Feedback comments against each of the assessment criteria:
(criteria 1-7 for

1 China doesn’t appear in the introduction, so is a mismatch with the title.

45%

2 The literature makes use of a range of sources. However, these are not all appropriate or well integrated. For example, the discussion on the nature of knowledge needs to be placed in a business context. There is little evidence of internalization of key concepts. A weak set of references used. 30%

3 The objectives don’t seem to match the title: there is no reference to China. The objectives are not well formed, some being very general. 30%

4 There is a list of hypotheses on the first page of the chapter, ten in all. None has any justification by explanation or reference to the literature. For example, size of the organization and status of IT dept are both considered as factors on implementation of KM, though no reason is given as to why this should be. The methods are not justified with reference to the literature. There is no reference to a pilot study. The survey instrument assumes respondents will understand and share a definition of KM.
20%

5 Stats are applied, but the flaws in the questionnaire make this pointless. The methods assume e-business, and so there is no balance with non e-businesses. The problems with the design make it difficult to assign a value to this section. However, if the methods are assumed to be okay then there is still a problem with presentation – too few charts. In general the tables are well laid out, but not clearly labeled.

50%

6 Pg 36, point 1 – it’s not clear if organizations that believe in information sharing get a LAN, or if getting a LAN makes them interested. Points 2 and 3 are obscure. There is no reference back to the literature to place the findings in an academic context. There is a tendency to re-describe the findings. 20%

7 First word of title misspelled. This, along with the lack of a bound copy, suggests the work was submitted in a hurry. References are cited after the sentence that uses them, which makes the work confusing to read until the reader becomes accustomed. Sentence structure can also be erratic. The literature chapter has inconsistent sub-section titling and format; there are also problems with indenting. This all makes the section more difficult to read as the structure is obscured. A range of typos show lack of spelling check. 20%

Criteria for assessing Empirically or Library Based Dissertation

CRITERIA < 45% 45 - 49% 50 - 59% 60-69%- 70- 79% ≥ 80%
1.
Identification of the context for the dissertation, both organisational and conceptual.#p#分頁標題#e#
Not identified

dissertation research == Loosely or partially identified Sufficiently identified and expressed Identified and expressed but lacks clarity in some areas Clearly identified and expressed Fully identified and well expressed
2.
Critical review, analysis and integration of the relevant literature(s) Not addressed Partially addressed, although insufficient literature considered and this was not analysed or integrated Sufficient literature considered, some attempt at analysis, but lacking in critical focus and only partially integrated Satisfactory range of literature considered, analysis has some critical focus and is integrated with the literature Extensive literature considered and analysed, good integration of literatures and some critical content. Critical application and critique of concepts with evidence of breadth and depth of literature reviewed and integrated

3.
Identification and framing of objectives Not addressed Objectives inappropriate, imprecise or lack clarity Sound objectives identified and adequately framed Sound objectives identified and well expressed Well-grounded and appropriate objectives clearly identified and well expressed Theoretically grounded objectives, precisely framed and clearly expressed

4.
Appropriate choice and justification of methodology, and application of methods No, or very little, fieldwork or secondary data Failure to apply appropriate methods or failure to explain and justify methodology sufficiently Competent use of appropriate methods, explanation of methodology but limited justification Competent use of appropriate methods, explanation of methodology with adequate justification of methodology Competent and thorough use of appropriate methods, clear explanation and clear justification of methodology Excellent use of appropriate (even innovative) methods. Robust justification of methodology employed, with consideration of implications and critical reflection.

5.
Presentation, integration and interpretation of data No, or very little, original data presented and/or creative use of secondary data Insufficient original and/or secondary data presented or data poorly presented and interpreted Fair presentation and interpretation of data, room for improvement in organisation and integration of data Good presentation, organisation and interpretation of data with room for improvement in integration of data Thoughtful presentation and sensible interpretation of data.
Integration of data from different sources if applicable
Excellent presentation and interpretation of data. Data from different sources fully integrated if applicable
6.
Critical discussion of findings and contribution to knowledge No discussion of findings and negligible contribution to knowledge Little discussion of findings, failure to relate findings to the literature review, little contribution to knowledge Fair discussion of findings, though lacks critical and reflective thinking. Some contribution to knowledge but little abstract or creative thinking. Competent discussion of findings with links to literature. Some critical and reflective thinking. Some contribution to knowledge. Good discussion of findings with links to the literature. Some critical and reflective thinking and a useful contribution to knowledge. Some elements of creative thinking#p#分頁標題#e#
Excellent discussion. Substantial evidence of original and creative thinking and a significant contribution to the academic literature
7.