| Category | Assignment | Subject | Entrepreneurship |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Strathclyde | Module Title | Managing Innovation |
| Word Count | 2500 Words |
|---|---|
| Assessment Type | Report |
Company Overview (300 words)
Innovation Strategy and Approach (300 words)
Tidd's Bessant, Chapter 3
Did your organisation follow the key stages in the innovation process?
What influence did the company consider for successful innovation and management?
How well was the search, selection, implementation, and value capture carried out?
Was there learning from past experiences?
How well did the company manage innovation to drive success in a business environment?
Tidd & Bessant, chapter 5
Tidd & Bessant, chapter 7
Does the company promote incremental or radical change?
Does the company exploit market and technology opportunities or explore them?
What sources of innovation does the company use?
|
Performance Indicator |
70+ |
60-69 |
50-59 |
40-49 |
Fail |
|
Describes the context of the case by providing the background and basic factual information (10%) |
Offers profound depth of background information. Integrates multiple perspectives and critical contextual insights. Demonstrates exceptional understanding of complex contextual factors. Presents background information with remarkable analytical sophistication |
Delivers a detailed and thorough contextual description. Provides comprehensive background information. Includes multiple relevant contextual dimensions. Shows strong understanding of key contextual elements. Presents background with clear and precise details |
Offers a clear and adequate contextual description. Provides basic but accurate background information. Covers primary contextual elements. Demonstrates reasonable understanding of context. Presents fundamental background details |
Provides limited contextual information. Offers incomplete or superficial background. Misses significant contextual elements Shows minimal understanding of broader context. Lacks depth in background description |
Fails to provide meaningful contextual description. Lacks basic background information. Demonstrates no understanding of context. Presents irrelevant or incorrect contextual details. Completely misses critical contextual elements |
|
Includes an introduction which summarises the key theme/ line of argument of the group report and the structural/ content of the group report (10%) |
Crafts a compelling and insightful introduction
argumentative approach. |
Develops a clear and comprehensive introduction.
|
Offers a competent introduction.
|
Presents a weak introduction.
|
Fails to provide a meaningful introduction.
|
|
|
entire report |
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrates understanding of appropriate concepts and frameworks introduced during the course through definition and explanation of relevant concepts and reference to key academic sources (15%) |
Provides sophisticated, nuanced definitions of concepts. Integrates multiple high- level academic sources with critical insight. Exhibits outstanding ability to contextualize theoretical frameworks |
Shows comprehensive understanding of key concepts. Provides clear and detailed theoretical definitions. Cites credible academic sources effectively. Demonstrates strong theoretical grounding. |
Displays adequate understanding of primary concepts. Offers basic but accurate definitions. Includes relevant academic references. Shows fundamental theoretical comprehension |
Limited understanding of theoretical concepts. Provides incomplete or partially incorrect definitions. Minimal academic source integration. Superficial theoretical engagement |
Demonstrates minimal or no understanding of concepts. Lacks meaningful theoretical definitions. No credible academic sources. Fails to establish theoretical context |
|
Applies appropriate concepts & frameworks to the analysis of the company (15%) |
Demonstrates extraordinary analytical sophistication.
thinking |
Applies frameworks with considerable skill.
|
Competent application of primary frameworks
|
Limited application of theoretical frameworks
|
Fails to apply theoretical frameworks.
|
|
Performance Indicator |
70+ |
60-69 |
50-59 |
40-49 |
Fail |
|
Supports the analysis through reference to evidence and facts drawn from the company under study (30%) |
Multiple diverse and credible sources Critical and sophisticated data interpretation Extraordinary depth of research Innovative use of evidence to support analysis |
Robust and well-researched factual evidence Multiple reliable sources Sophisticated data presentation Strong research effort Clear and precise information interpretation |
Adequate factual evidence Sufficient number of relevant sources Competent data presentation Demonstrates basic research skills. Reasonable information accuracy |
Limited factual support Few or questionable sources Incomplete data presentation Minimal research effort Inconsistent information accuracy |
Minimal or irrelevant evidence Lack of credible sources Poor or misleading data presentation Insufficient research Significant inaccuracies |
|
Includes recommendations that are clearly and logically linked to each individual element (10%) |
Develops sophisticated and innovative recommendations.
|
Presents well- developed and logically connected recommendations.
|
Offers competent recommendations.
|
Provides limited recommendations.
|
Fails to provide meaningful recommendations.
|
|
Clarity and conciseness of expression. Accurate spelling, grammar and sentence structure Appropriate tone and style for an analytical report (10%) |
Impeccable grammar and structure Eloquent and sophisticated writing style Perfect academic tone Exceptional coherence and flow |
Very clear and concise writing Minor, inconsequential language errors Professional academic style Strong logical flow Highly effective communication |
Clear writing with occasional minor errors Adequate academic tone Coherent argumentation Acceptable grammatical structure Reasonably effective communication |
Unclear writing with multiple errors Inconsistent tone Weak sentence structure Limited coherence Challenging to comprehend |
Extremely poor writing quality Numerous significant grammatical errors Incoherent and confusing Unprofessional presentation Fails to communicate effectively |
|
Comments |
|
||||
|
Mark |
|
Date |
|
Tutor Name |
|
The title page should include the following:
There is a penalty for going over the word count limit.
The reference list comes at the end of the assignment, before the appendix and should start on a new page labelled 'References'.
Please use the Harvard Referencing format when referencing books, journal articles, blogs, TedTalks, videos, websites etc.
“An appendix contains supplementary material that is not an essential part of the text itself, but which may be helpful in providing a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem or it is information that is too cumbersome to be included in the body of the paper. A separate appendix should be used for each distinct topic or set of data and always have a title descriptive of its contents.”
Submit Your Managing Innovation Assignment Questions & Get Plagiarism Free Answers
Order Non-Plagiarized AssignmentStruggling with your Managing Innovation assignment? Let us help! Our Entrepreneurship Assignment Help service is the best for you. We offer professional, affordable assignment writing services that are AI-free, plagiarism-free, and delivered on time. Our team of PhD experts understands what universities expect and creates high-quality content tailored to your needs. We also offer free assignment samples so you can check our quality before booking. We’re available 24/7 to support you with Business Management or any subject. Don’t wait until the last minute—contact us now and make your academic life easier with trusted expert help! We also provide University of Strathclyde Assignment Samples that have been written by the phd expert writers. Contact us now!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
