Based on your group’s fictional case Presentation (i.e. the summative assessment 2), the priority issue identified in the Group, and the Action Plan devised, you will now submit your individual written report based on your fictional role, i.e. Managing Director of HR, or RDI, or Ops, or Marketing, as applicable.

STM5A5_ Sustainability _Assessment guidelines for SUMMATIVE 3: : individual written report based on your fictional role

Individual Report (linked to Group Project) _2018-19 1
STM5A5: Sustainability
Assessment guidelines for SUMMATIVE 3:
INDIVIDUAL REPORT (LINKED TO THE GROUP PROJECT)
(2018-19)
SUMMATIVE3: Individual Report linked to the Group Project
To be uploaded to BB by end of week 24, i.e. by the 13th April 2019.
Worth 35% TMM.
Format: Individual written report
Length: 2000 words maximum (expected average word count: 1850 words)
Submission deadline: to be uploaded to Bb by Saturday the 13th April 2019
Focus: Based on your group’s fictional case Presentation (i.e. the summative assessment 2), the
priority issue identified in the Group, and the Action Plan devised, you will now submit your
individual written report based on your fictional role, i.e. Managing Director of HR, or RDI, or
Ops, or Marketing, as applicable.
You are expected to provide solid reasoning on why your department’s role in the overall
project will be beneficial not only to the department but to the company’s new strategic vision
for sustainability, and how exactly your department will contribute to achieving the joint
sustainability-focused action plan.
Indicative Structure:

  1. DISCLAIMER and OBJECTIVES (indicative word count: 100 words):
    Start off by a disclaimer stating that ‘TTT’ is a fictional case inspired on the analysis of companies
    XYZ…, and the aim is to pretend that you (and your colleagues) are key stakeholders in ‘TTT’ and
    this report is aimed at the company’s decision-makers (and investors?) to release the relevant
    budget and support resources for you to implement this overall sustainability-led project, where
    you/your department play a key role, as detailed in this report (something along these lines)
  2. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF Summative 2 CASE (indicative word count: 250 words):
    Start with a brief overview of the fictional company’s vision, aims and objectives and the identified
    challenge to address. Include a summary of the sustainability-driven action plan developed by your
    group, and supported by the Gantt chart the team (should have) presented in Summative 2.

STM5A5_ Sustainability _Assessment guidelines for SUMMATIVE 3: Individual Report (linked to Group Project) _2018-19 2

  1. ROLE / DEPARTMENT
    Present your role in the company and elaborate briefly on the specific contribution and potential
    synergies your department will help enact towards the overall intended plan.
    Since this is an academic work, consider making use of general management and of sustainability
    concepts and tools to fully sustain and inform your case.
    We recommend that you also include a brief analysis of the department. You may wish to use tools
    such as SMART, or TROPICS, or a Sustainability model such as Silvius and Schipper’s, or The
    Phase Model by Dunphy, Griffiths and Benn, or any other model you like. BUT we strongly advise
    you to refrain from using SWOT or PESTLE, as these are tools that you are bound to use quite
    often in other modules, and therefore reduce your learning opportunities.
  2. PROJECT PLAN (indicative word count: 800 words)
    Develop and fully sustain your department’s detailed project plan, which should include:
     MILESTONES and Objectives: you should list the same milestones as presented in Summative
    2 for the overall project) and explain in which one(s) will your department specifically be
    involved, and why. You may then prefer to set a sub-set of specific Milestones for the
    department to address in order to meet the overarching milestone(s) of the full project. Make
    sure you use sound arguments to justify each milestone in detail, and refer both to general
    management and to sustainability concepts and tools (frameworks, models, and metrics). One
    of the milestones should be a Risk assessment and Mitigation plan. Do not overdo the number
    of milestones, if you use specific ones for the department’s own project. As stated in Summative
    2, this is an exercise, so three or four milestones are more than enough to demonstrate that
    you know what makes up a project and how to use this.
     TASKS and intended DELIVERABLES (i.e. outcomes): which tasks will have to be
    accomplished to contribute to each of the identified milestone, how long and specifically when
    through the overall project will each task take place, and why. Again, without repeating what
    you stated in the milestones, look into using further arguments to justify each task, and refer
    both to general management and to sustainability concepts and tools (frameworks, models,
    metrics, procedures, etc.) that will be relevant to apply during the planning, implementation and
    monitoring of each task. (Do not overdo the number of tasks. This is an exercise, so three tasks
    per milestone is a good average to demonstrate that you know how to use this)
     MATERIAL RESOURCES: which material resources (equipment, raw material, energy, water,
    logistics, etc.) will be required per task, with an estimate budget (rough estimate but as realistic
    as possible)
     HUMAN RESOURCES: which human resources/human capital will be required per task, with
    an estimate budget set as [person-month] This is the equivalent of how many hours per month
    out of their own stipulated contract hours will each person be directly involved working in this
    project, with the estimated cost (depending on their salary).
    o Example: you need full time person B (who is committed to a work schedule of 5 days per week) to
    be involved 2.5 days per week over the next 7 months in this project. Therefore, per month, the

STM5A5_ Sustainability _Assessment guidelines for SUMMATIVE 3: Individual Report (linked to Group Project) _2018-19 3
project will be using up half of the work time of this person. This is equivalent to 0.5 person-month,
since in a full month of 4 weeks on average, the person will work 20 days. Let us assume this
person’s salary is £2.000 per month. Since you need this person at this 0.5 rate for 7 months, the
cost that goes into your budget regarding person B will be £7000 (2000×0.5×7).

  1. FINAL REMARKS (indicative word count: 300 words):
    Write a relevant set of final remarks, and ideally setting new targets for further developments for
    the department/company in the near future.
  2. REFLECTION (indicative word count: 120 words maximum):
    Finalize with a brief reflection on your path through the overall project development, and
    include a personal reflection on how the research for this double Assessment (Summatives
    2 and 3) has contributed/or not, to improving your knowledge and interest on the topic.
    What surprised you? What challenged you the most? This is not intended as a judgemental
    point, just a personal reflective analysis.
  3. BIBLIOGRAPHY & ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    Use Regent’s Harvard or APA referencing style
    REMINDER! And remember: a project is a plan, an intention, therefore there is no Conclusion as such (we can only draw
    a Conclusion once the project has been implemented! But not when you present it, nor even when you start it).
    You may finalize your coursework with something along the lines of ‘Concluding remarks’ or ‘Brief closing statement’ or ‘Final
    considerations’…but do not attempt to draw a ‘Conclusion’. IF you include a section called ‘Conclusion’, OR if you write ‘IN
    conclusion..’ or ‘To conclude…’ you will be penalized -2%.
    You are entitled to seek FORMATIVE feedback from your workshop tutor prior to the final submission
    of this assignment.
    The Table below provides the assessment criteria and the indicative weighting of each criteria
    regarding SUMMATIVE 3 (Individual Report):
    MARKING CRITERIA
    FOR SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT 3
    (Individual Report)
    Indicative %
    weighting
    Coherence and consistency of the overall report, and clear link to Summative 2 10
    Demonstrated evaluation of the feasibility of the action plan, including a risk
    assessment and mitigation plan
    25
    Demonstrated understanding and application of sustainability concepts and tools to
    inform best practice
    25
    Insightful use of relevant arguments sustaining the plan 25
    Reflection 10
    Bibliography and Acknowledgements 5

STM5A5_ Sustainability _Assessment guidelines for SUMMATIVE 3: Individual Report (linked to Group Project) _2018-19 4
Note: We use Regent’s Common Assessment Scale as follows
Bands Generic descriptors
8
 All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to an exceptionally high standard (according to the level of
study).
 The outcome of the assessment task is presentable in a professional context and may extend practical or theoretical knowledge
in the field. It displays an exceptionally high level of understanding, evaluation, insight, analysis, reflection and/or criticality
(according to the level of study), and connections are developed both within and beyond the task set.
 The work’s organisation, structure and presentation are developed to an exceptionally high standard.
7
 All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to an outstanding standard (according to the level of study).
 The outcome of the assessment demonstrates an outstanding display of understanding, exploration, evaluation, insight,
analysis, reflection, criticality and/or research (according to the level of study). Connections are developed both within and
beyond the task set.
 The work’s organisation, structure and presentation are developed to an outstanding standard.
6
 All learning outcomes and task specifications have been achieved to high standard (according to the level of study).
 The outcome of the assessment demonstrates an excellent display of understanding, exploration, evaluation, insight analysis,
reflection, criticality and/or research (according to the level of study), and connections are developed both within and beyond the
task set.
 The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be developed to an excellent standard.
5
 All learning outcomes have been achieved at a good and some to a very good standard (according to the level of study).
 The outcome of the assessment demonstrates a very good level of understanding, exploration, evaluation, analysis, reflection,
criticality, some insight and/or very good research (according to the level of study), and connections are established within the
task set, and in some cases reaching beyond.
 The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be developed to a very good standard.
4
 Most learning outcomes have been met at a good standard (according to the level of study).
 The outcome of the assessment demonstrates a good understanding, exploration, evaluation, analysis, and some reflection,
criticality and/or appropriate research. (According to the level of study)
 The work’s organisation, structure and presentation may be appropriately developed.
3
 All learning outcomes have been met to a minimum satisfactory standard (according to the level of study).
 The outcome of the assessment shows an adequate understanding, of major ideas, with little insight and basic research. Limited
level of analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study).
 The outcome of the task shows ability to paraphrase concepts and theories, with limited ability to make connections.
 The work may be disorganised, and the structure and presentation may be barely adequate.
2
 Most learning outcomes have almost been met, whilst the rest have not (according to the level of study).
 The outcome of the assessment shows a limited understanding of major ideas, with little insight, very basic research, and very
limited ability to make connections. No analysis, reflection and/or criticality (according to the level of study)
 The work may be disorganised, and the structure and presentation may be barely adequate.
1
 The majority of the learning outcomes have not been met (according to the Level). The outcome of the assessment task is
incomplete, flawed, very limited and/or presents significant inaccuracies.
 The outcome of the assessment shows very limited understanding with no insight, and very limited ability to make connections
within basic ideas in the field, very fragmented. Lacks research. No analysis, reflection or criticality (according to the level of
study)
 The work is disorganised, and unstructured. Presentation is barely adequate.
0
 None of the learning outcomes have been met. The task has not been addressed by the student, or there is no assessable task.
 The outcome of the assessment shows no understanding of basic ideas, with no insight and shows no ability to make
connections within basic ideas in the field, or the connections are completely irrelevant. Lacks research. No understanding,
analysis, reflection nor criticality.
 The work completely lacks organisation and structure. Presentation is completely inadequate.
Conversion scale for UG according to the RUL’s Assessment Framework
BAND CONVERSION into %
8 90 – 100
7 80 – 89
6 70 – 79
5 60 – 69
4 50 – 59
3 40 – 49
2 30 – 39
1 11 – 29
0 0 – 10

Uncategorized
All Rights Reserved, Essaysland.com
Disclaimer: