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:-

1. Theory and Idea: Range and understanding of sources, synthesis and focus on
   relevant ideas = 32%
2. Future Development: Organisation/coherence of argument, support through
   examples, details, quotations, and references, critical approach = 33%
3. Imagination: Evidence of creativity and foresight in reflecting on course materials
   and articulating a novel and interesting picture of the student’s innovation = 25%
4. 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?