Assignment Brief Template 23/24
Topic Detail
Academic year / semester 23/24
Module code and title 5MG001 The Professional Management and Leadership
Module Leader William Hayward
Assignment name Assignment
Assignment type Portfolio Two essays and One Reflection
Assignment weighting and size 100% -- 3500 words -- +/- 10%
Assessment unpacking video location Canvas Modules Assessment Support
Whats my assignment? unpacking date (if applicable) Throughout the module and c. week 6 specifically.
(Student-led assessment unpacking session. See Assessment Handbook for details)
Formative submission date (if applicable) Dedicated formative focus from Week 10 onwards but also throughout the module.
Formative submission method (if applicable) Canvas and or/tutorial
Formative feedback date (if applicable) TBC See Canvas
Summative (i.e., final) submission date TBC See Canvas
Summative submission method Online through Canvas and Turnitin
Assignment requirements For this assessment you must submit:
3500-word portfolio submission
Task 1 1500-word essay:
For a workplace of your choice. The organization wants to modernize its approach towards managing people and has asked you to do the following:
Explore how leadership & management theory can support managers to develop successful professional teams.
Provide examples from your own experiences and from research.
Task 2 - 1500-word essay:
Assess what drives Organizational Change and Evaluate how an Organizational Change model such as Kotters 8 steps can support leaders to positively impact the success rate of an organizational change initiative.
Ensure to use an example which focusses on organizational issues such as Lego, Pollack and Pollack, and XYZ Construction which can be found on the Canvas pages.
Task 3 500-words Critical Reflection:
How can the theory and concepts from the module be used to produce a positive workplace culture?
Use examples and citations and consider the following.
How do the theories studied in the module relate to your experience of working with others
Which leadership styles would you prefer to work under and why?
How has this module influenced the way you believe people should be treated at work?
Learning outcomes LO1 Demonstrate an understanding of leadership and management approaches and the impact they have on the formation and development of successful teams
LO2 Understand drivers for organisational change and the impact of human resource resilience on the success rate of change initiatives
LO3 Understand the value of reflective practice and the development of a reflective culture to improve personal and organisational performance
Assessment criteria(see rubric below for performance criteria) Criteria Weighting (If applicable)
Level of secondary research
40%
Coherent analysis and critique of ideas discussed
40%
Critical reflection on personal views on the subject matter
10%
Academic writing, presentation, and Harvard Referencing
10%
Characteristics of a good submission Engaging with module materials and using theories from the module to underpin your arguments.
Writing in your own words, this includes not copying when writing citations.
Answer the assignment question rather than describe and explain theory.
Add examples to illustrate understanding of theory.
Make use of formative feedback to ensure you are on the right track.
See assessment support on Canvas for more detailed assignment support.
Additional instructions (If applicable)
Professional Body requirements (If applicable)
University regulations Universitys Academic RegulationsAcademic Integrity PolicyLevel and Mark DescriptorsSupport Student Support and WellbeingStudy GuidesSkills for Learning Introduction to Academic Study SkillsAcademic English Language SkillsYou should also refer to your Course and Module Guides
Date by which feedback will be provided 4 weeks
Feedback format Written comments on Canvas
Resit details Resubmission of original task. Submission date on Canvas home page.
Assessment Rubric (to be appended)
Criteria Ratings Pts
Level of Secondary Research 40to >32.0Pts
80%+
Relevant, high quality reading material such as academic journals which demonstrates independent study. 32to >28.0Pts
70-79%
Relevant and focused material which demonstrates some independent study. 28to >24.0Pts
60-69%
Relevant materials are used throughout although inconsistent in terms of academic quality. 24to >20.0Pts
50-59%
Relevant materials are used although the academic quality of sources could be improved upon and/or there are parts of the assignment where it is not clear that research has been applied. 20to >16.0Pts
40-49%
Some materials are used although inconsistent and lacking in academic quality and application. 16to >12.0Pts
30-39%
Is not clear in showing understanding of the module such as using extensive quotations and/or leaning heavily on resources which lack academic integrity. 12to >0Pts
0-29%
Inappropriate resources which do not show understanding of the module.
40pts
Coherent analysis and critique of ideas discussed 40to >32.0Pts
80%+
Independent response to the assignment which shows an ability to consider multiple perspectives rather than to produce an argument which supports a perspective selected by the student. 32to >28.0Pts
70-79%
Rigorous and appropriate overall response to the assignment with begins to show understanding of multiple perspectives in the construction of an argument. 28to >24.0Pts
60-69%
Appropriate overall response which could go into more depth and consider a wider range of perspectives. Argument is quite selective but shows awareness of contextual issues. 24to >20.0Pts
50-59%
Overall response shows understanding of the ideas, the strengths, and limitations without considering a diverse range of perspectives. Arguments in this range will focus on a general understanding of the concepts to fit into a particular argument. 20to >16.0Pts
40-49%
Response shows general understanding of the core ideas but lacks coherence. Arguments in this range are often a repetition of taught output. 16to >12.0Pts
30-39%
Response does not appropriately address appropriate learning outcomes. Response fails to show sufficient understanding of core ideas and taught output. Arguments are not coherent. 12to >0Pts
0-29%
Response does not appropriately address learning outcomes. Response does not show understanding of core ideas and taught output. Arguments are not coherent.
40pts
Critical reflection on personal views on the subject matter 10to >8.0Pts
80%+
Complete, and in depth understanding and an authentic personal connection to the subject matter. 8to >7.0Pts
70-79%
Shows depth of understanding and am authentic personal connection to the subject matter. 7to >6.0Pts
60-69%
Shows relevant understanding and a personal connection to the subject matter. 6to >5.0Pts
50-59%
Shows a relevant and personal connection to the subject matter. Answers in this range will directly answer the question with generic answers which lack authenticity. 5to >4.0Pts
40-49%
Shows limited personal connection to the subject matter. 4to >3.0Pts
30-39%
Shows very limited personal understanding of the subject matter. 3to >0Pts
0-29%
Does not show a personal understanding of subject matter.
10pts
Academic writing, presentation, and Harvard Referencing 10to >8.0Pts
80%+
Clear logical structure with very few errors in referencing or grammar. Narrative is readable and engaging. 8to >7.0Pts
70-79%
Clear logical structure with few errors in referencing or grammar. Narrative is professional in nature but could improve in terms of readability. 7to >6.0Pts
60-69%
Logical structure with some errors in referencing or grammar. Generally professional narrative which could improve in terms of readability. 6to >5.0Pts
50-59%
Logical structure with repeated errors in referencing or grammar. Could improve in terms of readability. Answers in this range show sufficient knowledge in academic processes but still require improvement in this area. 5to >4.0Pts
40-49%
Structure lacks coherence with numerous errors in referencing and grammar. Improvements to readability would enhance the work. 4to >3.0Pts
30-39%
Structure lacks coherence which undermines understanding. There are numerous errors in referencing and grammar. Improvements to readability are essential. 3to >0Pts
0-29%
Numerous and significant errors in structure hinders readability. Multiple mistakes in grammar and referencing.
10pts
Total points:100
Assignment Brief Template 23/24
Topic Detail
Academic year / semester 2023/4 Semester 2
Module code and title 5BU018 Acquisition and Retention
Module Leader Dr Thomas Magede
Assignment name Coursework
Assignment type Report
Assignment weighting and size 3000 Words
Assessment unpacking video location See Canvas Page
Formative submission date (if applicable) Week 6 and Week 12
Formative submission method (if applicable) (Face to Face, In-class)
Formative feedback date (if applicable) To be discussed in class
Summative (i.e., final) submission date See Canvas Assignment tab
Summative submission method Canvas
Assignment requirements This is a Customer Acquisition and Retention Plan all put together in a report format.
You will be allocated an organisation (or may be asked to select one) who are looking to acquire and retain customers. As a consultant you are required to create a Consumer Acquisition and Retention Plan for the business. In addition, the plan should show how they the organisation is going to enhance customers experience during their interaction.
Task:
Analyse your selected/ allocated organisation how they are utilising CRM to enhance customer experience (30%)
Critically evaluate how they can improve their current Customer Relationship Management strategy. Use theory and research to support your suggestions (30%)
Develop a comprehensive CRM strategy that you think is appropriate taking into consideration your evaluations and the accompanying metrics to measure performance. You will have to show the customer journey from prospect to retention stage (30%)
This is a Consultancy Report and should be written and presented professionally. Double-spacing, headings and sub-headings, grammar, vocabulary, theory, syntax and other academic skills should all be done professionally (10%)
You are to refer to academic terminology, theory and frameworks where applicable. There will be further guidance in lectures and appointments are available with the module tutors.
Learning outcomes LO1 Evaluate marketing approaches to customer acquisition and retention in different marketing scenarios.
LO2 Recommend and justify the most appropriate customer acquisition and retention approach to achieve given marketing and business objectives.
LO3 Recommend and develop effective monitoring and evaluation systems to assess customer retention strategies and their implementation.
Assessment criteria(see rubric below for performance criteria) Understanding of contextual issues and apply theory to offer recommendations (30%)
Identification and discussion of relevant key topics (30%)
Application and critical analysis of theory (30%)
Presentation, clarity of writing and Harvard referencing (10%)
Characteristics of a good submission Explain each topic based on what you have learnt from course textbooks and the module canvas topic.
Investigate how your chosen case study organisation has applied each topic.
Produce a set of clear recommendations supported by your research.
Write clearly with good use of English language, punctuation, spelling, and attention to detail.
Use textbooks and articles from the reading list to support your work as well as a range of wider reading.
Additional instructions Title page, contents page, reference list, appendices, tables, models and figures are not included in the word count.
Your work must be underpinned by academic theory, using credible sources and the Harvard referencing style.
Double spacing should applied throughout the report.
Professional Body requirements None
University regulations Universitys Academic RegulationsAcademic Integrity PolicyLevel and Mark DescriptorsSupport Student Support and WellbeingStudy GuidesSkills for Learning Introduction to Academic Study SkillsAcademic English Language SkillsYou should also refer to your Course and Module Guides
Date by which feedback will be provided Within the University of Wolverhampton current guidelines
Feedback format Written
Resit details The Resit requirement for this assignment is to provide a rework of the original submission, with additions and amendments highlighted, to indicate where you have applied the feedback received.
The resit will be due in the Semester 2 resit period and the actual date will be available on Canvas approximately 6 weeks after the submission for the first assessment submission.
Assessment Rubric
Assessment criteria (70-100%)
Excellent (60-69%)
Very Good (50-59%)
Good (40-49%)
Fair (0-39%)
Poor
Identification and discussion of key relevant topics
Impressive organisational, contextual and theoretical justification of the issue, its impact on the case organisation. All relevant key issues identified and discussed to a very good, excellent or outstanding level. The analysis is accurate, and the assertions made are of high quality. Good use of statistical evidence to illustrate the impact of the issues identified.
A good organisational, contextual and theoretical justification of the issue, its impact on the case organisation and the implications relating to it. Most key issues identified and discussed to a very good level. A competent organisational, contextual and theoretical justification of the issue, its impact on the organisation, and the implications relating to it.
Some key issues identified and discussed to an acceptable level. Some key areas may have been overlooked or considered in insufficient depth. Some effort has been made to justify the chosen issue. Some discussion of the impact on the case organisation. Some key issues have been missed or inadequately discussed. Issue is unclear or has not been identified. Little or no consideration of the issues and how they/ can/ are impact/ing the organisation.
Key issues have been incorrectly identified or overlooked and there is insufficient discussion.
Possibly incoherent description in places or no real attempt to address assignment brief.
Application and critical analysis of theory Critical evaluation and application of key concepts, relevant authors, theories and major debates appropriate to the issue is of a very good, excellent or outstanding level.
References beyond those identified in session sources, possibly a range of extensive thought. Clear evidence of independent thought. Good critical analysis, application and critique of concepts, relevant authors, theories and major debates.
Appropriate range of references utilised.
The structure & focus are evident & relevant to the assessment task. There is evidence of engagement and analysis of relevant theories.
Key authors & major debates are clearly presented and applied. Evidence of suitable basic reading. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis, application or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered. Lists of theory with no application. Fundamental misconceptions on how to analyse and apply relevant theory to academic work. Instead, the work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding or application of relevant theory. Possibly too few references to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought and/ or criticality. Possibly no real attempt to address assignment brief.
Understanding of contextual issues
Evidence of originality and independent thought in relation to the organisational context which demonstrates a deep understanding of the relevant issues.
A wide and appropriate range of independently sourced contextual material is used alongside theory to challenge and critique current practice to a very good, excellent or even outstanding level.
Effective consideration of the organisational context demonstrating a good understanding of the relevant issues.
A good and appropriate range of independently sourced contextual material is used alongside theory to provide a sound level of challenge and critique of current practice. Some consideration of the organisational context, demonstrating an acceptable understanding of the relevant issues.
Evidence of a basic engagement and application of contextual material used with theory to provide work that has some challenge and critique but is broadly descriptive. Little consideration of the organisational context, demonstrating a limited understanding of the relevant issues.
Limited engagement of contextual material, poorly linked to theory and limited in its application. The work is overly descriptive and lacking in analysis. Little or no consideration of the organisational context, no demonstration of understanding of the relevant issues.
No use of contextual material, or material used is not relevant. Few or no links to theory and no relevant application made. Wholly descriptive. No attempt at analysis or evaluation.
and lacking in analysis.
Little or no attempt made to address the assignment brief
Presentation, clarity of writing and Harvard referencing
A balanced, well-structured submission, a very clear and coherent in approach. Well-written, well presented and largely or wholly free of spelling, grammatical and/or typographical errors. Very good, possibly faultless application of Harvard referencing system. A balanced, well-structured submission. Overall clear and coherent; well-written and well presented. Some small, repeated errors in referencing or grammar. Good application of Harvard referencing system.
Submission is cohesive, but may be hindered by inappropriate balance, structure or writing style. Some small, repeated errors in referencing or grammar. Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address the submission requirements overall. Possibly lacking in balance, structure or writing style. Repeated errors in referencing and/or grammar. Significant and/or critical failings in balance, structure or writing style. Possibly lacking in coherence and/or is badly presented. Repeated and possibly significant errors in referencing and/or grammar.
