HC1062 Decision Making and problem solving
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines | |
Trimester | T2 2020 |
Unit Code | HC1062 |
Unit Title | Decision Making and problem solving |
Assessment Type | Group Assignment, Group size: 3 to 4 members |
Assessment Title | Research Report |
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping) | Students are required identify a management problem for a selected organization. (Excluding a market research problem) and Prepare a persuasive report showing how the management problem/decision should be managed. |
Weight | 30 % of the total assessments |
Total Marks | 30 marks – research paper |
Word limit | At least 2,500 words |
Due Date | Week 10 – 11:59pm |
Assignment Specifications
Purpose:
In a group of 3 to 4 students, prepare a persuasive report showing how the management problem/decision should be managed. This assignment aims at ensuring that students have familiarised themselves with a general framework of at least one management related topic. Students will be required to apply relevant theoretical concepts with the use of practical examples in most cases in a written research paper.
Details:
Written report – worth 30% of your final grade and must be submitted Week 10 at 11:59pm.
Identify a multinational company.
Identify a management problem. (Note: not a market research nature). Specify research questions which address the management problem/decision. Design a research program.
Carry out the research.
Sourcing from ONLY secondary data. Analyse the findings.
Identify alternatives and make recommendations to improve the performance of the organisation.
Your report is to be written as a business report. It must include;
- Executive summary
- Table of contents
- Section headings
- Paragraphing
- Page numbers
- Reference list at the end of the report
HC1062 Decision making and problem solving
Marking Rubric – Written Report
Excellent | Very Good | Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | |
Clear evidence of | Clear evidence of a summary which summarises the entire report (3 marks) | Some evidence of a summary which summarises the entire report (2marks) | Limited | No executive | |
Executive | a summary which | evidence of a | summary | ||
Summary | summaries the | summary of the | included (0 marks) | ||
(4 marks) | entire report (4 | entire report ( 1 | |||
marks) | mark) | ||||
Discussion on | Demonstration of | Demonstration of | Demonstration of | Demonstration of | Demonstration of |
allocated | Outstanding | very good | good knowledge of | satisfactory | little or no |
general | knowledge of the | knowledge of the | the chosen topic and | knowledge of the | knowledge of |
framework | chosen topic and | chosen topic and | has included minimal | chosen topic and | the chosen topic and |
(8 marks) | has included | has included some | research beyond | has included no | discussion has little |
significant research | research beyond | areas covered within | research beyond | or no relevance to | |
which are beyond | areas covered within | the lecture notes. (6 | areas covered | the topic chosen (<4 | |
areas covered within | the lecture notes. (7 | marks) | within the lecture | marks) | |
the lecture notes. (8 | marks) | notes. (4 marks) | |||
marks) | |||||
Application of theory on Individual component discussion (8 marks) | Your interpretation of theory is accurate and insightful and has included significant research which goes beyond areas covered within the lecture notes. Identification of the author has been identified. (8 marks) | Your interpretation of theory is accurate and has some insight and included some research which goes beyond areas covered within the lecture notes. Identification of the author has been identified. (7 marks) | Your interpretation of theory somewhat accurate and has included minimal research which is beyond areas covered within the lecture notes. Identification of the author has been identified (6mrks) | interpretation of theory is very general and has included no research which is beyond areas covered within the lecture notes. Identification of the author has been identified. (4 marks) | Your interpretation of theory is missing or not relevant to the topic. No identification of the author had been given (<4 marks) |
Overall | Report is | Report is well | Report is somewhat | Report is structured with some clarity, and use of some paragraphs and subheadings. (3 marks) | Poorly presented. |
presentation | exceptionally | structured with | structured with | Report is not | |
and quality of | structured with | clarity, use of | clarity, use of | structured with | |
report (6 | clarity, use of | paragraphs and | paragraphs and | any clarity, and | |
marks) | paragraphs and | subheadings. | subheadings. (4mrks) | does not use of | |
subheadings. (6 | (5mrks) | paragraphs and | |||
mrks) | subheadings. | ||||
(<3marks) |
HC1062 Decision making and problem solving
Referencing (4 marks) | Clear systematic referencing using Harvard style for all sources. At least 6 relevant references were used from good sources. All intext referencing done correctly and relevant. (4marks) | Clear systematic referencing using Harvard style for all sources. At least 5 relevant references were used from good sources. All intext referencing done correctly and relevant. (3 marks) | Clear systematic referencing using Harvard style for all sources. At least 4 relevant references were used from good sources. Most intext referencing done correctly and relevant. (2 marks) | Limited attempt at formatting references. References largely unrelated to the topic area. At least 3 references were provided. Most intext referencing done correctly and relevant. (1mark) | Poorly presented, no apparent structure. No use of Harvard referencing style. References were unrelated to the topic area. Only 0 r 1 relevant reference given (<1 marks) |