Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Assessment Brief MBA405 Semester 1 2010

1. Module code and title MB405 Global Organisational Environment

2. Module tutor Denise Kendry/David Wolstenholme

3. Tutor with responsibility for Denise Kendry/David Wolstenholme


this Assessment This is your first point of contact.

4. (Element number), 001: 100% Coursework: Standard (6000 words or equivalent )


Weighting, Type and Size of
Assessment This will include a reflective learning log (40%) and a company report
(60%)
You will be penalised according to Scheme regulations if you exceed
the size limit.
5. Submission deadline 11th March 2011

Your attention is drawn to the penalties for late submission; see


Undergraduate Modular Scheme / Postgraduate Modular Scheme
Handbook.
6. Arrangements for Your assignment should be submitted to the Park Campus Assignment
submission Office in TC109 with a completed Module Assignment form and an
electronic copy of your work on disc/CD. You are advised to keep your
own copy of the assessment
7. Date and location for return Via Park Campus Assignment Office within the commitment identified
of work in the Student Charter.

Normally, coursework should be returned within 20 working days


(working days comprise the normal working week, excluding periods
when the University is shut, weekends, and dates of approved annual
leave). Longer periods, which may be appropriate particularly for
Dissertations or equivalent and for work submitted towards the end of
semester 2, should be noted by the Assessment Scrutiny Panel and
agreed by the tutor's line manager.

8. Disabled students (Alternative assessment arrangements may be made, where


appropriate, for disabled students. However, these will only be
implemented upon the advice of the Disability Advisor. Disabled
students wishing to be considered for alternative assessment
arrangements must give notification of the disability (with evidence) to
the Disability Advisor by the published deadlines.

9. University Regulations for (All assessments are subject to the University Regulations for
Assessment Assessment, and to the regulations of the Undergraduate Modular
Scheme / Postgraduate Modular Scheme. These include regulations
relating to Errors of Attribution and Assessment Offences. In
exercising their judgement, Examiners may penalise any work where
the standard of English, numeracy or presentation adversely affects the
quality of the work, or where the work submitted exceeds the published
size or time limits, or where the work fails to follow normal academic
conventions for acknowledging sources.

1
10. The requirements for the assessment

Task 1 (40% of module mark) approximately 2400 words in total

You are required to keep a portfolio that addresses the following questions.

1. What did you know about this topic prior to the class and what did you want to learn?
2. What were the key ideas that you learned from this session?
3. What concepts did you find difficult? How are you planning to improve your understanding of
these concepts?
4. Identify an academic journal or book chapter (in addition to course text) based on the content
of the weeks class and provide a summary of the key learning points from the article/chapter
in your own words.

For the final session you will need to reflect on the module as a whole indicating the value of the
module to your development as a potential manager, which topics interested you the most and why
and which topics caused you the most difficulty and why and how you addressed this.

You need to complete this task weekly. You will be asked to submit your portfolio at regular intervals
for scrutiny by module team. You will receive feedback on your portfolio and will be expected to take
this into account for subsequent entries. At the end of the course you can choose which 4 entries are
marked. To pass this element of the assessment you need to submit a portfolio containing at least
seven entries plus the final reflection.

Task 2 (60% of module mark)

Toyota Haier
Airbus British Airways
Sony-Erickson Marks and Spencer
Ikea HSBC
SAB Miller TUI
Cadburys Tata Steel

You are required to select one of the above companies in class and write a report (3000 words) in
which you address the following issues:
• Type of organisation and its scope

• The organization’s purpose and an analysis of its key stakeholders with an


underpinning rationale for the power/interest of each stakeholder group

• The key external environmental issues (both general and competitive) impacting the
organization in 2010 and beyond
• The organization’s market position and its segmentation in 2010
• The key opportunities and threats/challenges facing the organization in 2010 with a
rationale for their selection

• The role and purpose of scenarios as a management tool illustrating your answer with
an example of a scenario for your organization based upon the key challenges
generated in task 2.
You will do a 15 minute presentation on your company (10 minutes content and 5 minutes for
questions) which seeks to address the above questions. You will receive formative feedback on both
the content and delivery of the presentation. This will contribute 10% of the marks for the report. The
other 50% of the marks will be awarded for the written report. In order to pass this task you must
complete both the presentation and the written report.
11. Assessment criteria

The report will be assessed using the standard assessment criteria attached to this assignment.
Separate criteria will be issued for the portfolio and presentation.

2
12. Special instructions

Careful referencing of sources is vital when making use of the work of others. You are expected to
employ the referencing conventions recommended in the Course. These conventions apply to
information taken from internet sources, as well as books, journals and lectures. If you are unsure of
the way to reference properly, seek advice from a member of staff before you submit the assessment.
These are some of the points you should check before submitting your work:

• are all direct quotations, from both primary and secondary sources, suitably acknowledged
(placed in quotation marks or indented)?
• have you provided full details of the source of the quotation, according to the referencing
convention used in the Course?
• have you acknowledged the source of ideas not your own, even if you are not quoting directly
from the source?
• have you avoided close paraphrase from sources? (Check that you are not presenting other
people’s words or phrasing as if they are your own.)
• if you have worked closely with others in preparing for this assessment, is the material you are
presenting sufficiently your own?

Assessment criteria for Task 2

Overall quality of Mark awarded Typical characteristics of an assignment of this


assignment category of marks
Generally excellent, with 70 or more • The topic appropriately chosen, very clearly
only minor need for defined and very well introduced
improvement • Clearly-defined assignment aims
• Evidence of wide and selective reading
• Very good use of theoretical frameworks,
thoughtfully applied and appropriately
referenced
• Very high quality of attribution and referencing
• Very thorough and logical analysis
• Excellent critical perspective
• Very thoughtfully-developed conclusions that are
substantiated by the analysis
• The assignment aims completely fulfilled by the
conclusions, with very thoughtful
commentary
• Very good integration of analysis and argument
• The document very well written and presented
Good – needing detail Between 60 and • The topic appropriately chosen, clearly defined
improvement in some 69 and well introduced
areas • Clearly-defined assignment aims
• Evidence of wide and selective reading
• Good use of theoretical frameworks, thoughtfully
applied
• High quality of attribution and referencing
• Thorough and logical analysis
• Good critical perspective
• Thoughtfully-developed conclusions that are
substantiated by the analysis and findings
• The assignment aims fulfilled by the
conclusions, with thoughtful commentary
• Good integration of analysis and argument
• The document well written and presented
Fair – needing Between 50 and • Some lack of clarity in the definition and
improvement in a number 59 introduction of the topic
of areas • The assignment aims implicit but not clearly
stated
• Evidence of reasonable breadth and selectivity
of reading
• Some appropriate theoretical frameworks
chosen, reasonably well applied

3
• Acceptable quality of attribution and referencing
• Reasonably thorough and logical analysis
• Some critical perspective
• Reasonable conclusions that are not fully
substantiated by the analysis and findings
• The assignment aims partially fulfilled by the
conclusions, with some thoughtful
commentary
• Reasonable integration of analysis and
argument
• The document acceptably written and presented
Just acceptable but Between 40 and • Lack of clarity in the definition and introduction
needing improvement in 49 of the topic
many areas • The assignment aims not clearly stated
• Some evidence of reasonable breadth and
selectivity of reading
• Some appropriate theoretical frameworks
chosen, rather poorly applied
• Rather poor quality of attribution and referencing
• Reasonable analysis but some gaps in logic
• Lacking in critical perspective
• Conclusions that are not fully substantiated by
the analysis and findings
• The assignment aims only partially fulfilled by
the conclusions, insufficient commentary
• Weak integration of analysis and argument
• The document rather poorly written and
presented
Unacceptably weak – full Between 30 and • Lack of clarity in the definition and introduction
resubmission required 39 of the topic
• The assignment aims not clearly stated
• Insufficient evidence of breadth and selectivity of
reading
• Theoretical frameworks inappropriately chosen,
and /or poorly applied
• Very poor quality of attribution and referencing
• Some reasonable analysis but gaps in logic
• Absence of critical perspective
• Conclusions that are not substantiated by the
analysis and findings
• The assignment aims not fulfilled by the
conclusions, little or no commentary
• Weak integration of analysis and argument
• The document poorly written and presented
Outright fail, requiring Below 30 • The topic very poorly defined and introduced
module to be taken again • The assignment aims missing or weakly
developed
• Very little evidence of appropriate reading
• Theoretical frameworks inappropriately chosen,
and /or poorly applied
• Very poor quality of attribution and referencing
• Very weak analysis with many gaps in logic
• Complete lack of critical perspective
• Very weak conclusions that are not
substantiated by the analysis and findings
• The assignment aims not fulfilled by the
conclusions, no commentary
• Very weak integration of analysis and argument
• The document very poorly written and presented

4
5