7097MAA Entrepreneurship And Innovation For Engineers
This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.
Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing 7097MAA Entrepreneurship and Innovation for Engineers
Assignment Brief 2020/21
|
Module Learning Outcomes Assessed: LO1 - Evaluate the philosophies and theories behind entrepreneurial personality and behaviour. Distinguish between entrepreneurs, techno entrepreneurs, serial entrepreneurs, intra entrepreneurs and minority entrepreneurs by critically reviewing their similarities and differences. LO3 - Analyse a company’s strategic approach to Innovation Management including company culture and the role of the individual in the process and as a result recommend strategic changes to improve a company’s Innovation Management. |
|
Task and Mark distribution: Task: You are required to: Referring to the provided Siddhartha Lal case study, individually prepare a short management report (1500 words), to analyse that company’s approach to Innovation Management including the company |
|
Module Title Entrepreneurship and Innovation for Engineers |
Individual |
Cohort JanMay2021 |
Module Code 7097MAA | |
|
Coursework Title: Coursework 1 |
Hand out date: Aula: 28th Jan 2021 | |||
|
Estimated Time (hrs): 16hrs Word Limit: Individual report - word limit 1500 words |
Coursework type: Individual Report |
% of Module Mark 33.33% | ||
|
Submission arrangement online via CU Aula: 18:00PM on the due date via Turnitin on Aula File types and method of recording: PDF files for each submission. Mark and Feedback date: 18:00 12th March 2021 Mark and Feedback method: Written feedback via CU Aula Gradebook / Turnitin | ||||
|
culture and recommend strategic changes to improve the company’s Innovation Management, to include: A brief background of the company. Explanation and justification of your approach and methodology to the evaluation with links to established theory. Evaluation of the entrepreneurial personality of the main character/s in the company. Analysis of that company’s approach to Innovation Management including the company culture Recommendations of strategic changes covering both the main characters and the approaches to improve the company’s Innovation Management. Use appropriate referencing. Mark distribution: Research-informed literature: Assessed on the extent of your reading, the relevance of your research, integration of sourced material within the text, and on the notation of referencing. Knowledge and understanding of the subject: Assessed on the extent of your knowledge and understanding of entrepreneurial culture and the role of an individual in the process. Analysis: Assessed on the thoroughness, depth and quality of the company’s strategic approach to innovative management and the role of the individual in the process. Practical application and deployment: Assessed on the recommended strategic changes to improve the company’s innovative management. Skills for professional practice: Assessed on the format of and the presentation of the individual management report.
| ||||||||||||||
|
Notes: 1. You are expected to use either the Coventry University APA Referencing Style or CUHarvard referencing format. For support and advice on how this students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW). 2. Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support. 3. Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined here . 4. The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to save it on the University system. 5. If there are technical or performance issues that prevent students submitting coursework through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the weekend period. This will be communicated via email and as an Aula announcement. |
Mark allocation guidelines to students (to be edited by staff per assessment)
|
0-39 |
40-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70+ |
80+ |
|
Work mainly incomplete and /or weaknesses in most areas |
Most elements completed; weaknesses outweigh strengths |
Most elements are strong, minor weaknesses |
Strengths in all elements |
Most work exceeds the standard expected |
All work substantially exceeds the standard expected |
Marking Rubric
|
GRADE |
RESEARCH INFORMED LITERATURE |
KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT |
ANALYSIS |
PRACTICAL APPLICATION |
SKILLS OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE | ||||
|
≥70 |
An extensive range of appropriately supported and critically evaluated evidence. Research going beyond the recommended texts. All correctly referenced. |
An outstanding demonstration of a high degree of subject knowledge and understanding in terms of depth and breadth. Excellent understanding of theories, concepts and issues. |
An excellent clear line of analysis - consistent, in-depth and critical analysis. Displaying an excellent ability to evaluate using a range of sources. Excellent engagement with theoretical and conceptual analysis. |
Innovative response to a practical application. Demonstrating an excellent level of synthesis of knowledge. |
Extremely well organised, structured and formatted. An excellent level of presentation and an extremely high professional level of delivery. | ||||
|
A very good range of relevant and critically evaluated sources. Use of some sources beyond recommended texts. All are correctly referenced. |
A very good demonstration of a high degree of subject knowledge and understanding in terms of depth and breadth. Very good understanding of theories, concepts and issues. |
A very good clear line of analysis – mostly in-depth and critical. Displaying a very good ability to evaluate using a range of sources. Very good with theoretical and conceptual analysis. |
A very good response to a practical application. Demonstrating a very good level of synthesis of knowledge. |
Very well organised, structured and formatted. A very good level of presentation and a very professional level of delivery. | |||||
|
50-59 |
A range of relevant sources is used, but the critical evaluation aspect is not fully presented. Limited use of sources beyond the standard recommended materials. Referencing is not always correctly presented. |
A good demonstration of subject knowledge and understanding in terms of depth and breadth. Good understanding of theories, concepts and issues. |
A good clear line of analysis – mostly in-depth and critical, although some argument is not always convincing. Generally good with theoretical and conceptual analysis. |
A good response to a practical application, but may contain errors or omissions. Demonstrating a good level of synthesis of knowledge. |
Well organised, structured and formatted. A good level of presentation and a professional level of delivery. | ||||
|
A limited range of relevant research sources. Very limited critical evaluation. Referencing has some errors. |
A reasonable demonstration of subject knowledge and understanding in terms of depth and breadth. Reasonable understanding demonstrated of theories, concepts and issues |
A reasonably clear line of analysis – partly in-depth and critical, although argument is not convincing. Limited understanding demonstrated of theories, concepts and issues. |
A reasonable response to a practical application, with some notable omissions. Demonstrating a reasonable level of synthesis of knowledge. |
Reasonably well organised, structured and formatted. A reasonable level of presentation and a professional level of delivery. | |||||
|
<40 |
Very limited use and application of relevant sources as supporting evidence. No critical evaluation. At the lower end demonstrates a lack of real understanding. Poor presentation of references. |
Whilst some relevant material is present, the level of understanding is poor with. At the lower end there is evidence of a lack of comprehension, resulting in an assignment that is well below the required standard. |
Very limited line of analysis and arguments are not convincing. No clear evidence of theoretical engagement or critical analysis. At the lower end displays a minimal level of understanding. |
Does not offer a reasonable practical application. At the lower end fails to demonstrate any synthesis of knowledge. |
Poorly organised, structured and/or formatted. A poor level of presentation and delivery. | ||||
|
Late submis sion |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Want to order fresh copy of the Sample Template Answers? online or do you need the old solutions for Sample Template, contact our customer support or talk to us to get the answers of it.
