Coursework 2 DEFERRAL

Assessment Information
The LOs for this module are as follows.
1. Identify and select sources of data and information
2. Analyse and present information to support decision making
3. Communicate results of information analysis and decision
4. Comprehend the range of tools and techniques available as support for managerial decision making
This assignment is designed to assess learning outcome 4 and accounts for 50% of the overall module mark.
This assignment should be completed with reference to the Mangel’s Case Study & other sources, as detailed
in the questions.
This assignment requires you to write a 2,000 word assignment submission answering the following questions:
1. Goodwin & Wright (2014) describe a number of different heuristics that may be used for decision making,
including the Recognition Heuristic, the Minimalistic Heuristic & the Lexicographic Heuristic. Critically
analysis these three methods, using suitable examples to illustrate your findings. (25 marks)
2. Using the SMART process for decision making with multiple objectives, carry out an analysis on the
information given in the case about the sourcing decision for the ECU at Mangel’s and identify which of
the four companies lie on the efficient frontier. There is no need to consider steps 1 to 4 in any detail as
these have already been carried out. (30 marks)
3. Based on your answer to (2) above, provide your recommendation on which of the four companies should
be chosen to supply the ECU to Mangel’s, providing justification for your decision. There is no need to
carry out sensitivity analysis. (20 marks)
4. From the perspective of ethics in business, critically analyse the following statement by Milton Friedman;
“A company has one & only one objective: to make long-term sustainable profits by satisfying customers
for the benefit of its owners, whilst acting within the law. If society wishes to limit a company’s singleminded pursuit of this goal, for example by constraining monopolies, regulating employment or
preventing pollution, it must pass appropriate laws.” (25 marks)
Assignment Brief – 251SAM Coursework 2 DEFERRAL
Page 2 of 6
Mangel’s Case Study
Mangel’s1 is an automotive manufacturing company based in Coventry in England. The company
manufactures mass-produced family hatchbacks & saloons for sale in markets worldwide.
The company will be introducing a new model in 2019 & is in the process of selecting the supplier for an
engine cooling unit (ECU). Four potential suppliers have been contacted and asked to quote to supply the ECU
and quotes have been received from each one; Abbeyfield, Barrow’s, CFS & Dalton’s.
Abbeyfield Barrow’s CFS Dalton’s
Price / unit £24.40 £22.70 £21.50 £24.10
All quotes are based on an expected lifetime volume of 500,000 (comprising 100,000 units a year for 5 years).
In addition, a multi-functional team has been set up and has carried out an analysis of each of the companies,
focusing on four key factors;
1. Engineering. By researching available data on past performance (both within and outside Mangel’s) it was
possible to develop a measure for expected engineering performance.
2. Quality. By researching available data on past performance (both within and outside Mangel’s) it was
possible to develop a measure for the likely reliability of components during production & also in service.
3. Production. The companies were asked to provide details of how they would make the ECUs, including
the use of suitable control systems, & scores were developed based on the proposals provided.
4. Logistics. By researching available data on past logistics performance for Mangel’s, it was possible to
develop a measure for anticipated logistics performance.
The results from the meeting of the multi-functional team are summarized below:
Abbeyfield Barrow’s CFS Dalton’s
Engineering 100 50 0 90
Quality 80 60 0 100
Production 0 40 50 100
Logistics 100 50 70 0
However, it was recognised that the non-cost attributes above had differing importance to the company, and
that this would need to be reflected in the way that the decision making was conducted. The multi-functional
team was asked to produce swing weights for each of the non-cost attributes and the results are shown below.
Mangel’s & all other companies named are entirely fictitious organisations
Assignment Brief – 251SAM Coursework 2 DEFERRAL
Page 3 of 6
Criteria for Assessment
This table details the weightings of the five criteria by which your work will be assessed.
Criteria Proportion of overall
module mark
1. Content and Learning Outcomes 75%
2. Evidence of reading, use of resources and research 15%
3. Accurate citations and referencing 5%
4. Presentation, grammar and spelling 5%
Total 100%
Please refer to the Marking Scheme below for information on how work is assessed and graded.
How to submit your assessment
The assessment must be submitted via Turnitin by 23.55 on 27th June 2016. No paper copies are required. You
can access the Turnitin link through the module web.
• Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Turnitin. Should you
submit work on time but fail the assignment, you will be offered a resit opportunity but the resit mark
will be capped at 40%.
• All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below)
will be given a mark of zero. Please note that a non-submission is not the same as a failed submission;
a failed submission counts as an attempt whereas an absent mark does not necessarily allow you to
resit the coursework.
• Short deferrals (extensions) of up to three calendar weeks can only be given for genuine “force
majeure” and medical reasons, not for bad planning of your time. Please note that theft, loss, or
failure to keep a back-up file, are not valid reasons. The short deferral must be applied for on or
before the submission date. You can apply for a short deferral by submitting an Examination/
Coursework Deferral Application Form. Application Forms along with the supporting evidence should
go to the relevant Student Support Office. For a longer delay in submission a student may apply for a
long deferral.
• Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.
• Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking
As part of your study you will be involved in carrying out research and using this when writing up your
coursework. It is important that you correctly acknowledge someone else’s writing, thoughts or ideas and that
you do not attempt to pass this off as your own work. Doing so is known as plagiarism. It is not acceptable to
copy from another source without acknowledging that it is someone else’s writing or thinking. This includes
using paraphrasing as well as direct quotations. You are expected to correctly cite and reference the works of
others. The Centre for Academic Writing provides documents to help you get this right. If you are unsure,
please visit
Turnitin includes a plagiarism detection system and assessors are experienced enough to recognise plagiarism
when it occurs. Copying another student’s work, using previous work of your own or copying large sections
from a book or the internet are examples of plagiarism and carry serious consequences. Please familiarise
yourself with the CU Harvard Reference Style (on Moodle) and use it correctly to avoid a case of plagiarism or
Assignment Brief – 251SAM Coursework 2 DEFERRAL
Page 4 of 6
cheating being brought. Again, if you are unsure, please contact the Centre for Academic Writing or a member
of the course team.
Return of Marked Work
You can expect to have marked work returned to you 3 weeks after the submission date. Marks and feedback
will be provided online. As always, marks will have been internally moderated only, and will therefore be
provisional; your mark will be formally agreed later in the year once the external examiner has completed his /
her review.
Marking and Assessment Scheme
Mark range Guidelines
70 – 100% In order to secure a mark in this range, a candidate must submit an outstanding answer
that could hardly be bettered. In addition to the criteria identified below for a mark
between 70-85%, an answer scoring a mark of 85-100% would show an excellent level of
understanding and critical/analytic skills and originality. For example, such an answer
would include new insights into Consultancy Management Techniques which are not
drawn from the literature but from the student’s own critical thinking, and which add
something to the existing literature.
An essay in this range will demonstrate a strong understanding of theories, concepts and
issues relating to Consultancy Management Techniques. There will be evidence of wideranging reading from a variety of valid sources (as described and presented in the
marking criteria for 60-69%).
The assignment must be written in a clear, well-structured way with a coherent and
seamless flow and show evidence of independent, critical thought. It must show
extensive relevant reading on the subject and intelligent use of the material to present a
well-balanced and well-argued assignment. For example, the student will have
considered a range of relevant issues and be able to assess the strength and weaknesses
of various approaches/arguments and put forward a confident and articulate view of
their own.
60 – 69% An essay in this mark range will demonstrate a good understanding of the requirements
of the assignment and of theories, concepts and issues relating to Consultancy
Management Techniques. An assignment in this percentage range will include a
balanced discussion of issues central to the question, how these are addressed by
different authors or sources and some critical thinking into their relative merits or
The answer will be contain few errors and little, if any, irrelevant material. It will show
evidence of reading from a variety of sources (i.e. more than 3 or 4) but not so many
sources that the discussion loses focus and becomes unclear or irrelevant. All sources
should be of some academic merit (e.g. books, journals, reports, media publications).
Unreferenced material from non-credible internet sources MUST be avoided.
All sources must be included and properly referenced in the references. The assignment
will be well-organised and clearly written/presented overall.

READ ALSO :   Evidence of Informed Practice

Assignment Brief – 251SAM Coursework 2 DEFERRAL
Page 5 of 6
Mark range Guidelines
50 – 59% The answer will demonstrate some reasonable understanding of relevant theories,
concepts and issues relating to Consultancy Management Techniques but also some
minor errors of fact or understanding.
The assignment will not be based on an extensive range of sources (for example few
references are included), or much evidence that they have been read closely or wellunderstood. For example, the assignment will retell sources rather than analyse them.
The assignment may be quite general in part. Some errors may be present and some
irrelevant material may be included.
The essay may not be particularly well-structured, and/or clearly presented and contain
some spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. A few sentences may be unclear.
40 – 49% A mark within this percentage range will be given to an essay which:
– shows some limited basic understanding of the subject but is incomplete. For
example, if it answers one part of a question but not the rest.
– makes only very general statements
– includes some factual errors or misunderstandings e.g. confusion between different
companies or misuse of certain key terms.
– shows limited use of material with limited reading/research on the topic and includes
only a very small number of references, not all of which are included in the
– includes spelling mistakes, is poorly structured with no clear argument and grammar
mistakes making it difficult to understand.
– includes some irrelevant material.
35 – 39% A mark within this percentage range will be given to an assignment which:
– includes only a limited amount of relevant material.
– shows little evidence of reading/research on the topic. For example, the essay
includes only very few references, and relies only on material or case studies used
during the course.
– shows only a very basic understanding of the subject.
– is poorly presented with bad grammar, some spelling mistakes and an incomplete
reference list.
– has a poor structure and does not flow e.g. if there is no conclusion or new facts are
introduced in the conclusion rather than introduction or main discussion.
– contains some fundamental errors.
20 – 34% A poor fail on this assignment means the assignment submitted:
– is poor and suggests that the student has spent very little time on it e.g. if the answer
is considerably under the word requirement and/or presented in note form rather
than as a fully written up essay.
– bears little relation to the assignment topic.
– shows a poor understanding of theories, concepts and issues relating to Consultancy
Management Techniques and to the learning outcomes detailed in this document.
Assignment Brief – 251SAM Coursework 2 DEFERRAL
Page 6 of 6
Mark range Guidelines
0 – 19%
– contains some or many fundamental errors and misunderstandings of the academic
or other material used. For example many of the facts cited are incorrect.
– uses literature or other material which is largely irrelevant or has no academic value
– is poorly structured and poorly presented. For example, sentences may be hard to
understand and contain many spelling or grammatical mistakes.
– contains no references.
Work within this mark range shows a complete failure to meet the requirements of the
assignment. A mark in this range will be given for an essay which:
– is below 500 words in length.
– bears no link to the question chosen and shows very little or no knowledge or
understanding of any of the theories, concepts and issues relating to Consultancy
Management Techniques. The answer may be fundamentally wrong or trivial.
– contains no references and/or evidence of relevant reading.
– shows little understanding of the requirements of the assignment and only a vague
knowledge of the subject area.
– includes numerous fundamental errors in the understanding or presentation of the
material discussed. There is a general lack of facts/evidence and what is provided is
mostly incorrect and/or irrelevant.
– is poorly structured and poorly presented. Spelling and grammar are poor. Many
sentences are incomprehensible.
– the examiners do not feel could be described as a serious attempt by any reasonable

READ ALSO :   How do debtors and speculators benefit from inflation?