BPP Business School
Coursework Cover Sheet
Please use this document as the cover sheet for the 1st page of your assessment. Please complete the below table – the gray columns
|
Module Name |
Business Project |
|
Programme Name |
|
|
Student Reference Number (SRN) |
|
|
Assessment Title |
Please complete the yellow sections in the below declaration :
|
Declaration of Original Work: I hereby declare that I have read and understood BPP’s regulations on plagiarism and that this is my original work, researched, undertaken, completed and submitted in accordance with the requirements of BPP School of Business and Technology. The word count, excluding contents table, bibliography and appendices, is ______ words. Student Reference Number: __________ Date: ______ |
By submitting this coursework you agree to all rules and regulations of BPP regarding assessments and awards for programmes.
Please note that by submitting this assessment you are declaring that you are fit to sit this assessment.
BPP University reserves the right to use all submitted work for educational purposes and may request that work be published for a wider audience.
MSc Management Business Project Summative Assessment Brief 1
. General Assessment Guidance
• Your summative assessment for this module is made up of this 5000 words submission which accounts for 100% of the marks
• Please note late submissions will not be marked.
• You are required to submit all elements of your assessment via Turnitin online access. Only submissions made via the specified mode will be accepted and hard copies or any other digital form of submissions (like via email or pen drive etc.) will not be accepted.
• For coursework, the submission word limit is 5000 words. You must comply with the word count guidelines. You may submit LESS than 5000 words but not more. Word Count guidelines can be found on your programme home page and the coursework submission page.
• Do not put your name or contact details anywhere on your submission. You should only put your student registration number (SRN) which will ensure your submission is recognised in the marking process.
• A total of 100 marks are available for this module assessment, and you are required to achieve a minimum 50% to pass this module.
• You are required to use only the Harvard Referencing System in your submission. Any content which is already published by another author(s) and is not referenced will be considered as a case of plagiarism.
You can find further information on Harvard Referencing in the online library on the VLE. You can use the following link to access this information:
• BPP University has a strict policy regarding the authenticity of assessments. In proven instances of plagiarism or collusion, severe punishment will be imposed on offenders. You are advised to read the rules and regulations regarding plagiarism and collusion in the GARs and MOPP which are available on VLE in the Academic registry section.
• You should include a completed copy of the Assignment Cover sheet. Any submission without this completed Assignment Cover sheet may be considered invalid and not marked.
2. Assessment Brief Introduction
This business project assessment will require a 5000-word consultancy report on your chosen company. Your chosen company is your client who has asked you to provide the consultancy report.
The report should cover the following key areas:
1. Introduction
2. Challenges / problems the client is facing: Identified issues with how this is connected to the current affairs. Plus, an examination of the problem from the consultant’s perspective
3. Purpose of the report
4. Stakeholder analysis – need to analyze how current issues are impacting on stakeholders. 5. Evaluation and analysis with secondary data
6. Recommendations / solutions to the problem.
You are required to show your understanding of the importance of strategy in business. You will also need to discuss how your project would impact stakeholders and provide relevant recommendations or solutions which could be of value to your chosen organization.
Business Consultancy Report Structure
The following structure reflects a common way of organizing final business reports. You are advised to follow this structure, but you can adapt it to reflect the exact nature and details of your project in liaison with in-class supervisors.
• PP Declaration Page
• Title page
• Table of contents
• List of figures/tables/abbreviations – if required
• Executive summary
• Introduction
• Challenges / problems the client is facing: Identified issues with how this is connected to the current affairs. Plus, an examination of the problem from the consultant’s perspectives
• Purpose of the report
• Stakeholder analysis – need to analyze how current issues are impacting on stakeholders.
• Evaluation and analysis with secondary data
• Recommendations / solutions to the problem.
• Harvard references
• Appendices (if required)
The whole report should be 5,000 words. The front cover, table of contents, bibliography, and appendices are not included in this limit.
Word Count Breakdown
Your total word count for the business project is 5000 words. It is important that you ensure you cover each section thoroughly. In order to do this, it is recommended that you allocate an approximate word count to each section of the project. Below is an example you could use:
|
Section of the report |
Approximate word count |
|
Executive summary |
500 |
|
Section 1. Introduction |
300 |
|
Section 2. Challenges / problems the client is facing |
500 |
|
Section 3. Purpose of the report |
100 |
|
Section 4. Impact of research on stakeholders |
600 |
|
Section 5. Evaluation and analysis of secondary data |
2000 |
|
Section 6. Recommendations and conclusion |
1000 |
|
Total |
5000 |
Please note that the above word count is an approximation and should only be used as a rough guide.
Breakdown of Marks
This business project will be marked out of a total of 100.
The table below shows the mark breakdown for each section. Each section is assessed based on the Marking Criteria which can be found at the end of this assessment brief.
|
Section of the report |
Breakdown of marks |
|
Executive summary |
10 |
|
Section 1. Introduction |
5 |
|
Section 2. Challenges / problems the client is facing |
10 |
|
Section 3. Purpose of the report |
10 |
|
Section 4. Impact of research on stakeholders |
15 |
|
Section 5. Evaluation and analysis of secondary data |
30 |
|
Section 6. Recommendations and conclusion |
15 |
|
Presentation, grammar and punctuation, referencing style and reading |
5 |
|
Total |
100 |
Guidelines :- Executive Summary
You are expected to write one page (approximately 500 words) of an executive summary. The executive summary is not to introduce your report but should be a summary of the whole report. You will therefore need to write this after you complete your report.
It should include what your identified issues were, and what your purpose of the report was. You are required to discuss how your report would impact main stakeholders. You should also summarize your critical evaluation results.
Your executive summary should be concluded by any recommendations, making up the final part of your executive summary.
Your readers should be able to understand the focus of your project just by reading the executive summary.
Introduction
You could write this section with three different areas. The first area can be used to explain the context of your consultancy report.
The second part could be used to briefly discuss the current issues in your selected company. This area will be the summary of the next section but you need to set the scene here.
The final part of this section will need to include how the report will be structured, and what your readers can expect to take from your report.
Challenge / problems the client is facing
You could discuss existing or potential future issues caused by current affairs.
If you decide to discuss current / existing issue(s), you would need to evaluate why your chosen company [client company] has been facing these issues and connect these issues to current affairs.
If you would like to discuss possible future issues which might occur because of current affairs, you would need to discuss, as consultant’ perspective, why your client company might face challenges in future because of current affairs.
Purpose of the report
You would need to state the purpose of the report. You could explain why you are evaluating specific issues and how this would benefit your client company. Your purpose of the report should be justified by the identified issues established in section 2. Your purpose of the report will form the question you later evaluate and suggest recommendations for.
Impact of Research on Stakeholders
In this section, you will firstly need to identify who your internal and external stakeholders are in relation to your report. You will also need to discuss how your project is connected to different groups of internal and external stakeholders, and finally evaluate how your project would impact these stakeholders.
Evaluation and analysis with secondary data for your purpose of the report This section is to show your critical evaluation skills.
You would need to collect secondary data and analyze the data to answer your purpose of the report. You could include tables or charts using existing data you have collected if you wish to. You should ensure that sources of data are referenced correctly.
For the critical evaluation, you may be able to use theoretical frameworks or evaluate data you collected without specific frameworks. However, you need to remember that you would need to compare and contrast different data and discuss how different data shows different perspectives for your purpose of the report.
Recommendations and Conclusions
Your recommendations should be justified by the results of your analysis and critical evaluation, and you must also ensure that these recommendations are connected to your purpose of the report. It may be helpful for your readers if you remind them in this section what your purpose of the report was, and how this has been answered by your recommendations.
For the conclusion, you will need to address the key issues you have evaluated and how you have answered the purpose of your report. You should use evidence from the previous sections to support your conclusion.
Presentation
You should use the Harvard referencing system throughout the report and make sure there are no errors in spelling or grammar. You will need to use academic writing and your language should be clear and precise.
Your report must use a consistent approach to headings, tables and graphs. Pages should be clearly numbered, and this should correspond to the page numbers provided in the table of contents.
You will need to show a broad range of reading including academic journal articles.
3. Marking Guideline
|
Low Fail 0-39% |
Fail 40-49% |
Pass 50-59% |
Merit 60-69% |
Distinction
70-100% |
|
|
1.1 Executive Summary (1) |
Weak summary of the report |
Limited summary of the report |
Basic summary of the report. |
A good summary of the entire report. |
Excellent summary of the entire report. |
|
1.2 Executive Summary (2) |
A repeat of the Introduction. |
Limited summary of the report; recommendations missed. |
Part of the Executive Summary is included in the introduction. |
Readers can understand what the report is about including recommendations however some points have been missed. |
Readers can understand the entire report including the recommendations. |
|
2.1 Introduction |
Weak introduction was provided to the business project and to set the scene |
Limited introduction was provided to the business project but not enough information to set the scene. |
Basic induction has been provided introducing the business project but lacks depth and a lack of focus for the project. |
A solid introduction that includes explaining what the business is aiming to achieve and some basic information regarding how this will be achieved. |
A detailed introduction which not only sets out what the business project aims to achieve but also provide a clear sense of direction. |
|
2.2 Introduction Rationale |
Weak rationale was provided to support the research proposal. |
Limited rationale was provided to support the research proposal. |
Basic rationale justifying the research proposal should be included. |
A good rationale justifying why this is a credible a research proposal should be included. |
A comprehensive and detailed outline of the planned approach for the research and a clear rationale of why they have chosen to conduct this research project. |
|
Low Fail 0-39% |
Fail 40-49% |
Pass 50-59% |
Merit 60-69% |
Distinction
70-100% |
|
|
3.1 Identified issues |
Weak discussion of issues faced by the client. |
Limited attempt to identify issues. Unclear challenges/themes were discussed. |
Basic discussion to identify issues. |
Issues identified well with supporting evidence. |
Clear issues identified with supporting evidence and analysis. |
|
3.2 Evaluation of issues |
Weak discussion and evaluation to identify issues that the client is facing or might face in the future. |
Limited discussion and evaluation to identify issues that the client is facing or might face in the future. |
Basic discussion and evaluation to identify issues that the client is facing or might face in the future. |
Good discussion and evaluation to identify issues that the client is facing or might face in the future. |
Excellent discussion and evaluation to identify issues that the client is facing or might face in the future with supporting references. |
|
3.3 Connection with current affairs |
Weak connection between issues and current affairs. |
Limited connection to current affairs and there is a major flaw in the argument. |
Basic attempted to connect to current affairs but there are flaws in the argument. |
Good evaluation to show the connection between current affairs and issues the company is facing / would face. |
Excellent critical evaluation to prove the connection between current affairs and issues the company is facing/would face and all argument is supported by appropriate references. |
|
4.1 Purpose of report |
Weak or random purpose of the report. |
Limited purpose of the report. |
An attempt to design a purpose of the report but it is vague, general, or too broad. |
Good purpose of the report which has been partly justified with identified issues. |
Excellent purpose of the report which has been fully justified with identified issues. |
|
4.2 Justification of purpose of report |
Weak justification of purpose of the report. |
Limited purpose of the report and weak justification with identified issues. |
There is a clear purpose of the report but not justified with identified issues. |
Good discussion of why the purpose of the report should be evaluated. However, still, one or two objectives are unclear. |
Excellent connection between purpose of the report and identified issues has been demonstrated. |
|
4.3 Discussion of the purpose of the report |
Weak discussion of purpose of the report. |
Limited discussion of purpose of the report. |
Basic but unclear discussion of why the purpose of the report should be answered. |
Good discussion of why the purpose of the report should be answered. |
Excellent discussion of why the purpose of the report should be answered. |
|
Low Fail 0-39% |
Fail 40-49% |
Pass 50-59% |
Merit 60-69% |
Distinction
70-100% |
|
|
5.1 Internal and external stakeholder |
Weak internal / external stakeholders identified. |
Identified some internal and/or external stakeholders but limited evaluation of impact. |
Identified some internal and/or external stakeholders but basic evaluation of impact. |
Identified internal and external stakeholders with good evaluation but some stakeholders are missed. |
Identified all internal and external stakeholders with excellent evaluation. |
|
5.2 Stakeholder analysis |
Weak stakeholder analysis presented. |
Limited stakeholder analysis, not relevant to the report. |
Satisfactory stakeholder analysis demonstrated. |
Good stakeholder analysis is provided. |
A full and extensive stakeholder analysis is included. |
|
5.3 Impact on Stakeholders |
Weak discussion of how the report would impact stakeholders. |
Limited discussion of how the report would impact some of the stakeholders. |
Satisfactory evaluation of how the report would impact some of the stakeholders. |
Good evaluation of how the report would impact most stakeholders. |
Showed critical evaluation of how the report would impact each stakeholder. |
|
6.1 Secondary data collection |
Weak data or discussion which attempts to achieve the aims and objectives of the project. |
Limited data or discussion which attempts to achieve the aims and objectives of the project. |
Evidence shows that some data was used with basic discussion. |
A good level of secondary data and information that links to the report. |
Excellent level of data collection and analysis which includes both breadth and depth. |
|
6.2 Link with purpose of the report |
Weak discussion has been attempted. |
Limited discussion provided but little connection to the rest of the report. |
Basic discussion of how the purpose connects to the rest of the report. |
Evaluation and discussion demonstrate a good connection of the report. |
The discussion is critical in nature and provides a good evaluation of the findings. |
|
Low Fail 0-39% |
Fail 40-49% |
Pass 50-59% |
Merit 60-69% |
Distinction
70-100% |
|
6.3 Critical evaluation |
Weak integration of evidence and / or connection to purpose of the report. |
Limited integration of evidence and/or connection to purpose of the report. |
Basic integration of evidence. It shows basis connection to the purpose of the report. |
Good integration of evidence. It shows basis connection to the purpose of the report. |
Excellent discussion of data/information that directly links to purpose of the report. |
|
6.4 Critical evaluation (2) |
Weak discussion throughout which adds little or no value to the project. |
Limited discussion throughout which adds little or no value to the project. |
Evidence of basis an overall convincing argument but may have gaps, or inconsistencies. |
Evidence of an argument that is generally convincing with good internal consistency and addresses most issues. |
Excellent and convincing argument that addresses issues including uncertainties and conflicts in the critical evaluation. |
|
6.5 Limitations of the report |
Weak articulation of limitations of the report. |
Limited articulation of limitations of the report. |
Basic use of information to articulate limitations of the report. |
Good use of information to articulate limitations of the report. |
Excellent use of information to articulate limitations of the report. |
|
7.1 Recommendation s |
Weak recommendations provided that are not connected to evaluation of secondary data. |
Some recommendations provided with limited connection to evaluation of secondary data. |
Suggested recommendations are realistic but would not answer the purpose of the reports or resolve identified issues adequately. |
Recommendations are realistic and demonstrate good connection to the results of critical evaluation. |
Recommendations would resolve all issues identified at in the report; very well addressed purpose of the report. |
|
7.2 Conclusion |
Weak conclusion provided. |
Limited conclusion provided. |
Basic nature of conclusion provided. |
A good conclusion is provided without repeating previous contents. |
Very well-written conclusion without errors. |
|
Low Fail 0-39% |
Fail 40-49% |
Pass 50-59% |
Merit 60-69% |
Distinction
70-100% |
|
8.1 Structure and Presentation |
Weak structure and presentation. |
Poor structure and presentation. |
Adequate structure and presentation. Some formatting errors, but the report is reasonably professional in appearance. |
Good structure and presentation. |
Excellent structure and presentation. |
|
8.2 References |
Weak references with multiple inconsistencies, errors, or omissions. |
Poor references with multiple inconsistencies, errors, or omissions. |
Acceptable references with minor or insignificant errors or omissions. |
Full and appropriate references with minor or insignificant errors. |
Precise, full, and appropriate references with no errors. |
|
8.3 Language |
Weak use of language, unclear expression of though, significant grammar and punctuation errors. |
Generally understandable use of language but significant errors in expression affecting overall clarity. |
Satisfactory use of language with minor errors in grammar and punctuation. |
Clear and precise use of language, allows a complex argument to be easily understood and followed. |
Excellent use of language expressing complex thought with clarity, accuracy, and precision which furthers and enhances the argument. |
|
8.4 Reading |
Weak range of reading sources and heavy reliance on internet sources, such as Wikipedia, blogs, or Google searches. Use of sources and publications irrelevant to the topic investigated. |
Limited reading and heavy reliance on internet sources, such as Wikipedia, blogs, or Google searches. |
Satisfactory reading but main reliance is on internet sources, such as Wikipedia, blogs, or Google searches. |
Use of a good range of academic sources – academic articles and journals. |
Wide, broad, and comprehensive reading list which includes the use of academic journals and articles. |