Click here to have a similar A+ quality paper

Order Now

APPLIED MANAGEMENT PROJECT & MANAGEMENT INQUIRY PROJECT GUIDELINES & ASSESSMENT Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Guidelines The precise content of any project depends upon the nature of the work but the following structure is expected: PRELIMINARIES Title Page: The title page should include: the title of the project, student’s name, programme title, school and university, and the month and year of submission (Appendix 3) Declaration: A signed and dated declaration incorporating the following statement should be included on a separate page following the title page: “This project is my own original work and has not been submitted elsewhere in fulfilment of the requirements of this or any other award” Executive Summary: A brief summary of the study covering the Project Aim, Methodology, Salient Findings, Key Insights, Recommendations/Implications and Study Contribution (Maximum Length 1 A4 sized page) Acknowledgements: Recognition of the support and assistance of various parties/individuals who have contributed to the conduct and completion of the project Contents Page: Detailing project content headings, references, and a list of appendices with the respective page numbers List of Figures: Numerically sequenced list of all figures included in the project with the respective page numbers List of Tables: Numerically sequenced list of all tables included in the project with the respective page numbers Glossary: A summary of acronyms or jargon listed alphabetically and detailed in full with definitions, if appropriate SECTIONS Introduction: Presentation of a theoretical background to, and defence for, the study, followed the project’s aim and objectives, with objectives justified, and a brief preview of sections to follow Literature Review: An analytical overview of the underpinning literature with particular attention to core concepts, frameworks and issues considered and an analysis of the implications for the study Methodology: Succinct presentation and theoretically underpinned discussion and justification of the study’s methodological framework, with attention to ethical considerations. Findings & Presentation and discussion of findings (The use of figures and Discussion: tablesto present salient findings is recommended) Conclusion: Critical review of the work undertaken and contribution of the study, discussion of salient insights gained from the study including limitations of existing theory if relevant, prioritised list of recommendations/implications for practice with analysis, and scope for further research Reflection: Contemplation of the project journey focused on the personal learning and development experienced and the implications for the study and individual professional development REFERENCES List of References: Full disclosure following the Harvard Referencing System (Alphabetical Listing) of all sources referenced in text Bibliography is not required APPENDICES Well presented collection of any relevant supplementary material including sample data collection tools such as questionnaires and/or interview schedules, interview transcripts, example calculations and organisation/ industry details. Appendices should be sequentially numbered, labelled and referenced appropriately in the text. Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Presentation The following requirements must be adhered to in the submitted project:  Length: 12,000 words (+/- 10%)  A4 white paper, typed on the recto side of the page only  Text should be ‘1.5 lines’ spaced except for footnotes, appendices and indented quotations which should be single spaced  Margins should be 25 mm (Top, Bottom, Left and Right)  Pages should be numbered consecutively using small roman (i, ii …) for preliminary pages and Arabic (1, 2 …) for main text and appendices  Main text should be in Calibri, font size 12  Section titles, headings and sub-heading should be appropriately and consistently formatted generally using font sizes larger than 12. Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Content: Issues for Consideration This section provides some guidelines concerning the structure and content of individual elements of the project. Executive Summary (1 A4 sized page – single line spaced) Clear statement of: Overall aim, methodological framework adopted, the primary findings, key insights, recommendations/implications and contribution. Presented on a single page with single line spacing INTRODUCTION(Approximately 1,500 words) Introduction: Purpose of section Outline of section structure Background: Theoretically underpinned discussion aimed at developing a rationale for, and defense of, the study based on previous published work in the area/new developments in the environment (Why study is of importance/interest) Aims & Objectives: Overall aim stated Related objectives identified & importance to achievement of aim justified Project Structure: Brief preview of subsequent sections LITERATURE REVIEW(Approximately 2,500 words) Introduction: Purpose of section Justification of focus adopted Outline of section structure Discussion: Key body of theory and related core concepts, frameworks and issues considered are well introduced, explored and critically assessed reflecting:  Expertise of the body of theory including the implications of recent developments  Engagement with core concepts  Critical exploration of advanced concepts and debates  Explanation and justification of stance taken and choices made  Progressive argument/idea development  Citation of sources  Full disclosure of sources of figures and tables used (Appendix 4) Summary & Implications: Salient issues extracted Implications for study considered Progressive argument/idea development Link to next section METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK (Approximately 2,000 words) Introduction: Purpose of section Outline of section structure Methodological Framework: Theoretically underpinned presentation, discussion and justification of the methodological framework adopted in the study; demonstrating appropriateness of methodological design choices for study aim and objectives Ethical Considerations: Effectively scoped discussion with attention to varied stages of the project Linkage: To next section(s) evidenced FINDINGS & DISCUSSION(Approximately 2,500 words) Introduction: Purpose of Section Outline of Section structure Background: Context rationalization – e.g. Industry and/or Case Study Background Findings: Presentation of the salient findings of the study in a logical manner and in accordance with the aim and objectives of the study with due attention to scope and depth The use of figures and tables is recommended (Appendix 4) Discussion: Mature discussion of the salient findings of the study in relation to theory, reflecting advanced understanding of both the findings and the theory and their interconnectivity (or lack of) Linkage: To subsequent section CONCLUSION(Approximately 2,000 words) Introduction: Purpose of section Outline of section structure Critical Review: Objective evaluation of the overall study and their implications, based on a critical review of the extent of achievement of the original aim & objectives Key Insights: Theoretically underpinned discussion of the primary insights gained Recommendations, Implications & Contribution of Study: Prioritised list of recommendations/implications with an analysis of the implications and contribution, with attention to theoretical support Further Research: Discussion of potential avenues for further investigation REFLECTION(Approximately 1,500 words) Drawing from the wisdom of hindsight, a discussion of the project journey focused on the personal awareness gained/intensified, discoveries made, lessons learnt and development experienced during the various stages and their potential implications for both the student’s future personal and professional development and the study as a whole REFERENCES: A single complete alphabetical listing of all sources cited in the text (including internet based sources) observing the stipulations of the Harvard Referencing System The detail provided must be accurate, complete and consistent in presentation CITATION OF SOURCES IN TEXT: All detail presented in the text obtained from other sources (including theory and other literature such as newspapers, organisational detail and industry statistics) must be disclosed using the surname, date convention (eg: Hammer and Champy, 1993) and further direct quotes should be presented with quotation marks and disclosure of the respective page number(s) PRESENTATION: Recommended format and layout observed Consistent formatting of headings and sub-headings Effective use of headers and footers Consistent and appropriate line and paragraph spacing Consistent and appropriate labelling of figures and tables Appendices labelled and numbered Appendices referenced in text WRITING: Formal, academic & mature style (A personalised writing style is acceptable in the Reflections Section) Good grammar free from spelling errors and carelessness Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Assessment Form StudentName Matric. No. Project Title Supervisor Second Marker Mark Awarded Agreed Mark Initials Date / /11 Comments: Marking Template Listed below are a number of criteria relating to the standard of the project. Please rate the various criteria from 0 to 7 (details below), to build up a picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the project. Based on the template, weighting and your academic judgement, please decide on an overall mark for the project. 0 = Fail [0 – 44] 2 = Marginal Pass [50 – 55] 5 = Very Good [70 – 79] 1 = Marginal Fail [45 – 49] 3 = Satisfactory [56 – 59] 6 = Excellent [80 – 89] 4 = Good [60 – 69] 7 = Outstanding [90 – 100] Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Research Background: B Problem Identification: C Engagement with Core Theoretical Concepts: D Engagement with Core Constructs Investigated: E Research Output: F Work Quality Validity & Reliability: G Linkage & Closure: H Referencing: Approach & Design: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I Methodological Framework: J Research Design: Reflection: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 K Reflection: Mark (100%) Weighting Final Mark Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output 60% Approach & Design 25% Reflection 15% TOTAL 100% Guidelines for Criteria Interpretation Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output: A Research Background: The importance of the study and its value are clearly and well, defined and justified with attention to appropriate source documents. B Problem Identification: The aim of the study is clearly defined. The related objectives are relevant, appropriate in scope, and are well defined and justified. C Engagement with Core Theoretical Concepts: The work reflects expertise of the core theoretical concepts and the potential connectivity between such concepts. D Engagement with Core Constructs Investigated: The core constructs investigated are relevant, valid and adequate in scope given the research aim and context. The findings are comprehensive, insightful and meaningful. The discussions of the findings reflect maturity of thought and attention to relevant theory. E Research Output: The output of the study is reflected by relevant critical consideration of the product quality and implications,perceptive analysis of insights gained, appropriate and effectively prioritised recommendations/implicationswith attention to evaluation (value added and potential challenges) and discerning suggestions for further research. F Work Quality, Validity & Reliability: The work is well structured, written and presented. Attention to citation of relevant/up-to-date and multiple sources is clearly evidenced. Arguments are built in a logical progressive manner and are free from bias. G Linkage & Closure: The work reflects a clear link between the aim and objectives of the study and the conclusions drawn. Such a link is further supported by appropriate linkages with and connectivity between the other distinct elements of the project. H Referencing: The list of references is consistently presented using the Harvard Referencing System (Alphabetical Listing following final Section), is complete and corresponds with detail presented in the text. The list shows evidence of extensive wider reading and reliance on quality academic sources such as academic journals and specialist text. Approach & Design: I Methodological Framework: This is appropriate for the study and reflects contemplation and understanding of the nature and scope of the study, and the core design decision areas and their implications. Design choices made are clearly explained and justified with attention to the wisdom and insight captured in, and offered by, the theory. J Research Design: The work provides evidence of contemplation and understanding of research design issues. The approach and focus adopted with respect to the study as a whole, the underpinning theory (eg selection of areas for concentration and choice of core concepts and those consciously neglected) and empirical / secondary data collection (eg selection of constructs explored in data collection tools) are clearly explained and justified, and suit the scope, nature and purpose of the study. Reflection: K Reflection The reflection is candid, mature, balanced and insightful. The scope of discussion is comprehensive and focused on the project journey with respect to the challenges encountered, constraints experienced and the high points/lifting moments. It critically assesses implications on self and the study, effectively draws out key personal learning points, and prioritises future professional learning and development. Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Mark Allocation Guidelines: 0 – 44 Fail Fails to achieve reflexive learning.The work is weak, superficial, and poorly conceptualised. Fails to engage with theoretical constructs, and reflects limited reading. 45 – 49 Marginal Fail Shows limited evidence of reflexive learning. The work is basic, superficial, and inadequately conceptualised, designed, investigated and analysed. It reflects a poor grasp of, or engagement with, theoretical constructs, and demonstrates an over-reliance on basic texts. The research output is limited in scope and depth. The reflection lacks maturity, depth and scope.The writing style is descriptive and lacks the formality expected. 50 – 55 Marginal Pass Achieves modest reflexive learning. The work is barely adequate in terms of conceptualisation, methodological design, understanding and investigation of the research question, with some basic analysis of the findings. There is evidence of reliance on quality sources, but the content shows a limited grasp of complex academic debate and issues. The research output is relevant in parts but is mostly superficial and simplistic. The reflection is barely adequate in terms of maturity, depth and scope.The writing style is descriptive. 56 – 59 Satisfactory Achieves adequate reflexive learning. The work provides evidence of satisfactory understanding, conceptualisation, methodological design and investigation of the research question, and analysis of the findings. The work is referenced to relevant material of acceptable quality and shows adequate understanding of most salient issues, but is limited in terms of relevant wider issues. The research output is adequate in scope but is superficial and simplistic in parts. The work contains some evidence of relevant reflection but is basic or limited in parts. The writing style tends to be descriptive rather than analytical. 60 – 69 Good Achieves a reasonably high level of reflexive learning. The work shows good understanding, conceptualisation and investigation of the research question.This is reflected in the scope and depth of the underpinning literature, selection of core theoretical concepts, design of the methodological framework, presentation and analysis of the findings, and the research output. Clear linkage and connectivity between the salient elements of the project and cyclical closure is evidenced. The work is well referenced to quality sources, reflecting care and attention to detail in the presentation. The work provides some evidence of maturity in reflection and is adequate in scope. The writing style is appropriate and shows some evidence of critical analysis. 70 – 79 Very Good Achieves a sophisticated level of reflexive learning. A sound understanding of the research problem is evidenced in all aspects of the project and in connectivity and flow. The research problem is well conceptualised and defended. The methodological framework is appropriate and well explained and justified. The work provides evidence of extensive wider reading with a strong bias towards quality sources and advanced theoretical concepts and debates, and critical analysis of the individual’s own work (including choices made) and that of others. Cyclical closure is evidenced, and the insights gained, recommendations /implicationsand its analysis, and proposals for extending the current work are logical, practicable and flow well from preceding sections. The work provides evidence of well scoped and mature reflection. 80 – 89 Excellent Has achieved all of the requirements for a rating of ‘Very Good’ and is distinguished by either a thorough critical review of the literature, a robust methodological framework, logical, critical and reflective analysis of the findings and recommendations or mature and insightful reflection. 90 – 100 Outstanding Has achieved all of the requirements for a rating of ‘Very Good’ and in addition, is distinguished by consistent overall excellence. The work demonstrates advanced learning and research ability. . 1.- the focus of the study is on supply chain management of Ikea but for a Masters dissertation, typically you would have identified in the literature a specific challenge e.g. relating to vertical integration supplier relationships. global network of suppliers, use of information systems, centralised/decentralised distribution. Likewise, in research project, you typically would have identified a conceptual or theoretical framework, which you then go on to explore in the primary data collection. Explicit theoretical underpinning of the study was not evident. – the methodology section is too all embracing i.e. indicating that experiment, survey and interviews were undertaken. This is too grand. – the methodology chapter lacks a lot of detail in terms of identification of the sample population and the sample size. How where they obtained. How many were involved. – the methodology chapter needs to explicitly identify how the literature informs the questions asked in the interviews/survey. It is not clear from reading the chapter what questions were asked, why they were asked or how they feed into fulfilling the rest aim. – results – clearly offer results from primary data collection, although it is not clear which method of data capture was used. – discussion does not explicitly address the findings of the data captures, which it should do, rather it discusses further literature that was sourced. – conclusion is not directly derived from the primary data findings. My recommendation is to rework the literature review to explicitly present a theoretical framework and also rework the subsequent chapters. You write extremely well and you are competent in terms of structuring your work but in terms of presenting a Masters piece of work that is informed by theory, this is very weak. If you have the time, it would be worth skim reading over a couple of dissertations in the library (asked Natasa or Daniel for these). I know that there are a couple of good quality fashion dissertations. Whilst they will have nothing to do with your topic, skim read them to see how they have identified theory and used theory to inform their primary research. 2.Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Assessment Form Student Name Matric. No. Project Title Strategy and operations management: Supply chain management of IKEA Comments: The student followed prescribed structure. Reasonable Introduction section with relevant Background, Aims, Objectives and Project structure regarding Ikea & supply chain management. However it would have been better if the research area is more focused. Literature review contained sufficient theoretical background ie supply chain analysis etc. There was link to next section. However there was no evidence of the theoretical framework development which would have paved the way for primary data collection. In the Methodological framework section, the student mentioned research approaches and described quantitative and qualitative methods. However inductive and deductive approaches were not mentioned. The section was too all embracing i.e. indicating that experiment, survey and interviews were undertaken. The section lacks a lot of detail in terms of identification of the sample population and the sample size. The section also needs to justify the selection of the questions in the questionnaire in line with the literature review. Findings section clearly displayed results with graphs. However it was not clear which data collection method was used. Discussion does not explicitly address the findings of the data collection. It only discussed further literature regarding IKEA Supply Chain Management that was sourced. Conclusion section is not directly derived from the primary data findings. Critical review could have described more strengths and weaknesses of Ikea Supply Chain Management in relation to the aims and objectives of the research. Recommendations could have been better with points. Reflection section described personal experiences. References followed Harvard style. Marking Template Listed below are a number of criteria relating to the standard of the project. Please rate the various criteria from 0 to 7 (details below), to build up a picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the project. Based on the template, weighting and your academic judgement, please decide on an overall mark for the project. 0 = Fail [0 – 44] 2 = Marginal Pass [50 – 55] 5 = Very Good [70 – 79] 1 = Marginal Fail [45 – 49] 3 = Satisfactory [56 – 59] 6 = Excellent [80 – 89] 4 = Good [60 – 69] 7 = Outstanding [90 – 100] Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A Research Background: 2 B Problem Identification: 2 C Engagement with Core Theoretical Concepts: 2 D Engagement with Core Constructs Investigated: 2 E Research Output: 3 F Work Quality Validity & Reliability: 2 G Linkage & Closure: 3 H Referencing: 3 Approach & Design: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I Methodological Framework: 1 J Research Design: 1 Reflection: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 K Reflection: 3 Mark (100%) Weighting Final Mark Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output 53% 60% 31.80% Approach & Design 45% 25% 11.25% Reflection 56% 15% 8.40% TOTAL 100% 51.45% 3.The aim is very ambitious; is it really achievable? Where is the primary research? Objectives (a) and (c) are identical. The literature review is adequate although not particularly critical. No discussion of the research philosophy or strategy. The discussion of data collection is vague and fails to explain how the data was actually collected. Experiments and testing – vague; purpose and rationale? Findings and discussion: It’s not clear where the charts and tables have come from. Who completed the questionnaires? What does, “The researcher organised for a direct observation”, mean? It is not clear where the primary data came from. A number of data collection techniques are discussed but where is the evidence that they were actually used. The dissertation seems to rely on very limited data and some secondary sources (but these are not made clear). Too much of the dissertation is vague and unclear. The student has clearly made an effort with this work, so this is a difficult judgement call, however, I am inclined, to mark this down as a fail (40%).

APPLIED MANAGEMENT PROJECT & MANAGEMENT INQUIRY PROJECT GUIDELINES & ASSESSMENT

Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Guidelines

The precise content of any project depends upon the nature of the work but the following structure is expected:

PRELIMINARIES

Title Page: The title page should include: the title of the project, student’s name, programme title, school and university, and the month and year of submission (Appendix 3)

Declaration: A signed and dated declaration incorporating the following statement should be included on a separate page following the title page: “This project is my own original work and has not been submitted elsewhere in fulfilment of the requirements of this or any other award”

Executive Summary: A brief summary of the study covering the Project Aim, Methodology, Salient Findings, Key Insights, Recommendations/Implications and Study Contribution (Maximum Length 1 A4 sized page)

Acknowledgements: Recognition of the support and assistance of various parties/individuals who have contributed to the conduct and completion of the project

Contents Page: Detailing project content headings, references, and a list of appendices with the respective page numbers

List of Figures: Numerically sequenced list of all figures included in the project with the respective page numbers

List of Tables: Numerically sequenced list of all tables included in the project with the respective page numbers

Glossary: A summary of acronyms or jargon listed alphabetically and detailed in full with definitions, if appropriate

SECTIONS

Introduction: Presentation of a theoretical background to, and defence for, the study, followed the project’s aim and objectives, with objectives justified, and a brief preview of sections to follow

Literature Review: An analytical overview of the underpinning literature with particular attention to core concepts, frameworks and issues considered and an analysis of the implications for the study

Methodology: Succinct presentation and theoretically underpinned discussion and justification of the study’s methodological framework, with attention to ethical considerations.
Findings & Presentation and discussion of findings (The use of figures and Discussion: tablesto present salient findings is recommended)

Conclusion: Critical review of the work undertaken and contribution of the study, discussion of salient insights gained from the study including limitations of existing theory if relevant, prioritised list of recommendations/implications for practice with analysis, and scope for further research

Reflection: Contemplation of the project journey focused on the personal learning and development experienced and the implications for the study and individual professional development

REFERENCES

List of References: Full disclosure following the Harvard Referencing System (Alphabetical Listing) of all sources referenced in text

Bibliography is not required

APPENDICES Well presented collection of any relevant supplementary material including sample data collection tools such as questionnaires and/or interview schedules, interview transcripts, example calculations and organisation/ industry details. Appendices should be sequentially numbered, labelled and referenced appropriately in the text.

Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Presentation

The following requirements must be adhered to in the submitted project:

 Length: 12,000 words (+/- 10%)
 A4 white paper, typed on the recto side of the page only
 Text should be ‘1.5 lines’ spaced except for footnotes, appendices and indented quotations which should be single spaced
 Margins should be 25 mm (Top, Bottom, Left and Right)
 Pages should be numbered consecutively using small roman (i, ii …) for preliminary pages and Arabic (1, 2 …) for main text and appendices
 Main text should be in Calibri, font size 12
 Section titles, headings and sub-heading should be appropriately and consistently formatted generally using font sizes larger than 12.

Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Content: Issues for Consideration

This section provides some guidelines concerning the structure and content of individual elements of the project.

Executive Summary (1 A4 sized page – single line spaced)
Clear statement of:
Overall aim, methodological framework adopted, the primary findings, key insights, recommendations/implications and contribution.
Presented on a single page with single line spacing

INTRODUCTION(Approximately 1,500 words)
Introduction:
Purpose of section
Outline of section structure
Background:
Theoretically underpinned discussion aimed at developing a rationale for, and defense of, the study based on previous published work in the area/new developments in the environment (Why study is of importance/interest)
Aims & Objectives:
Overall aim stated
Related objectives identified & importance to achievement of aim justified
Project Structure:
Brief preview of subsequent sections

LITERATURE REVIEW(Approximately 2,500 words)
Introduction:
Purpose of section
Justification of focus adopted
Outline of section structure
Discussion:
Key body of theory and related core concepts, frameworks and issues considered are well introduced, explored and critically assessed reflecting:
 Expertise of the body of theory including the implications of recent developments
 Engagement with core concepts
 Critical exploration of advanced concepts and debates
 Explanation and justification of stance taken and choices made
 Progressive argument/idea development
 Citation of sources
 Full disclosure of sources of figures and tables used (Appendix 4)
Summary & Implications:
Salient issues extracted
Implications for study considered
Progressive argument/idea development
Link to next section

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK (Approximately 2,000 words)
Introduction:
Purpose of section
Outline of section structure
Methodological Framework:
Theoretically underpinned presentation, discussion and justification of the methodological framework adopted in the study; demonstrating appropriateness of methodological design choices for study aim and objectives
Ethical Considerations:
Effectively scoped discussion with attention to varied stages of the project
Linkage:
To next section(s) evidenced

FINDINGS & DISCUSSION(Approximately 2,500 words)
Introduction:
Purpose of Section
Outline of Section structure
Background:
Context rationalization – e.g. Industry and/or Case Study Background
Findings:
Presentation of the salient findings of the study in a logical manner and in accordance with the aim and objectives of the study with due attention to scope and depth
The use of figures and tables is recommended (Appendix 4)
Discussion:
Mature discussion of the salient findings of the study in relation to theory, reflecting advanced understanding of both the findings and the theory and their interconnectivity (or lack of)
Linkage:
To subsequent section

CONCLUSION(Approximately 2,000 words)
Introduction:
Purpose of section
Outline of section structure
Critical Review:
Objective evaluation of the overall study and their implications, based on a critical review of the extent of achievement of the original aim & objectives
Key Insights:
Theoretically underpinned discussion of the primary insights gained
Recommendations, Implications & Contribution of Study:
Prioritised list of recommendations/implications with an analysis of the implications and contribution, with attention to theoretical support
Further Research:
Discussion of potential avenues for further investigation

REFLECTION(Approximately 1,500 words)
Drawing from the wisdom of hindsight, a discussion of the project journey focused on the personal awareness gained/intensified, discoveries made, lessons learnt and development experienced during the various stages and their potential implications for both the student’s future personal and professional development and the study as a whole

REFERENCES:
A single complete alphabetical listing of all sources cited in the text (including internet based sources) observing the stipulations of the Harvard Referencing System
The detail provided must be accurate, complete and consistent in presentation

CITATION OF SOURCES IN TEXT:
All detail presented in the text obtained from other sources (including theory and other literature such as newspapers, organisational detail and industry statistics) must be disclosed using the surname, date convention (eg: Hammer and Champy, 1993) and further direct quotes should be presented with quotation marks and disclosure of the respective page number(s)

PRESENTATION:
Recommended format and layout observed
Consistent formatting of headings and sub-headings
Effective use of headers and footers
Consistent and appropriate line and paragraph spacing
Consistent and appropriate labelling of figures and tables
Appendices labelled and numbered
Appendices referenced in text

WRITING:
Formal, academic & mature style (A personalised writing style is acceptable in the Reflections Section)
Good grammar free from spelling errors and carelessness

Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Assessment Form

StudentName Matric. No.
Project Title
Supervisor
Second Marker
Mark Awarded Agreed Mark Initials Date / /11

Comments:

Marking Template
Listed below are a number of criteria relating to the standard of the project. Please rate the various criteria from 0 to 7 (details below), to build up a picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the project. Based on the template, weighting and your academic judgement, please decide on an overall mark for the project.

0 = Fail [0 – 44] 2 = Marginal Pass [50 – 55] 5 = Very Good [70 – 79]
1 = Marginal Fail [45 – 49] 3 = Satisfactory [56 – 59] 6 = Excellent [80 – 89]
4 = Good [60 – 69] 7 = Outstanding [90 – 100]

Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A Research Background:
B Problem Identification:
C Engagement with Core Theoretical Concepts:
D Engagement with Core Constructs Investigated:
E Research Output:
F Work Quality Validity & Reliability:
G Linkage & Closure:
H Referencing:

Approach & Design:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I Methodological Framework:
J Research Design:

Reflection: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
K Reflection:

Mark (100%) Weighting Final Mark
Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output 60%
Approach & Design 25%
Reflection 15%
TOTAL 100%
Guidelines for Criteria Interpretation

Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output:

A Research Background:
The importance of the study and its value are clearly and well, defined and justified with attention to appropriate source documents.

B Problem Identification:
The aim of the study is clearly defined. The related objectives are relevant, appropriate in scope, and are well defined and justified.

C Engagement with Core Theoretical Concepts:
The work reflects expertise of the core theoretical concepts and the potential connectivity between such concepts.

D Engagement with Core Constructs Investigated:
The core constructs investigated are relevant, valid and adequate in scope given the research aim and context. The findings are comprehensive, insightful and meaningful. The discussions of the findings reflect maturity of thought and attention to relevant theory.

E Research Output:
The output of the study is reflected by relevant critical consideration of the product quality and implications,perceptive analysis of insights gained, appropriate and effectively prioritised recommendations/implicationswith attention to evaluation (value added and potential challenges) and discerning suggestions for further research.

F Work Quality, Validity & Reliability:
The work is well structured, written and presented. Attention to citation of relevant/up-to-date and multiple sources is clearly evidenced. Arguments are built in a logical progressive manner and are free from bias.

G Linkage & Closure:
The work reflects a clear link between the aim and objectives of the study and the conclusions drawn. Such a link is further supported by appropriate linkages with and connectivity between the other distinct elements of the project.

H Referencing:
The list of references is consistently presented using the Harvard Referencing System (Alphabetical Listing following final Section), is complete and corresponds with detail presented in the text. The list shows evidence of extensive wider reading and reliance on quality academic sources such as academic journals and specialist text.

Approach & Design:

I Methodological Framework:
This is appropriate for the study and reflects contemplation and understanding of the nature and scope of the study, and the core design decision areas and their implications. Design choices made are clearly explained and justified with attention to the wisdom and insight captured in, and offered by, the theory.

J Research Design:
The work provides evidence of contemplation and understanding of research design issues. The approach and focus adopted with respect to the study as a whole, the underpinning theory (eg selection of areas for concentration and choice of core concepts and those consciously neglected) and empirical / secondary data collection (eg selection of constructs explored in data collection tools) are clearly explained and justified, and suit the scope, nature and purpose of the study.

Reflection:

K Reflection
The reflection is candid, mature, balanced and insightful. The scope of discussion is comprehensive and focused on the project journey with respect to the challenges encountered, constraints experienced and the high points/lifting moments. It critically assesses implications on self and the study, effectively draws out key personal learning points, and prioritises future professional learning and development.

Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project Mark Allocation Guidelines:

0 – 44 Fail
Fails to achieve reflexive learning.The work is weak, superficial, and poorly conceptualised. Fails to engage with theoretical constructs, and reflects limited reading.

45 – 49 Marginal Fail
Shows limited evidence of reflexive learning. The work is basic, superficial, and inadequately conceptualised, designed, investigated and analysed. It reflects a poor grasp of, or engagement with, theoretical constructs, and demonstrates an over-reliance on basic texts. The research output is limited in scope and depth. The reflection lacks maturity, depth and scope.The writing style is descriptive and lacks the formality expected.

50 – 55 Marginal Pass
Achieves modest reflexive learning. The work is barely adequate in terms of conceptualisation, methodological design, understanding and investigation of the research question, with some basic analysis of the findings. There is evidence of reliance on quality sources, but the content shows a limited grasp of complex academic debate and issues. The research output is relevant in parts but is mostly superficial and simplistic. The reflection is barely adequate in terms of maturity, depth and scope.The writing style is descriptive.

56 – 59 Satisfactory
Achieves adequate reflexive learning. The work provides evidence of satisfactory understanding, conceptualisation, methodological design and investigation of the research question, and analysis of the findings. The work is referenced to relevant material of acceptable quality and shows adequate understanding of most salient issues, but is limited in terms of relevant wider issues. The research output is adequate in scope but is superficial and simplistic in parts. The work contains some evidence of relevant reflection but is basic or limited in parts. The writing style tends to be descriptive rather than analytical.

60 – 69 Good
Achieves a reasonably high level of reflexive learning. The work shows good understanding, conceptualisation and investigation of the research question.This is reflected in the scope and depth of the underpinning literature, selection of core theoretical concepts, design of the methodological framework, presentation and analysis of the findings, and the research output. Clear linkage and connectivity between the salient elements of the project and cyclical closure is evidenced. The work is well referenced to quality sources, reflecting care and attention to detail in the presentation. The work provides some evidence of maturity in reflection and is adequate in scope. The writing style is appropriate and shows some evidence of critical analysis.

70 – 79 Very Good
Achieves a sophisticated level of reflexive learning. A sound understanding of the research problem is evidenced in all aspects of the project and in connectivity and flow. The research problem is well conceptualised and defended. The methodological framework is appropriate and well explained and justified. The work provides evidence of extensive wider reading with a strong bias towards quality sources and advanced theoretical concepts and debates, and critical analysis of the individual’s own work (including choices made) and that of others. Cyclical closure is evidenced, and the insights gained, recommendations /implicationsand its analysis, and proposals for extending the current work are logical, practicable and flow well from preceding sections. The work provides evidence of well scoped and mature reflection.

80 – 89 Excellent
Has achieved all of the requirements for a rating of ‘Very Good’ and is distinguished by either a thorough critical review of the literature, a robust methodological framework, logical, critical and reflective analysis of the findings and recommendations or mature and insightful reflection.

90 – 100 Outstanding
Has achieved all of the requirements for a rating of ‘Very Good’ and in addition, is distinguished by consistent overall excellence. The work demonstrates advanced learning and research ability.

.

1.- the focus of the study is on supply chain management of Ikea but for a Masters dissertation, typically you would have identified in the literature a specific challenge e.g. relating to vertical integration supplier relationships. global network of suppliers, use of information systems, centralised/decentralised distribution. Likewise, in research project, you typically would have identified a conceptual or theoretical framework, which you then go on to explore in the primary data collection. Explicit theoretical underpinning of the study was not evident.

– the methodology section is too all embracing i.e. indicating that experiment, survey and interviews were undertaken. This is too grand.
– the methodology chapter lacks a lot of detail in terms of identification of the sample population and the sample size. How where they obtained. How many were involved.
– the methodology chapter needs to explicitly identify how the literature informs the questions asked in the interviews/survey. It is not clear from reading the chapter what questions were asked, why they were asked or how they feed into fulfilling the rest aim.

– results – clearly offer results from primary data collection, although it is not clear which method of data capture was used.
– discussion does not explicitly address the findings of the data captures, which it should do, rather it discusses further literature that was sourced.
– conclusion is not directly derived from the primary data findings.

My recommendation is to rework the literature review to explicitly present a theoretical framework and also rework the subsequent chapters. You write extremely well and you are competent in terms of structuring your work but in terms of presenting a Masters piece of work that is informed by theory, this is very weak. If you have the time, it would be worth skim reading over a couple of dissertations in the library (asked Natasa or Daniel for these). I know that there are a couple of good quality fashion dissertations. Whilst they will have nothing to do with your topic, skim read them to see how they have identified theory and used theory to inform their primary research.

2.Applied Management Project & Management Inquiry Project
Assessment Form

Student Name Matric. No.
Project Title Strategy and operations management: Supply chain management of IKEA

Comments:

The student followed prescribed structure.

Reasonable Introduction section with relevant Background, Aims, Objectives and Project structure regarding Ikea & supply chain management. However it would have been better if the research area is more focused.

Literature review contained sufficient theoretical background ie supply chain analysis etc. There was link to next section. However there was no evidence of the theoretical framework development which would have paved the way for primary data collection.

In the Methodological framework section, the student mentioned research approaches and described quantitative and qualitative methods. However inductive and deductive approaches were not mentioned. The section was too all embracing i.e. indicating that experiment, survey and interviews were undertaken. The section lacks a lot of detail in terms of identification of the sample population and the sample size. The section also needs to justify the selection of the questions in the questionnaire in line with the literature review.

Findings section clearly displayed results with graphs. However it was not clear which data collection method was used. Discussion does not explicitly address the findings of the data collection. It only discussed further literature regarding IKEA Supply Chain Management that was sourced.

Conclusion section is not directly derived from the primary data findings. Critical review could have described more strengths and weaknesses of Ikea Supply Chain Management in relation to the aims and objectives of the research. Recommendations could have been better with points.

Reflection section described personal experiences.

References followed Harvard style.
Marking Template
Listed below are a number of criteria relating to the standard of the project. Please rate the various criteria from 0 to 7 (details below), to build up a picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the project. Based on the template, weighting and your academic judgement, please decide on an overall mark for the project.

0 = Fail [0 – 44] 2 = Marginal Pass [50 – 55] 5 = Very Good [70 – 79]
1 = Marginal Fail [45 – 49] 3 = Satisfactory [56 – 59] 6 = Excellent [80 – 89]
4 = Good [60 – 69] 7 = Outstanding [90 – 100]

Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A Research Background: 2
B Problem Identification: 2
C Engagement with Core Theoretical Concepts: 2
D Engagement with Core Constructs Investigated: 2
E Research Output: 3
F Work Quality Validity & Reliability: 2
G Linkage & Closure: 3
H Referencing: 3

Approach & Design:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I Methodological Framework: 1
J Research Design: 1

Reflection: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
K Reflection: 3

Mark (100%) Weighting Final Mark
Diagnosis, Conceptualisation & Output 53% 60% 31.80%
Approach & Design 45% 25% 11.25%
Reflection 56% 15% 8.40%
TOTAL 100% 51.45%

3.The aim is very ambitious; is it really achievable? Where is the primary research? Objectives (a) and (c) are identical.
The literature review is adequate although not particularly critical.
No discussion of the research philosophy or strategy. The discussion of data collection is vague and fails to explain how the data was actually collected. Experiments and testing – vague; purpose and rationale?
Findings and discussion: It’s not clear where the charts and tables have come from. Who completed the questionnaires? What does, “The researcher organised for a direct observation”, mean?
It is not clear where the primary data came from. A number of data collection techniques are discussed but where is the evidence that they were actually used. The dissertation seems to rely on very limited data and some secondary sources (but these are not made clear). Too much of the dissertation is vague and unclear.
The student has clearly made an effort with this work, so this is a difficult judgement call, however, I am inclined, to mark this down as a fail (40%).

Click here to have a similar A+ quality paper

Order Now