838N1 Managing Innovation
Module Assessment Brief for Students (Report 2)
Semester One, 2023/24
The module uses two written assessments to assist student learning and to test different types of
knowledge, skills, and module learning outcomes (LOs). Your grade for the module will be based on
an individual 1,000-word Report 1 (weighted at 30%) and an individual 2,200-word Report 2 (weighted
at 70%). The information of reports will be provided by week 4 (for Report 1) and by week 9 (for Report
2), respectively. Please check Canvas or Sussex Direct for the submission deadline and details.
1. Link to module learning outcomes
Report 2 links to all three of the module’s learning outcomes (You can find them on Canvas).
2. Report 2 topic (70%)
Assume that after finishing your MSc course at the University, you have joined an innovative and
promising company. (Choose one existing company in your preferred industry and country – for
instance, you may want to select a healthcare service firm in the UK.) You are now part of the
Innovation Unit within the organisation.
You are given a task to write an ‘innovation strategy report’ for your organisation’s top management
team. The aim of the report is to help the target audience make informed decisions to ensure their
survival and growth in the future.
Although there is no universal structure for this report, your report should include, but is not limited
to:
– A brief profile of the firm (i.e. corporate context)
– An innovation strategy using the ‘4Ps of Innovation Space’ as a conceptual framework to develop
the proposed innovation strategy
– A strategy implementation plan, applying one of the following concepts:
Diffusion of Innovation
Open Innovation
New Product Development
Corporate Venturing
You are reminded of several key points as this is part of an academic assessment. First, you should
apply the 4Ps of Innovation Space as a conceptual framework to develop the strategy report. Second,
the report should demonstrate a solid understanding of the 4Ps in the required framework (all 4Ps:
Product, Process, Position, and Paradigm innovation) and your chosen concept. Lastly, you need to
use relevant resources (academic literature and professional resources) where appropriate to make
your report more convincing both academically and practically.
(Developed by Dr Youngha Chang. 20233, Youngha Chang. All rights reserved.)
1
Please note: If you send this assessment brief to any other essay/report consulting company outside
the university (and/or attempt to outsource your assessment procedure), it could be a case of
plagiarism and the mark for your work can be significantly deducted.
3. Submission process
Students submit their work by uploading electronic files of a 2,200-word Report 2 to Canvas
(Electronic submission via Canvas only, other submission such as via email are not acceptable).
For more information about assessment processes, please visit this link: ‘Doing well in assessments
and understanding your feedback’ (https://www.sussex.ac.uk/business school/internal/students/teaching-and-learning/assessment-and-feedback#online-submissions)
4. Assessment criteria
Below is an indicative list of the assessment criteria used for the marking:
Ensure the report is organised around, and directly related, to the report topic
Overall presentation, organisation and structure of the report (use of headings and subheadings where appropriate)
Good choice of the target case company and the presentation of its context (e.g. organisational,
environmental)
Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the required framework and the chosen
concept
Demonstration of analytical, evaluative and critical thinking skills in the report
Appropriateness and use of relevant and as much up-to-date material as possible
Thoroughness of referencing (e.g. in-text citations, reference list)
Use of English grammar, punctuation, spelling, attention to detail
5. You are also reminded:
To acknowledge all sources of your ideas and comments. You must provide references to
literature and other sources that you have drawn on in your report (Harvard referencing system
is preferred).
To ensure your use of English is to the required academic standard. In addition, write clearly
and simply. Ensure that your work contains no grammatical or spelling mistakes.
To be concise (In line with University regulations, you are allowed to have +/- 10% on the word
count; The maximum word limit includes quotations, footnotes and endnotes, but does not
include bibliography, appendices, images, or tables of numerical data.)
6. Writing Well and Avoiding Academic Misconduct
Plagiarism, collusion, personation (i.e. getting someone else to do the work), and cheating in
exams are all forms of academic misconduct which the University takes very seriously.
Every year, some students commit academic misconduct unintentionally because they did not
know what was expected of them. The consequences for committing academic misconduct can
be severe, so it is important that you familiarise yourself with what it is and how to avoid it.
The University’s Skills Hub (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/skillshub) guide to study skills gives advice
on writing well, including hints and tips on how to avoid making serious mistakes. You will also
2
3
find helpful guides to referencing properly and improving your critical writing skills. Make use of
the resources there.
If you are dealing with difficult circumstances, such as illness or bereavement, do not try to rush
your work or hand in something which may be in breach of the rules. Instead you should seek
confidential advice from the Student Life Centre. The full University rules on academic
misconduct are set out in the Examination and Assessment Regulations Handbook
(http://www.sussex.ac.uk/adqe/standards/academicmisconduct).
If you do not think that you should be taking this assessment, or if you have any additional
questions, please get in touch as soon as possible.
7. Marking Process and Ensuring Marking Fairness
The University takes several steps to ensure marking fairness.
Assessment Convening: The module convenor is usually the lead marker, designs the
assessment, and specifies the marking criteria.
Calibration: When there are several markers:
They calibrate their marking expectations and scale, usually in a meeting before the marking
begins. They usually mark a few submissions together and discuss the characteristic of poor to
excellent works using the marking criteria.
The module convenor checks the marks and distributions by each marker to ensure similarity
and fairness across groups. By analysing the data, any unexplained anomalies are identified and
compensated.
Moderation: A sample of the marked submissions/scripts (including some from each mark
classification) is then looked at by a moderator to confirm the accuracy of the marking (if they
feel there is a problem they may recommend a third person to review all scripts).
External Examination: The sample is then sent to an external examiner to confirm that the
marking has been appropriate and internal procedures have been followed.
Finally, a Module Assessment Board (MAB) then considers the overall distribution of marks,
taking into account any complaints or problems raised concerning each module, and a
Progression and Award Board (PAB) agrees awards for successful candidates and resit/sit
opportunities for failed modules/assessments.
4
SPRU Assessment Performance Descriptors
The pass rate at Masters Level = 50%
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the assessment criteria.
The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands
indicated. The overall mark of your report can be interpreted as below.
Class Mark Description
Distinction
90-100
Exceptional: In addition to the requirements for outstanding, the
work has very substantial elements of originality and exhibits a
professional quality. As such, it represents an original contribution to
knowledge which would, in principle, be publishable in an academic
journal.
80-89
Outstanding: The work demonstrates a systematic mastery of the
subject that critically explores alternative perspectives and evidence.
It critically reflects on, evaluates and/or synthesizes relevant
theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical perspectives. It
excels in rigorously analysing or interpreting appropriate data or
evidence. The argument presented is very well developed, clearly
structured, complete and consistent, and is written in a compelling
manner. Perhaps most importantly, an 80+ piece of work is
characterised by a spark of creativity in problem-solving, an
extension of existing theories or concepts, original empirical work on
existing data, and/or by deep insights that emerge from the student’s
reading and experience.
70-79
Very good: The work demonstrates a proficient systematic
understanding of the subject based on some critical analysis of
competing perspectives and evidence. It draws effectively on relevant
theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical perspectives to
build a comprehensive and cohesive argument which demonstrates
an awareness of the nuances and assumptions of the question or
assignment. The work draws on appropriate data or evidence, and
makes excellent use of appropriate, fully referenced, detailed
examples. It is well argued, well organised, well structured and well
documented. Work graded at 70 and above is characterised by
persuasive problem solving, and/or independent thinking with some
critical reasoning.
Merit 60-69
Good: The work demonstrates a reasonably systematic
understanding of the subject. Major themes, frameworks, concepts
and debates within the theoretical and/or empirical literature are
recognised and at least partly synthesized, yet with only limited
evidence of critical independent thinking. The work provides some
relevant data or evidence, and arguments are illustrated by reference
to relevant examples. The assignment is adequately structured, in
most instances clearly argued and tends to be accurately
documented. Many relevant points are made, and/or a sound solution
to a policy or management problem is proposed, but some minor
shortcomings may be present.
5
Pass 50-59
Satisfactory: The work demonstrates a basic competence in the
subject, but with a rather limited systematic understanding of the
theoretical literature and/or empirical evidence. It draws on relevant
theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical evidence, but
provides only a very limited critical analysis and synthesis of this
material. It makes a few good points addressing the essay title or
question posed, but contains some gaps in argumentation, numerous
shortcomings in the documentation, significant factual errors, internal
or logical contradictions and/or structural weaknesses. The line of
argument may often lack clarity and/or the evidence needed to
sustain it may be largely absent. Some examples are used to support
the argument, but these may not be fully documented or detailed
enough, or there might be weaknesses in their interpretation. Work of
this grade is characterized by a sufficient coverage of the subject,
and/or a reasonable attempt in problem-solving.
Fail
40-49
Unsatisfactory: The work demonstrates an unsystematic and limited
degree of understanding of the subject, but makes some reference to
relevant academic or policy debates. There is a tendency towards
reportage rather than any form of critical interpretation of relevant
theoretical frameworks, concepts and/or empirical evidence. The
work may be poorly directed at the essay title or question asked,
and/or characterized by inadequate problem solving. The arguments
developed and the solutions proposed are not clear, incompetent or
incomplete. The assignment is poorly structured, poorly documented
and/or poorly articulated. It may contain major factual errors.
20-39
Poor: The work demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subject.
There are significant gaps in the interpretation of the literature and/or
hardly any critical awareness of relevant theoretical frameworks,
concepts and/or empirical evidence. The work fails to provide an
argument and/or problem-solving that adequately addresses the topic
or question asked. It utilizes inadequate evidence, is poorly designed,
only provides a superficial analysis and may be flawed in conception.
0-19
Very poor: The work clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of
the subject. There are large gaps in the interpretation of the literature
and almost no awareness of relevant theoretical frameworks,
concepts and/or empirical evidence. The work is seriously flawed in
conception, organization, data analysis, presentation, reasoning
and/or evidence. It fails to address the essay title or question asked
and/or shows an inability of problem-solving. The reasoning is
inconsistent, incomplete and/or contradictory.
