rationale for your selection.

There is no documentation of sources.

Does not adequately discuss how the brand touch point(s) is (are) linked to the company maintaining a competitive advantage.

There is some documentation of sources though this is very limited and variable in quality.

Provides a basic discussion about how the brand touch points are linked to the company maintaining a competitive advantage.

There is adequate documentation of sources, though quality may be variable.

Provides a good discussion about how the brand touch points are linked to the company maintaining a competitive advantage.

Provides a good level of documentation which is mostly of good quality.

Discussion clearly and accurately shows how these brand touch points are key to the company maintaining a competitive advantage.

Provides an excellent level of documentation using consistently high quality and relevant sources including company-related sources.

Your evaluation should draw on a mix of academic and industrybased sources and an analysis of competing brands’ strategies to justify the key conclusions you make in this section of the report.

There is no documentation of sources.

Attempts to use the terms people, process and/or physical (as appropriate) evidence but somewhat inaccurately or sparsely. Does not successfully integrate the various conceptual models together in the discussion.

There is some

documentation of sources though this is very limited and may be variable in quality.

Use of people, process and or physical evidence (as appropriate) is mostly appropriate. Shows only a basic understanding of how the various conceptual frameworks integrate together.

There is adequate documentation of sources, though quality may be variable.

strategies (i.e., effectively identifies company’s practices and interrogates these against best practice).

Discussion of people, process and/or physical evidence (as appropriate) is appropriately explained and applied to the case, thereby showing a critical understanding of key principles and some integration of conceptual models.

Provides a good level of documentation which is mostly of good quality.

Expertly integrates into the evaluation an analysis of the company’s use of people, process and/or physical evidence (where appropriate), thereby showing a critical understanding of key principles and an ability to integrate the three Ps with customer journey mapping and service management strategies.

Provides an excellent level of documentation using consistently high quality and relevant sources  including company-related sources.

not  related to the evaluation in #2.

What is provided is very short and  lacks detail.

Does not provide a rationale for the recommendation(s) provided.

The explanation is mostly generic in nature and no justification is provided.

Does not adequately link  rationale to research or best practice insights from industry reports or the use of exemplars.

May be generic and may be

lacking well-formed justifications.

Does attempt in a basic way to link recommendations to relevant research or best practice insights from industry reports or the use of exemplars.

recommendations which are  mostly related to the evaluation and provide a good level of detail.

Adequate level of detail with  some justification provided.

Successfully links the rationales provided to research or best practice insights from industry reports or the use of exemplars.

recommendations which are appropriate to the findings of the evaluation.

Provides a detailed response and justifies the three suggestions in a robust and professional manner.

Convincingly and

professionally  links rationales provided to quality research and best practice insights from industry reports or the use of exemplars.