Managing Innovation Assessment Essay

Managing Innovation Assessment Essay

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?