Unit Title:

Management Research Methods

Unit Code:

MAN130

Level:

7 (Global MBA)

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%

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

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.

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.