UWBS038g Assessment Briefing for

Students

Assessment Briefing 2: 7MG001- Independent Business Analysis

Project
Module leader: Kate Moseley
Academic Year: 2014 /15
Semester 1/ Semester 2/ Year Long
Module assessment detail (approved at validation as amended by
module modification)
Module
code
&
title

7MG0
01

Independent Business Analysis Project

Module Learning Outcomes:

LO1
Demonstrate competence in the linguistic, numerical
and analytical skills associated with study at Masters
level
LO2
Critically interpret data and use data in
organisational contexts.
LO3
Critically understand and ethically apply appropriate
research approaches and methodological techniques
that facilitate detailed investigation into business and
management issues.
LO4
Produce an original piece of work as defined by your
Masters' Award that uses evidence and academic
sources in analytical manner to reach clear
conclusions
Assessment types
Weightings (%)
Dissertation / Independent
Project

60% of module assessment marks

Mode of Working:

Individual

Presentation Format:
on WOLF)

Research Project (see guidance

Method of Submission:

Submission via electronic esubmission by via WOLF on the due

date. In addition 2 hard copies and a
disc are required, submitted on the

same due date at MX student office

only.
Mark required to pass this coursework:

50%

Hand in date & time

Date & method by
which you will receive
feedback
Resit/retrieval date
Assessment limits (in
accordance with
UWBS assessment
tariff)

Between 12,000 15,000 words, excluding

appendices and reference list

Do clearly state your name, student number and supervisor when

submitting work.
Always keep a copy of your work.
Always keep a file of working papers (containing, for instance, working
notes, copied journal article and early drafts of your work, etc.) that show
the development of your work and the sources you have used. You may
need to show this to the supervisor at some point so notes should be clear
and written in English. This is an important requirement. There may
be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If
this is so you may be asked to submit your file within 3 working days and
possibly meet with your supervisor to answer questions on your
submission.
Explanation of submission requirements and further guidance

Assessments are subject to a word limit to ensure consistency of

approach across all modules. Your work should not exceed the limit
indicated (excluding appendices). Do not feel that you have to
achieve this word count in your work. What is important is that
the work satisfies the stated learning outcomes which are
articulated through the assessment criteria (see following page).
Care is taken to ensure that work has been marked correctly.
Dissertations are double marked and an independent expert from
outside the University on batches of work.

Your work will not be returned to you but you will receive detailed
feedback explaining how your mark has been arrived at and how
your work could have been improved upon.
Always use the Harvard style referencing system. The Universitys
Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides
covering a range of topics to support your studies and develop your
academic skills including a guide to Harvard referencing
http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
Expensive or elaborate bindings and covers for submissions are not
required please refer to guidelines in the dissertation resources topic
on presentation.
The Business School has a policy of anonymous marking of
individual assessments which applies to most modules but not the
dissertation for obvious reasons.

Avoid academic misconduct

Warning: Collusion, plagiarism and cheating are very serious
offences that can result in a student being expelled from the
University. The Business School has a policy of actively
identifying students who engage in academic misconduct of this
nature and routinely applying detection techniques including the
use of sophisticated software packages.

Avoid Collusion. The Business School encourages group working,

however to avoid collusion always work on your own when
completing individual assessments. Do not let fellow students have
access to your work at any stage and do not be tempted to access
the work of others. Refer to your module tutor if you do not
understand or you need further guidance.

Avoid Plagiarism. You must use available and relevant literature to

demonstrate your knowledge of a subject, however to avoid
plagiarism you must take great care to acknowledge it properly.
Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else's work and passing it
off as your own. This includes incorporating either unattributed
direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of
another/others. For this reason it is important that you cite all the
sources whose work you have drawn on and reference them fully in
accordance with the Harvard referencing standard. (This includes
citing any work that you may have submitted yourself previously).
Extensive direct quotations in assessed work is ill advised because it
represents a poor writing style, and it could lead to omission errors
and a plagiarism offence could be committed accidentally.

Avoid the temptation to commission work or to cheat in

other ways. There are temptations on the internet for you to take
short cuts. Do not be tempted to either commission work to be

completed on your behalf or search for completed past academic

work.

When you submit your work you will be required to sign an

important declaration that the submission is your own work, any
material you have used has been acknowledged and referenced, you have
not allowed another student to have access to your work, the work has
not been submitted previously, etc.

Assessment Brief/ Task

The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:

The production of a piece of original work based on

independent research is an essential part of study at Masters
level. For the award of a Masters degree, candidates must
present a Dissertation/Independent Business Analysis Project
within their Masters field of study which demonstrates a
range of intellectual and practical skills in carrying out
evidence based research project. This will normally be within
a business and management context and will include
identifying the implications of the findings.
The work should follow the prescribed format as advised by
the supervisor and the module material held on WOLF,(which
will also be covered in the taught module content). The
dissertation will be between 12,000 and 15,000 words in

length and should include the following sections:

INTRODUCTION AND/OR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS & LITERATURE REVIEW
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCE LIST
N.B. Candidates will receive further guidance from their
supervisors as the
content may vary depending upon the subject/topic area
investigated.
The following information is important when:

Preparing for your assessment

Checking your work before you submit it

Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.

Assessment Criteria
The module learning outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated
on above. The precise criteria against which your work will be marked are as
follows:

INTRODUCTION AND/OR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS & LITERATURE REVIEW

METHODOLOGY

RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PRESENTATION

Performance descriptors
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of
the above criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work
that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.

Criteria

Introduction
and
background

Literature
Review and
Conceptual
Analysis

70-100%
Work of an
outstandin
g, standard

Merit 60-69%
Work of a
good
standard.

Pass 5059% Work

of a pass
standard.

40-49%
FAIL
(Retrievabl
e)

0-39% FAIL

Excellent
Introduction
&
background;
synopsis of
relevant
literature
clearly
delineated;
research
problem
stated,
research
aims,
objectives
and primary
questions
clearly
stated,
appropriate
and aligned.
Methods and
research
approach
appropriately
stated.

Clear
Introduction &
background;
synopsis of
relevant
literature
delineated;
research
problem
stated,
research aims,
objectives and
primary
questions
mostly
appropriate
and aligned.
Methods and
research
approach
appropriately
stated.

Good
introduction
&
background;
synopsis of
relevant
literature has
gaps;
research
problem
unclear,
research
aims,
objectives
and primary
questions
mostly show
some
misaligned.
Methods and
research
approach
appropriately
stated.

Introduction
&
background
wholly
descriptive;
synopsis of
relevant
literature
absent;
research
problem,
research
aims,
objectives
and primary
questions
misaligned.
Methods and
research
approach
inappropriate
ly framed.

The focus,
purpose and
method of
the project
are not made
clear to the
reader.

Authoritative
selection of
material
from
comprehensi
ve array of
relevant
sources;
attention to
both
scholarly and
practitioner
dimensions,
with
excellent
evidence of
originality;
argument is
logical,
systematic
and
persuasive;
shows high
degree of
critical
awareness of
linkage
between
literature
and aims

Substantial
range of
apposite
sources
consulted;
attention to
both scholarly
and
practitioner
dimensions,
with small
omissions with
respect to the
argument;
generally
systematic
and
persuasive
narrative;
shows
evidence of
critical
awareness of
linkage
between
literature and
aims

Limitations in
variety and
depth of
sources;
reasonable
grasp of
those
consulted
and with
relevance to
the
argument; no
particular
originality;
some
unevenness
in
presentation;
narrative is
mostly
descriptive;
modest
awareness of
linkage
between
literature and
aims

Obvious
omissions of
relevant
sources;
some
misundersta
nding;
argument
not following
a particularly
clear thread,
or not
particularly
convincing;
narrative is
wholly
descriptive;
little
awareness of
linkage
between
literature and
aims

Key sources
obviously
omitted,
much
misundersta
nding; little if
any
argument;
lack of a
critical
stance
chapter is
just an
incomplete
list of
authors,
taken mainly
from basic
texts. No
evident link
to research
being
undertaken.
Overall, the
author
appears to
have read
little and
understood
less

Methodology

Clearly
articulates
and justifies
the
methodologi
cal approach
to be
adopted e.g.
deductive/in
ductive;
provides a
rationale that
fits the
approach
chosen;
describes the
relation
between the
research
aims/objectiv
es and the
approach
chosen;
states the
research
hypothesis(e
s) and link to
selection of
approach;
describes
clearly the
method and
explanation
(rationale) of
observation/
data
collection
qualitative
and/or
quantitative;
primary and
secondary
data
collection;
methods for
analysing
research
material;
identifies
and critically
comments
on the
sampling,
piloting and
ethic
aspects;
shows
understandin
g of and
demonstrate
s validity and
reliability of
data
instruments

Methodology
generally
sound,
articulates and
justifies the
methodologica
l approach to
be adopted
e.g.
deductive/indu
ctive; provides
a rationale
that fits the
approach
chosen;
describes the
relation
between the
research
aims/objective
s and the
approach
chosen; states
the research
hypothesis(es)
and link to
selection of
approach;
describes
clearly the
method and
explanation
(rationale) of
observation/da
ta collection
qualitative
and/or
quantitative;
primary and
secondary
data
collection;
methods for
analysing
research
material;
identifies and
critically
comments on
the sampling,
piloting and
ethic aspects;
shows
understanding
of and
demonstrates
validity and
reliability of
data
instruments

Methodology
discussed
though with
incomplete
awareness of
several
aspects
and/or
omissions.
Methods
described
but key areas
hazy and
lacking in
justification
and complete
information

Methodology
confused
with
description of
methods and
techniques;
unaware of
or confused
about
research
design;
methods and
techniques
taken for
granted;
errors in
sampling,
which may
be
incomplete

Insufficient
discussion of
methodology
, little
awareness of
its
importance;
unaware of
research
design;
methods and
techniques
inappropriate
or
incomplete;
sampling
unconsidered
as an issue

Results,
Analysis and
Discussion

Conclusions,
Implications
&
Recommenda
tions

Very reliable
data.
Triangulated
results drive
the
argument
onwards,
completely
and fairly;
contrary
findings used
to illuminate
or extend the
argument.
Librarybased
projects
provide
crystal clear
rationale
using
published
sources to
support the
argument
seamlessly.
Has
explained
and linked
(signposted)
the findings
to
appendices
(if primary /
secondary
data). Clear
links to
literature in
the
discussion;
analysis uses
techniques
appropriate
to data. Use
is made of
appropriate
tables,
graphs, and
other
illustrations.
A strong
synopsis of
findings ends
the chapter

Reliable data.
Results
substantiate
the argument,
some
triangulation
attempted,
contrary
findings
highlighted to
illuminate or
extend the
argument.
Library-based
projects
provide clear
rationale using
published
sources to
support the
argument. Has
signposted the
findings to
appendices (if
primary /
secondary
data). Clear
links to
literature in
the discussion;
analysis uses
techniques
appropriate to
data. Use is
made of
appropriate
tables, graphs,
and other
illustrations. A
strong
synopsis of
findings ends
the chapter

Mostly
reliable data.
Results
substantiate
the
argument,
some
triangulation
attempted,
contrary
findings to
illuminate or
extend the
argument are
weak.
Library-based
projects
provide some
rationale
using
published
sources to
support the
argument.
Has
signposted
the findings
to
appendices
(if primary /
secondary
data). Some
attempt to
link literature
in the
discussion;
analysis uses
techniques
appropriate
to data. Use
is made of
appropriate
tables,
graphs, and
other
illustrations.
Synopsis of
findings ends
the chapter

Some doubts
about data
reliability.
Results do
not
substantiate
the
argument, no
triangulation
attempted,
no contrary
findings to
illuminate or
extend the
argument.
Use of
secondary
data for
library-based
projects is
narrow and
not justified.
Some
signposting
the findings
to
appendices
(if primary /
secondary
data).
Insufficient
attempt to
link literature
in the
discussion;
analysis
techniques
inappropriate
to data or
not
explained.
Use of
appropriate
tables,
graphs, and
other
illustrations
is lacking
thought. No
synopsis of
findings ends
the chapter

Little clear
argument,
reliability of
data in
serious
doubt; no
contrary
findings to
illuminate or
extend the
argument.
Use of
secondary
data for
library-based
projects is
insufficient or
unsubstantial
. No
signposting
the findings
to
appendices
(if primary /
secondary
data). No
attempt to
link literature
in the
discussion;
analysis
techniques
inappropriate
to data or
not explained
or incorrectly
used. Use of
tables,
graphs, and
other
illustrations
is scrappy.
No synopsis
of findings to
speak of

Wellorganised,
logical, fully
supported by
evidence,
conclusions
clear and
arise from
results/discu
ssion;
implications

Wellorganised,
logical,
supported by
evidence,
conclusions
fairly clear and
arise from
results &
discussion;
implications

Reasonably
wellorganised,
logical,
generally
supported by
evidence,
conclusions
fairly clear
and arise
from results

Poor
organisation;
gaps in
reasoning;
some
obvious
conclusions
omitted for
the list; other
conclusions
not

Assertions
little related
to evidence,
frequently
illogical or
arbitrary;
conclusions if
presented
are
disorganised;
alternatives

Presentation

critically
considered
for all
stakeholders;
practical and
feasible, with
clear
consideration
of budget
issues (if
appropriate).
Recommend
ations driven
by
conclusions
and again
explicit for
stakeholders

critically
considered for
all
stakeholders;
practical and
feasible, with
clear
consideration
of budget
issues (if
appropriate)
Recommendati
ons driven by
conclusions
and again
explicit for
stakeholders

& discussion;
implications
considered
for all
stakeholders
but criticality
weak;
practical and
feasible, with
un clear or
weak
consideration
of budget
issues (if
appropriate).
Recommenda
tions not
always
driven by
conclusions
and not for
all
stakeholders

especially
driven by the
findings but
from
common
sense. No
real
implications
and
recommenda
tion
considered
for
stakeholders

not
considered;
no real
understandin
g of the need
to draw
conclusions,
implications
and
recommenda
tions from
results

Fully
documented
and styled
according to
the brief;
written in
attractive,
engaging,
and
compelling
language; ;
text free
from spelling
and
grammatical
solecisms;
vocabulary
appropriate;
specialist
terms
defined;
tables and
illustrations
beautifully
prepared;
excellent
allocation of
material to
main body of
text, and
appendices.
Fully
conforms to
Harvard
Referencing
style.
Wordage,
binding and
related
appearance
meets
requirements

Well
documented
and styled
according to
the brief;
written in
attractive,
engaging, and
compelling
language; ;
apart from a
few instance,
text free from
spelling and
grammatical
solecisms;
vocabulary
appropriate;
specialist
terms defined;
tables and
illustrations
well prepared;
very good
allocation of
material to
main body of
text, and
appendices.
Fully conforms
to Harvard
Referencing
style.
Wordage,
binding and
related
appearance
meets
requirements

Reasonably
well
documented
and styled
according to
the brief;
written in
engaging
language; ;
text not
wholly free
from spelling
and
grammatical
solecisms;
vocabulary
appropriate;
specialist
terms
defined;
tables and
illustrations
well
prepared;
good
allocation of
material to
main body of
text, and
appendices.
Mostly
conforms to
Harvard
Referencing
style.
Wordage,
binding and
related
appearance
meets
requirements

Some
incompletene
ss of
documentati
on and styled
according to
the brief;
written
language
fails to meet
postgraduate
standard;
text not
wholly free
from spelling
and
grammatical
solecisms;
vocabulary
appropriate;
specialist
terms
defined;
tables and
illustrations
well
prepared;
good
allocation of
material to
main body of
text, and
appendices.
Mostly
conforms to
Harvard
Referencing
style.
Wordage,
binding and
related
appearance

Documentati
on seriously
at fault:
missing,
misplaced,
difficult to
find ones
way around;
persistent
errors in
spelling and
grammar,
solecisms or
occasional
failure in
conveying
meaning;
typescript
messy with
uncorrected
errors and
missing or
incomplete
illustrations,
tables.
Charts..
Referencing
and
formatting
errors
widespread
.

meets
requirements

To help you further:

Refer to the WOLF topic for contact details of your module

leader/tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other
sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on WOLF.

The Universitys Learning Information Services offer support and

guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic
skills http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx