Assignment 1: Individual Report - Diagnosing the causes of the organisational challenge.
Weight: 20%
Length: Maximum of 3000 words
Details:
Purpose of the assignment:
This assignment is designed to get you to identify and analyse the contextual elements that contribute to the challenge that the partner organisation faces. You are to present your work in a business report format. This involves undertaking and external and internal analysis of the organisation and making predictions about the future.
Requirements for the assignment:
· Examine the data provided by the partner organisation and undertake your own research to find more relevant data.
· Have you got all the data you need? What other data would be helpful?
· Analyse the data you have collected using appropriate management tools and theories
· External organisational analysis
· Internal organisational analysis
· Explain how the nature of the challenge is a result of the combination of external and internal factors that you have discovered through your research and subsequently re-define the management challenge as a problem that can be solved through the combination of management theory and practice. (Note: we are not expecting you to provide the solution at this stage - just re-define the problem through a management theory lens)
· Write a business report describing the nature of the challenge through the particular management lens that you are viewing the problem (we will provide you with a list from which you can choose, or you can choose your own.)
· Use a report format.
· Save the document with the following naming convention (Assignment number, student number) e.g. Assignment 1 s123456
Ru
ic:
High Distinction 80%–100%
Distinction 70%–79%
Credit 60%–69%
Pass 50%–59%
Fail 30%–49%
Serious Fail <30%
Breadth and depth of organisational and contextual research (30%)
Provides an in-depth synthesis of information from relevant sources, representing various points of view/approaches.
Demonstrated the ability to critically review, analyse, synthesise, and apply a theoretical and technical body of knowledge in a
oad range of areas and diverse contexts perhaps with some synthesis.
Presents information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches. Demonstrates some analysis of those views/approaches.
Presents factual information from some relevant sources representing limited points of view/approaches. Lack of analysis or critical appreciation of knowledge sources.
Little evidence of knowledge of the relevant body of knowledge to make a persuasive case. Failure to review critically, analyse, consolidate and combine knowledge and draw relevant conclusions.
Presents information from i
elevant sources or in very insufficient quantity.
Use of appropriate theory (25%)
All elements of the methodology and/or theoretical frameworks are skilfully developed. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be synthesised from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines. Identifies flaws in published work.
Shows reasoning and creative skills to use knowledge and awareness to exercise critical thinking and judgement in selecting and applying methods and technologies in identifying and solving problems with intellectual independence. Critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are thoroughly developed, however, more subtle elements may be ignored or unaccounted for.
The elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are developed but some elements may be missing, inco
ectly developed, or unfocused. Coherent arguments supported by evidence and illustration from the work of other authorities or by direct empirical analysis, but without the intellectual independence found in the higher grades.
The suggested methodology demonstrates a basic understanding of the methodology or theoretical frameworks. Theories and/or frameworks are applied in an unsophisticated manner.
The suggested methodology demonstrates a poor understanding of the methodology or theoretical frameworks. There may be basic e
ors in the application of the theories and/or frameworks.
Fails to demonstrate any coherent methodology or application of theoretical frameworks.
Problem definition (25%)
Demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors. Identifies potentially significant yet previously less-explored aspects of the issue(s). Highly original or insightful work.
Demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the subject. Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors having been considered and analysed. Appropriately addresses most relevant aspects of the issue.
Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors. The volume of reading of sufficient
eadth and depth for a competent understanding of main issues, underlying principles and concepts but without the comprehensiveness of higher grades.
Demonstrates an ability in identifying a problem statement or related contextual factors. Important aspects of the problem not addressed. The depth of reading insufficient to award a credit grade. Problem statement may be factual and descriptive rather than analytical.
Develops a problem statement but lacks academic rigour, with material that is incomplete or i
elevant. Little evidence of knowledge of the relevant body of knowledge to make a persuasive case.
Unable to or poorly demonstrates an ability to write a problem statement or identify important contextual factors. Work may have failed for one or more of the following: non-submission, academic misconduct, answering a different question from the one asked, poor or incoherent vocabulary, no evidence of co
ect scholarly referencing.
Report structure and academic standards (20%)
Work is fully referenced according to accepted scholarly standards (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution). The report contains no flaws in spelling, grammar, format and exhibits high degrees of creativity and professionalism.
Work is fully referenced according to accepted scholarly standards (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution). The report contains no flaws in spelling, grammar, format, and is of a professional standard.
Work is fully referenced according to accepted scholarly standards (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) Report contains no flaws in spelling, grammar, format and is of a good standard.
Students use co
ectly some of the following information use strategies (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution). The report contains minor flaws in spelling, grammar, and format.
Improper citation of sources and referencing of work. (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) Report contains some flaws in spelling, grammar, formatting.
Students fail to use the following information use strategies (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) Report contains extensive flaws in spelling, grammar, format, or the students failed to use a report format at all.