MN4002QA Fundamentals of Management
•You MUST use the structure and advice set out in the slides
Please choose one of the following topics:
•BP and the challenge of structure (start with Boddy, 2017, pp 168-172)
•NHS and the challenge of performance management (start with Boddy, 2017, p 607)
•IKEA and the challenge of growth (start with Boddy, 2017, p 207)
The criteria for marking your report include:
•Uses the required report structure (see slides) and has correct & sufficient Harvard referencing.
•Quality of research (1) on CVF, (2) on chosen organisation (including PESTEL, 5 Forces & SWOT) and (3) on the challenge
•Recommendations to meet challenge and required changes in management approach
•Conclusions Section of report
Guidelines on how to tackle the coursework:
Your report must have the following structure:
Title page (with module code and your ID)
Contents page (which you can do last)
1. Introduction (CVF)
2. The Company
2.1 Profile: activities, size, finances, analyses (SWOT, Porter’s 5 Forces Framework, PESTEL)
2.2 Management approach (from CVF) and reasons why
3. The Business challenge
3.1 Description of the challenge
3.2 Impact of challenge on company
Excellent structure, very coherent and logical, easy to follow through.
Excellent referencing in text and list following Harvard system without mistakes.
Evidence of very wide reading and research in recent publications, relevant books and journals. CVF is covered in depth, all analysis tools integrated in thorough research.
Excellent range (3 or 4) of practical recommendations and related, logical proposals for management changes
Analytical and clear conclusions based on research showing excellent understanding of organisation and challenge
The work shows evidence of:
Coherent and logical structure throughout.
Evidence of wide reading and research in mostly highly relevant and recent publication. Good description of CVF, three analysis tools applied appropriately Some minor errors in referencing.
Good set (2 or 3) of recommendations with discussion of related proposals for management change.
Good conclusions drawn based on research, good understanding of organisation and challengeThe work shows:
Coherent and logical structure in most parts provided.Evidence of some reading, some aspects of CVF mentioned, less than threeanalysis tools appropriately applied. Good referencing, but improvement possible.
A limited range (1 or 2) of recommendations with only minor discussion of management changes required.Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in research.
Some structure detectable, but not very coherent or logical.Follows Harvard system, but not throughout.
Evidence of reading is limited, very weak description of CVF, only one analysis tool applied properly.Only one weak recommendation and minimal discussion of management changes required.
Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by research.Does not address the task set. Presents minimal material related to the topic.
Little evidence of understanding of the task set. Poor structure. Attempt to use source, referencing not used.
Does not address the task set. Little evidence of understanding either the task or the subject matter. No evidence of scholarship.