LO1 Rationalise complex and messy scenarios into systemic representations and conceptualise new solutions for further analysis and evaluation.

ASSESSMENT MARK SCHEME

Criteria

Fail

Pass

0-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80-100

Definition of the goal and scope of the LCA (0.10).

Purely generic discussion of defining goals and scope, with no application to the specific product.

Average discussion of goals and scope. Not enough background information and research has been done to inform this section. Unrealistic goals.

Average discussion of goals and scope. The goal is purely descriptive and barely enough background information and research has been done to inform this section. Realistic goals.

Good discussion of goals and scope. The goal is either descriptive or comparative. Good background information and research have been used to inform this section.

Outstanding definition of goals and scope based on well-researched background information. The goal is ambitious, but its feasibility not fully explored.

Flawless definition of goals and scope based on thoroughly researched background information. The goal is ambitious yet feasible.

Inventory Analysis (0.4).

The analysis is trivial, misses key components, and/or computations are wrong. Poorly researched.

Below average analysis which is based on insufficient data. There are key omissions and major issues. Illustrations and tables are messy.

Average analysis which is based on sufficient data. Little or no resources additional to what’s on Moodle are used. There are some omissions and minor issues.

Good analysis based on well researched data. The inventory analysis is detailed enough to be realistic and items that have excluded are clearly justified.

Outstanding and detailed inventory analysis that could be used in a publication.

Flawless and detailed inventory analysis. The work is what is expected from a junior consultant.

Impact Assessment (0.20).

Impact is discussed so generically that it is not a genuine impact assessment.

Wrong or incomplete classification and the steps of characterisation and valuation is superficially covered.

Sound classification but the steps of characterisation and valuation is disappointing/overly simplified.

Good impact assessment approach which is fully described in the report and cover all steps. Minor issues with some of the decisions that are made.

Outstanding impact assessment where all steps are considered and have been adapted to be concise enough without affecting the quality of the analysis.

Highly professional analysis including natural resources depletion as well as GWP.

Interpretation (0.2).

The objective of the analysis is not achieved. The interpretation is missing.

The objective of the analysis is not achieved. The interpretation is not linked to the work done.

The objective of the study is addressed but in an average fashion. Only limited recommendations are made.

The objective of the study is well addressed and the analysis leads to convincing recommendations.

The objective of the study is addressed and the analysis leads to insightful recommendations.

The objective of the study is addressed and insightful recommendations are made and evaluated.

Presentation (0.1).

Poor presentation that makes the report difficult and tedious to read.

Sub-standard presentation that makes the report tedious to read but some reliable sources are identified and properly referenced and cited

Presentation is average/acceptable. There are significant issues, as for example with originality and organisation.

Good presentation with minor issues (e.g. expression, referencing, organisation)

Professionally presented report, excellent in organisation and the presentation of technical data.

Exceptionally clear, reflective, and well- justified presentation of technical data.