LO2 Synthesise functional thinking such as marketing practices within the context of a cohesive business plan for action that recognises external environments and issues (tested through item 2)

LO3 Evaluate the value of business plans and their associated processes (tested through items 3 and 4)

A          Articulate, comprehensive yet concise. Demonstrates an excellent capacity to express views based upon realistic argument. A purposeful description of the manager’s role in the business planning process. Excellent critical review of the value of all the main tools that exist and their value in determining the most appropriate bases of competitive advantage. Complete accurate referencing using the Harvard standard.

B, C,D A fulsome effort. An expression of well-argued views. Some description of the manager’s role in the business planning process. Critical review of the value of relevant tools that exist and their value in determining the most appropriate bases of competitive advantage. Referencing using the Harvard standard.

B              The above to a very good standard. References beyond those identified in classroom sources. Clear evidence of independent thought.

C              The above to a sound standard. Limited degree of independent thought.

D              The above to a satisfactory standard, albeit some weaknesses evident. Some evidence of independent thought.

E              An overly descriptive or limited effort with superficial interpretation and little analysis or evaluation. Possibly shows some understanding insight into the subject area but fails to address the question in hand. Possible superficial discussion and/or narrow or dated sources used. Possible Faulty referencing and or spelling and grammatical errors.

Item 2

A       Excellent style. Very clear, comprehensive yet concise with helpful weblinks.

B,C,D   Clear concise and appropriate wiki contribution.

B              The above fully addressed to a very good standard based on clear independent thought.

C              The above addressed to a sound standard. Limited degree of independent thought.

D              The above to a satisfactory standard, albeit some weaknesses evident. Possible confusion. Some evidence of independent thought.

E              Confused, unbalanced, or superficial. Either overly wordy or failing to contain meaningful weblinks.

Item 3

A             Comprehensive, robust and meaningful review checklist drawn from multiple sources and independent thinking.

B,C,D     Worthwhile, extensive and meaningful review checklist drawn from several   sources and containing some degree of independent thinking.

B             The above to a very good standard. Clear evidence of independent thought.

C             The above to a sound standard. Limited degree of independent thought.

D             The above to a satisfactory standard, albeit some weaknesses and omissions of certain aspects evident. Some evidence of independent thought.

E              A confused effort with a partial or inappropriate checklist. Inappropriate and/or lacking in breadth, value and independent thinking.

Item 4

A              Excellent balanced evaluation of allocated business plan based systematic analysis and review. Excellent commentary on the strengths and limitations of the plan and well-argued analysis of the degree of appropriateness to the target audience.

B,C,D       Worthwhile evaluation of business plan based upon thoughtful analysis and review. Commentary on the strengths and limitations of the plan and analysis of the degree of appropriateness to the target audience.

B              The above to a very good standard. Clear evidence of independent thought.

C              The above to a sound standard. Limited degree of independent thought.

D              The above to a satisfactory standard, albeit some weaknesses evident. Some evidence of independent thought.

E              An inappropriate or partially worked effort. Possibly lacking in critical evaluation or confused. Failure to present argument clearly. Possible failure to review allocated business plan.

There are numerous sources that support items 2 and 3a many on line.

if tested here

Item 1

Managers within a strategic business unit or small organisations can make use of a variety of strategic techniques ideas and tools as part of the business planning process. Critically review the value of the main tools that exist to determine the most appropriate bases of competitive advantage including Porter’s thinking on generic strategies. (Indicative word limit: no more than 1,500 words. Harvard referencing convention must be applied).

Item 2

Produce a meaningful wiki contribution to Risk analysis and (contingency planning)no more than the equivalent of half a page of A4 paper. Your contribution should be helpful, easy to read and contain appropriate web links to other sources. Make a hard copy of your contribution to the wiki and include this as your second portfolio item. (Indicative word limit: no more than the equivalent of half a page of A4 paper. Harvard referencing convention must be applied.)

Item 3

Throughout your study of this module you will be required to develop a robust checklist of review issues that would be helpful in conducting an analysis of a business plan. (Indicative word limit: no more than the equivalent of three pages of A4 paper). All published sources used in developing your checklist should be properly included in a set of references and other sources.

Item 4

Follow the link below and you will find several complete business plans. In the classroom briefing you will be allocated one plan to concentrate on. Critically analyse this document using the checklist you have developed. Comment in particular on the strengths and limitations of the plan and the degree to which it meets the needs of its target audience. Indicative word limit: no more than 3,000 words excluding appendices.

In THIS ITEM YOU HAVE TO WRITE ABOUT :

Internet Services:

ePower Systems

http://www.businessplans.org/businessplans.html

(Portfolio item 1)

The work is insightful and has an appropriate selection of content and theory in key areas identified in the brief.

Overall clear well-written, well presented. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar. Good application of Harvard referencing system.

Significant failings in balance, structure or writing style. Repeated possibly significant errors in referencing and/or grammar. Possibly lacking in coherence.

(Portfolio item 2)

(Portfolio items 3&4)

The work may be mainly descriptive, but has achieved the learning outcome.

Appendix     Have you included all important documents, drawings, agreements, and references?