| Category | Assignment | Subject | Marketing |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Salford | Module Title | International Marketing |
| Word Count | 2500 Words |
|---|---|
| Assessment Type | Report |
| Assessment Title | Individual Simulation Modelling Report |
Group Simulation and Individual Simulation Modelling Report: PhoneVentures
The individual assignment comprises two parts. Part 1 is the Simulation Ranking Performance Score (30%), and Part 2 is the simulation evaluation modelling which focuses on evaluating your company in the simulation (70%). Part 2 consists of Component 1 and Component 2 which must be submitted together in a single report. The report must be well-written, structured, and referenced throughout using APA 7th referencing style.
Students will actively take part in the class business simulation company ‘PhoneVentures’ as entrepreneurs and owners of their own phone company. The phones are not produced by PhoneVentures, as they are produced by another Corporation under PhoneVentures’ licence based on the quality demands and features developed by PhoneVentures’ R&D department.
Your competitors are the other teams on the module. Each group starts with exactly the same financial situation, market, staff numbers, etc. Each simulation round represents 1-year of operations. Groups can alter all decisions repeatedly, until the deadline of each round.
Scenario:
You have been managing your company PhoneVentures in the business simulation activity for the last 5 years. You are now reviewing your business and presenting your future for the company based on your annual business plans (for each simulation
week) and performance in the simulation.
Part 2 Component 1: Simulation Reflection:
a) You are required to provide a reflection on decisions you made for PhoneVentures in the simulation on a weekly basis and draw on relevant theories/models to provide insights, (i.e., S-T-P model, situational analysis, competitor analysis, and performance analysis) (40 marks, 1000 words).
Part 2 Component 2: Simulation Evaluation and Modelling: Select two different countries available from the simulation markets (i.e., Australia, China, France, UAE, USA).
b) Identify issues and implications with respect to socio- cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy for your chosen two country markets. Furthermore, analyse and discuss standardisation vs adaptation considerations (4Ps/7Ps theories) for your chosen two country markets (40 marks, 1000 words).
c) Provide conclusions and make real-world recommendations for improvement for PhoneVentures. Support your
recommendations with an operational plan which could lead to the achievement of targets (20 marks, 500 words).
On successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to:
Transferable Skills and Other Attributes
6. Critically apply conceptual and theoretical frameworks relevant to international business management and practice.
7. Locate, synthesise, and evaluate qualitative and quantitative data using appropriate digital tools.
8. Effectively use digital and non-digital means to present ideas, analyse problems and develop and communicate clear and concise insights, conclusions, and recommendations.
9. Demonstrate a critical appreciation of the flexibility that simulation-based approaches provide to managers with regards to coping with risk and other real-world complexities
Communication YES/NO
1. To develop an understanding and critical appreciation of international marketing concepts, models, and theories.
2. To examine the implications of cultural diversity and ethical issues for international marketing.
3. To identify and appraise segmentation, targeting, and positioning strategies for international markets.
4. To examine how the elements of the marketing mix can be designed and adapted for different international markets.
5. To evaluate the use and impact of digital tools in international marketing.
“The purpose of feedback is not to provide students with a benchmark between passing and failing but to identify strengths and where there is room for improvement and development” (Assessment and Feedback for Taught Awards Policy).
You can expect to receive the provisional mark and feedback for this assessment 15 working days after submission. Feedback will normally be provided via Turnitin.
If you have any questions about assessment rules, you can find further information on Blackboard in the Assessment Support area.
The task weightings/word counts for the assignment are provided on Page 2 of this document. The marking rubric for the assessment is on Page 6 of this document. You should look at the marking rubric criteria to find out what the Markers are specifically looking for when marking the assessment.
|
Simulation Reflection: provide a reflection on the decisions you made for PhoneVentures in the simulation every week and draw on relevant theories/models to provide insights |
40 marks, 1000 words |
|
Simulation Evaluation and Modelling: Identify issues and implications with respect to socio-cultural and ethical issues that would impact The firm’s international marketing strategy for your chosen two country markets |
40 marks, 1000 words |
|
Provide conclusions and make real-world recommendations for improvement for PhoneVentures |
20 marks, 500 words |
|
|
Outstanding |
Excellent |
Very Good |
Good |
Satisfactory |
Unsatisfactory |
Inadequate |
Poor |
Very poor |
Extremely poor |
No Attempt |
|
|
100-90 |
89-80 |
79-70 |
69-60 |
59-50 |
49-40 |
39-30 |
29-20 |
19-10 |
9-1 |
0 |
|
Task 1 - Simulation Reflection: S-T-P Model 1000 words @ 40% |
Outstanding knowledge. Exceptional individual reflection of simulation activities. Outstanding insights and evaluations. S-T-P model, situational analysis, competitor analysis, and performance analysis incorporate evidence of original thinking. Presentation is outstanding. Succinctly written, font size, one and a half spaced, surpasses requirements Outstanding range of references / data sources. |
Integrates the complexity of a range of knowledge and excellent understanding of its relevance. Excellent individual reflection on simulation activities. Excellent insights and evaluations. S-T-P model, situational analysis, competitor analysis, and performance analysis handled skilfully with imaginative interpretation of material. Presentation is highly professional. Detailed use of references/data sources used creatively to develop the work. |
Comprehensive knowledge demonstrating very good depth and breadth. Very good individual reflection of simulation activities. Very good insights and evaluations. S-T-P model, situational analysis, competitor analysis, and performance analysis with evidence of critique and independent thought. Presentation is of a very good standard. Clear evidence of a wide range of references /data sources which are used effectively in supporting the work. |
Consistently relevant accurate knowledge with good depth and breadth. Good individual reflection of simulation activities. Clear, in-depth critical analysis and evaluation with good ability to synthesise information in order to develop appropriate insight. Good evidence of S-T-P model, situational analysis, competitor analysis, and performance analysis. Presentation of work is well organised. Well written, font size, one and a half spaced, meets requirements Good range of sources. |
Mostly accurate knowledge with satisfactory depth and breadth. Satisfactory individual reflection of simulation activities. Critical analysis, insights and evaluations of S-T-P model, situational analysis, competitor analysis, and performance analysis. Demonstrates basic ability to synthesise information in order to formulate appropriate conclusions. Presentation of work is satisfactory. Satisfactory range of references/data sources. |
Basic knowledge with occasional inaccuracies. Unsatisfactory individual reflection of simulation activities. Sound analysis evident, with some evaluation of S-T-P model, situational analysis, competitor analysis, and performance analysis although limited. Presentation is unsatisfactory. Narrow range of references / data sources. |
Limited evidence of knowledge. Inadequate individual reflection of simulation activities. Mainly descriptive evidence of analysis, inconsistent critical approach, little evaluation. Fails to demonstrate insight. Presentation is inadequate. Limited ability to support content with relevant sources. |
Inconsistent or inaccurate knowledge. Poor individual reflection of simulation activities. Occasionally attempts to provide insight. Presentation is poor. Inappropriate or outdated sources/data. |
Virtually no relevant knowledge is demonstrated Very poor individual reflection of simulation activities. No meaningful analysis, evaluation, or insights. Presentation is very poor. Lack of ability to source adequate material. |
Totally inadequate demonstration of required knowledge. No appropriate individual reflection of simulation activities. No demonstration of analysis, evaluation or insight. Presentation is extremely poor. Not well written, does not meet requirements No attempt to provide evidence of sources used. |
No attempt made. |
|
|
Outstanding |
Excellent |
Very Good |
Good |
Satisfactory |
Unsatisfactory |
Inadequate |
Poor |
Very poor |
Extremely poor |
No Attempt |
|
|
100-90 |
89-80 |
79-70 |
69-60 |
59-50 |
49-40 |
39-30 |
29-20 |
19-10 |
9-1 |
0 |
|
Task 2 – socio-cultural & ethical issues and implications: 1000 words @ 40% |
Outstanding knowledge. Identifies issues and implications with respect to socio-cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy at an exceptional level and are used to formulate new questions, ideas or challenges. Outstanding critical analysis and synthesis of material. Incorporates evidence of original thinking. Presentation is outstanding demonstrating a fluent academic style. Outstanding range of references/data sources. |
Integrates the complexity of a range of knowledge and excellent understanding of its relevance. The issues and implications with respect to socio-cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy identified are near excellent. Excellent critical analysis and synthesis of material. Arguments handled skilfully with imaginative interpretation of material. Presentation is excellent, well- structured and logical. Detailed use of references/data sources which are well- referenced and are used creatively to develop the work. |
Comprehensive knowledge demonstrating very good depth and breadth. The issues and implications with respect to socio-cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy identified are very good. Very good analysis and synthesis of material with evidence of critique and independent thought. Presentation is of a very good standard. Clear evidence of a wide range of references/data sources which are used effectively in supporting the work. |
Consistently relevant accurate knowledge with good depth and breadth. The issues and implications with respect to socio- cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy identified are clear and relevant. Clear, in-depth critical analysis and evaluation with good ability to synthesise information in order to develop appropriate insight. Presentation of work is well organised with good use of language to express ideas/argument. Good range of sources. Well referenced, very few inaccuracies. |
Mostly accurate knowledge with satisfactory depth and breadth of knowledge. The issues and implications with respect to socio- cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy identified are sound and informed. Critical analysis and evaluation. Demonstrates basic ability to synthesise information in order to develop appropriate insight. Presentation of work is satisfactory in terms of structure coherence and clarity. Satisfactory range of references/data sources. |
Basic knowledge with occasional inaccuracies appropriate yet basic integration of theory and practice. The identified issues and implications with respect to socio- cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy are superficial or limited. Sound analysis evident, with some evaluation, although limited. Presentation of work is unsatisfactory in terms of structure, coherence and clarity. Narrow range of references/data sources with some inconsistencies or inaccuracies in referencing. |
Limited evidence of knowledge. The identified issues and implications with respect to socio-cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy are very weak / limited, needs developing further. Mainly descriptive evidence of analysis, inconsistent critical approach, little evaluation. Fails to demonstrate insight. Presentation is unsatisfactory. Work is limited in terms of structure, coherence and clarity. Limited ability to support content with relevant sources. |
Inconsistent or inaccurate knowledge. The identified issues and implications with respect to socio-cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy are limited and poor or inaccurate to practice. Descriptive. Occasionally attempts to analyse or evaluate material but lacks critical approach. Presentation is poor. Work is disorganised and lacks clarity. Inappropriate or outdated sources/data with numerous referencing errors. |
Virtually no relevant knowledge demonstrated. Fails to adequately identify or explain the issues and implications with respect to socio- cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy. No meaningful analysis or evaluation. Presentation is very poor. Work has little discernible structure or clarity. Lack of ability to source adequate material. Very poor referencing. |
Totally lacking identification of issues and implications with respect to socio- cultural and ethical issues that would impact the firm’s international marketing strategy. No demonstration of analysis or evaluation. Presentation is extremely poor. Work has no structure or clarity. No references. No attempt to provide evidence of sources used. |
No attempt made. |
|
|
Outstanding |
Excellent |
Very Good |
Good |
Satisfactory |
Unsatisfactory |
Inadequate |
Poor |
Very poor |
Extremely poor |
No Attempt |
|
|
100-90 |
89-80 |
79-70 |
69-60 |
59-50 |
49-40 |
39-30 |
29-20 |
19-10 |
9-1 |
0 |
|
Task 3 - conclusions and real-world recommendations: 500 words @ 20% |
Outstanding knowledge. Outstanding conclusions and real-world recommendation that emerge naturally out of the previous sections of the report. Operational plan is clear, concise, and easy to follow and is critically evaluated to an exceptional level and could lead to the achievement of targets. Outstanding critical analysis and synthesis of material. Incorporates evidence of original thinking. Presentation is outstanding demonstrating a fluent academic style. Outstanding range of references / data sources. |
Integrates the complexity of a range of knowledge and excellent understanding of its relevance. Excellent conclusions and real-world recommendation s emerge naturally out of the previous sections of the report. Operational plan is coherent and systematic, is evaluated to an excellent level, and could lead to the achievement of targets. Excellent critical analysis and synthesis of material. Arguments handled skilfully with imaginative interpretation of material. Presentation is excellent, well- structured and logical. Detailed use of references / data sources which are well referenced and are used creatively to develop the work. |
Comprehensive knowledge demonstrating very good depth and breadth. Very good conclusions and real-world recommendations emerge naturally out of the previous sections of the report. Operational plan is very good and could lead to the achievement of targets. Very good analysis and synthesis of material with evidence of critique and independent thought. Presentation is of a very good standard. Clear evidence of a wide range of references / data sources which are used effectively in supporting the work. |
Consistently relevant accurate knowledge with good depth and breadth. Clear and relevant conclusions and real-world recommendation s. Proficient operational plan which could lead to the achievement of targets. Clear, in-depth critical analysis and evaluation with good ability to synthesise information in order to develop appropriate insight. Presentation of work is well organised with good use of language to express ideas/argument. Good range of sources. Well referenced, very few inaccuracies. |
Mostly accurate knowledge with satisfactory depth and breadth of knowledge. Critical conclusions and recommendation s. Acceptable and substantiated operational plan. Sound critical analysis and evaluation. Demonstrates basic ability to synthesise information in order to develop appropriate insight. Presentation of work is satisfactory in terms of structure coherence and clarity. Satisfactory range of references / data sources. |
Basic knowledge with occasional inaccuracies appropriate yet basic integration of theory and practice. Superficial or limited conclusions and recommendation s. A limited, insufficient and/or inaccurate operational plan. Critical analysis evident, with some evaluation, although limited. Presentation of work is unsatisfactory in terms of structure, coherence and clarity. Narrow range of references / data sources with some inconsistencies or inaccuracies in referencing. |
Limited evidence of knowledge. Inappropriate conclusions and recommendation s. Mainly descriptive evidence of analysis, inconsistent critical approach, little evaluation. Fails to demonstrate insight. Presentation is unsatisfactory. Work is limited in terms of structure, coherence and clarity. Limited ability to support content with relevant sources. |
Inconsistent or inaccurate knowledge. Limited and inappropriate or inaccurate conclusions and recommendation s. Descriptive. Occasionally attempts to analyse or evaluate material but lacks critical approach. Presentation is poor. Work is disorganised and lacks clarity. Inappropriate or outdated sources/data with numerous referencing errors. |
Virtually no relevant knowledge demonstrated. Fails to provide conclusions and recommendation s. Little or no evidence of operational plan. No meaningful analysis or evaluation. Presentation is very poor. Work has little discernible structure or clarity. Lack of ability to source adequate material. Very poor referencing. |
Totally inadequate demonstration of required knowledge. Unable to suggest any conclusions and recommendation s. A limited, insufficient and/or inaccurate operational plan. No demonstration of analysis or evaluation. Presentation is extremely poor. Work has no structure or clarity. No references. No attempt to provide evidence of sources used. |
No attempt made. |
|
|
Extremely poor |
Very poor |
Poor |
nadequate |
Unsatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Outstanding |
|
|
1-9 |
10-19 |
20-29 |
30-39 |
40-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70-79 |
80-89 |
90-100 |
|
Knowledge |
Totally inadequate demonstration of required knowledge. Not able to link theory to practice. No appropriate themes identified. |
Virtually no relevant knowledge demonstrated. Fails to adequately demonstrate links between theory and practice. Very poor identification of key themes. |
Inconsistent or inaccurate knowledge. Limited and inappropriate or inaccurate links between theory and practice. Poor identification of key themes. |
Limited evidence of knowledge. Inappropriate links between theory and practice. Inadequate identification of key themes. |
Basic knowledge with occasional inaccuracies appropriate, yet basic integration of theory and practice. Superficial depth or limited breadth with unsatisfactory identification of key themes. |
Mostly accurate knowledge with satisfactory depth and breadth of knowledge. Sound integration of theory and practice with satisfactory identification of key themes. |
Consistently relevant accurate knowledge with good depth and breadth. Clear and relevant application of theory to practice. Good identification of key themes. |
Comprehensiv e knowledge demonstrating very good depth and breadth. Clear insight into links between theory and practice. Demonstrates ability to transfer knowledge between different contexts appropriately. |
Integrates the complexity of a range of knowledge and excellent understanding of it’s relevance. Excellent depth of knowledge in a variety of contexts. Coherent and systematic application of theory to practice. |
Outstanding knowledge. Theory is linked to practice to an exceptional level and may be used to formulate new questions, ideas or challenges. |
|
|
Extremely poor |
Very poor |
Poor |
Inadequate |
Unsatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Outstanding |
|
|
1-9 |
10-19 |
20-29 |
30-39 |
40-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70-79 |
80-89 |
90-100 |
|
Cognitive processes |
No demonstratio n of analysis, evaluation or synthesis. No evidence of reflection. Unsatisfactor y professional judgement |
No meaningful analysis or evaluation. Unable to identify appropriate issues for reflection. Arguments presented are inappropriate and very poorly linked. Very poor professional judgement. |
Descriptive occasionally attempts to analyse or evaluate material but lacks critical approach. Confusion and/ or weakness in academic argument. Identifies issues for reflection but lacks evidence of reflective processes. Poor professional judgement. |
Mainly descriptive evidence of analysis, inconsistent critical approach, little evaluation or synthesis. Follows processes of reflection but fails to demonstrate insight. Inconsistent and/ or inaccurate professional judgement. |
Critical analysis evident, with some evaluation and synthesis, although limited. Limited evidence of reflection. Some appropriate academic argument although not well applied and lacking in clarity. Unsatisfactory professional judgement. |
Sound critical analysis and evaluation. Relevant academic argument. Demonstrates basic ability of synthesise information in order to formulate appropriate questions and conclusions. Reflective process is utilised, with insight demonstrating planning for future practice. Integrates relevant information in order to make sound professional judgements. |
Clear, in-depth critical analysis, evaluation and academic argument with synthesis of different ideas and perspectives. Utilises reflection to develop self and practice. Aware of the influence of varied perspectives and time frames. Uses a wide range of sources to inform clinical decision making and prioritises plans. |
Very good analysis and synthesis of material with evidence of critique and independent thought. Balanced and mature approach to reflection used to enhance practice and performance in a range of contexts. Demonstrates ability to make sound decisions in complex and unpredictable contexts. |
Excellent critical analysis and synthesis. Arguments handled skilfully with imaginative interpretation of material. Willingness to challenge self and practice. |
Outstanding critical analysis and synthesis. Incorporates evidence of original thinking. |
|
|
Extremely poor |
Very poor |
Poor |
Inadequate |
Unsatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Outstanding |
|
|
1-9 |
10-19 |
20-29 |
30-39 |
40-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70-79 |
80-89 |
90-100 |
|
Communication |
Presentatio n is extremely poor. Work has no structure or clarity. Extremely poor use of language. |
Presentation is very poor. Work has little discernable structure or clarity. Very poor use of language. |
Presentation is poor. Work is disorganised and lacks clarity. Poor use of language. |
Presentation is unsatisfactory. Work is limited in terms of structure, coherence and clarity. Limitations in academic style. |
Presentation of work is unsatisfactory in terms of structure, coherence, clarity and academic style. Some inconsistencies. Some grammar and syntax errors which detract from the content |
Presentation of work is satisfactory in terms of structure coherence, clarity and academic style. But some inconsistencies in grammar and syntax. |
Presentation of work is well organised with good use of language to express ideas/argument. Very few inconsistencies; grammar and syntax good. |
Presentation is of a very good standard, demonstrating a scholarly style. Very good grammar and syntax |
Presentation is excellent, well- structured and logical. Demonstrates a scholarly style. Excellent grammar and syntax. |
Presentation is outstanding demonstrating a fluent academic style. |
|
|
Extremely poor |
Very poor |
Poor |
Inadequate |
Unsatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Outstanding |
|
|
1-9 |
10-19 |
20-29 |
30-39 |
40-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70-79 |
80-89 |
90-100 |
|
Motor skills |
Unsafe. Unable to perform skills. |
Unsafe. Very poor application of skill, major limitation in skill performance . Ineffective |
Unsafe. Poor application of skill, some limitations in skill performance. Ineffective |
Unsafe. Unsatisfactory application of skills. Inconsistent in skill performance. |
Unsafe inadequate application of skill, inconsistent performance of skill with some limitations. |
Safe, competent application of skills. Effective performance, demonstrating dexterity and sensitivity. |
Safe application of skills with good level of competence. Effective performance with an ability to plan, anticipate and priorities action. |
Safe application of skills with very good level of competence. Effective and proficient performance. |
Safe application of skills with excellent level of competence. Effective and proficient performance with flexibility and creativity |
Safe, outstanding application of skills, perceives the situation as a whole. |
|
|
Extremely poor |
Very poor |
Poor |
Inadequate |
Unsatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Outstanding |
|
|
1-9 |
10-19 |
20-29 |
30-39 |
40-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70-79 |
80-89 |
90-100 |
|
Referencing and using evidence |
No references. No attempt to provide evidence of sources used. |
Lack of ability to source adequate material. Very poor referencing |
Poor use of reference material. Inappropriate or outdated sources with numerous referencing errors. |
Unsatisfactory referencing with frequent error. Limited ability to support content with relevant sources. |
Narrow range of sources. Referencing in presented work is unsatisfactory with some inconsistencies or inaccuracies. Over utilises secondary sources. References used are inappropriate in terms of currency. |
Satisfactory range of sources identified with appropriate referencing and few inaccuracies. Appropriate use of primary and secondary sources. |
Good range of sources. Well referenced, very few inaccuracies. Good use of primary and secondary sources. |
Clear evidence of referencing to a wide range of primary and secondary sources which are used effectively in supporting the work. |
Detailed use of predominantly primary sources which are well referenced and are used creatively to develop the work. |
Synthesis of reference material from a wide range of sources both within and across professions |
Buy Answer of This International Marketing Assignment & Raise Your Grades
Request to Buy AnswerStruggling with your International Marketing assignment? Our online assignment help services are designed to provide you with expert guidance for both group simulations and individual simulation modeling reports. Whether you’re looking to understand market strategies or need tailored solutions for your coursework, we’ve got you covered. If you’re thinking, “Can someone do my assignment for me?”, our team of professional writers is here to assist. Gain access to expertly crafted assignment examples that follow university guidelines and help you achieve academic excellence effortlessly. Let us simplify your journey in mastering International Marketing!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
