Category | Report | Subject | Management |
---|---|---|---|
University | University of Roehampton | Module Title | RBP020L062S Financial Performance Management |
Word Count | 3500 Words |
---|---|
Assessment Type | Summative\Formative Assessment |
There will be one summative assessment that involves a comprehensive analysis of the financial and non-financial performance of an international organisation (of your choice) and its closest competitor. You are required to select an international organisation (company A), identify its closest competitor (company B), and analyse its financial performance using ratio analysis. You are then required to summarise and critique the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) literature and develop a balanced scorecard performance evaluation of the organisation (company A) and its critical success factors. Finally, you need to provide a critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of adopting Integrated Reporting for your selected organisation (Company A).
This is an individual report and should be 3,500 words (10% tolerance) excluding references, tables, figures, and appendix. See the sections below “Structure and Presentation” and “Rubric” for more details.
Components of summative |
Individual or |
Word count |
Weighting |
Must |
Must Pass |
Sub- |
assessment |
group |
|
|
Attempt |
Y/N |
components |
|
submission |
|
|
Y/N |
|
|
Report (Case study analysis) |
Individual |
max. |
100% |
Yes |
Yes |
n/a |
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Words (+/-10%) |
|
|
|
|
During the module, you are asked to submit a “Report overview” by the set deadline. It represents an opportunity to start working towards the assessment and receive feedback early in the module. Detailed instructions on the Formative Assessment will be available on Moodle.
There will also be regular opportunities for Q&A on your summative work while it is under construction. Note that we will not provide any written or marks indicative feedback on drafts for summative assessment at any time. Should you perceive any formative feedback in such a way, then please note that it is not binding for your marking. Markers can also always change and you have no entitlement to be marked by the module convener or tutors.
The assignment should address the following questions:
Select an international organisation (of your choice – company A) and identify its closest competitor (company B). Present the two organisations and the criteria used for the identification of the competitor. Use the ratio analysis technique to evaluate the financial performance of the two organisations; draw a comparative evaluation and critically discuss the findings. You need to access the annual financial statements of at least the last two years and provide details of the ratio calculations.
With reference to relevant literature, critically evaluate Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Develop a proposed Balanced Scorecard to include critical success factors (CSFs) for your selected organisation (Company A).
Provide a critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of adopting Integrated Reporting (IR) for your selected organisation (Company A). Use academic literature and refer to the International Integrated Reporting <IR> framework to support your discussion.
Mark's awarded for presentation refers to the overall structure and presentation, the academic style of writing.
Good answers should cover the following:
- Describe the chosen company and its competitor.
- The selection of the competitor should be based on operating activities and financial information because the competitor needs to be of comparable size to the chosen company.
- Give general information and some financial information, such as sales, assets, and overall profitability for the chosen company and its competitor. This financial information should be used to justify competitor selection in addition to operating activities in the same industry and country.
- Cover a broad range of ratio analysis, including liquidity, working capital cycle, profitability, leverage, and valuation ratios.
- Explain and interpret in more detail some ratios in each category.
- Compare ratios over the years and with the competitor.
- Connect different ratios and draw a big picture of companies’ financial performance
- Show input data, calculations of ratios, either in the body or in the appendix.
- Use graphs and tables to present your analysis.
- Cite relevant literature both in-text and in the reference list
- Critically evaluate Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard (BSC).
- Critically discuss why the traditional BSC could be out of date in recent years and what could be improved.
- Develop a balanced scorecard for the chosen company.
- It is important to discuss the company’s strategy and vision, which is the foundation for the objectives of each dimension of BSC.
- Explain goals (objectives) and measures of the BSC
- Answer must be based on the chosen company
- Cite relevant literature both in-text and in the reference list
- Show an understanding of the benefits and challenges of adopting integrated reporting at the chosen company. For example,
o Critically discuss how IR provides investors with financial-historical information, and non-financial and forward-looking information, thus overcoming the limitations of a traditional set of financial statements
o Critically discuss what information can be obtained from IR reports and how they help investors to understand companies’ use of limited resources for long-term sustainable success and to balance the different interests of various stakeholders
- Answer must be based on the chosen company
- Cite relevant literature both in-text and in the reference list
- Appendix for input data for calculations (if not included in the body)
- Appendix for extracts of balance sheets and income statements used for analysis, or links to websites
- Harvard style for references and in-text citations
- Headlines for sections and subsections
- A balanced structure report (e.g. around 1000 words for each question)
- Comprehensive range of relevant (academic and professional) sources
- Appropriate report structure (see the proposed structure below)
- Within the word limit of 3,500 words +/- 10%, excluding references, tables, figures, and appendix
Note: Please DO NOT select companies that have been shown for demonstration purposes during the sessions (this includes, for example, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Tesco, and Sainsbury’s). Also, the report should not choose banks because they have very different financial statement formats. Violation of this rule might result in the work being awarded a ZERO mark.
Any written work should be spell-checked, and a contents page should be included. Do not use various font sizes and colours; Black ink, Arial, size 11, 1.5 lines spaced is recommended. Use DIN A4 format and page margins of 2.5 cm or 1 inch.
1. Introduction
Introduce the scope and focus of the report (approx. 250 words)
2. Financial Performance using Ratio Analysis Question 1 (approx. 1,000 words)
3. Balanced Scorecard
4. Integrated Reporting
5. Conclusions
Provide an overall conclusion based on the reflection from the report (approx. 250 words). References
Appendix - Provide details on the calculations presented in Question 1.
The proposed structure above intends to provide a recommendation on the structure of the coursework. This can be enriched with more sections/subsections as you consider appropriate (example: abstract, executive summary, table of contents, appendices, etc.).
|
Rubric category |
|
Outstanding |
|
Excellent |
|
Very Good |
|
Good |
|
Adequate |
|
Marginal Fail |
|
Fail |
|
Fail |
|
Not done |
|
(range) |
|
|
|
(80-89) |
|
(70-79) |
|
(60-69) |
|
(50-59) |
|
(40-49) |
|
(30-39) |
|
(20-29) |
|
0 |
|
Assigned mark >> |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
100 |
|
85 |
|
75 |
|
65 |
|
55 |
|
45 |
|
35 |
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
________________ |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marking criteria |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question 1 |
|
Outstanding and |
|
Ratio analysis is |
|
Very good effort at |
|
Good effort at |
|
Generally adequate |
|
Some effort at |
|
Weak effort at |
|
Insufficient effort |
|
Missing. |
|
|
|
flawless. |
|
presented, |
|
presenting, |
|
presenting, |
|
effort at presenting, |
|
presenting, |
|
presenting, |
|
at presenting, |
|
Wholly |
|
30% |
|
|
|
articulated and |
|
articulating and |
|
articulating and |
|
articulating and |
|
articulating and |
|
articulating and |
|
articulating and |
|
incorrect or |
|
|
|
|
discussed in an |
|
discussing |
|
discussing |
|
discussing financial |
|
discussing |
|
discussing |
|
discussing |
|
not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
excellent way. |
|
financial ratio |
|
financial ratio |
|
ratio analysis. |
|
financial ratio |
|
financial ratio |
|
financial ratio |
|
attempted. |
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent |
|
analysis. Very |
|
analysis. Good |
|
Adequate |
|
analysis. |
|
analysis. No |
|
analysis. No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
presentation of the |
|
good presentation |
|
presentation of |
|
presentation of the |
|
Inadequate |
|
presentation of |
|
presentation of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
two companies. |
|
of the two |
|
the two |
|
two companies. |
|
presentation of |
|
the two |
|
the two |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent |
|
companies. Very |
|
companies. Good |
|
Adequate comparative |
|
the two |
|
companies. Very |
|
companies. No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comparative |
|
good comparative |
|
comparative |
|
evaluation. The |
|
companies. |
|
limited or no |
|
comparative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation. The |
|
evaluation. The |
|
evaluation. The |
|
arguments are |
|
Insufficient |
|
comparative |
|
evaluation. Very |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arguments are |
|
arguments are |
|
arguments are |
|
supported by a few |
|
comparative |
|
evaluation. The |
|
few relevant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
systematic and |
|
supported by a |
|
supported by |
|
tables (or no tables) |
|
evaluation. The |
|
arguments are not |
|
points. The |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
supported by a |
|
range of relevant |
|
relevant tables |
|
and some literature. |
|
arguments are not |
|
supported by |
|
arguments are not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wide range of |
|
tables, graphics, |
|
and literature. The |
|
The calculations |
|
supported by |
|
tables or |
|
supported by |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
relevant tables, |
|
and literature. The |
|
calculations are |
|
include minor |
|
tables or |
|
literature. The |
|
tables or |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
graphics, and |
|
calculations are |
|
overall correct and |
|
mistakes. |
|
literature. The |
|
calculations have |
|
literature. The |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
literature. The |
|
generally correct. |
|
may include minor |
|
|
|
calculations have |
|
mistakes. |
|
calculations have |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
calculations are |
|
|
|
mistakes or |
|
|
|
mistakes. |
|
|
|
mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
correct. |
|
|
|
omissions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Question 2 |
|
Outstanding and |
|
Material selected |
|
Material mostly |
|
Material mainly |
|
Material selected from |
|
Very few sources |
|
Poor quality of |
|
Very poor quality |
|
Missing. |
|
|
|
flawless. |
|
from appropriate, |
|
selected from |
|
selected from |
|
a mix of sources, |
|
regarded as |
|
sources regarded |
|
of sources |
|
Wholly |
|
30% |
|
|
|
authoritative |
|
appropriate, |
|
appropriate, |
|
many that are not |
|
appropriate and |
|
as appropriate |
|
regarded as |
|
incorrect or |
|
|
|
|
sources. |
|
authoritative |
|
authoritative |
|
appropriate and/or |
|
authoritative. |
|
and authoritative. |
|
appropriate and |
|
not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive, |
|
sources. Very |
|
sources. Good |
|
authoritative. |
|
Relatively poor |
|
Very poor |
|
authoritative. |
|
attempted. |
|
|
|
|
|
systematic, and |
|
good critical |
|
analysis of the |
|
Ideas organised into a |
|
organisation and |
|
organisation and |
|
Ideas organised |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
critical analysis of |
|
review and |
|
literature, quite |
|
coherent argument |
|
analysis of ideas. |
|
analysis of ideas. |
|
randomly or not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
relevant literature. |
|
synthesis of ideas. |
|
critical and well- |
|
with limited critical |
|
Absence of |
|
Absence of |
|
organised at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrates a |
|
Considerable |
|
developed. |
|
discussion. |
|
cogency and |
|
cogency and |
|
Absence of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sophisticated |
|
evidence of solid |
|
Good use of |
|
Reasonable use and |
|
structure to |
|
structure to |
|
cogency and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
approach to the |
|
research into the |
|
theory. |
|
application of theory |
|
review, with |
|
review, with no |
|
structure to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
application of |
|
subject. Extensive |
|
Good discussion |
|
to support analysis. |
|
almost no critical |
|
critical discussion. |
|
review, with no |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
theory to practice. |
|
use of theory. |
|
and analysis. |
|
Generally adequate |
|
discussion. |
|
Little or no |
|
critical discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent |
|
Very good |
|
Good conclusions |
|
discussion and |
|
Subject not |
|
explanation of the |
|
Very limited |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
discussion and |
|
discussion and |
|
mostly accurately |
|
analysis. Statements |
|
properly |
|
appropriate |
|
sources selected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
analysis. |
|
analysis with |
|
drawn from |
|
can be better |
|
investigated using |
|
concepts and |
|
Analysis is not at |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appropriate |
|
logical |
|
materials and data |
|
supported with |
|
appropriate |
|
discussion of |
|
all explained or |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
conclusions |
|
conclusions, |
|
selected, however |
|
materials and data. |
|
sources. |
|
literature. |
|
not appropriate; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
accurately drawn |
|
accurately drawn |
|
can be expanded. |
|
Some analysis shows |
|
Analysis is not |
|
Analysis is not |
|
very limited |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from materials and |
|
from materials |
|
Some analysis |
|
promise and depth of |
|
very well |
|
well explained or |
|
discussion. Very |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
data selected. |
|
and data selected |
|
shows promise |
|
thought. |
|
explained and |
|
not appropriate; |
|
limited analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and very well |
and depth of |
|
discussion is |
limited discussion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
incorporated. |
thought. |
|
insufficient. |
following from the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Materials and data |
data and the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
selected are |
analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
poorly related to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Question 3 |
|
Outstanding and |
Material selected |
Material mostly |
Material mainly |
Material selected from |
Very few sources |
Poor quality of |
Very poor quality |
Missing. |
|
|
|
flawless. |
from appropriate, |
selected from |
selected from |
a mix of sources, |
regarded as |
sources regarded |
of sources |
Wholly |
|
30% |
|
|
authoritative |
appropriate, |
appropriate, |
many that are not |
appropriate and |
as appropriate |
regarded as |
incorrect or |
|
|
|
sources. |
authoritative |
authoritative |
appropriate and/or |
authoritative. |
and authoritative. |
appropriate and |
not |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive, |
sources. Very |
sources. Good |
authoritative. |
Relatively poor |
Very poor |
authoritative. |
attempted. |
|
|
|
|
systematic, and |
good critical |
analysis of the |
Ideas organised into a |
organisation and |
organisation and |
Ideas organised |
|
|
|
|
|
critical analysis of |
review and |
literature, quite |
coherent argument |
analysis of ideas. |
analysis of ideas. |
randomly or not |
|
|
|
|
|
relevant literature. |
synthesis of ideas. |
critical and well- |
with limited critical |
Absence of |
Absence of |
organised at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent critical |
Considerable |
developed. Good |
discussion. Adequate |
cogency and |
cogency and |
Absence of |
|
|
|
|
|
analysis of the |
evidence of solid |
analysis of the |
analysis of the |
structure to |
structure to |
cogency and |
|
|
|
|
|
benefits and |
research into the |
benefits and |
benefits and |
review, with |
review, with no |
structure to |
|
|
|
|
|
challenges. |
subject. Very |
challenges. |
challenges. |
almost no critical |
critical discussion. |
review, with no |
|
|
|
|
|
|
good critical |
|
|
discussion. |
Poor critical |
critical discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
analysis of the |
|
|
Inadequate |
analysis of the |
Very poor critical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
benefits and |
|
|
analysis of the |
benefits and |
analysis of the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
challenges. |
|
|
benefits and |
challenges. |
benefits and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
challenges. |
|
challenges. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presentation |
|
Outstanding and |
Clear, concise, |
Very good control |
Competent control |
Length requirements |
Presentation is |
Poorly presented |
Very poorly |
Missing. |
|
|
|
flawless. |
and effectively |
of length; skilled |
of length; good |
observed; appropriate |
either too long or |
work; presentation |
presented work; |
Wholly |
|
10% |
|
|
argued within the |
use of academic |
use of academic |
use of academic |
too short in |
is either too short |
presentation is |
incorrect or |
|
|
|
length allowed; |
conventions; |
conventions; |
conventions; minor |
relation to content; |
or too long |
inadequate, |
not |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
skilled use of |
nearly all errors |
accurate spelling, |
errors in spelling, |
some errors in |
(waffling); missing |
unfocused, and |
attempted. |
|
(Criteria does |
|
|
academic |
eliminated in |
grammar, etc.; |
grammar etc.; quite |
application of |
several elements |
not at all clear; |
|
|
not apply to Re- |
|
|
conventions; |
proof-reading. |
careful proof- |
careful proof-reading. |
academic |
or parts; major |
missing several |
|
|
|
|
accurate proof- |
Almost all works |
reading. |
Some errors in |
conventions; |
errors in spelling, |
and key elements |
|
|
|
sit). |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
reading. |
cited and |
Almost all works |
citations and |
some errors in |
grammar etc.; little |
or parts; spelling, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
All works cited and |
referenced |
cited and |
references. |
spelling, grammar |
indication of proof- |
grammar etc. are |
|
|
|
|
|
referenced |
appropriately |
referenced |
|
etc.; some |
reading. |
very scarce; no |
|
|
|
|
|
appropriately |
according to |
appropriately |
|
indication of proof- |
Major errors in |
indication of proof- |
|
|
|
|
|
according to |
Harvard format. |
according to |
|
reading. |
citations and |
reading. |
|
|
|
|
|
Harvard format. |
|
Harvard format. |
|
Significant errors |
references. |
Citations and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in citations and |
|
references are not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
references. |
|
appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achieve Higher Grades with RBP020L062S Assignment Solutions
Order Non-Plagiarized AssignmentDon’t let your RBP020L062S Financial Performance Management assignment stress you out! We are here for management assignment help. Our expert writers are here to support you with affordable, AI-free, and plagiarism-free assignment help. Whether it’s Business Management or a complex project, we ensure well-researched, high-quality content. We offer free assignment samples and always deliver your work before the deadline. Reach out today and get the best support for your assignments—quick, easy, and reliable! We also provide University of Roehampton 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