Introduction:
This assignment gives you the opportunity to prepare a business plan for a firm of your choice.
You need to elaborate a thorough decision-making framework and to provide a report.
You are required to write a formal business report that covers the assessments tasks set out below. The individual performance and grading are according to BSBI’s grading criteria where additional marks will be awarded for possible connection of your answers.
Assignment Tasks (weights in brackets):
- Discuss the nature of Information required at different stages in formulation of a business plan/project report.
[Weight: 25%]
- Critically highlight the common errors noticed in project formulation and ways to avoid them.
[Weight: 25%]
- You are starting a small manufacturing unit; give an outline of your business plan.
[Weight: 50%]
Learning Outcomes:
| LO1 | Critically evaluate and analyze the concepts of Business environment analysis (LO1) |
| LO2 | Analyze and synthesize the element of the industry background (LO2) |
| LO3 | Critically enhance to the market analysis (LO3) |
| LO4 | Evaluate the use of Strategic Planning for running a business (LO4) |
Assessment Criteria: Weighting 100%
Written Report: 3,000 words
GUIDANCE ON ASSESSMENT
All materials must be properly referenced under Harvard conventions. The length required is 3,000 words with tasks equally weighted. The writing style should be formal academic / report writing style with in-text referencing to support your comments and observations. Originality, quality of argument and good structure are required. The report should demonstrate sound understanding and ability to apply knowledge and theory in subject context with additional marks being awarded for juxtaposition and insight of issues.
2 Grading Criteria
| Grading | 70%+100 | 60-69% | 50-59% | 0 -49% Fail |
| Criteria | ||||
| Generic skills: | Comprehensive and | Well-structured | Good report in most | Very poor report |
| communication and | correctly structured | report which follows | aspects but suffers | which is incorrectly |
| presentation. | assessment. Style | appropriate format | from variations in | structured and |
| of writing is very | but some aspects of | quality and the | contains major errors | |
| fluent and develops | layout and | layout contains | and omissions. Style | |
| a coherent and | referencing could | some inadequacies. | of writing is | |
| logical argument. | be improved. Style | Style of writing is | descriptive, lacks | |
| Excellent | of writing is fairly | satisfactory. | coherence and | |
| referencing. | fluent. Good | Referencing needs | fluency. Poor | |
| referencing. | improving. | referencing. | ||
| Knowledge & | Demonstrates | Wide range of | Good range of | Very poor range of |
| Understanding | excellent knowledge | knowledge | knowledge | knowledge, research |
| of theory and | demonstrated and | demonstrated but | and interpretation of | |
| provides critical | evidence of good | with some room for | information that is | |
| theoretical | understanding of | improvement. Some | subjective and lacks | |
| underpinning. Very | the topic. | understanding | conceptual | |
| good interpretations | Ability to interpret | displayed of the | coherence. There is | |
| and summarising of | and summarise | topic. | no clear identification, | |
| main themes. | succinctly. | Summary and | understanding or | |
| interpretation are | interpretation of main | |||
| satisfactory. | themes. | |||
| Analysis | Excellent use of | Very good use of | Use of theory and | Very poor use of |
| theoretical and | the theoretical and | concepts limited in | theory and very little | |
| conceptual models | conceptual models | scope and depth but | application of core | |
| to guide analysis | with good critical | relevant. Application | concepts. | |
| linked with a critical | discussion. Has | could be improved | Very little or limited | |
| discussion of main | applied a range of | and there is a | analysis and | |
| themes. | analytical skills with | tendency towards | evaluation in relation | |
| Has demonstrated | greater | description rather | to fundamental | |
| an ability to | independence and | than application of | principles and | |
| discriminate in the | understanding of | concepts. | business practise. | |
| use of more | more abstract data | |||
| abstract concepts | or concepts. | |||
| and techniques. | ||||
| Application of | Logical presentation | Very good account | Good account of | Very poor account of |
| relevant theory to | of themes with | of main themes with | main themes with | main themes with |
| business concepts | appropriate | sound application. | some attempt at | little or no application |
| examples being | Good attempt at | application. Limited | between models and | |
| demonstrated. | applying models to | evidence of | argument. | |
| Models have been | the argument. Fairly | synthesis. | ||
| clearly applied to | good attempt at | |||
| the argument. | synthesising the | |||
| salient points. |
