10 April, 2024
0 Comments
1 category
| Assignment Task and word count: For this assignment, you need to research and write a case study essay (3,500 words +/-100) on an effective business relationship management strategy, for a specific organisation that incorporates a critical appraisal of current practice. |
| Unit Learning Outcomes Assessed: Appraise business relationship management concepts to successfully manage a relationship in a project and/or operation and supply chain.Examine the nature of business relationship management practices.Assess strategic relationships to negotiate internally between business functions, including procurement, and externally with business partners. |
| World Class Professional Skills (PLOs): The Business Relationship Management and Strategic Procurement unit aligns with Manchester Metropolitan University’s Education Strategy Principles, by integrating world class professional skills into assessment standards. The purpose of this section is to help you identify the professional skills, which you will have gained or developed through completing the assessment, so that you can add them to your skills portfolio as part of your professional development. These are the Programme Learning Outcomes (PLOs) phrased as professional skills for clarity in communicating with employers. In this unit you will develop professional skills, as follows: PLO1. Our graduates will apply critical thinking to practical and theoretical problems. This outcome will be developed through lectures and tutorials including formative feedback and supported by additional online learning resources on Moodle. The PLO will be assessed in the assignment in criteria 2, 3, 6 & 7 of the marking rubric. PLO2. Our graduates will be effective communicators using a range of media. This outcome will be developed with the use of power point in the formative feedback component of this assignment. This will allow you to organise your work in a logical structure in order to draw conclusions that follow from a line of argument. This outcome will be assessed in the assignment in criteria 8 of the marking rubric. PLO3. Our graduates will demonstrate professional and commercial/corporate awareness of business relationship management concepts appropriate to the level of study and the discipline context. This outcome will be developed through an understanding of how to recognise, explore and reflect upon relationship management issues as they affect different stakeholders. The unit teaches you how to identify, assess and relate to different stakeholders. This outcome will be assessed in criteria 2, 5, 6 & 7 of the marking rubric. |
| Assignment Details and Instructions. This is a case study based, written essay style, individual assignment. You are required to research and critically investigate a business relationship strategy for strategic partnerships. This should be based on real-world partnerships from a specific and clearly identified company. The case study you select can be a commercial or non-commercial organisation, but it must include the following features: Engaged in strategic partnerships or projects (refer LO1).Allow for analysis of the practices of 1 type of external business relationships (e.g., supplier, customer or stakeholder) (refer LO2).Examines the dynamics between internal and external business relationship management practices and how these are managed/integrated (refer LO3). You need to briefly explain the purpose and value of the partnership type, outlining the company’s current nature of business relationship management practices. Select 1 strategic partnership type and appraise its value to your chosen company, providing rationales as to why it is strategically important to manage these relationships both effectively and efficiently. Careful consideration must be given to the presentation of case data using devices such as tables and quotes to substantiate your findings. Compare and contrast the similarities and differences in the relationships you are analysing. Evaluate how effective the organisation is at managing your chosen type of relationship. The case study paper should contain the following elements: Element Explanation Approximate word count Introduction and Aim Introduces the case, including the background and any previous studies of the issue. Describes the purpose of the study and the specific questions you are trying to answer. 250 Literature Review Provide a brief overview of the academic literature that act as sensitising concepts and supporting frameworks for data collection. This should include a synthesis of key concepts, your claim about the nature of the relationship between the concepts and the conceptual framework that diagrammatically illustrates this. 700 Method Explains how the study was carried out, and how you developed the case study e.g., what research method(s) did you use to collect data? 250 Results Describes what you found through your case study development, e.g., the main themes that came from your critical analysis of rich data that supports your observations. Evidence of qualitative and/or quantitative data such as quotes, tables, etc. 900 Discussion Critically discuss your case study findings. How do they compare or contrast to the existing literature? How does practice inform theory? Note that a case study is a study of a particular situation so you can’t generalise the results to all other situations. That means your discussion should focus on what can be learnt about that situation and the individuals involved. 900 Recommendations and Conclusion Sum up the main points of your findings and discussion. Explain how this has contributed to theory and practice. Provide proposals for future action to solve the problem or improve the situation. Explain any limitations and opportunities. What should be done by whom, how and when? 500 Total 3,500 Words |
| Additional information. There will be formative tutorials to help you with this assignment, these will take place during the normal tutorial schedule. It is important that your assignment is underpinned with academic and where appropriate, reputable grey literature, with all claims substantiated with evidence. The purpose of the paper is to make robust, expert, objective evaluation and recommendations based on a broad range of contemporary relevant sources that systematically explores key features of business relationship management; rather than a subjective, ill-informed, non-substantiated opinion piece. Notes on what you MUST do: Paper length 3,500 words +/- 100Only main body text is included in word count. The following are not included: cover page, contents page, abstract, tables, figures, images, references and appendices. Include a cover page with your assignment title, your name and word count total.Provide an abstract summarising the key elements of the assignment.Include page numbers.Include a contents page.Use font size 11 Calibri or equivalent.Use headings and subheadings to structure your paper.Use evidence, facts and figures where necessary.Provide citations and reference list to Cite Them Right Harvard standard.Label and title tables, diagrams and figures and cite in text.Submission must be in Microsoft Word format (not pdfs).Submit no later than 21.00 on the deadline day. … and what you must NOT do: Do not use Wikipedia, dictionaries, or other inappropriate web sites to develop your argumentation.Do not rely on generic texts books, these will not contain the information you need.Do not go over the word count, no work will be marked over the maximum limit. |
| Additional Resources: All additional resources to support your learning will be provided on Moodle and will be highlighted in lectures and tutorials. |
| Academic Integrity, Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism Academic Integrity is about engaging in good academic practice. It means being honest and transparent, and demonstrating rigour and accuracy in your work. This can include the proper citation and referencing of the sources of your ideas and information, ensuring that you are using appropriate research methods, or checking that your work is free of errors. Additional information, video tutorials and guides to support good academic practice and maintain Academic Integrity in your assignments can be found on the Academic Integrity area of the Academic and Study Skills page on Moodle. Academic Misconduct is any action that could give you an unfair advantage in coursework, exams, or any other assessed work, which could lead to undermining the academic standards of the University. This includes practices such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, contract cheating or falsification of data. Full details of the Manchester Metropolitan University guidelines for Academic Misconduct and definitions of terms can be found here. Use of AI technology for your assessment task(s) As this is a very new area, there are several questions which we don’t have answers to. These include the balance of your text and AI generated text for it to be considered your own work and what form the acknowledgement should take. The important thing is to consider these things and make a judgement based on your context. OpenAI has a content policy that must be followed when using their tools. It states, ‘Don’t mislead your audience about AI involvement’, so if you use ChatGPT and don’t acknowledge it, you are not abiding by their terms of use. |
| Late submissions & Assessment Mitigations: Please refer to this link which will take you to MMU Student Life Assessment & Results guidance. Here you will find information for MMU’s assessment mitigations process. Further guidance can be found in this video link for step-by-step instructions on how to apply for your extension via Moodle. Please note: If you think you are unable to submit on time due to a health or some other unforeseen issue you must request this via your unit Moodle page, referring to the guidance in the links provided above. |
| Marking Criteria: Your submission will be marked using the stepped marking scheme. Your grade will show which marking band your work is in, and whether you are at the top, middle, or bottom of the band. Stepped marking is used to simplify the marking process for staff and make it clearer to students in which band their work sits. Mark PGT Classification 95-100% Distinction 90% 85% 78% 75% 72% Marginal Distinction 68% Merit 65% 62% Marginal Merit 58% Pass 55% 52% Marginal pass 48% Marginal Fail 45% 42% 38% Fail 35% 32% 28% 25% 22% 18% 15% 12% 8% 5% 2% 0% |
Assessment Marking Criteria Rubric
This is how your work will be graded. You will receive an overall grade that will be GUIDED by each of the criteria. The mark will fall into a 2, 5, or 8. This grade may be achieved by the demonstration of strengths in different areas.
| Assessment criteria | 0%-19% | 20%-34% | 35%-39% | 40%-49% | 50%-59% | 60%-69% | 70-79% | 80-89% | 90-100% |
| Introduction & Aim The opening section introduces the background in a clear and logical manner and describes the purpose for the study including key question/s to be answered. A concise outline of the paper is included. | No or extremely limited background, purpose, key question/s and outline. | Very unclear and illogical background, purpose, key question/s and outline, with multiple elements missing. | Unclear and disjointed explanation of background, purpose, key question/s and outline, with one/two elements missing. | All elements of background, purpose, key question/s and outline are covered however explanation is fragmented and lacks coherence. | Reasonable explanation of background with plausible purpose, adequate key question/s and satisfactory outline. | Good explanation of background with meaningful purpose, relevant key question/s and coherent outline. | Excellent explanation of background with clear rationale and purpose, pertinent key question/s and logical outline. | Exceptional explanation of background with very clear rationale and purpose, penetrating key question/s and very logical outline. | Outstanding explanation of background with compelling rationale and purpose, discerning key question/s and illuminating outline. |
| Literature Review (LR) Critical articulation and synthesis of a broad range of academic/reputable grey literature, identifying key concepts within the chosen relationship type. | No or extremely limited identification of strategic relationship concepts. No attempt to refer to relevant sources. | Very limited identification of strategic relationship concepts. Very poor attempt to refer to relevant sources. | Fragmented and poorly expressed attempt to identify and assess strategic relationship concepts. Partially identified and insufficient relevant sources. | Partial attempt to identify and assess strategic relationship concepts. Discussion lacks criticality. Below adequate range of relevant sources. | Reasonable attempt to identify and assess strategic relationship concepts. Marginal elements of criticality. Satisfactory range of relevant sources identified. | Strategic relationship concepts are effectively identified and assessed with some elements of criticality. Good range of relevant sources identified. | Excellent identification and assessment of strategic relationship concepts with good elements of criticality. Very good range of relevant sources identified. | Exceptional and insightful identification and assessment of strategic relationship concepts with good synthesis and criticality. Excellent range of relevant sources identified. | Outstanding and compelling identification and assessment of strategic relationship concepts with excellent synthesis and criticality. Excellent range of reputable sources identified. |
| Conceptual Framework (CF) CF effectively depicts the relationship between the key concepts (themes/sub-themes) identified in the LR. | No or extremely ineffective CF. | Very unclear CF. Does not relate to key concepts identified in LR. | Unclear CF. Loosely relates to key concepts identified in LR. | Basic CF. Some elements of key concepts identified in LR included but relationships unclear with little detail. | Reasonable CF. Key concepts identified in LR included but relationships could be clearer and some detail missing. | Good CF. Key concepts identified in LR included with clear relationships but detail on themes/sub-themes could be depicted more effectively. | Excellent CF. Key concepts identified in LR included with very clear relationships and effective detail on themes/sub-themes. | Exceptional CF. Key concepts identified in LR included with informative model to depict relationships including very good detail on themes/sub-themes. | Outstanding CF. Key concepts identified in LR included with informative and innovative model to depict relationships with excellent detail on themes/sub-themes. |
| Method Research methods for conducting the study are explained, including the selection of literature, choice of case and collection of case data. | No or extremely ineffective attempt to explain method. | Very poor explanation of method with many aspects of the study missing. | Poor explanation of method with some aspects of the study missing. | All aspects of the study are included but explanation of method is disjointed and lacks clarity with no academic underpinning. | Reasonable explanation of method with satisfactory approach to all aspects of the study but with very limited academic underpinning. | Good explanation of method with clear approach to all aspects of the study with some academic underpinning. | Excellent explanation of method with very clear approach to all aspects of the study with good academic underpinning. | Exceptional explanation of method with very coherent and logical approach to all aspects of the study with very good academic underpinning. | Outstanding explanation of method with highly diligent and systematic approach to all aspects of the study with excellent academic underpinning. |
| Results Results found from the case study research are discussed, aligned to the main themes in the CF, with supporting evidence of qualitative and/or quantitative data. | No or extremely poor discussion of the case results, no link to CF themes. No data presented. | Very poor discussion of the case results, very limited alignment to CF themes. Sparse data presented. | Poor discussion of the case results, inconsistent link to CF themes. Limited/unclear data presented. | Below adequate discussion of the case results, some alignment to CF themes. Some basic data presented. | Reasonable discussion of the case results, with fair alignment to CF themes. Some useful data presented. | Good discussion of the case results, effectively aligned to CF themes. Good level of relevant data presented. | Excellent discussion of the case results, closely aligned to CF themes. Very good level of pertinent data presented. | Exceptional discussion of the case results, intelligently aligned to CF themes. Excellent level of salient data presented. | Outstanding discussion of the case results, astutely aligned to CF themes. Exceptional level of insightful data presented. |
| Discussion Case study findings are critically analysed and evaluated, compared and contrasted to the concepts and themes discussed in the LR and depicted in the CF, enabling an evaluation of practice versus theory. | No or extremely poor analysis of the case in relation to theoretical concepts from the LR/CF. | Very poor, confused and very limited analysis of the case in relation to theoretical concepts from the LR/CF. | Poor and partial analysis of the case in relation to theoretical concepts from the LR/CF. | Unsatisfactory and disjointed analysis of the case in relation to theoretical concepts from the LR/CF. | Reasonable analysis of the case in relation to theoretical concepts from the LR/CF, leading to plausible evaluation of practice v theory. | Good analysis of the case in relation to theoretical concepts from the LR/CF, leading to rational evaluation of practice v theory. | Excellent analysis of the case in relation to theoretical concepts from the LR/CF, leading to insightful evaluation of practice v theory. | Exceptional analysis of the case in relation to theoretical concepts from the LR/CF, leading to convincing evaluation of practice v theory. | Outstanding, creative and authoritative analysis of the case in relation to theoretical concepts from the LR/CF, leading to powerful evaluation of practice v theory. |
| Recommendations & Conclusion The main points of the study are summarised, with conclusions as to how it has contributed to theory and practice. Recommendations are proposed to improve relationships in the chosen relationship type/sector. Study limitations and future research opportunities are identified. | No or extremely poor conclusion with no key points and recommendations No study limitations/ opportunities identified. | Very poor conclusion with limited key points and vague recommendations Very unclear identification of study limitations/ opportunities. | Poor conclusion with few key points and unrelated recommendations Unclear identification of study limitations/ opportunities. | Conclusion includes some key points and recommendations with attempt to identify study limitations/ opportunities but lacks overall coherence. | Reasonable conclusion with some useful key points and fair recommendations Adequate identification of study limitations/ opportunities. | Good conclusion with relevant key points and sound recommendations Effective identification of study limitations/ opportunities. | Excellent conclusion with pertinent key points and very practical recommendations Astute identification of study limitations/ opportunities. | Exceptional conclusion with substantial key points and highly reasoned recommendations Insightful identification of study limitations/ opportunities. | Outstanding conclusion with emphatic key points and novel and compelling recommendations Intelligent identification of study limitations/ opportunities. |
| Presentation and Structure Ideas are expressed effectively and logically with appropriate and accurate communication of information using a range of devices including formatting, writing style, tables, figures, models and referencing. The key elements of a case study as outlined in the brief are followed. | Presentation of work is extremely unclear and confused and does not use any appropriate media. There is no or very little attempt to follow the proposed structure. | Presentation of work is very unclear and confused with very limited use of appropriate media. Limited or incorrect use of the proposed structure. | Presentation of work is disjointed and unclear in places with partial use of appropriate media. Partial attempt to use the proposed structure. | Presentation of work has elements that are not clear, uses some appropriate media but lacks a logical flow. The recommended structure is not fully used. | Presentation of work is reasonably clear, uses a fair number of appropriate media but could be more coherent. The recommended structure is mainly followed. | Presentation of work is coherent and uses a good range of appropriate media. The recommended structure is adequately followed and encompasses a case study that is carefully designed, planned, and carried out. | Presentation of work is fluent and confident and uses an interesting range of appropriate media. The recommended structure is effectively followed and encompasses a case study that is thoroughly designed, planned, and carried out. | Presentation of work is creative and persuasive and uses an engaging range of appropriate media. The recommended structure is intelligently followed and encompasses a case study that is rigorously designed, planned, and carried out. | Presentation of work is outstanding and authoritative and uses an innovative range of appropriate media. The recommended structure is expertly followed and encompasses a case study that is meticulously designed, planned, and carried out leading to substantive outcomes. |
Get Homework Help Now
Category: Uncategorized