Assessment Details
Unit Code and Title: SBM1108 Business Decision Analysis
Assessment 3: Applied Project
| Due date: |
Week 11 |
| Group/individual: |
Group |
| Word count / Time provided: |
3600-4500 words |
| Weighting: |
35% |
| Unit Learning Outcomes: |
ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4, ULO-5 |
| Course Learning Outcomes: |
CLO-1, CLO-2, CLO-3, CLO-4, CLO-7, CLO-8, CLO-9 |
| Graduate Attributes: |
GA-1, GA-3, GA-7, GA-8, GA-11 |
Assessment Details:
This report consists of three main sections: Comparative Review, Decision Model Proposal and Decision Model Application.
Comparative Review Report 10% (1200-1500 words)
The task for this assignment is to review and summarise a given business decision making case or scenario from your reading of relevant recent journal articles. This can be from an area or industry that interests you most, like sport, marketing, housing, medicine, aviation, and so on. You must investigate and present a report on the business case, the decision-making process or model, the value added to the business, any relevant assumptions and advantages and disadvantages by the application of the model to the business scenario.
As a guide, you should research academic journals such as Interfaces, Decision Sciences, and Management Sciences. In addition, you may search articles through Google Scholar. In this group task, you are required to summarise your findings in a table with appropriate headings which clearly show the above criteria. Normal referencing is expected in your review and your arguments must be supported with evidence from the literature.
This part of the assignment is worth 10% of your final grade and therefore, to achieve a satisfactory result, you need to demonstrate strong commitment and diligence with this task. The assessment rubrics have been provided, so you should read these carefully to ensure you address the requirements at the designated standard.
Your final submission should clearly explain the scenario in non-technical terms and provide suitable conclusions or insights about what you have learned from this analysis and review.
A word on presentation and format: This part of the submitted report must 1200-1500 words in length, include appendices for original tables, graphs and charts etc.
Harvard reference format must be used.
Decision Model Proposal 10% (1200-1500 words)
Report
Based on the literature review students need to investigate two separate decision models further that can be applied to a given industry or a simulation that can be modelled to a given industry: sport, medicine, manufacturing, airlines, scheduling, etc. The investigation should be based on the characteristics of the decision model and the technique how the model can be implemented in different industries.
This part of the assignment is worth 10% of your final grade and therefore, to achieve a satisfactory result, you need to demonstrate strong commitment and diligence with this task. The assessment rubrics have been provided, so you should read these carefully to ensure you address the requirements at the designated standard.
This part of the submitted report must be 1200-1500 words in length.
Decision Model application 15 % (1200-1500 words)
Walkthrough demonstration & Report
Students need to design and test their simulation model with suitable data for the business scenario. The model should be validated for its reliability. Data for simulation of LP, Regression, Decision Tree, Network distribution, Forecasting, etc., application from a business scenario, will be required for the walkthrough.
This part of the assignment is worth 15% of your final grade and therefore, to achieve a satisfactory result, you need to demonstrate strong commitment and diligence with this task. The assessment rubrics have been provided, so you should read these carefully to ensure you address the requirements at the designated standard.
This part of the submitted report must be 1200-1500 words in length.
Marking Criteria:
Comparative Review Report 10%
| Marking Criteria |
Not satisfactory (0-49%) of the
criterion mark) |
Satisfactory (50-64%) of the
criterion mark |
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark |
Very Good
(75-84%) of the criterion mark |
Excellent
(85-100%) of the criterion mark |
| The review is structured and provides a comprehensive analysis of the
models or |
The report shows limited structure and insufficient analysis of the main objectives. It shows
insufficient use of |
The report has addressed the main objectives. There is some supporting literature use with
limited |
The report has addressed the main objectives. There is evidence of literature
supporting the |
The report has thoroughly addressed the main objectives. There is strong reference to
supporting |
The report has fully and creatively addressed all the main objectives.
Referencing of
supporting |
| applications; criteria for the selection of the model applied to the business case are provided (50%). |
literature as evidence and limited interpretation of the business case, models or applications. |
interpretation of the business case, models or applications.
Referenced critical analysis of the decision-making process was largely missing. |
interpretation of the business case, the modelling or the applications used. Referenced critical analysis of the decision-making process was present but not best practice. |
literature in the interpretation of the business case, the modelling or the applications used. Indicates a sense of significant synthesis, of the problem. Evidence of independent research, clearly enunciated definitions and a validation of ‘best practice’ modelling and decision making |
literature in the interpretation of the business case, the modelling or the applications used is rigorous and enlightening.
Indicates independent strongly argued coherently evidenced modelling with strong recommendations for ‘best practice’
implementation. |
| Ideas and content are presented coherently, and the review is presented according to the Harvard referencing style (30%). |
The report demonstrates a limited sense of purpose or theme and insufficient understanding of the topic.
Information is limited, unclear and the depth is not adequately developed. The idea is a simple restatement of the topic. The presentation and referencing show insufficient application of the appropriate Harvard style guide and
format. |
The report has attempted to define the topic.
An evidence-based approach is attempted but does not go far enough in expanding key issues.
The reader is left with questions. It requires further information to clarify main arguments. The presentation and referencing show some application of the appropriate Harvard style guide and format. |
Ideas are reasonably clear but could exhibit greater cohesion.
The reader can deduce the line of argument but may need to interpret. The presentation and referencing mostly conforms to the appropriate Harvard style guide and format. |
Ideas are explained thoroughly to support development of the arguments of the review. Accurate detail is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the argument who is left in no doubt of the purpose. The presentation and referencing conform to the appropriate Harvard style guide and format. |
Ideas are clear and insightful. The reader understands the argument through the precise presentation and perceives a sense of the wider context of the ides.
The presentation and referencing are appropriate and consistent with the Harvard style guide and format. |
| The review provides discussion of advantages, disadvantages and value added to business by the decision model or application (20%). |
The review offers limited discussion of advantages and disadvantages, and value adding. |
The review offers some discussion of advantages and disadvantages, and begins to develop a value-added proposition. |
The review offers adequate discussion of advantages and disadvantages, and a clear value-added proposition. |
The review offers detailed discussion of advantages and disadvantages, and a well-developed argument to value adding modelling. |
The report offers a comprehensive, lucid and convincing discussion of the advantages and disadvantages, and clear linkage to the value for the
business. |
Decision Model Proposal 10%
| Marking Criteria |
Not satisfactory (0-49%) of the
criterion mark) |
Satisfactory (50-64%) of the
criterion mark |
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark |
Very Good
(75-84%) of the criterion mark |
Excellent
(85-100%) of the criterion mark |
| The proposed model provides a detailed analysis for the business problem and includes constraints and assumptions for its application (50%). |
The report shows limited structure and insufficient analysis of the main objectives. It shows insufficient use of literature as evidence and limited to interpretation of the business case, constraints and assumptions. |
The report has addressed the main objectives. There is some supporting literature with limited interpretation of the business case, constraints and assumptions.
Referenced critical analysis of the decision-making process was largely missing. insufficient |
The report has addressed the main objectives. There is evidence of literature use supporting the interpretation of the business case, constraints and assumptions Referenced critical analysis of the decision-making process was present but not best practice |
The report has thoroughly addressed the main objectives. There is strong evidence of literature use supporting the interpretation of the business case constraints and assumptions.
Indicates a sense of significant synthesis, of the problem. Evidence of independent research, clearly enunciated definitions and a validation of ‘best practice’ modelling and decision
making. |
The report has fully and creatively addressed all the main objectives.
Referencing of supporting literature in the interpretation of the business case constraints and assumptions used is rigorous and enlightening.
Indicates independent strongly argued coherently evidenced modelling with strong recommendations for ‘best practice’
implementation. |
| Ideas and content are presented coherently, and the review is presented according to the Harvard referencing style (30%). |
The report demonstrates a limited sense of purpose or theme and insufficient understanding of the topic.
Information is limited, unclear and the depth is not adequately developed. The idea is a simple restatement of the topic. The presentation and referencing show insufficient application of the appropriate Harvard
style guide and format. |
The report has attempted to define the topic.
An evidence-based approach is attempted but does not go far enough in expanding key issues. The reader is left with questions. It requires further information to clarify main arguments. The presentation and referencing show some application of the appropriate Harvard style guide and format. |
Ideas are reasonably clear but could exhibit greater cohesion.
The reader can deduce the line of argument but may need to interpret. The presentation and referencing mostly conforms to the appropriate Harvard style guide and format. |
Ideas are explained thoroughly to support development of the arguments of the review. Accurate detail is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the argument who is left in no doubt of the purpose. The presentation and referencing conform to the appropriate Harvard style guide and format. |
Ideas are clear and insightful. The reader understands the argument through the precise presentation and perceives a sense of the wider context of the ides.
The presentation and referencing is appropriate and consistent with the Harvard style guide and format. |
| The report contains
an analysis or |
The review offers
limited discussion of |
The review offers
some discussion of |
The review offers
adequate discussion |
The review offers a
detailed discussion |
The report offers a
comprehensive, |
| description of the industry field and business problem requirements (20%). |
the business problem requirements and description of the field. |
the business problem requirements and description of the field. It begins to develop a clear sense of the decision making. |
of the business problem requirements and description of the field. It demonstrates an understanding of the real-world business decision making. |
of the business problem requirements and description of the field. There is a comprehensive account of the decision making with a deep understanding of
the field. |
lucid and convincing discussion of the business problem, the requirements, and description of the field. There is evidence of a creative and analytical framework for the
decision making. |
Decision Model application 15 %
| Marking Criteria |
Not satisfactory
(0-49%) of the criterion mark) |
Satisfactory
(50-64%) of the criterion mark |
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark |
Very Good
(75-84%) of the criterion mark |
Excellent
(85-100%) of the criterion mark |
| The application and testing of the model provide a comprehensive analysis of the business problem and decision making (40%). |
The application and testing show insufficient capabilities and interpretation of the business decision making requirements.
Logical description of the application to the business problem shows insufficient evidence of capabilities in the walkthrough. |
The application and testing show some capabilities and interpretation of the business decision making requirements.
Logical description of the application to the business problem shows some evidence of capabilities in the walkthrough. |
The application and testing show adequate capabilities and interpretation of the business decision-making requirements.
Logical description of the application to the business problem shows evidence of capabilities in the walkthrough. |
The application and testing show strong capabilities and interpretation of the business decision-making requirements.
Logical description of the application to the business problem shows evidence of capabilities in the walkthrough. It demonstrates significant synthesis of the problem, and evidence of independent research. A clearly enunciated set of definitions and a validation of ‘best practice’ modelling
and decision making has been exhibited. |
The application and testing show very strong capabilities and interpretation of the business decision making requirements.
Logical description of the application to the business problem shows convincing evidence in the walkthrough. Indicates independent strongly argued coherent evidenced modelling with strong recommendations for ‘best practice’ implementation. |
| Ideas and content are presented coherently, and the review is presented according to the Harvard
referencing style (20%). |
The report demonstrates a limited sense of purpose or theme and insufficient understanding of the topic.
Information is |
The report has attempted to define the topic.
An evidence-based approach is attempted but does not go far enough in
expanding key |
Ideas are reasonably clear but could exhibit greater cohesion.
The reader can deduce the line of argument but may
need to interpret. |
Ideas are explained thoroughly to support development of the arguments of the review. Accurate detail is used to
support the main |
Ideas are clear and insightful. The reader understands the argument through the precise presentation and perceives a sense of |
|
limited, unclear and |
issues. The reader |
The presentation |
ideas and convince |
the wider context of |
| the depth is not |
is left with |
and referencing |
the reader of the |
the ides. |
| adequately |
questions. It |
mostly conforms to |
argument who is |
The presentation |
| developed. The idea |
requires further |
the appropriate |
left in no doubt of |
and referencing is |
| is a simple |
information to |
Harvard style guide |
the purpose. The |
appropriate and |
| restatement of the |
clarify main |
and format. |
presentation and |
consistent with the |
| topic. The |
arguments. The |
|
referencing |
Harvard style guide |
| presentation and |
presentation and |
|
conform to the |
and format. |
| referencing show |
referencing show |
|
appropriate Harvard |
|
| insufficient |
some application of |
|
style guide and |
|
| application of the |
the appropriate |
|
format. |
|
| appropriate Harvard |
Harvard style guide |
|
|
|
| style guide and |
and format. |
|
|
|
| format. |
|
|
|
|
| Discussion of model |
The report offers |
The report offers |
The report offers |
The report offers |
The report offers a |
| reliability and |
limited discussion |
some discussion on |
adequate discussion |
detailed discussion |
comprehensive, |
| decision-making |
on reliability of |
reliability of model |
on reliability of |
on reliability of |
lucid and convincing |
| justification with |
model and |
and sensitivity |
model and |
model and |
discussion on |
| sensitivity analysis |
sensitivity analysis |
analysis for the |
sensitivity analysis |
sensitivity analysis |
reliability of model |
| is presented (40%). |
for the decision |
decision making of |
for the decision |
for the decision |
and sensitivity |
|
making of the |
the business |
making of the |
making of the |
analysis for the |
|
business problem. |
problem. |
business problem. |
business problem. |
decision making of |
|
|
|
|
|
the business |
|
|
|
|
|
problem. |
