RBP020L062H Financial Performance Management Assessment Brief | UoR

Published: 01 Feb, 2025
Category Report Subject Management
University University of Roehampton Module Title RBP020L062S Financial Performance Management
Word Count 3500 Words
Assessment Type Summative\Formative Assessment

Instructions for Assessment

Summative 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%)

 

 

 

 

Formative Assessment

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.

Structure and presentation (Summative Assessment)

The assignment should address the following questions:

QUESTION 1 (30%):

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.

QUESTION 2 (30%):

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).

QUESTION 3 (30%):

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.

PRESENTATION (10%):

Mark's awarded for presentation refers to the overall structure and presentation, the academic style of writing.

Important Guidance

Good answers should cover the following:

Checklist for Q1 (recommendations for a good answer, but not limited to):

-    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

Checklist for Q2 (recommendations for a good answer, but not limited to):

-    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

Checklist for Q3 (recommendations for a good answer, but not limited to):

-    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

Checklist for presentation (recommendations for a good answer, but not limited to):

-    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.

Proposed Structure of the Report:

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

  • Question 2 (approx. 1,000 words)

4. Integrated Reporting

  • Question 3 (approx. 1,000 words)

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.).

Appendix

 

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 Assignment

Don’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!

 

 

Workingment Unique Features

Hire Assignment Helper Today!


Latest Free Samples for University Students

MMP_4_MAO Management and Organisations Individual Report Sample | LSBU

Category: Report Writing Example

Subject: Management

University: London South Bank University

Module Title: MMP_4_MAO Management and Organisations

View Free Samples

DGM22705 Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Principles Assignment Report Example

Category: Report Writing Example

Subject: Business

University: ______

Module Title: DGM22705 Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Principles

View Free Samples

NBS-7108B Managing People and Organisations Summative Assessment Report Sample

Category: Report Writing Example

Subject: Management

University: University of East Anglia (UEA)

Module Title: NBS-7108B Managing People and Organisations

View Free Samples

MG413 Data insights for Business Decision Making Individual Report Example

Category: Report Writing Example

Subject: Management

University: Buckinghamshire New university

Module Title: MG413 Data insights for Business Decision Making

View Free Samples

NURS3101 Challenges and Complexity in Adult Nursing Assignment Report Sample

Category: Report writing Example

Subject: Nursing

University: University of Worcester

Module Title: NURS3101 Challenges and Complexity in Adult Nursing

View Free Samples
Online Assignment Help in UK