*This document is for CU Group 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 registry.cuc@coventry.ac.uk
Module Title: Economic and Financial Management
Module Code: 216MANSC/216MANEL
Assessment Type:
Coursework
Assessment Number:
1
Study Mode:
Full-time
Weighting:
40%
Submission Date:
31/01/2020
Submission Time:
18:00
1,500 Word
Analysis
Introduction:
Managers and leaders in organisations may be expected to monitor and measure the performance
of an organisation to for fill its aims and objectives. Analysis of business performance, allows
managers to make informed decisions in the best interests of organisational success alongside its
long term strategy. You are required to select and research a commercial organisation, based in
the UK, which is currently in administration.
Completion of this assignment will address the following learning outcomes:
1 Identify and evaluate the impact the economy has on business organisations
2 Appraise and apply economic theory to a range of contemporary business contexts.
3 Analyse the micro and macro-economic forces on contemporary business.
Task:
Title: Economics and the business
You are required to identify and research an organisation that has failed. You are to produce a
1,500 word analysis in report format on the micro and macro-economic factors that led to the
failure. Your report should review and reflect your knowledge and theory of economics. It must
include an analysis of the impact of the mirco and macro environmental factors in relation to you
chosen organisation. Your audience are the attendees of a regional CMI workshop. You should cover
learning outcomes 1, 2 & 3. Your choice of organisation should be agreed with your tutor during
tutorials.
Guidance notes and considerations
Late Submission
If you are not able to complete your coursework on time due to extenuating circumstances, the ONLY
way to receive an extension (up to 5 working days) or a deferral (anything longer than 5 working days)
is to contact a Registry team member located at your specific CU site.
CU Coventry – Registry.cuc@coventry.ac.uk
CU London – Registry.cul@coventry.ac.uk
CU Scarborough – Registry.cus@coventry.ac.uk
- Extenuating circumstances are defined by CU as ‘genuine circumstances beyond your control or
ability to foresee, and which seriously impair your assessed work’. - Please note that you will need to provide third party evidence to support your reasoning for requiring
an extension or deferral. - Your course tutor is NOT able to approve an extension or a deferral, if you have not completed the
official forms and had your request approved your work will count as not submitted and receive a zero
mark.
Plagiarism and Malpractice - You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on your
Moodle Web. - Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by other
students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to the
academic conduct panel. This applies to all coursework and exam answers. - A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class
discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in you
having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your own
work. - If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original version
and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts. - You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either
for your current course or for another qualification of this university, unless this is specifically provided
for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information.
Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference
it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism.
Submission Guidelines
There should be a title page which clearly identifies the following; - Student number * Name of the module
- Title of the Assessment * Assessment number
- Word count
The word count identified includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography and unless specifically
stated, encompasses a discrepancy of + or – 10%.
Banding Knowledge and
Understanding
(30%)
Analysis, Evaluation and Application
of Theory
(30%)
Quality of Research
(20%)
Academic Writing
(20%)
90-100% Exceptional knowledge base
exploring, analysing and
evaluating the discipline and
its theory with extraordinary
originality and autonomy.
Demonstrates an exceptional grasp
of relevant analytical techniques,
and the ability to apply these to new
and/or abstract information and
situations. Shows a highly developed
appreciation of the limits and/or
appropriate uses of particular
analytical and evaluative
approaches. Knowledge and
understanding of theory, where
relevant, is highly detailed.
Exceptional appreciation of the limits
of theory demonstrated throughout
all assessment outcomes. Approach
to assessment task is theoretically
informed to an exceptional standard.
Exceptional exploration of
wider academic sources with a
high degree of independent
learning which exceeds the
assessment brief. Sources
have been accurately
interpreted and integrated
with flawless synthesis,
leading to innovative and
interesting ideas. With some
adjustments, work may be
considered for internal
publication.
Exceptional answer with coherent and
logical presentation of ideas. The
answer exhibits a clear argument/line of
reasoning with flair and originality.
Discipline specific vocabulary used with
precision and academic style applied
well throughout. No language errors
present and referencing in the CU
version of Harvard has been employed
in an accurate manner. With some
adjustments, work may be considered
for internal publication.
80-89% Outstanding knowledge base
exploring, analysing and
evaluating the discipline and
its theory with clear
originality and autonomy.
Demonstrates an outstanding grasp
of relevant analytical and/or
evaluative techniques. Shows a
developed appreciation of the limits
and/or appropriate uses of particular
analytical and/or evaluative
approaches. Knowledge and
understanding of theory, where
Outstanding exploration of
wider academic sources with a
high degree of independent
learning which exceeds the
assignment brief. Sources
have been accurately
interpreted and integrated
with a high degree of
Outstanding answer with coherent and
logical presentation of ideas. The
answer exhibits a clear argument/line of
reasoning with flair and originality.
Discipline specific vocabulary used with
precision and academic style applied
throughout. No language errors
present. Referencing in the CU version
relevant, is detailed and
sophisticated. Appreciation of the
limits of theory demonstrated
throughout the work. Approach to
assessment task is clearly and
appropriately theoretically informed.
synthesis, leading to
innovative and interesting
ideas.
of Harvard has been employed in an
accurate manner.
70-79% Excellent knowledge base
that supports analysis and/or
evaluation and problemsolving in theory and/or
practice within the
discipline, with considerable
originality.
Demonstrates a detailed, accurate,
theoretical understanding.
Appropriately selected theoretical
knowledge is applied to the
individual learning outcomes. Makes
excellent use of established
techniques of analysis and/or
evaluation relevant to the discipline
and applies these effectively. Shows
developed ability to appraise
alternative theories and/or analytic
approaches, where relevant.
Excellent exploration of wider
academic sources with
evidence of independent
learning which may exceed
the assignment brief. Sources
have been accurately
interpreted and integrated
with an attempt made at
synthesis, leading to
interesting ideas.
Excellent answer with coherent and
logical presentation of ideas. The
answer is entirely relevant and focused
with a clear argument/line of reasoning
throughout. Discipline specific
vocabulary used with precision and
academic writing style applied
throughout. No language errors
present. Referencing in the CU version
of Harvard has been employed in an
accurate manner.
60-69% Very good knowledge base
that supports analysis and/or
evaluation and problemsolving in theory and/or
practice within the
discipline, with some
originality displayed.
Makes very good use of established
techniques of analysis and/or
evaluation relevant to the discipline.
Shows developing ability to compare
alternative theories and/or analytic
approaches, where relevant.
Very good evidence of wider
academic reading and
independent learning. Sources
have been accurately
interpreted and integrated
with some evidence of
synthesis.
Very good answer with coherent and
logical presentation of ideas. The
answer is relevant and focused.
Discipline specific vocabulary is used
and academic writing style applied.
Minimal language errors may be
present but do not impact on clarity of
expression. Referencing in the CU
version of Harvard is accurate.
50-59% Good knowledge base that
supports some analysis
and/or evaluation and
problem-solving in theory
and/or practice within the
discipline.
Makes good use of established
techniques of analysis and/or
evaluation, relevant to the discipline.
Sound descriptive knowledge of key
theories with some appropriate
application.
Good evidence of academic
reading, with attempt at
moving beyond the
recommended texts.
Interpretation of sources is
acceptable with evidence of
integration.
Good answer with coherent and logical
presentation. The answer is largely
relevant but lacks focus at points. There
is an attempt at using discipline specific
vocabulary and academic writing style.
Some language errors are present which
impacts on clarity at times. Referencing
in the CU version of Harvard is mostly
accurate.
40-49% Satisfactory knowledge base
demonstrating
comprehension and
formulation of basic
knowledge with some
omissions at the level of
theoretical understanding.
Limited ability to discuss
theory and solve problems
within the discipline.
Makes satisfactory but limited use of
established techniques of analysis
and/or evaluation, relevant to the
discipline. Selection of theory, if
relevant to the assessment
outcomes is satisfactory but
application and/or understanding is
limited.
Satisfactory evidence of
academic reading, with
minimal attempt to move
beyond the recommended
texts. Interpretation of
sources is acceptable, but
there may be some instances
of misunderstanding.
Satisfactory answer with some attempt
at coherence and logical presentation.
The answer contains some irrelevant
material and lacks focus at points. There
is minimal use of discipline specific
vocabulary and academic writing style is
inconsistently applied. Some language
errors may be present which impacts on
clarity at times. Referencing in the CU
version of Harvard is mostly accurate
but with some errors.
35-39%
(Marginal Fail)
Outcomes not or only
partially met. Restricted
knowledge base
demonstrated. Limited
understanding of discipline.
Difficulty with linking theory
and problem solving within
the discipline.
Attempts at analysis and/or
evaluation ineffective and/or
uninformed by the discipline.
Knowledge of theory inaccurate
and/or incomplete. Choice of theory
inappropriate. Application and/or
understanding very limited.
Limited evidence of reading at
an academic level. Sources
used may be inappropriate
and interpreted poorly. Little
evidence of integration.
Answer is attempted but limited. Lack
of coherence and logical presentation.
The answer contains mainly irrelevant
material and lacks focus throughout.
Language errors are present and impact
on clarity of expression. Academic
writing style is not adhered to.
Referencing in the CU version of
Harvard is inconsistent.
0 – 34% Little or no evidence of
knowledge base. Little
evidence of understanding of
discipline. Significant
difficulty with theory and
problem solving within the
discipline.
Absence of relevant theoretical
content and/or use of theory, where
relevant. Lacks any analysis and/or
evaluation.
Inadequate or no evidence of
reading at an academic level
with poor application of
sources and ideas. Answer is
likely to include inappropriate
references which are
misunderstood and not
integrated. Possibility of
plagiarism OR no evidence of
academic research. Answer
may not be research based.
Answer is inadequate with serious flaws
in coherence and presentation. Poorly
structured with multiple language
errors which impact on clarity. Weak
application of CU version of Harvard
referencing style.
Solution:
Looking for help with your homework?
Grab a 30% Discount and Get your paper done!
Place an Order