Assessment Task Description
Assessment Part 1: Case Study Analysis (Report)
Weighting: 25%
Date due: Week 10
Word limit: 2,500 words
Purpose: to assess the following Learning Outcomes:
a. Explain key management theories that inform contemporary practices
b. Examine contemporary issues faced by managers in different levels of an organization
c. Research, summarize and critically analyse the major elements of organizational culture and discuss how these impact on business management and justify recommendations based on new knowledge of management theories
d. Identify and how the global economy creates opportunities and threats for managers working in multinational, domestic, global and transnational organization.
e. Work effectively and collaboratively with others in diverse management contexts
Students will also be assessed on their ability to work in a team.
Your task: Students are to form groups of two members. Each group must do a case study on Zappos as mentioned in the detailed description. Each group must identify the general management issues covered by the assigned case study, research management theories (especially those contained in the textbook), expert opinions and current management practice regarding the identified issues, and prepare for the presentation. Students must ensure that they apply the relevant management theories covered in this unit when analyzing and recommending actions in their report.
Report structure:
• Title page: name of the case, members of the group, date of submission
• Executive Summary: key findings of the group
• Table of Contents: with section numbers and headings
• Introduction: Summarize the case and point out the important case facts
• Key Management Challenge: identify the symptoms and problems
• Case Analysis: identify and apply relevant management theories and address root causes of identified issues
• Recommendations
• Full ‘in-text’ referencing: citing at least four academic sources
• Reference list: using the A.P.A. referencing style
Do not focus on a problem that has already been solved also do not focus on many problems at the same time.
|
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines MGT101 – Fundamentals of Management |
|
|
School |
Business |
|
Course Name |
Bachelor of Business |
|
Unit Code |
MGT101 |
|
Unit Title |
Fundamentals of Management |
|
Trimester |
Trimester 1, 2019 |
|
Assessment Author |
Ms. Tanmaya |
|
Assessment Type |
Group |
|
Assessment Title |
Report |
|
Weight |
25% |
|
Total Marks |
25 |
|
Section to be included in the report |
Detailed Description of the Criteria |
Marks |
|
Criteria 1 |
Executive Summary |
10 |
|
Criteria 2 |
Introduction: A brief outline of the background to Zappos and Holacracy structure. |
10 |
|
Criteria 3 |
Provide discussions on how it has worked for the organization or not working for the organization. Give proper reasons and support your theories using the textbook |
35 |
|
Criteria 4 |
Provide recommendations for the future directions/opportunities/options for the other companies (The company can be Facebook as they tried to introduce the Holacracy in their company but failed) Conclusion |
20 |
|
Criteria 5 |
Provide at least 10 academic sources of information, and five non-peer review articles Your case study analysis must be fully referenced using the APA style of referencing. |
15 |
|
Criteria 6 |
Meetings and journal documentations and contribution provided in appendix OR Matrix Schedule of Group Members work at meetings and documented discussions of cooperation. |
10 |
|
Total |
100 |
|
Marking Rubric Criteria/ Grades |
High Distinction (HD) [Excellent] = or >80% |
Distinction (D) [Very Good] 70%-79% |
Credits (C) [Good] 60%-69% |
Pass (P) [Satisfactory] 50%-59% |
Fail (N) [Unsatisfactory] <50% |
|
Criteria 1 |
Concise and specific to the project |
Topics are relevant and soundly analyzed. |
Generally relevant and analyzed. |
Some relevance and briefly presented. |
This is not relevant to the assignment topic. |
|
Criteria 2 |
Demonstrated excellent ability to think critically and sourced reference material appropriately |
Demonstrated excellent ability to think critically but did not source reference material appropriately |
Demonstrated ability to think critically and sourced reference material appropriately |
Demonstrated ability to think critically and did not source reference material appropriately |
Did not demonstrate ability to think critically and did not source reference material appropriately |
|
Criteria 3 |
All elements are present and very well integrated. |
Components present with good cohesive |
Components present and mostly well integrated |
Most components present |
Proposal lacks structure. |
|
Criteria 4 |
Logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments |
Consistency logical and convincing |
Mostly consistent logical and convincing |
Adequate cohesion and conviction |
Argument is confused and disjointed |
|
Criteria 5 |
Clear styles with excellent source of references. |
Clear referencing style |
Generally good referencing style |
Sometimes clear referencing style |
Lacks consistency with many errors |
Comments: