Coursework Assignment Brief Semester: A16 Spring 2016 Module Code: PM302 Module Title: Project Programme BSc (Honours) Level: Level 6 Awarding Body: University of Plymouth Module Leader Paul Booth Format: Report Presentation: No Any special requirements: All work should be submitted as two hard copies with a Turnitin Report Word Limit: 8,000 (+/- 10%) words for the report and 500 (+/- 10%) words for the personal statement. Deadline date for submission: TBA Learning outcomes to be examined in this assessment (please note that this is NOT the assessment task) a) Produce a detailed analysis of the policies to achieve stated corporate objectives of one or more companies, and an examination of the problem of resource acquisition and deployment relevant to those policies. b) Provide a relevant literature review on the problems investigated and relate current management theory to practical recommendations. c) Demonstrate a lucid and logical discourse containing objectives of the project, methodology, relevant literature review, recommendations for action, appropriate references and bibliography. Percentage of marks awarded for module: The report is worth 100% Assessment criteria Explanatory comments on the assessment criteria Maximum marks for each section Aims of research Clearly defined objectives/research questions relevant to aim. Clear focus on aims / objectives maintained throughout. If appropriate, hypotheses defined and explained. 10% Literature review Thorough review of appropriate secondary sources; relationship between the literature and the project explored (i.e. justification is linked to literature) (20%) Research methodology Explanation and justification of an appropriate methodology – approach and data collection techniques appropriate to aims and research questions. (20%) Research methodology Explanation and justification of an appropriate methodology – approach and data collection techniques appropriate to aims and research questions. (20%) Data Analysis Appropriate analysis of data in the light of the research objectives and questions. Clear and analytical presentation of findings. (10%) Discussion - Results discussed, highlighting significant findings and comparing theory & practice where appropriate (10%) Conclusions / recommendations Based on a reasonable interpretation of both the research conducted and the existing literature. (10%) Critical evaluation Critical evaluation of own work. Areas for further research identified and discussed. (5%) Overall layout and Presentation is of an acceptable standard, logical and adds value to the document. Appropriate structure. (5%) Reflection Reflection on programme is detailed and insightful. (10%) Background N/A Assignment Task 1. Analyse one or more strategic problems in a modern business organisation and produce a comprehensive report detailing the objectives, methodologies, findings, analysis, and conclusions of the research carried out above. The minimum word length for the report is 8000 words. 2. Analyse the extent to which you have developed your knowledge, throughout the course and how the course and this project has helped your employability. This should be summarised as a personal statement of no more than 500 words and placed in an appendix to the main document. Total Marks for Assignment: 100 Indicative Content Aims of research Define objectives/research questions relevant to aim. Maintain focus on aims/objectives throughout. Define and explain hypotheses. (Worth 10% of marks) Literature review Conduct thorough review of appropriate secondary sources. Critically explore relationship between the literature and the project. (Worth 20% of marks) Research methodology Explain and justify an appropriate methodology – approach and data collection techniques appropriate to aims and research questions. (Worth 20% of marks) Data Analysis Analysis of data in the light of the research objectives and questions. Analytical presentation of findings. (Worth 10% of marks) Discussion Discuss results highlighting significant findings and comparing theory & practice (Worth 10% of marks) Conclusions / recommendations Formulate conclusions and recommendations based on interpretation of both the research conducted and the existing literature. (Worth 10% of marks) Critical evaluation Critically evaluate work. Identify and discuss areas for further research. (Worth 5% of marks) Presentation Present work to an acceptable standard that is logical and adds value to the document. (Worth 5% of marks) Reflection Reflect in a detailed and insightful manner. (Worth 10% of marks) Marking Criteria for Assessment at Level 6 (Bachelors Degree with Honours) Marks 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3rd) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1st) 70-85 (1st) Assessment categories Knowledge & Understanding of Subject Major gaps in knowledge and understanding of material at this level. Substantial inaccuracies. Gaps in knowledge, with only superficial understanding. Some significant inaccuracies. Threshold level. Understanding of key aspects of field of study; coherent knowledge, at least in part informed by current research in the subject discipline. Systematic understanding of field(s) of study, as indicated by relevant QAA subject benchmark statements for the degree programme. Good understanding of the field(s) of study; coherent knowledge, in line with subject benchmark, at least in part informed by current research in the subject discipline. Excellent knowledge and understanding of the main concepts and key theories/ concepts of the discipline(s). Clear awareness of the limitations of the knowledge base. Highly detailed knowledge and understanding of the main theories/concepts of the discipline(s), and an awareness of the ambiguities and limitations of knowledge. Cognitive/ Intellectual Skills (e.g. analysis and synthesis; logic and argument; analytical reflection; organisation and communication of ideas and evidence) Unsubstantiated generalizations, made without use of any credible evidence. Lack of logic, leading to unsupportable/ missing conclusions. Lack of any attempt to analyse, synthesise or evaluate. Poor communication of ideas. Some evidence of analytical intellectual skills, but for the most part descriptive. Ideas/findings sometimes illogical and contradictory. Generalized statements made with scant evidence. Conclusions lack relevance. Threshold level. Evidence of some logical, analytical thinking and some attempts to synthesise, albeit with some weaknesses. Some evidence to support findings/ views, but evidence not consistently interpreted. Some relevant conclusions Evidence of some logical, analytical thinking and synthesis. Can analyse new and/or abstract data and situations without guidance. An emerging awareness of different stances and ability to use evidence to support the argument. Valid conclusions Sound, logical, analytical thinking; synthesis and evaluation. Ability to devise and sustain persuasive arguments, and to review the reliability, validity & significance of evidence. Ability to communicate ideas and evidence accurately and convincingly. Sound, convincing conclusions. Thoroughly logical work, supported by judiciously selected and evaluated evidence. High quality analysis, developed independently or through effective collaboration.. Ability to investigate contradictory information and identify reasons for contradictions. Strong conclusions. Exceptional work; judiciously selected and evaluated evidence. Very high quality analysis, developed independently or through effective collaboration. Ability to investigate contradictory information and identify reasons for contradictions. Highly persuasive conclusions. Use of Research- informed Literature (including referencing, appropriate academic conventions and academic honesty) Little evidence of reading. Views and findings unsupported and non-authoritative. Academic conventions largely ignored. Evidence of little reading and/or of reliance on inappropriate sources, and/or indiscriminate use of sources. Academic conventions used inconsistently. Threshold level. References to a range of relevant sources. Some omissions and minor errors. Academic conventions evident and largely consistent, with minor lapses. Knowledge, analysis and evaluation of a range of research- informed literature, including sources retrieved, analysed independently. Academic skills consistently applied. Knowledge, analysis and evaluation of a range of research- informed literature, including sources retrieved, analysed independently with accuracy and assurance. Good academic skills, consistently applied. Excellent knowledge of research informed literature embedded in the work. Consistent analysis and evaluation of sources. High-level academic skills consistently applied. Outstanding knowledge of research-informed literature embedded in the work. Consistent analysis and evaluation of sources. High-level academic skills consistently and professionally applied. LEVEL 6 cont… Graduate Skills for Life and Employment (e.g. research- related skills; written, graphical and oral communication skills; group working; problem-solving; practical and professional skills) Little or no evidence of the required skills in any of the graduate skills identified in the programme specification at this level. Limited evidence of the graduate skills identified in the programme specification. Significant weaknesses evident, which suggest that the candidate has not gained the skills necessary for graduate-level employment. Research skills: Can competently undertake reasonably straightforward research tasks with minimum guidance, but with minor weaknesses. Can communicate in a range of formats, including orally, at a standard appropriate for graduate-level employment, and with limited weaknesses. Can generally work effectively within a team, negotiating in a professional manner and managing conflict. Is largely confident and effective in identifying and defining complex problems and applying knowledge and methods to their solution. Able to recognise own strengths and weaknesses in relation to graduate employment, with minor areas of weakness. Research skills: Can competently undertake reasonably straightforward research tasks with minimum guidance Can communicate effectively in a range of formats, including orally, at a standard appropriate for graduate-level employment, and with limited weaknesses. Can consistently work effectively within a team, negotiating in a professional manner and managing conflict. Is confident and flexible in identifying and defining complex problems and applying knowledge and methods to their solution. Able to evaluate own strengths and weaknesses in relation to graduate employment. Research skills: Can successfully complete a range of research-like tasks, including evaluation, with very limited external guidance. Can communicate well, confidently and consistently in a range of formats, including orally, at a standard appropriate for graduate-level employment. Can consistently work very well within a team, leading & negotiating in a professional manner and managing conflict. Is confident and flexible in identifying and defining a range of complex problems and applying knowledge and methods to their solution. Able to take initiative in evaluating own strengths and weaknesses in relation to graduate- level professional and practical skills, and act autonomously to develop new areas of skills as necessary. Research skills: Can very successfully complete a range of research-like tasks, including evaluation, with a significant degree of autonomy. Can communicate professionally and confidently in a range of formats, at a high standard appropriate for graduate-level employment. Can work professionally within a team, showing leadership skills as appropriate, managing conflict and meeting obligations. Is professional and flexible in autonomously identifying and defining a range of complex problems and applying knowledge and methods to their solution. Able to show insight and autonomy in evaluating own strengths and weaknesses and developing professional and practical skills needed for graduate-level employment. Research skills: Exceptionally successful in a wide range of research-like tasks, including evaluation, with a high degree of autonomy Can communicate with an exceptionally high level of professionalism, in a range of formats, including orally, appropriate for graduate-level employment. Can work exceptionally well and professionally within a team, showing leadership skills as appropriate, managing conflict, and meeting all obligations. Is exceptionally professional and flexible in autonomously defining and solving a range of complex problems and applying knowledge and methods to their solution. Outstanding ability to evaluate own strengths and weaknesses, showing outstanding attributes for graduate-level employment. Marks for Level 6 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3rd) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1st) 86-100 (1st)