1. Efliciency variances (KS 1.1, CTA 2.1)

Excellent analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case. A

high level of knowledge and understanding ofissues was demonstrated. Very good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a very good knowledge and understanding. Good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Some analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a fair knowledge and understanding. Unsatisfactory analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a limited knowledge and understanding.

2. Improving costing accuracy? (KS 1.1, CTA 2.1) Excellent analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case. A high level of knowledge and understanding ofissues was demonstrated. Very good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Some analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a fair knowledge and understanding. Unsatisfactory analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a limited knowledge and understanding.

3. Fixed volume variance (KS 1.1, CTA 2.1) Excellent analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case. A high level of knowledge and understanding ofissues was demonstrated. Very good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Some analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a fair knowledge and understanding.1 Unsatisfactory analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a limited knowledge and understanding.

4. Activity Based Costing (KS 1.1 and CTA 2.1) Excellent analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case. A high level of knowledge and understanding ofissues was demonstrated. Very good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case,demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Some analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a fair knowledge and understanding. Unsatisfactory analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a limited knowledge and understanding.

5 Article discussion and written expression (KS 1.1, CTA 2.1, PC 3.1)

Excellent analysis of a relevant article, which is well integrated with the Sneakers case. Excellent communication ofideas in a well structured manner. Very good analysis of a relevant article and the discussion is reasonably well integrated with the Sneakers case. The communication and the structure are clear. Good analysis of a relevant article with some new evidence. The communication and the structure are reasonably clear. Afair analysis of a
relevant article with some new evidence. The communication and/or the structure are not clear. Inappropriate article or no additional evidence given. The communication is poor.

1. Efliciency variances (KS 1.1, CTA 2.1)

Excellent analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case. A

high level of knowledge and understanding ofissues was demonstrated. Very good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a very good knowledge and understanding. Good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Some analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a fair knowledge and understanding. Unsatisfactory analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a limited knowledge and understanding.

2. Improving costing accuracy? (KS 1.1, CTA 2.1) Excellent analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case. A high level of knowledge and understanding ofissues was demonstrated. Very good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Some analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a fair knowledge and understanding. Unsatisfactory analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a limited knowledge and understanding.

3. Fixed volume variance (KS 1.1, CTA 2.1) Excellent analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case. A high level of knowledge and understanding ofissues was demonstrated. Very good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Some analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a fair knowledge and understanding.1 Unsatisfactory analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a limited knowledge and understanding.

4. Activity Based Costing (KS 1.1 and CTA 2.1) Excellent analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case. A high level of knowledge and understanding ofissues was demonstrated. Very good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case,demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Good analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a good knowledge and understanding. Some analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a fair knowledge and understanding. Unsatisfactory analysis ofthe issues related to the facts ofthe case, demonstrating a limited knowledge and understanding.

5 Article discussion and written expression (KS 1.1, CTA 2.1, PC 3.1)

Excellent analysis of a relevant article, which is well integrated with the Sneakers case. Excellent communication ofideas in a well structured manner. Very good analysis of a relevant article and the discussion is reasonably well integrated with the Sneakers case. The communication and the structure are clear. Good analysis of a relevant article with some new evidence. The communication and the structure are reasonably clear. Afair analysis of a
relevant article with some new evidence. The communication and/or the structure are not clear. Inappropriate article or no additional evidence given. The communication is poor.