| Module Title: | Contemporary issues in business and management | Module Code: | 6WBS0010 and 6WBS0011 |
| Assignment Format & Maximum Word count | Assignment 2 Essay structure – 1,500 words | Weighting: | 60 % |
| Submission Date/Time & Method: | Method: Only online via Canvas module site Format: Word document | Marked Coursework return date to students | 4 weeks after submission |
| Assessment Criteria |
| Learning Outcomes: Knowledge and Understanding tested in this assignment: |
| 1. Discuss and evaluate a range of theoretical frameworks that underpin research. 2. Consider and discuss appropriate skills for effective research and critical evaluation. 3. Identify and analyse selected contemporary issues/concepts in the field of business and management. |
| Learning Outcomes: Skills and Attributes tested in this assignment: |
| 1. Demonstrate advanced research skills by analysing and evaluating contemporary business concepts and/or issues. 2. Analyse and critically evaluate contemporary business issues/concepts to communicate own views. 3. Reflect on selected case studies or concepts to assess their outcome. |
| Feedback /Marking criteria for this Assignment |
| Performance will be assessed using HBS grading criteria(showing the mark allocations) attached. Guidance for completing this assessment will be provided online. If you need further support, please contact the module leader by email to make an online appointment OR use the discussion forum to post any queries or check your understanding Late work and plagiarism will receive standard penalties. Penalty for late submissions For each day or part thereof for up to five days after the published deadline, coursework relating to modules at Levels 0, 4, 5, 6 submitted late (including deferred coursework), will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until or unless the numeric grade reaches or is 40. Where the numeric grade awarded for the assessment is less than 40, no lateness penalty will be applied; |
| Detailed Brief for Individual Assessment |
| Critical evaluation of the chosen topic using a variety of sources. This assignment is based around a student selecting ONE of two options as discussed below. It is strongly advised that before a student makes a final choice, they research carefully to explore a good company to work with and to ensure that there is plenty of good quality, research material available on the business for enhanced discussions. Option A – Risks and benefits of strategic alliances Introduction to task A strategic alliance (SA) is an agreement between two or more organisations to pursue a set of agreed objectives needed while remaining independent organisations. A SA will normally fall short of a legal partnership entity, agency or corporate affiliate relationship. They generally occur when two or more organisations join together to pursue mutual benefits Typically, companies form a strategic alliance when each possesses one or more business assets or expertise that will help the other by enhancing both businesses. A SA can develop in area of innovation when it is based on mutually desired outcomes (sharing engine or battery development opportunities in the car industry) or it can be based on combining sales efforts in retail outlets (coffee and eating outlets in book shops) Partners may provide the strategic alliance with various resources such as products, manufacturing capability, project funding, knowledge, expertise, or intellectual property. The alliance is a cooperation or collaboration which aims for a synergy where each partner hopes that the benefits from the alliance will be greater than those from individual efforts. The alliance often involves technology transfer (access to knowledge and expertise). The automotive industry is a good example of a sector where strategic alliances appear to be at the bedrock of car, engine, chassis and technological development and these are formed repeatedly between companies that otherwise openly compete with each other for sales around the world. Task Students are required to carefully review a strategic alliance within the automotive sector. This could be anything from VW and Ford working to develop a new commercial vehicle through to “Ionity” (charging points) working with various car manufacturers in developing an e-car charging infrastructure. Students are to note that they may select a SA that has failed or one that has succeeded, but be guided to select one where you can answer all tasks given below fully before continuing. Within your discussion, you must and explore the following; Discuss the advantages and disadvantages that the strategic alliance offers the parties to it. – (30% of marks) Guidance Explore these carefully and use good quality academic reference sources for this. Some examples of advantages include the individual business risk reduction and cost savings through sharing the costs, it can offer speedier market access and it can build the image of each company within the alliance. Disadvantages include the risk of SA failure through poor management, lack of commitment and work culture barriers. Whatever areas you discuss, use good academic sources and business examples to exemplify the points you wish to make. Discuss the growth of strategic alliances within the automotive sector and why this has continued to grow (what benefits it offers and what risks does it reduce). Within this, explore the rationale for their expansion and whether this is specific to only certain manufacturers or regions around the world – (25% of marks) Guidance Use reputable sources to discuss the value of and growth in SA’s within the automotive sector, preferably within the context of global SA’s. Explore whether any global SA’s have grown significantly more than others. Are some auto makers more open to SA’s and than others? Explore why this has been the case and review the possible reasons for this (cultural? Lack of corporate trust? etc). As for the above task, use business examples or maps and charts to evidence your understanding. Ensure your references are academic, valid and appropriate for this level of study. Explore the success or failure of your strategic alliance and the reasons for this, using detailed discussion and comparator alliances to exemplify your discussion. (25% of marks) Guidance This section allows the student to explore the detail of the specific SA that they are reviewing. Before starting the assignment, students should ensure they have enough research material to really explore the relative success or failure and this would normally include some discussion against comparator organisations and SA’s so that a “measure” of the success or failure can be understood by the reader. Presentation & Structure – follows essay structure & keeps to word limit of 1,500 words with evidence of an articulate and fluent writing style. (10% of marks) Referencing – follows Harvard style for in-text citation & reference list – students should minimally use 10-12 academic quality sources including at least TWO textbooks and TWO journal articles. (10% of marks) Option B – Risks associated with vertically integrated companies Introduction to task Companies that are vertically integrated either own or control their own supply chain. Typically, companies either acquire or establish their own supply chain in a backwards and forwards direction, until they manage everything from raw material growth/production through to final sales and delivery of their product and/or service. Examples of this working successfully includes companies like Ikea, McDonalds, Apple and Netflix (not least because they stream films directly from production studios but they also make their own original content). This brings organisations particular advantages in that they can draw profit from each stage of the process their “product” goes through and they have absolute control over their operations product/service from inception through to final client delivery. It does however bring substantial risks in that the overall organization now manages a series of disparate operations and overall management can become a problem. In additional, some of the supply chain may be highly profitable and others less so, making these complex models of supply chain management to operate. Task Students are required to select a vertically integrated organisation from either Amazon, McDonalds, Apple or Netflix and undertake the following tasks. Explore how the organisation under review became vertically orientated. (30% of marks) Guidance Students should start with an introduction to the business, its history, it’s size and the number of employees within the different companies/divisions of the organisation. They should then move on to explore whether the vertical integration came about through organic growth of the organisation, through acquisition of through another reason. Explore how this compares to other comparator organisations within the sector (or similar style of organisation) so the reader understands how the organisation has grown to its current state. Move on to review how the overall organisation is managed (25% of marks) Guidance Students should start this section with discussing how the organisation is established. What we mean by this is, is each company a Strategic Business Unit under the umbrella of the parent organisation, responsible for their own profit targets or is it one large company and each supply chain partner is a division within the overall business? Again, explore this against comparator organisations covering the advantages and risks this brings your business compared to others in the sector so as to explain the rationale for the company structure. Students should also explore whether any of these supply chain member organisations also supply product/services to other businesses, or do they only serve the immediate organisation. Finally explore what difficulties have been encountered by your organisation within the sector they operate in. Explore how quickly your organistion has adapted to a shifting environment that it operates in and whether their vertical integration has helped or hindered them. (25% of marks) Guidance Students should consider how their selected organisation has adapted to environmental change (such as the pandemic, war, global inflation negatively affecting disposable income or other) and how they have navigated such environmental changes. How has the organisation adapted and has it’s supply chain helped or hindered in this? As an example, Amazon took full advantage of the pandemic globally, to gear up its supply chain to respond to the massive uptakes of online shoppers. Alternatively, inflation in the UK means that streaming service subscriptions are in decline (this will start to follow in a number of European countries due to conflict). How has/can Netflix adapt and can their supply chain help them through this? Presentation & Structure – follows essay structure & keeps to word limit of 1,500 words with evidence of an articulate and fluent writing style. (10% of marks) Referencing – follows Harvard style for in-text citation & reference list – students should minimally use 10-12 academic quality sources including at least TWO textbooks and TWO journal articles. (10% of marks) Sources to support this choice Core-text Daft, R. L. (2012) New Era Management, Cengage Learning. Your Specific Instructions: Your essay should include the following: Clear identification of sources using Harvard referencing system as you are required to read widely on your chosen topic. Ensure you critically analyse the company’s approach to the issue under review. Your essay should be up to a maximum of 1,500 words (+/- 10%) Approach to the assignment: The essay should be written in your own words. When you have referred to a text this must be referenced. If you quote short phrases directly from text books (you are allowed to do this occasionally) these MUST be referenced correctly following the Harvard style of referencing. The Centre for Academic Skills Enhancement (CASE) provides a sample of this form of referencing. It is unlikely that these short quotations will exceed ten words. An essay which contains lengthy quotations will be marked down. Where you quote techniques and theories they must be supported through adequate and rigorous referencing. It is expected that you will refer both to the suggested texts and further self-researched sources. You may wish to check your draft for plagiarism by using the Turnitin system. This checks the originality of your work. Instructions will be provided on Studynet Module site in the Assignment section. University regulations are strictly applied in the area of plagiarism. When you submit your essay you will confirm the following: ‘I certify that this piece of assessment is my own work that it is has not been copied from elsewhere, and that any extracts from books, papers, or other sources have been properly acknowledged as references or quotations’. Tips: always refer to the Assessment and grading criteria – see below |
This form is used by staff & students to provide feedback to assist students’ future work.
| Presentation & structure | Intellectual Curiosity (Quality of academic sources). Use & presentation of Harvard Referencing | Content/ Terms/ Findings/ Definitions/ Calculations | Business Application & Integration of Data/Literature | Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation &/or Reflection | |
| Task details | Follows essay structure & keeps to word limit of 1,500 words with evidence of an articulate and fluent writing style. (10%) | Follows Harvard style for in-text citation & Reference List – Students should minimally use 10-12 sources including at least TWO textbooks and TWO journal articles (10%) | Content included – Full discussion of advantages and limitations that strategic alliances offer all parties to it OR on company review and history of the development of the vertically integrated organisation /30 marks | Integration & application of information – Thorough and relevant review of the growth of strategic alliances in the automotive sector OR the integration and management of the vertically integrated org. /25 marks | Line of argument, development of discussion – Critical review of the success or failure of strategic alliance and why this happened using relevant discussion OR ads and disads of a vertical supply chain in the event of environmental change /25 marks |
| 90-100 Outstanding | Outstanding presentation & report structure, with numbered paragraphs, list of contents/figures &appendices. Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. No grammatical / spelling errors. | Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core & recommended resources. Outstanding standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Outstanding exploration of topic showing outstanding knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research. Impressive choice and range of appropriate content. | Outstanding business insight & application. Outstanding integration of literature/data into work. Very impressive breadth and depth. | Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. Highly developed/ focused work, with thorough consideration of all possibilities and aspects of the topic. |
| 80-89 Excellent | Excellent presentation & report structure, with numbered paragraphs, list of contents/figures, appendices & cross referencing. Articulate & fluent academic writing style. Only minor errors. | Excellent selection ofquality sources. Evidence of independent searching beyond core & recommended resources. Excellent standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Excellent level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Evidence of appropriate reading. Covers all relevant points & issues. | Excellent business insight & application. Excellent integration of literature/data into work. Impressive breadth and depth. . | Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. Clearly developed points all of which are relevant to the topic. |
| 70-79 Very Good | Very good presentation & report structure, paragraphing, use of numbering, list of contents/figures, appendices & cross referencing. Fluent academic writing style. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes. | Very good selection of quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used. Very good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Covers most relevant points & issues. Few errors / omissions in content/calculations. | Very good business insight & application. Very good integration of literature/data into work. Very good use of literature/data with breadth and depth. | Very good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. A few less relevant ideas/points or would benefit from further development &/or evaluation/comparison. |
| 60-69 Good | Good presentation & report structure, use of numbering & appendices. Writing is mainly good with some flow and spelling &/ or grammatical errors seldom impede understanding. | Good selection of mostly quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading. Good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. | Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented. Good knowledge & understanding is demonstrated. Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations. | Good business insight & application. Good integration of literature/data into work. Good use of literature/data with adequate breadth and depth. | Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but more ideas/points could be addressed or developed further. |
| 50-59 Clear Pass | Clear presentation & report structure with paragraphing that is effective for the most part and use of numbering & appendices. Writing is mainly clear but some spelling &/ or grammatical errors may slightly impede understanding. | Some quality sources used to clear effect, but some may be inappropriate. Limited attempt to go beyond recommended reading. Harvard referencing system is mostly consistently, though there may be minor inaccuracies. | Sound grasp of the main topic with clear knowledge and understanding of the main issues demonstrated. There may be some errors/omissions in content/calculations | Sound business insight & application. Integration of literature/data into work. Use of literature/data with some breadth and depth. | Sound level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but some irrelevant points and more ideas/points could be addressed /developed further. |
| 40-49 Marginal Pass | Satisfactory basic report structure. Not always written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors which impede understanding. See CASE with feedback | Satisfactory: Some quality sources used. Research did not go beyond the recommended sources. Satisfactory referencing within text & some inconsistent use of Harvard referencing system. See CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback | Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic. Addresses most of the task. Some errors / omissions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research. | Satisfactory business insight & application. Limited integration with literature/ data. Use of literature/data but limited in breadth or depth. | Satisfactory basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but some points irrelevant or superficially made so need further development. See CASE with feedback |
| 30-39 Marginal Fail | Weak report format; limited or poor structure. Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors. Must see CASE with feedback | Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality. Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback | Weak: Limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. | Weak: Unsatisfactory evidence of business application & insight Work needs to show better links between practical application and theory. | Weak: Limited evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe. Must see CASE with feedback |
| 20 – 29 Clear Fail | Inadequate report format and poor paragraphing / signposting. Inappropriate writing style Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar. Must see CASE with feedback | Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading. Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies. Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback | Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. | Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application & insight. Some literature irrelevant to topic. | Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & /or reflection. Descriptive. Must see CASE with feedback |
| 1 – 19 Little or Nothing of merit | Nothing of merit: Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting. Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar. Must see CASE with feedback | Nothing of merit: No evidence of research. No use made of recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. No or little attempt to use the Harvard referencing system. Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback | Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated. Content used irrelevant / not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes. | Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate business application & insight. | Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of discussion/analysis/critical evaluation &/or reflection Must see CASE with feedback |
