I have attached requirement and marking criteria for this assinment.
ACC03043 Assessment Session 2 2018 Overview of Assessment Assessment in this unit comprises four tasks: Assessment Task 1 5% · Assessment Task 2 25% · Assessment Task 3 30% Examination 40% Assessment to Meet National Accounting Learning Standard The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) has issued Learning Standards for Business, Management and Economics to meet the requirements of the Higher Education Standards Framework Act 2011. The Learning Standards Statement for Accounting was issued in June 2016 (replacing the first edition of the Accounting Learning Standard issued in February 2011). The 2016 version can be accessed from the following web link. http://www.abdc.edu.au/pages/learning-standards.html The unit ACC03043 Corporate Governance is covered by the Accounting Learning Standard This unit is offered at the Master Degree standard and is equivalent to the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) Level 9 award requirements. In this unit you will focus on meeting the requirements relating to four primary learning outcomes. · Knowledge · Critical analysis and problem solving skills · Judgement · Communication These learning outcomes will be assessed in the assessment tasks. The four learning outcomes for ACC03043 have been adapted from the national standard for the Accounting Discipline to apply to Corporate Governance. 1 1. KNOWLEDGE The foundation learning outcome is KNOWLEDGE. In this unit you will need to demonstrate knowledge of a significant amount of information relating to corporate governance and related areas of management theory and practice. The Master graduate needs to meet the following national standard for Knowledge: Integrate advanced theoretical and technical corporate governance knowledge (which includes a selection of accounting, auditing and assurance, finance, economics, quantitative methods, information systems, commercial law, corporation law and taxation law) in a business context. 2. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS The secondary learning outcome is the development of CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS. In this unit you will be required to demonstrate the ability to apply knowledge about corporate governance in a range of corporate governance settings. The Master graduate needs to meet the following national standard of Critical analysis and problem solving skills: Critically apply advanced theoretical and technical corporate governance knowledge and skills to provide possible solutions to emerging and or advanced corporate governance problems. 3. JUDGEMENT The tertiary learning outcome is the development and exercise of professional JUDGEMENT. In this unit you will be required to demonstrate the ability to make professional judgements about corporate governance matters in a range of professional, business and corporate settings. The Master graduate needs to meet the following national standard for Judgement: Exercise judgement under minimal supervision to provide possible solutions to emerging and/or advanced corporate governance problems in complex contexts using where appropriate social, ethical, economic, regulatory, sustainability, governance and / or global perspectives. 2 4. COMMUNICATION The final learning outcome assessed in this unit is the development of skills in COMMUNICATION. In this unit you will be required to demonstrate the ability to prepare written reports that communicate complex corporate governance issues and advice to both professionals and non-professionals in the corporate governance field. The Master graduate needs to meet the following national standard for Communication. Justify and communicate corporate governance advice and ideas in complex collaborative contexts to influence specialists and non-specialists in the corporate governance field. As you work on your assessment tasks make sure you consider and seek to demonstrate that you can meet the standard for each of the above national learning outcomes for Master graduates. Assessment Task 3 Length: 2,400 words total (+/- 10%) Reference list and cover sheet details are not included in this word-limit total. Weighting: 30% of total unit marks Assessment Criteria: · Demonstration of knowledge of the issues and evidence of wide reading to support your analysis · Demonstration of your ability to apply the knowledge to identify keys issues leading to your recommendations · Evidence of sound reasoning and the exercise of professional judgement to support your recommendations · Development and statement of concise recommendations for presentation to the Chairman · Overall structure and professional presentation of your report to the Chairman · High quality written communication of concepts and terms as the Chairman can be assumed to be professionally competent in corporate governance Case Study ‘Countering cyber risk presents a significant strategic challenge to leaders across industries and sectors but one that they must surmount in order to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the vast technological advances in networked technology that are currently in their early stages. Over the past decade, we have significantly expanded our understanding of how to build secure and resilient digital networks and connected devices. However, board-level capabilities for strategic thinking and governance in this area have failed to keep pace with both the technological risks and the solutions that new innovations provide. Boards have a vital governance function, determining overall company behaviour and setting a company’s risk appetite. For boards, action means effectively exercising oversight by asking managers the right questions to ensure that the boards’ strategic objectives are met. This function is no different in the area of cyber resilience. By offering the following principles and tools, the Forum hopes to facilitate useful dialogue between boards and the managers they entrust with the operation of the companies to which they owe their fiduciary obligations.’ 7 Source: World Economic Forum (2017), Advancing Cyber Resilience: Principles and Tools for Boards, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/IP/2017/Adv_Cyber_Resilience_Principles- Tools.pdf Required Assume you have been employed as a corporate governance consultant by a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange and ranked within the ASX 200. The Chairman of the company has decided to address the issue of cyber security at the company board level. As an initial step in the process of improving the cyber resilience of the company the Chairman has employed you to prepare a report that critically analyses how the company can best integrate its cyber security and resilience protocols to ensure continued corporate survival and improved business performance. The Chairman has requested that you submit a report providing examples of best practice and a clear set of recommendations on how the company should initiate a cyber resilience policy at the corporate board level. Your report will be tabled at the next board meeting for board members to review and evaluate your recommendations. (End of assessment details) 8 ACC03043: Assessment 3 Marking Rubric Grade F P C D HD Percent Less than 50 50 - 64 65- 74 75 -84 85 -100 Knowledge (20%) Demonstrates poor, limited or confused knowledge of the topic and issues. Provides little to no pertinent examples. Demonstrates sound knowledge of the topic and issues. Provides adequate pertinent examples. Demonstrates competent knowledge of the topic and issues. Provides appropriate pertinent examples. Demonstrates very good knowledge of the topic and issues. Provides frequent pertinent examples. Demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of the topic and issues. Provides numerous pertinent examples. Application (25%) Inability to apply knowledge or synthesise issues. Examples are limited and do not clearly relate to task. Sound ability to apply knowledge and synthesise issues. Examples are useful and mostly relate to task. Competent ability to apply knowledge and synthesise issues. Examples are suitable and relate to task. Very good ability to apply knowledge and synthesise issues. Examples are sound and clearly relate to task. Excellent application of knowledge to the issue demonstrating original thinking skills, insight and creativity. Examples are insightful and clearly relate to task. Judgement (25%) Inability to demonstrate capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations. Sound demonstration of capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations under minimal supervision. Competent demonstration of capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations under minimal supervision. Very good demonstration of capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations under minimal supervision. Excellent demonstration of capacity to analyse key issues, evaluate evidence and provide sound and viable recommendations. Communication (20%) Poor writing skills demonstrating little clarity, coherence and cogency. Frequent grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors and poor report format and presentation. Sound writing skills demonstrating adequate clarity, coherence and cogency. Minor grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors and satisfactory report presentation. Competent writing skills demonstrating moderate clarity, coherence and cogency. Minimal grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors and quality report presentation. Very good writing skills demonstrating consistent clarity, coherence and cogency. Virtually no grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors and very good report presentation. Excellent writing skills demonstrating sustained clarity, coherence and cogency. No grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting errors. Professional report presentation. Referencing (10%) Inadequate sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style. Less than 5 credible sources. Sound sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style. At least 5 credible sources. Competent sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style At least 7 credible sources. Very good sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style. At least 9 credible sources. Excellent sourcing of material and formatting in Harvard style. More than 10 credible sources.