Introduction to the Module

Financial Performance Management Introduction to the Module Dr. Irma Malafronte Introduction to the Module: Teaching team, course structure, and assessment Dr. Irma Malafronte The teaching team Dr. Irma Malafronte Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Finance [email protected] Module convener Mr. John Forgan Lecturer and company director [email protected] Dr. Daniel Amona Lecturer in Business Management [email protected] Overview of the module Financial Reporting Cost -volume - profit analysis Cost allocation: Full Costing and ABC Capital Investment Appraisal Techniques Balanced scorecard Budgeting and Variance analysis Integrated reporting FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Non -financial information Financial Statements Dr. Irma Malafronte How the module is delivered DISCOVER EXPLORE SHARE AND APPLY Roehampton Business School blended learning framework Checklist, post session activities, online Reading list plus Dr. Irma Malafronte Course structure The Moodle page of FPM represents a crucial source of information, so we recommend to start familiarising with its content. In particular: • Learning and Teaching Assessment and Feedback Plan (LTAF) • Assessment Brief • Reading list with core texts and readings week by week; • Lecture slides, seminar resources, and other resources (readings, cases, problems and solutions, etc.) will be available in advance of the sessions; • Check your timetable – attendance is very important . Dr. Irma Malafronte Financial Performance Management Assessment Brief Dr. Irma Malafronte Extract from the Assessment Brief – read the full document on Moodle Dr. Irma Malafronte Dr. Irma Malafronte Extract from the Assessment Brief – read the full document on Moodle Dr. Irma Malafronte Extract from the Assessment Brief – read the full document on Moodle Dr. Irma MalafronteRubric category (range) Assigned mark >> ________________ Marking criteria Outstanding 100 Excellent (80 -89) 85 Very Good (70 -79) 75 Good (60 -69) 65 Adequate (50 -59) 55 Marginal Fail (40 -49) 45 Fail (30-39) 35 Fail (20 -29) 25 Not done 0 Question 1 30 % Outstanding and flawless. Ratio analysis is presented, articulated and discussed in an excellent way. Excellent presentation of the two companies. Excellent comparative evaluation. The arguments are systematic and supported by a wide range of relevant tables , graphics , and literature . The calculations are correct. Very good effort at presenting , articulating and discussing financial ratio analysis. Very good presentation of the two companies. Very good comparative evaluation. The arguments are supported by a range of relevant tables , graphics , and literature . The calculations are generally correct. Good effort at presenting , articulating and discussing financial ratio analysis. Good presentation of the two companies. Good comparative evaluation. The arguments are supported by relevant tables and lit erature . The calculations are overall correct and may include minor mistakes or omissions. Generally adequate effort at presenting, articulating and discussing financial ratio analysis. Adequate presentation of the two companies. Adequate comparative eva luation. The arguments are supported by a few tables (or no tables) and some literature . The calculations include minor mistakes. Some effort at presenting , articulating and discussing financial ratio analysis. Inadequate presentation of the two companies . Insufficient comparative evaluation. The arguments are not supported by tables or literature . The calculations have mistakes. Weak effort at presenting , articulating and discussing financial ratio analysis. No presentation of the two companies. Very limited or no comparative evaluation. The arguments are not supported by tables or literature . The calculations have mistakes. Insufficient effort at presenting , articulating and discussing financial ratio analys is. No presentation of the two companies. No comparative evaluation. Very few relevant points. The arguments are not supported by tables or literature . The calculations have mistakes. Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted. Question 2 30% Outstanding and flawless. Material selected from appropriate, authoritative sources . Comprehensive, systematic, and critical analysis of relevant literature. Demonstrates a sophisticated approach to the application of theory to practice. Excellent discussion and analysis. Appropriate conclusions accurately drawn from materials and data selected. Material mostly selected from appropriate, authoritative sources. Very good critical review and synthesis of ideas. Considerable evidence of so lid research into the subject. Extensive use of theory. Very good discussion and analysis with logical conclusions, accurately drawn from materials and data selec ted and very well incorporated. Material mainly selected from appropriate, authoritative sourc es. Good analysis of the literature, quite critical and well - developed. Good use of theory. Good discussion and analysis. Good conclusions mostly accurately drawn from materials and data selected, however can be expanded. Some analysis shows promise and depth of thought. Material selected from a mix of sources, many that are not appropriate and/or authoritative. Ideas organised into a coherent argument with limited critical discussion. Reasonable use and application of theory to support analysis. Generally adequate discussion and analysis. Statements can be better supported with materials and data. Some analysis shows promise and depth of thought. Very few sources regarded as appropriate and authoritative. Relatively poor organisation and analysis of ideas. Absence of cogency and structure to review, with almost no critical discussion. Subject not properly invest igated using appropriate sources. Analysis is not very well explained and discussion is insufficient. Materials and data selected are poorly related to the discussion. Poor quality of sources regarded as appropriate and authoritative. Very poor organisati on and analysis of ideas. Absence of cogency and structure to review, with no critical discussion. Little or no explanation of the appropriate concepts and discussion of literature. Analysis is not well explained or not appropriate; limited discussion foll owing from the data and the analysis. Very poor quality of sources regarded as appropriate and authoritative. Ideas organised randomly or not organised at all. Absence of cogency and structure to review, with no critical discussion. Very limited sources selected. Analysis is not at all explained or not appropriate; very limited discussion . Very limited analysis. Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted. How we will support you with your assessment You will be supported in preparing for the assessment: • Assessment Briefing on Moodle. • Assessment briefing early in the module. • Teaching team available outside class with office hours. • FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT • Regular Q&A/Assessment clinics • Marking Rubric. Dr. Irma Malafronte Any questions? For any further questions… feel free to ask in class, email or request an online meeting Dr. Irma Malafronte