Categories
Uncategorized

You are required to undertake research on two innovative organisations in the same sector who have headquarters in different countries.

Assessment Brief  

 Report Task

You are required to undertake research on two innovative organisations in the same sector who have headquarters in different countries. You will write a 4,000 word report on the management of innovation in those organisations that must include the following sections:

1.    An introduction to the two organisations and some of their main innovative end results.

2.  Map and critique the innovation space of the two organisations setting out existing practice (i.e. outputs/outcomes).

3.  Critically discuss the innovation strategy and management process employed in the organisations using Tidd and Bessant’s 4 step model (search, select, implement and capture).

4.  Identify recommendations to improve the innovation management of the two organisations.

5.    Provide a short conclusion to your innovation report assignment.

Additional requirements for the assessment:

Some tools the professor said to consider in the assessment are:

1. Competency mapping

2. competitive profiling

3. Porter’s Five Forces

4. PESTLE Analysis 

5. SWOT analysis

Also who is the leader of the business? Doug Mclelland Need’s Theory ( Power, affirmation, Achievement) 

Key Points

1. Individual Work

You are to work individually.

2. Research approach

You should find the required information on the organization via secondary/desk (i.e. web, journal articles) research. Where needed you can use primary research to fill in any knowledge you are missing from secondary sources. You must clearly provide evidence to support the critical discussion in your report. English language sources are preferable, non-English sources are acceptable as long as a translation of the reference is provided.

3.Writing the Report

Write up your work in a report format.  Your report should explicitly include all the items listed in the marking schedule below.  It should be a maximum of 4,000 words in length. The word count excludes the following: references, appendices, table of content. Please include the word count on the title page.

 3.1 Report format 

Front cover includes: module title and number, matriculation number, word count, report title

Layout: 1.5 spacing, font arial, font size 12, pages are numbered. 

.

Additional Guidance 

  • This component is an academic assignment and should be written in an appropriate style (e.g. using 3rd person) 
  • You are required to present using a clear coherent structure.
  • You are required to use the APA referencing style (6th edition) throughout and can find guidance on this via the library
  •  a word count should be provided on the front cover of your report.  

Marking Guide – Managing Innovation

 Grade 
 D2- D5D1P2-P5P1F1F2-F5
Introduction 10%Outstanding introduction covering size, history and growth of both report organizations. Highly relevant examples of innovative end results presented for both organizations. Outline of report structure given.Excellent Introduction covering size, history and growth of both companies. Also very relevant examples of innovative end results presented for both organizations. Outline of report structure given.  Good to very good introduction covering size, history and growth of both companies. Also relevant examples of innovative end results presented for both companies. Brief outline of report structure.Acceptable Introduction covering some of the details on size history and growth of both companies. A few acceptable examples of innovative end results presented for both companies. Some indication of report structure.Unacceptable Introduction lacking some key details of size/history and or growth of one or both companies. Lack of relevant examples of innovative end results presented for one or both report organizations. Weak or absent indication of report structure.  Incoherent introduction. Poor or no examples of innovative end results presented. Absent or very weak indication of report structure.  
Innovation Space 15%  Outstanding accurate map of the innovation space, excellent justification of placement decisions and proper critical analysis of outputs/outcomes.Excellent accurate map of the innovation space, strong justification of placement decisions and proper critical analysis of outputs/outcomes.Good to very good mapping of the innovation space, good justification of placement decisions and proper critical analysis of outputs/outcomesAcceptable mapping of the innovation space and some reasonable analysis of outputs/outcomes. Justification limited/descriptive.Limited mapping of the innovation space outputs/outcomes. Some notable errors or omissions. Unacceptable level of analysis and justification.Poor or incorrect mapping of the innovation space and outputs/outcomes. Lacks analysis and justification.
       
Analysis of Innovation Process 40%Outstanding and highly accurate identification of the innovation process in chosen organisations. Very Strong critical analysis of the process found. Extensive critique of Tidd and Bessant’s 4-step innovation process with extensive reference to appropriate academic literature and findings of report investigation. Critical reflection on theory and practice.Excellent identification of the innovation process in chosen organisations. Strong critical analysis of the process found. Excellent Critique of Tidd and Bessant’s 4-step innovation process with reference to appropriate academic literature and findings of report investigation. Reflection on theory and practice.Good to very good identification of the innovation process in chosen organisations. Very good critical analysis of the process found. Critique of Tidd and Bessant’s 4-step innovation process with reference to appropriate academic literature and findings of reportInnovation process in chosen organisations identified fairly correctly and described fairly adequately. Limited engagement with Tidd and Bessant’s 4-step innovation process. Lacks critical analysis and reference to literature and findings of report investigation. Reflection on theory and practice is poor. Writing style is mixed and work is descriptive.Innovation process in chosen organisations identified incorrectly and poorly described. No strong engagement with Tidd and Bessant’s 4-step innovation process. No critical analysis and very limited reference to literature and findings of report investigation. Reflection on theory and practice is very poor. Writing style is weak.Coverage of the topic is extremely incomplete and important source material is seriously lacking. A substantial amount of material is not shown to be relevant to the report area. Major inaccuracies and confusions are displayed. Source material is given a cursory treatment, and analysis is non-existent.  
Recommendations 10%Outstanding Recommendations presented. Recommendations are related to analysis and are clear, sensible and fully implementable.  Excellent Recommendations presented. Recommendations are related to analysis and are coherent and implementable.  Good to very good Recommendations present that have relevance to the analysis and are implementable.Acceptable recommendations made that link to analysis. Some Recommendations are implementable.Inadequate recommendations made. Recommendations may not be implementable.Absent or very poor recommendations made. Recommendations may not be implementable.
Report Conclusions 5%Outstanding summary of the report’s content. Salient points clear and concisely presented. Very clear linkage to analysis and recommendations of the report.Excellent summary of the report’s content. Key points coherently presented. Well linked to analysis and recommendations of the report.Good to very good summary of the report’s content. Most key points covered and structured to link specifically to the analysis and recommendations of the report.  Acceptable summary of the report’s contents. Summary could have been structured better to link more specifically to the analysis and recommendations of the report.  Inadequate summary of the report’s content. Lack of relevance to the key areas of the report analysis and recommendations.Very poor or not present summary of the report’s content. Little relevance, if any, to key areas of the report analysis and any recommendations presented.
Presentation 10%Outstanding layout and structure (including salient diagrams and tables). Very easy to read and follow main arguments. Contents page and word count virtually perfect.Excellent clear structure and layout. Report easy to read and follow main arguments. Excellent Contents page and word count.Good to very good structure and layout. Report fairly easy to read and follow main arguments. Suitable Contents page and set word count used.Acceptable structure and layout.  Able to read and follow most main arguments. Acceptable Contents page and word count acceptable.Inadequate structure and layout. At times report difficult to read and follow the main arguments. Missing Contents page and or noticeably over or under set word count.Little or no structure to the report. Layout unacceptable. Report difficult to read and follow main arguments (or main arguments missing). No Contents page and considerably over or under set word count.
References 10%Outstanding set of references, with virtually perfect referencing demonstrated.Excellent set of references with excellent referencing skills demonstrated.Good to very good set of references used with competent referencing skills demonstrated.Acceptable set of references used with acceptable referencing skills demonstrated but some inconsistencies in citation practice may be present.  Inadequate set of References given. Poor referencing skills apparent. Many inconsistencies in citation practice may be present. Paucity of in-text or end text references.  Inappropriate/ questionable quality or no references present. Very poor or absent referencing skills demonstrated with missing in-text and/or end text referencing.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *