisational or industry challenges.

Demonstrates outstanding use of theories, frameworks, and literature, integrating advanced concepts with originality and critical depth.

Contextual analysis is nuanced, multidimensional, and demonstrates exceptional understanding of strategic environment, including global, ethical, and sustainability dimensions.

Arguments are exceptionally coherent, critically balanced, and show intellectual originality, professional maturity, and advanced strategic thinking. Presentation is exemplary, with clarity, precision, and Harvard referencing at near-publishing standard.

Provides little or no evaluation of project complexity; issues are oversimplified or misunderstood.

Stakeholders are ignored, misidentified, or described in a superficial way with no real analysis of their interests or influence.

No evidence of using stakeholder frameworks (e.g., Mendelow’s Matrix) or relevant theory.

Contextual analysis of internal and external stakeholders is absent or irrelevant.

Arguments are incoherent, descriptive, and unsupported by credible evidence. Demonstrates no

critical thinking,

reflection, or awareness of competing stakeholder priorities.

Evaluation of complexity is weak, limited to surfacelevel description of project issues.

Stakeholders are recognised but analysis is shallow, with minimal consideration of impact or influence.

Weak or inappropriate use of stakeholder theory/frameworks; application is poorly justified.

Contextual understanding of stakeholder environment is fragmented or underdeveloped.

Arguments lack depth and coherence, relying heavily on description rather than evaluation. Critical awareness of multiple stakeholder perspectives is minimal or absent.

Provides an adequate evaluation of project complexity, though depth of analysis may be limited.

Stakeholders are identified and their interests considered, though analysis is largely descriptive.

Some use of stakeholder theory/frameworks is evident, but application is basic.

Demonstrates awareness of both internal and external stakeholders, though connections to project complexity are not fully developed.

Arguments are coherent but lack sophistication; limited evidence is used to support claims.

Critical evaluation is minimal but present; demonstrates awareness of differing perspectives.

Provides a good evaluation of project complexity, recognising interdependencies and challenges.

Stakeholder analysis is clear and considers both internal and external groups, with some evaluation of their interests and influence.

Uses stakeholder theory/frameworks effectively to structure analysis, though application may lack consistency or depth.

Demonstrates good contextual understanding of stakeholder environment and its impact on the project.

Arguments are welldeveloped and supported with credible evidence.

Demonstrates critical thinking and some recognition of conflicting perspectives.

Provides an excellent evaluation of project complexity, with clear recognition of interdependencies, challenges, and risks.

Stakeholder analysis is detailed, showing how both internal and external groups are affected by, and may influence, the project.

Theories and frameworks are applied critically and integrated effectively into the analysis.

Demonstrates comprehensive contextual understanding of stakeholder environment, including power dynamics and competing priorities.

Arguments are persuasive, coherent, and consistently supported with strong evidence.

Critical evaluation demonstrates depth, showing awareness of limitations and alternative perspectives.

Provides an outstanding, nuanced, and sophisticated evaluation of project complexity, integrating multiple dimensions (e.g., organisational, cultural, political, ethical).

Stakeholder analysis is highly insightful, demonstrating exceptional understanding of the roles, interests, and influences of diverse internal and external groups.

Uses advanced application of theories/frameworks

(e.g., stakeholder salience models, systems thinking) to produce original insights.

Contextual understanding is exceptional, showing sophisticated evaluation of interdependencies and long-term implications for stakeholders.

Arguments are exceptionally coherent, 

critically balanced, and demonstrate originality, professional maturity, and advanced critical thinking.

Demonstrates outstanding awareness of ethical, cultural, and sustainability implications for stakeholders.

Inadequate or weak  academic/intellectual skills with many difficulties.

Demonstrates weak evidence of research skills and uses outdated sources.

Limited

academic/intellectu al skills.

Demonstrates limited personal reflection and evidence-based critique. Limited evidence of research and external reading and/or uses outdated sources as evidence.

Good

academic/intellectu al skills.

Demonstrates good intellectual originality and imagination. Good research skills using a range of credible, recent and relevant sources.

Excellent

academic/intellectual skills. Excellent research skills drawing on a wide range of external sources and excellent evidence of external reading.

Structure and References

No references or weak use of Harvard referencing method with errors or inconsistencies. Inadequate structure, expression and significant faults in the presentation.

Good use of Harvard referencing. Well- structured layout and accurate expression.

Good use of Harvard referencing. Well- structured layout and accurate

expression. Good writing skills adapted to suit all situations and audiences.

Demonstrates good presentation skills

writing skills adapted to suit all situations and audiences.

Demonstrates good presentation skills

Outstanding use of the Harvard referencing method. Wide use of journals articles, company reports and the latest research. Outstanding structure and layout with exemplary expression.

Outstanding writing skills adapted to suit all situations and audiences. Exemplary presentation skills with no faults.