+ 44 7340 9595 39 +44 20 32396980
(2) Notifications
Flat 50% OFF on Every Order
Promo Code: FLAT50Chat GPT & Paraphrasing Tool
My Account

Custom-Written, AI & Plagiarism-Free with Passing "Guaranteed"

UK Based Company
Company Registration# 11483120
Address: International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom, E16 2DQ.

MK9700 Strategic Marketing in the Digital Era The Business Simulation

MK9700 – Strategic Marketing in the Digital Era The Business Simulation

Component assessment

First-sit assessment:

Introduction

You are part of a team (three to five students) who together make up the executive managers of a company, which is entering the European Car Industry.

You will set up a car manufacturing company, design cars and sell these. Your company is in competition with the others within your seminar group and within the wider marketplace.

Achievement of this is through participation in a business simulation exercise (“The Business Game”). The exercise is designed to allow you to apply theoretical knowledge to the setting up and running of a business, which is competing for market share. This will be achieved through application of simulation software, which will produce results showing the impact of your decisions on the company’s performance each year.

Before the simulation starts, you are allocated to your company teams. The teams will compete with one another for market share as part of the simulation.

Information on the market together with cost data will be posted on the e-learning portal. Each team should read this information carefully and use it to establish a business strategy. During the simulation, the teams will make decisions over a number of rounds (each round is a year in the life of the company) which will be delivered to the Chief Executive of the parent company (NBS Motor Holdings Ltd) who will analyse them. The results, in the form of a computer-generated report, will be provided to each team at the start of the next round.

The Business Simulation seminars will take the form of shareholder meetings. Each team will make a short presentation reviewing the performance of their company in the previous round and identifying key areas where the performance and management of the business can be improved.

The objective for each team is to maximise the shareholder value of their company at the end of four decision rounds.

To complete the assessment detailed below, it is essential that each team keeps a detailed record (minutes) of team meetings including notes of the decisions made, the rationale for these decisions, and the role(s) of team members.

Assignment A (25% of module mark)

Detailed instructions and indicative marking:

Each student will submit an individual report, based on the simulation output and experience. As an individual piece of work, you should assess this independently (i.e. not as a team exercise). Students should not share their report or analysis with fellow team members. However, students can share the material from the simulation, i.e. decision forms, team meeting minutes and the computer output.

The report has a word limit of 2,000 words and should have the following structure. The words shown after each section are indicative and are not word limits.

1. Front page – Module Code, Student ID, Group Number (if applicable) and Team Number, Company name, Word count

2. Contents page (with page numbers)

3. Introduction (5%, 100 words)

Strategic Objectives for your company at the end of the simulation. These include the objectives that your team agreed at the beginning of the simulation. They can be a mixture of open and closed objectives but there should be enough measurable (SMART) objectives to evaluate the success of the company at the end of the simulation.

Competitive Strategy. What was the intended strategy at the start of the simulation? Why would your Differentiation or Cost Leadership strategy create an advantage over your competitors? What market segment were you targeting?

4. Critical evaluation of the company performance (50%, 1,000 words)

Present a table showing the following key performance measures over the four rounds:

Production (units) for each model Sales (units) for each model

Unsold stock (units) for each model Sales revenue for the company Profit after tax

Bank balance Outstanding loan Shareholder Funds

Critically evaluate the performance of the company from the perspective of the key business functions. Explain the links between actions, outcomes, and strategy clearly. Where possible you should also apply referenced business frameworks and theories to illustrate your actions and learning (NOTE: a detailed discussion of the theory is not required).

Comment on the trends in the above measures over the four rounds of the simulation, linking these to decisions made during the simulation. Did you change the competitive strategy during the simulation? If change in the competitive strategy was required how was this strategic change managed within the company?

 

 

 

5. Critical evaluation of and reflection on decision making (25%, 500 words)

Base this answer on the MARKETING aspects of your decision making within the business simulation:

How effective and responsible were your marketing decisions? Have you considered the impact of your marketing decisions on the company’s stakeholders?

Provide evidence of how your marketing decisions were influenced by appropriate academic theory.

How effective was your company demonstration of functional interdependence? In short, demonstrate the effectiveness of your marketing decisions in combination with the other key functional areas.

6. Critical evaluation of teamworking in the Business Simulation (15%, 300 words)

Provide with a link to appropriate theory from your Leadership and Management development module, a critical evaluation of the of the performance of the team and a personal reflection on your role in the team.

7. Conclusion (5%, 100 words)

Was your company successful? Explain your answer with respect to exceeding, meeting or not meeting your pre-defined SMART objectives.

How would you improve the performance of the company if you played the simulation again?

8. References – see later guidelines on the assessment marking grid.

9. Appendices and Tables/Figures

There should be NO appendices used in your report.

Tables and graphs are an essential part of the report. These main tables and graphs should be included in the main body of your report, located in the relevant sections of the work. The limit of tables and graphs is a MAXIMUM of 12 in total for the two types of display.

Referencing your work

The APA method of referencing uses the author`s name and the date of the publication. In-text citations give brief details of the work you are referring to in your text. References are listed at the end of the text in alphabetical order by the author`s name.  The general format of an electronic journal reference in the APA style is shown below:

Coutu, D. (2009). Why Teams Don`t Work. Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 98-105. Retrieved 29th April 2012 from EBSCO http://searchebscohost.com

Author/s name and initials are listed first, followed by year of publication in brackets.  Then there is the title of article and the journal where the article appears, which is in italics.  Then state the volume and issue number (in brackets) along with the pages where article can be located. Finally add the date the article was retrieved and then the name of the database, followed by the web address. Wherever possible use the homepage URL rather than the full and extended web address.

For further information on why it is important to reference accurately go to the Referencing and Plagiarism topic in Skills Plus available from the Library website:

www.northumbria.ac.uk/skillsplus

You will find other useful help guides on Skills Plus to help you with the skills involved in writing your assessments and preparing for exams.

For further information on the APA style of referencing see the Concise Rules of APA style and the APA website http://www.apastyle.org/learn

Late submission of work

Where coursework is submitted without approval, after the published hand-in deadline, the following penalties will apply.

For coursework submitted up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without approval, 10% of the total marks available for the assessment (i.e.100%) shall be deducted from the assessment mark.

For clarity: a late piece of work that would have scored 65%, 55% or 45% had it been handed in on time will be awarded 55%, 45% or 35% respectively as 10% of the total available marks will have been deducted.

The Penalty does not apply to Pass/Fail Modules, i.e. there will be no penalty for late submission if assessments on Pass/Fail are submitted up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline.

Coursework submitted more than 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without approval will be regarded as not having been completed. A mark of zero will be awarded for the assessment and the module will be failed, irrespective of the overall module mark.

For clarity: if the original hand-in time on working day A is 12noon the 24 hour late submission allowance will end at 12noon on working day B.

These provisions apply to all assessments, including those assessed on a Pass/Fail basis.

Word limits and penalties

If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit, no penalty will apply.

The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment and the assignment cover sheet.  The word count does not include:

  • Title and Contents page
  • Reference list
  • Appendices
  • Appropriate tables, figures and illustrations
  • Glossary
  • Bibliography
  • Quotes from interviews and focus groups.
      
     

Please note, in text citations [e.g. (Smith, 2011)] and direct secondary quotations [e.g. “dib-dab nonsense analysis” (Smith, 2011 p.123)] are INCLUDED in the word count.

If this word count is falsified, students are reminded that under ARNA page 30 Section 3.4 this will be regarded as academic misconduct.

If the word limit of the full assignment exceeds the +10% limit, 10% of the mark provisionally awarded to the assignment will be deducted.  For example: if the assignment is worth 70 marks but is above the word limit by more than 10%, a penalty of 7 marks will be imposed, giving a final mark of 63.

Students must retain an electronic copy of this assignment (including ALL appendices) and it must be made available within 24 hours of them requesting it be submitted.

Note: For those assessments or partial assessments based on calculation, multiple choice etc., marks will be gained on an accumulative basis.  In these cases, marks allocated to each section will be made clear.

Academic Misconduct

The Assessment Regulations for Northumbria Awards (ARNA) contain the Regulations and procedures applying to cheating, plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct.

The full policy is available at:   http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/central/ar/qualitysupport/asspolicies/ 

You are reminded that plagiarism, collusion and other forms of academic misconduct as referred to in the Academic Misconduct procedure of the assessment regulations are taken very seriously by Newcastle Business School.  Assignments in which evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct is found may receive a mark of zero.

Peer Evaluation

To encourage fair participation and effort, individuals will hand over their peer review document (Appendix I) to their workshop tutor during final year presentation week. This will not be accepted after that week. Failure to hand in the peer review document will result in your peer opinions not being taken into account in the process of marking your assignments.

Based on peer evaluation marks, any supporting evidence submitted, and issues the group had flagged up with the workshop tutor, your final marks for the Business Simulation Game might be adjusted. Mark deductions/additions will be made by the seminar tutor. Marks will not be adjusted if no supporting evidence is presented with the peer evaluation and the group did not flag up issues in good time. The seminar tutor’s decision is final. 

Appendix I

Business Simulation: Peer Evaluation Form

Seminar Day/Time

 

Seminar Tutor

 
This form is completely confidential but where serious discrepancies exist, group members may be contacted to provide additional information which may result in individual marks being adjusted. However, a student cannot fail this component on peer evaluations alone.

Fill in the name of each group member, except yourself, then assign points for each category and total the points. You should add comments to justify your evaluations.

1 = Poor/None

2 = Little/Some

3 = Average

4 = Very Good

5 = Excellent

Name(s)

Attend weekly group meetings

Actively take part in decision making

Contribute to presentation preparation

Present during weekly presentation

Total /20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
                 

Comments/justification of marks above:

To the best of my recollection, the above ratings accurately reflect the performance of my peers.

Signature:

Print Name:

Student Number:

Now consider how your group members might evaluate you:

Attend weekly group meetings

Actively take part in decision making

Contribute to presentation preparation

Present during weekly presentation

Total /20

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix II Marking rubric - MK9700 Strategic Marketing in the Digital Era The Business Simulation

Criteria

Scales

 

0-39%

40-49%

50-59%

60-69%

70-79% Exceeds

80-89%

90-100%

Standard Not Met

Standard Not Met

Meets Standard 2

Meets Standard

Standard 1

Exceeds

Exceeds Standard

1

2

 

2

 

Standard 2

3

Goal 4 Objective 1

 

Acquire, interpret and apply knowledge of international business, management and organisational functions

Very poor choice of

measures and goes little beyond tables/graphs so completely insufficient in terms of analysis. In terms of understanding, completely insufficient evidence is shown.

Tells a story but does

not convey real understanding, it is insufficient in its lack of linkage between measures and/or poor choice of measures.

Does not make use of simulation data in a sufficient way.

Adequate explanation

which shows reasonable understanding of a basic range of performance measures, not very well linked, at best adequate.

Good explanation of

performance – student clearly understands what happened but misses some key measures and/or links. Good use of data.

Very good discussion

with sound analysis which covers most areas and shows clearly the links between decisions, forecasts and outcomes. Makes very good use of data on competition.

Excellent

discussion of all key measures which shows sound understanding of strategy, decisions, forecasts and outcomes using a wide range of data.

Outstanding discussion

of all key measures which shows sound understanding of strategy, decisions, forecasts and outcomes using an extensive range of data.

 

[0 – 19]

[20 – 24]

[25 – 29]

[30- 34]

[35 – 39]

[40 – 44]

[45 – 50]

Goal 2 Objective 3

Understand the wider impact of individual or organisational decision making on social and environmental contexts

Almost no links between

learning and the simulation, demonstrating completely insufficient learning. No evidence the student attended any classes or understands how decisions are made responsibly hence completely insufficient understanding of its role or importance.

Links not properly made

and/or a very limited range of topics mentioned, therefore insufficient understanding demonstrated. Little evidence that the student has made any use of the learning and is insufficient in demonstrating this use of learning.

Student is able to

make adequate links between some elements of the decisions and the learning, but the adequate evaluation tends to be strengthened.

Good evaluation

although limited in range. Application of learning is good but interdependence of functions not recognised, the nature of responsibility in decision making needs to be strengthened.

Very good critical

evaluation of the decision based on learning from rest of module. Some appreciation of functional interdependence.

Excellent critical

evaluation of the decisions demonstrating thorough application of learning from the rest of the module and an understanding of responsible decision making. Clear appreciation of the interdependence of functions.

Outstanding critical

evaluation of the decisions demonstrating significant application of learning from the rest of the module and an extending understanding of responsible decision making. Clear and significantly articulated appreciation of the interdependence of functions.

 

[0 – 9]

[10 – 12]

[13 – 14]

[15 – 17]

[18 – 19]

[20 – 22]

[23 – 25]

Goal 2 Objective 1

Demonstrate their ability to work in culturally diverse groups and teams and

Performance described but far too brief and completely insufficient to be useful.

The performance is described but contains insufficient evaluation and the accompanying analysis of self and team is insufficient.

There is an adequate evaluation although tends to lack analytical rigour. There is adequate detail to understand how team

The evaluation is good but requires greater critical thinking. There is adequate application of the academic

There is a very good evaluation of both team and self (student) but use of HR9737 material has the potential to be

There is an excellent critical evaluation of the team and the role of you as the individual within

There is an outstanding critical evaluation of the team and the role of you as the individual within this, making extensive and rigorous

 

make appropriate and personal contribution to team effectiveness

[0 – 5]

[6-7]

and performance functioned 

[8]

material presented in module HR9737.

[9]

either extensive or rigorous

[10-11]

this, making extensive use of material from Residential and module HR9737

[12]

use of material from Residential and module HR9737

[13-15]

Introduction and Conclusion

Non-existent to very brief introduction and summary, completely insufficient in terms of setting the scene or concluding the key findings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[0 – 3]

The vision is insufficient in detail in terms of price, market segment and related organisational aims.

Objectives are insufficient and are not measurable. The conclusion may be superficial and therefore insufficient for a report at this level.

 

 

[4]

There is an adequate description of the vision of the organisation, a little more rationale would be welcome.

Objectives could be more specific. The conclusion adequately states what has happened, but little or nothing more.

 

 

 

[5]

The vision is explained, objectives are good but could be improved. The conclusion provides some good evaluation of performance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[6]

There is an organisational vision that covers most of market segments, module types, quality and pricing. This is translated into relatively clear objectives. The conclusion is very good in evaluating the company performance against the market, less so against vision.

 

[7]

Strategic objectives are set out clearly and there is a clear organisational vision around market segments, module types, quality and pricing. The excellent conclusion evaluates the company performance against both market and original vision for the company.

[8]

Strategic objectives are set out clearly and there is a clear organisational vision around market segments, module types, quality and pricing. The conclusion is based on outstanding evaluation of the company performance against both market and original vision for the company.

[9 – 10]

Overall Comments

The report has serious weaknesses. The student is completely insufficient in demonstrating that he/she understands what happened in the simulation and has been unable to use the learning from Semester 1 in an effective way.

This covers all aspects of the assessment.

[0 – 29

Although reasonable understanding is shown, the report fails in at least one major aspect to convey an appreciation of the link between strategy, decision-making and performance. The standard of presentation and writing is likely to be less than would be expected for a professional piece of work. The decision- making evaluation is also likely to be at best descriptive.

[40 – 49]

The report is adequate, but there are likely to be weaknesses in presentation and writing. An adequate understanding of what happened in the simulation is evident, but the linking together of strategy, decision-making and performance is limited. The adequate evaluation of the team decision making may likely have the same gaps in evaluation.

 

[50 – 59]

The quality of presentation is good and fairly easy to follow. The student has been selective in choosing key data to discuss. The student shows good understanding of how decisions in each functional area have affected performance, although there is probably more scope for being evaluative, this extending to the assessment of the team decision making

[60 – 69]

The report is very good and easy to read. All the key points are there with a good level of discussion. There is clear critical thinking demonstrating awareness of how decisions affected performance and how the organisation met its objectives. Team decision making is typically very good in its evaluation, making use of external material from the programme.

 

[70 – 79]

An excellent report which is easy to read and well-laid out. The student demonstrates mastery of the module material and appreciates the links with performance and the decision- making process.

The level of critical thinking is excellent. This also extends to the assessment of the team decision making.

[80 – 89]

An outstanding report which is easy to read and is presented to the highest standard. The student demonstrates mastery of the module material and demonstrates a full understanding of the links with performance and the decision-making process. The level of critical thinking is outstanding. This also extends to the assessment of the team decision making.

[90 – 100]

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
tailored to your instructions
paypal checkout

The services provided by Assignment Experts UK are 100% original and custom written. We never use any paraphrasing tool, any software to generate content for e.g. Chat GPT and all other content writing tools. We ensure that the work produced by our writers is self-written and 100% plagiarism-free.

Discover more


International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom,
E16 2DQ

UK Registered Company # 11483120


100% Pass Guaranteed

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

We've produced some samples of what you can expect from our Academic Writing Service - these are created by our writers to show you the kind of high-quality work you'll receive. Take a look for yourself!

View Our Samples

Recent Uploads

We're Open