Demonstrate a systematic understanding and critical appreciation of theories and models of creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship and change management in the context of contemporary organisations.
| Submission Deadline | Marks and Feedback |
| Before 10am on: | 20 working days after deadline (L4, 5 and 7) 15 working days after deadline (L6) 10 working days after deadline (block delivery) 30/09/2024 |
| Key assignment details | |
| Unit title & code |
BSS057-6 Corporate Innovation and Entrepreneurship |
| Assignment number and title | 2. Patchwork Assessment |
| Assignment type | CW-ePO |
| Weighting of assignment | 60% |
| Size or length of assessment | 3600 words (+/- 10%) |
| Unit learning outcomes | On completion of this unit you should be able to:
Demonstrate the following knowledge and understanding Demonstrate a systematic understanding and critical appreciation of theories and models of creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship and change management in the context of contemporary organisations. Demonstrate the following skills and abilities Synthesise individual and organisational theoretical perspectives to systematically promote the potential for creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship and change in practice. |
| What am I required to do in this assignment? |
| The metaphor of a ‘patchwork’ refers to the idea that a variety of assessment pieces (patches), which individually are complete in themselves, are stitched together into something new (a patchwork). It is a type of portfolio assessment but is distinct because the patchwork as a whole, is more than the sum of the individual parts.
You will need to produce an in-depth, critical analysis and evaluation of innovation and entrepreneurship in a live project or case study organization. You are required to use influential contemporary theories to critically analyse in-depth the Entrepreneurial Architecture:
These are your ‘patches’ You will then conceive the best way to stitch together the patches so they present an integrated and holistic response to develop the Entrepreneurial Architecture, supported by quality academic theories, models and frameworks. You will then need to synthesise your areas of investigation integrating theory and practice in the context of the live project or case study leading to clear conclusions and feasible recommendations. |
| What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations from UIF) |
In order to pass Assessment 2 you will need to:
|
| How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade? |
| This section is to be left blank and completed by the students in an in-class Assessment Dialogue.
The assessment brief is discussed during an in-class session with students, explaining the assessment, the rubric and marking criteria. Here are some of the requirements we will be discussing in the assignment workshops:
A random sample of students will be called to attend a viva voce to check the authenticity of their work |
| How does this assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions? |
| A flipped classroom approach is used to allow you to experience practical application in scheduled workshops. It is essential that you complete the guided learning detailed in the unit study guide in advance of the scheduled classes.
In scheduled sessions you will participate in group activities, and discussions designed to provide the opportunity for you to develop a critical appreciation of how to orchestrate organizational systems across multiple levels of analysis to promote and sustain corporate innovation and entrepreneurship through the development of an Entrepreneurial Architecture and to reflect on the integration of theory and practice in enhancing organizational performance. |
| 70% + (A)
Distinction |
60-69% (B)
Commendation |
50-59% (C)
Pass |
40-49% (D)
Threshold Standard |
30-39% (E)
Marginal Fail |
0-29% (F)
Fail |
|
| Application of Theory
(30%) |
Draws on major theoretical contributors introduced in the unit and with substantial evidence of independent reading. | Draws on most theoretical contributors introduced and with evidence of independent reading. | Draws on a good range of theoretical contributors introduced but with limited evidence of wider reading. | Demonstrates an adequate application of appropriate theory (ies) drawing on published sources introduced. Limited evidence of understanding key issues and concepts. | Fails to apply appropriate theory. Poor understanding of key issues | Fails to apply theory. No understanding of key issues |
| Analysis
(30%) |
Critical evaluation of an excellent range of directly relevant quality academic and practitioner sources. Demonstrates an excellent understanding and clear practical awareness of the challenges and opportunities in synthesizing integration of theory and practice. | Critical evaluation of a very good range of relevant quality academic and practitioner sources. Demonstrates a very good understanding and practical awareness of the challenges and opportunities in synthesizing theory and practice. Less in-depth than for an A grade. | Critical evaluation of a good range of relevant quality academic and practitioner sources. Demonstrates a good understanding of challenges and opportunities in synthesizing theory and practice. | Demonstrates adequate critical evaluation of some relevant quality academic and practitioner sources. Demonstrate an adequate understanding of challenges and opportunities in integrating theory and practice. | Fails to demonstrate critical evaluation of relevant sources. Poor understanding of how to integrate theory and practice | No critical evaluation of sources. No integration of theory and practice. |
| Conclusions
(15%) |
Conclusions are valid and clearly derived from in-depth analysis and reflection drawing on application of major theoretical contributors and experiential learning. Entirely convincing. | Conclusions are clearly derived from in-depth analysis through application of most major theoretical contributors and experiential learning. Largely convincing | Conclusions are mainly derived from analysis through application of theoretical contributors and experiential learning. Limited and not entirely convincing. | Conclusions are not clearly derived from analysis through application of theoretical contributors and experiential learning. Validity of conclusions is unconvincing. | Conclusions are vague and not derived from analysis | No conclusions |
| Recommendations
(15%) |
Clear and appropriate recommendations. Professional applicability | Clear and appropriate recommendations. Less comprehensive than for an A grade. | Recommendations are clear and mostly realistic | Recommendations are reasonably clear. Doubtful feasibility
|
Vague recommendations lacking feasibility | No recommendations |
| Presentation and Referencing
(10%) |
Clearly and concisely structured in report format, sourced throughout and with a comprehensive bibliography | Clearly and concisely structured in report format, sourced throughout and with a good bibliography. | Well-structured in report format, sourced throughout and with an adequate bibliography. |
Reasonable report format. Few citations and a passable bibliography.
|
Not in report format, few citations and a poor bibliography | Not in report format. No citations and no bibliography |
| 70% + (A)
Distinction |
60-69% (B)
Commendation |
50-59% (C)
Pass |
40-49% (D)
Threshold Standard |
30-39% (E)
Marginal Fail |
0-29% (F)
Fail |
|
| Application of Theory
(30%) |
Draws on major theoretical contributors introduced in the unit and with substantial evidence of independent reading. | Draws on most theoretical contributors introduced and with evidence of independent reading. | Draws on a good range of theoretical contributors introduced but with limited evidence of wider reading. | Demonstrates an adequate application of appropriate theory (ies) drawing on published sources introduced. Limited evidence of understanding key issues and concepts. | Fails to apply appropriate theory. Poor understanding of key issues | Fails to apply theory. No understanding of key issues |
| Analysis
(30%) |
Critical evaluation of an excellent range of directly relevant quality academic and practitioner sources. Demonstrates an excellent understanding and clear practical awareness of the challenges and opportunities in synthesizing integration of theory and practice. | Critical evaluation of a very good range of relevant quality academic and practitioner sources. Demonstrates a very good understanding and practical awareness of the challenges and opportunities in synthesizing theory and practice. Less in-depth than for an A grade. | Critical evaluation of a good range of relevant quality academic and practitioner sources. Demonstrates a good understanding of challenges and opportunities in synthesizing theory and practice. | Demonstrates adequate critical evaluation of some relevant quality academic and practitioner sources. Demonstrate an adequate understanding of challenges and opportunities in integrating theory and practice. | Fails to demonstrate critical evaluation of relevant sources. Poor understanding of how to integrate theory and practice | No critical evaluation of sources. No integration of theory and practice. |
| Conclusions
(15%) |
Conclusions are valid and clearly derived from in-depth analysis and reflection drawing on application of major theoretical contributors and experiential learning. Entirely convincing. | Conclusions are clearly derived from in-depth analysis through application of most major theoretical contributors and experiential learning. Largely convincing | Conclusions are mainly derived from analysis through application of theoretical contributors and experiential learning. Limited and not entirely convincing. | Conclusions are not clearly derived from analysis through application of theoretical contributors and experiential learning. Validity of conclusions is unconvincing. | Conclusions are vague and not derived from analysis | No conclusions |
| Recommendations
(15%) |
Clear and appropriate recommendations. Professional applicability | Clear and appropriate recommendations. Less comprehensive than for an A grade. | Recommendations are clear and mostly realistic | Recommendations are reasonably clear. Doubtful feasibility
|
Vague recommendations lacking feasibility | No recommendations |
| Presentation and Referencing
(10%) |
Clearly and concisely structured in report format, sourced throughout and with a comprehensive bibliography | Clearly and concisely structured in report format, sourced throughout and with a good bibliography. | Well-structured in report format, sourced throughout and with an adequate bibliography. |
Reasonable report format. Few citations and a passable bibliography.
|
Not in report format, few citations and a poor bibliography | Not in report format. No citations and no bibliography |
