Get Cheapest Assignment in Australia, UK, US, UAE, Canada and NZ Order Now

MAN130 Management Research methods

0 Comments

Solent University

Coursework Assessment Brief MAN130

Assessment Details

Unit Title: Management Research Methods
Unit Code: MAN130
Unit Leader: Dr Whysnianti Basuki
Level: 7 (Global MBA Jan 2019 Intake, PT MBA & MAPP)
Assessment Title: AE1: Feasibility Study (WRIT1) AE2: Management/Consultancy/Work based project proposal (PROJPR)
Assessment Number: 2
Assessment Type: Report
Restrictions on Time/Word Count: AE1: 1000 words AE2: 3000 words
Consequence of not meeting time/word count limit: There is no penalty for submitting below the word/count limit, but students should be aware that there is a risk they may not maximise their potential mark.   Assignments should be presented appropriately in line with the restrictions stated above; if an assignment exceeds the time/word count this will be taken in account in the marks given using the assessment criteria shown
Individual/Group: Individual
Assessment Weighting: AE1: 25% AE2: 75%
Issue Date: w/c 20 January 2020
Hand In Date: AE1: 12 March 2020 by 4pm AE2: 7 May 2020 by 4pm
Planned Feedback Date: AE1: 9 April 2020 AE2: 5 June 2020
Mode of Submission: Online via SOL
Number of copies to be submitted: Students are not required to submit a hard copy.
Anonymous Marking   This assessment will be marked anonymously

Assessment Task MAN130

AE1: Feasibility Study

Prepare a Management/Consultancy/Work based project feasibility study for your chosen Management/Consultancy/Work based project subject.

It is suggested that you present your report in the following format (word count in brackets is indicative only):

  1. Title
  2. Significance of topic (200 words)
  3. Aim & objectives (100 words)
  4. Approach to data collection (450 words)
  5. Major areas of concern (250 words)
  6. References (not included in your word count)
  7. Appendices (not included in your word count).  These are expected to be kept to a minimum at this stage of your research.

AE2: Management/Consultancy/Work based project proposal

Prepare a Management/Consultancy/Work based project proposal for your chosen Management/Consultancy/Work based project subject.

It is suggested that you present your report in the following format (word count in brackets is indicative only):

  1. Title page
  2. Introduction   (approx. 350 words)
  3. Aims and objectives (approx. 100 words)
  4. Literature review     (approx.1200 words)
  5. Methodology (approx. 1100 words)
  6. Conclusions (approx. 250 words)
  7. Full list of Harvard References (excluded from word count)
  8. Appendices (excluded from word count)

Assessment criteria

AE1: Feasibility Study

  Criteria   A 1 and 2   A 3 and 4   B   C   D   F 1-3
  Logical structure and flow   Outstanding structure and flow   Excellent structure and flow   Very good structure and flow   Good structure and flow   Adequate structure and flow   No structure and flow
  Project aims and objectives   Exceptionally focussed aim and objectives with excellent operationalisation. Excellent and clearly focussed aim and objectives with excellent operationalisation. Thorough and clearly focussed aim and objectives which are able to be operationalised. Good clarity of focus of aim and objectives.   Adequate clarity, maybe lacking focussed aim and objectives.  Undefined or lacking focussed aim and objectives.
  Knowledge of problem areas   Outstanding knowledge and understanding demonstrated throughout the work     Excellent knowledge and under standing   Very good knowledge and under standing   Good knowledge and under standing   Little knowledge and understanding   Very limited/no knowledge or under standing
  Analysis of feasibility   Outstanding Analysis.   Excellent analysis   Very good analysis   Good analysis   Adequate analysis   Very limited/no analysis
  Sourced Information and referencing   Outstanding breadth and depth used.  Referencing faultless.     Excellent range, well referenced.   Very good range used and well referenced.   Good range used and well referenced.   Adequately range used, but poorly sourced   Insufficient/ none
  Legible and well presented.  Good Grammar.  Sentences/ Good spelling   All aspect of the work is of outstanding standard. The work is presented in line with the word restrictions.   Presented excellently with no errors. The work is presented in line with the word restrictions.   Very good presentation with few errors and mistakes. The work is presented in line with the word restrictions.   Good presentation Some errors and mistakes. The work is presented in line with the word restrictions.   Messy, needs tidying. Many errors. The work is not presented in line with the word restrictions.     Very poor quality overall.  Illegible. The work is not presented in line with the word restrictions.

AE2: Research Project Proposal

  Criteria   A 1 and 2   A 3 and 4   B   C   D   F 1-3
  Introduction / aims and objectives     Very well crafted. Outstanding explanation. Exceptionally focussed aim and objectives     Excellent presentation well clarified. Excellent and clearly focussed aim and objectives.   Very good presentation well clarified. Thorough and clearly focussed aim and objectives.   Presented with only some clarification. Good clarity of focus of aim and objectives   Poorly presented no details. Adequate clarity, maybe lacking focussed aim and objectives   Poor introduction/ Not presented. Undefined or lacking focussed aim and objectives.
  Literature Review     Outstanding review of literature. These are drawn from comprehensive range of sources.   Excellent debate from literature. These are drawn from a very wide range of sources   Very good debate from literature. These are drawn from a wide range of sources   Good debate from literature. These are drawn from a reasonable range of sources   Adequate debate from literature. These are drawn from sufficient range of sources   Poor literature review mainly lists, lacking depth and/or range
  Methodology   Demonstrates an exceptionally strong approach to logical research methods and an outstanding critical evaluation of the selection of appropriate research options.  Demonstrates an excellent approach to logical research methods and an excellent critical evaluation of the selection of appropriate research options.  Demonstrates a strong approach to logical research methods and a robust critical evaluation of the selection of appropriate research options.  Demonstrates a good approach to logical research methods with some evidence of the evaluation of the selection of appropriate research options.  Acceptable approach to research methods with little evidence of evaluation of the selection of appropriate research options.  Unacceptably flawed approach to research methods and lacking in evaluation of the selection of appropriate research options. 
  Gantt Chart     Outstanding timescale.   Excellent timescales.   Well thought out and realistic timescales.   Reasonable consideration of timescales.   Adequate thought but timescales may be unfeasible.   Poorly thought out or unrealistic timescales.
  Expected Conclusions   Outstanding conclusion.   Excellent conclusion.   Good conclusion.   Reasonable conclusion.   Acceptable conclusion.   Unacceptable conclusion.
  Overall structure and viability Exceptional structure and total validity Excellent structure and validity Effective validity and thorough structure Good structure with reasonable validity Adequate structure and some validity Poor structure and weak validity
  Presentation and referencing     All aspect of the work is of outstanding standard. Outstanding breadth and depth of references used.  Referencing faultless. The work is presented in line with the word restrictions.     Presented excellently with no errors. Excellent range of references used, well referenced. The work is presented in line with the word restrictions.   Very good presentation with few errors and mistakes. Very good range of references used and well referenced. The work is presented in line with the word restrictions.   Good presentation Some errors and mistakes. Good range of references used and well referenced. The work is presented in line with the word restrictions.   Messy, needs tidying. Many errors. Adequately range of references used, but poorly sourced. The work is not presented in line with the word restrictions.     Very poor quality overall.  Illegible. Insufficient reference/ none. The work is not presented in line with the word restrictions.

Learning Outcomes

This assessment will enable students to demonstrate in full or in part the learning outcomes identified in the unit descriptors.

Late Submissions

Students are reminded that:

  1. If this assessment is submitted late i.e. within 5 working days of the submission deadline, the mark will be capped at 40% if a pass mark is achieved;
  2. If this assessment is submitted later than 5 working days after the submission deadline, the work will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero;
  3. If this assessment is being submitted as a referred piece of work (second or third attempt) then it must be submitted by the deadline date; any Refer assessment submitted late will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero.

Extenuating Circumstances

The University’s Extenuating Circumstances procedure is in place if there are genuine circumstances that may prevent a student submitting an assessment. If students are not ‘fit to study’, they can either request an extension to the submission deadline of 5 working days or they can request to submit the assessment at the next opportunity (Defer).  In both instances students must submit an EC application with relevant evidence.   If accepted by the EC Panel there will be no academic penalty for late submission or non-submission dependent on what is requested.  Students are reminded that EC covers only short term issues (20 working days) and that if they experience longer term matters that impact on learning then they must contact the Student Hub for advice.

A summary of guidance notes for students is given below:

Academic Misconduct

Any submission must be students’ own work and, where facts or ideas have been used from other sources, these sources must be appropriately referenced. The University’s Academic Handbook includes the definitions of all practices that will be deemed to constitute academic misconduct.  Students should check this link before submitting their work.

Procedures relating to student academic misconduct are given below:

Ethics Policy

The work being carried out by students must be in compliance with the Ethics Policy. Where there is an ethical issue, as specified within the Ethics Policy, then students will need an ethics release or an ethical approval prior to the start of the project.

The Ethics Policy is contained within Section 2S of the Academic Handbook:

Grade marking

The University uses a letter grade scale for the marking of assessments. Unless students have been specifically informed otherwise their marked assignment will be awarded a letter grade. More detailed information on grade marking and the grade scale can be found on the portal and in the Student Handbook.

Guidance for online submission through Solent Online Learning (SOL)