Managing Innovation Assessment he module is assessed (100%) by an individual report (maximum 3,000 words). involving an in-depth analysis of an innovative organisation. The subject of the report will be decided by the module convenor but students will be able to choose from a list of several examples. Instructions for assessment This assignment is focused on the selected organisation. Formative work in weekly seminars will guide students through analytical techniques and processes required to complete the task. The report should address the following: 1) To describe, in detail and in your own words, one or more innovation theories of your choice (deep knowledge of one major innovation theory will be enough as a basis for a high mark, and you should not choose more than two innovation theories), 2) To apply each of your chosen theory or theories in explaining the historical development of one or more products and/or services, and the possible future development pathways of your products or services. Please note that the emphasis is on application (innovation models should be applied to the organisation)! Appropriately referenced data should be used in support of your arguments and discussion. The principal requirement of this report is to provide a critical analysis of the developmental trajectory of your invention and to suggest how your chosen theory or theories may help in illuminating the historical and future development of the invention. In undertaking a critical analysis, due consideration must be given to contributory factors in the commercial success of your products, services, or processes that have contributed to moving the products etc. beyond a novel invention to an innovative product, service, or process with a clear promise of social impact on its intended audience. Please be specific in explaining which part/s of your chosen theory you are applying, and how you propose to apply your theory, firstly in explaining the historical development of your product/service/process, and secondly in predicting one or more ways in which your product/service/process may develop in future. The more specific and detailed your explanation of how your theory or theories help (or do not help) you explain and predict your chosen products etc. the higher your mark is likely to be. The report should not exceed 3,000 words + 10%. Appendices are allowed outside this limit but NO MORE than 6 pages. THow will your work be assessed? The indicative marking scheme for your report is as follows. This marking scheme is merely indicative and will not be held to rigidly in assessing students’ reports. Your final mark for your report will be presented as an un-weighted mark out of 100%: Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking scheme indicated below. Feedback will be given in the Turnitin/Grademark system with script comments plus overall points. When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments. In this report, high marks come from using innovation concepts and analysis from the module clearly applied to the organisation. Harvard referencing, a professional report style plus appropriate diagrams/tables are also required. Outline marking expectations are as follows:-
Theory and Idea: Range and understanding of sources, synthesis and focus on relevant ideas = 32%
Future Development: Organisation/coherence of argument, support through examples, details, quotations, and references, critical approach = 33%
Imagination: Evidence of creativity and foresight in reflecting on course materials and articulating a novel and interesting picture of the student’s innovation = 25%
Presentation: Length, use of academic conventions, grammar, paragraphing, layout, proofreading = 10% NB: Your assignment should have a maximum word limit of 3000 words, excluding references and any appendices, tables, and/or diagrams. There is no minimum word count for this report as the exercise is for you to write as concisely as possible to communicate your argument. However, as a high scoring essay will require at least 3,000 words you are strongly advised to write a detailed essay that addresses both a) and b) above and to then edit your essay down to the word limit. Please do not think about any minimum word limit and then try and produce a piece of work that you think you can get away with. Above all this will show that you have learned little about innovation. NB: Marks will be awarded for your ability to integrate, in a relevant way in your essay, some of the principal literature, theories, models, and frameworks of innovation from the module. Marks will also be awarded for your imaginative use of concepts from within and beyond the innovation literature to explain and predict the development of your chosen innovative products, services, or processes. (In addition to marker feedback, a full marking rubric will be available within the Turnitin submission system for student consideration.) Assignment submissions. The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not a pdf) and must not include scanned in text or text boxes. Theymust be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information via StudentZone. If you cannot submit a piece of work and wish to submit Mitigating Circumstances, the University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website – Mitigating Circumstances Policy Marking and feedback process Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below:- • Step 1 – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided. • Step 2 – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief. • Step 3 – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback. • Step 4 – Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair. • Step 5 – The Office process your mark & feedback & it is made available to you. Resit instructions to Students If you need to resit this assessment, the requirements are as follows: You are required to re-work your original submission in line with the original assessment brief and criteria. Your re-submission must address the feedback comments provided by the marker on the original submission. You should provide a summary of the marker’s original feedback from your first submission together with a commentary [between 400 and 500 words) that explains how your revisions improve the original submission by addressing the original feedback. In brief your re-sit submission MUST include: • A summary of the original feedback, • A reflective account [400-500 words] detailing how your revisions have addressed the feedback, and • The reworked assignment.Marking Grid Managing Innovation 100 85 (80-89) 75 (70-79) 65 (60-69) 55 (50-59) 45 (40-49) 35 (30-39) 25 (20-29) 0 Theory & Idea (range & understandin g of sources; synthesis & focus on relevant ideas) 32% Novel, persuasive, & clearly articulated argument that supports the student’s choice of product/ service & theory/ theories. Comprehensive coverage of sources that is synthesized exceptionally; impressive evidence of extensive reading in & beyond syllabus & unusually insightful in understanding & synthesising ideas; integration of materials from the module as well as from other sources that the student has convincingly argued should be relevant to her argument. Publishable ideas in scholarly business & management journals. Novel, persuasive, & clearly articulated argument that supports the student’s choice of product/service & theory/theories. Impressive coverage of core and other theories in module within word limit; evidence of extensive reading in & beyond syllabus & imagination in understanding & synthesising ideas, in particular, demonstrated knowledge (by way of citation and comparative analysis) of core Managing Innovation theories; integration of materials from the module as well as from other sources that the student has convincingly argued should be relevant to her argument. Potentially publishable ideas. Knowledgeable, persuasive, & clearly articulated argument that supports the student’s choice of product/service & theory/theories. Thorough coverage of sources in the module syllabus, in particular, demonstrated knowledge (by way of citation and/or comparative analysis) of core Managing Innovation theories; evidence of novelty & imagination in understanding & synthesizing ideas. Knowledgeable and clearly articulated argument that supports the student’s choice of product/service & theory/theories Competent coverage of major sources in the module syllabus, in particular, some acquaintance (by way of citation and/or comparative analysis) with core Managing Innovation theories; shows depth of understanding of applying the student’s theory to practice; relationships between ideas cogently made; some evidence of imagination in applying course materials to explain & predict the student’s chosen product. Reasonably clear & well-articulated argument that supports the student’s choice of product/service & theory/theories. Some evidence of read knowledge of the student’s chosen theory/theories & understanding of key concepts & issues from a range of listed sources on the module syllabus, including the module’s lecture slides; ideas synthesised & related to the topic; some thought in addressing assessment rubric although little evidence of thought in relating features of theories identified by the student with her ideas. Ideas need development & refinement. Reasonably clear argument that underpins the student’s choice of product/service & theory/theories. Perceptible evidence of reading & reflection from the syllabus & understanding of key concepts & issues from a range of listed sources on the syllabus, including lecture slides; ideas introduced & related to the student’s topic; some thought in addressing assessment rubric although little or no evidence of imagination in managing innovation in the student’s chosen product. Ideas need considerable development. Unclear & weakly supported argument for the student’s choice of product/service & theory/theories. Too little evidence of acquaintance with any part of the module syllabus & little evidence of references to & study of lecture slides & associated materials. References suggest either poor comprehension of referenced material or that the student hasn’t read his cited material. Little thought in addressing assessment rubric. Unconvincing & poorly developed ideas. Unclear & weakly supported argument for the student’s choice of product/service & theory. Largely incorrect explanation and/or use of theories in and/or outside the syllabus with references that reflect little reading or reading that substitutes materials in the course syllabus. Weak or implausible ideas. Imperceptible evidence of learning from the syllabus & course materials. Wholly incorrect theories & poorly explained ideas; or not attempted.Future Development (organisation/ coherence of argument; support through examples, details, quotations, & references; critical approach) 33% Exceptionally well conducted & persuasive critical analysis of received ideas & theories for the product/service’s further development; creative consideration of alternative perspectives; wellsupported in-depth analysis; insightful evaluation & discussion; deeply thoughtful & reflective; excellent use of examples. Comprehensive & systematic critical analysis of received ideas & theories, within the essay’s word limit, for the product/service’s further development; creative consideration of alternative perspectives; wellsupported, in-depth analysis of a range of future development possibilities; insightful evaluation & discussion; substantial, clear evidence of reflection; impressive use of a range of examples to support the student’s prognosis of the chosen product/service’s possible development pathways. Thoughtful consideration of various implications of the student’s study for other related products and/or services. Systematic critical questioning of received ideas & theories for the product/service’s further development; persuasive suggestions of alternative perspectives for this further development; thorough, wellsupported analysis of a number of future development possibilities; novel & insightful evaluation & discussion of implications of predictions of a number of the chosen product/service’s possible development pathways. Good consideration of implications of the student’s study for other related products and/or services. Fairly impressive critical review & synthesis of received ideas & theories for the product/service’s further development; coherent, realistic, & theoretically-supported argument for the product/service’s future; insightful use of personal ideas and business knowledge and/or experience; perceptive, although limited, appraisal of implications of a number of the student’s predicted future development pathways for her product/service. Some evidence of ideas, reasonably well supported by theory, that have been organized & grouped to predict, fairly competently, the chosen product/service’s future; use of examples / product details / quotations / references & business experience or knowledge to support the student’s argument for the product/service’s future development; some critical analysis of these ideas, but too limited appraisal of implications of the study. One or more ideas, with some evidence of theoretical underpinnings, reasonably well organised & grouped to predict the chosen product/service’s future. Correct use of examples / product/service details / quotations / references & business experience or knowledge to support the student’s argument on the chosen product/service’s future. Too limited appraisal of implications of the student’s study. Weak or imperceptible argument, with imperceptible theoretical underpinnings, for the future of the student’s chosen product/service; little evidence of structured analysis of this argument. A number of references outside the course syllabus, including internet sources; little or no appraisal of implications of the student’s work. Imperceptible argument and theory in predicting the future of the student’s chosen product/service. References that are mostly either outside the course syllabus, including internet sources, and/or are wrongly referenced. Inappropriately critical approach or absence of criticality. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.Imagination (evidence of creativity & foresight in reflecting on course materials & articulating a novel & interesting picture of the student’s innovation) 25% Rare ability, based on professional or empirical knowledge, of technology and/or non-technology innovation, to apply student’s chosen elements of innovation theory well beyond the remit of this undergraduate module. Outstanding learning from course materials. Basis of a publishable scholarly journal article! Exceptional application of student’s chosen elements of innovation theory beyond the remit of this undergraduate module to create multiple images of the possible future development of her product. Thoughtful consideration of core issues of the student’s imagined futures. Impressive learning from course materials. Persuasive articulation of the student’s perceived limitations of her theory in imagining any of her futures. Considerable evidence of imagination, based on the student’s knowledge, that some of her perceived limitations may be overcome. Knowledgeable application, within the remit of this undergraduate module, of student’s chosen elements of innovation theory to create alternative images of the possible future development of her product. Some consideration of core issues around the student’s imagined futures. Considerable learning from the course evident. Some articulation of the student’s perceived limitations of her theory in imagining her product/service’s future development. Evidence of imagination, based on the student’s knowledge, that some of her perceived limitations may be overcome. Thoughtful application, within the remit of this undergraduate module, of student’s chosen elements of innovation theory to create alternative images of the possible future development of her product. A few limitations of the student’s reading & knowledge, although not obvious. Clear learning from the course. Perceptible consideration of a few issues around the student’s imagined futures. Limited articulation of the student’s perceived limitations of her theory in imagining her product/service’s future development. Some evidence of imagination, based on the student’s knowledge, that a few of her perceived limitations may be overcome. Acceptable, although limited application, within the remit of this undergraduate module, of student’s chosen elements of innovation theory to create a reasonably clear image of the possible future development of her product. Limitations of the student’s reading & knowledge, although some learning from the course evident. Perceptible consideration of a few issues around the student’s imagined futures. Limited articulation of the student’s perceived limitations of her theory in imagining her product/service’s future development. Some evidence of imagination that a few of the student’s perceived limitations may be overcome, although the relationship with her knowledge base is unclear. Some evidence, although limited, of student’s application of student’s chosen elements of innovation theory to create a perceptible image of the possible future development of her product. Constrained reading & knowledge evident. Some evidence of learning from the course. Limitations of the student’s reading & knowledge evident. Perceptible consideration, although weakly argued, of a few issues around the student’s imagined futures. Very limited articulation of the student’s perceived limitations of her theory in imagining her product/service’s future development. Slight evidence of imagination that a few of the student’s perceived limitations may be overcome, although the relationship with her knowledge base is unclear. No evidence, or unsupported evidence, of student’s application of student’s chosen elements of innovation theory to create a perceptible image of the possible future development of her product. Severe limitations of the student’s reading & knowledge evident. Paucity of learning from the course. Imperceptible consideration of a few issues around the student’s imagined futures. Imperceptible articulation of the student’s perceived limitations of her theory in imagining her product/service’s future development. No evidence of imagination that a few of the student’s perceived limitations may be overcome. No evidence, or unsupported evidence, of student’s application of student’s chosen elements of innovation theory to create a perceptible image of the possible future development of her product. Absence of knowledge & learning from the course. Wholly incorrect application or not attempted.Presentation (length; use of academic conventions; grammar, paragraphing; layout; proof reading) 10% Perfectly presented, with a powerful & persuasive use of the student’s evidence that is supported by a level of writing clearly beyond expectations of this undergraduate course. Professional standard of writing. Exceptionally clearly & cogently argued & presented; skilled use of academic conventions & no perceptible grammatical, typographical, or other writing errors. A well-written essay to a very high standard. Outstanding presentation, with imperceptible errors on grammar, essay layout, and/or proofreading. Well structured, with clear evidence of planning. Academic conventions, particularly on organisation and proofreading of essay, well observed. Concise & effectively argued; skilled use of academic conventions. Simply a well written piece of work. Impressive presentation for a L6 undergraduate degree module, with imperceptible errors on grammar, essay layout, and/or proofreading. Thoughtful structuring with some evidence of planning. Academic conventions, particularly on organisation and proofreading of essay, well observed. Suitable, although not impressive, presentation for a L6 undergraduate degree module, with minor, insignificant errors on grammar, essay layout, and/or proofreading. Academic conventions, particularly on structuring and proofreading, generally satisfactorily observed. Reasonably accurate spelling, & grammar. Suitable presentation for a L6 undergraduate degree module, albeit with perceptible errors on grammar, essay layout, and/or proofreading. Academic conventions, particularly on structuring and proofreading, generally satisfactorily observed. Somewhat unsuitable presentation for a L6 undergraduate degree module with presentation errors. Academic conventions, particularly on structuring and proofreading, not observed or not adequately observed. Largely unsuitable presentation for a L6 undergraduate degree module. Academic conventions, particularly on structuring and proofreading, not observed. Incorrect or unsuitable presentation or not attempted.
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?