MODULE TITLE: – Innovation and Technology Management (LSC6005) PROGRAMME: BABS SEMESTER: Semester Six ACADEMIC YEAR PERIOD: August – November 2017 LECTURER SETTING ASSESSMENT: – DATE ASSESSMENT SET AND LOADED ON TO STUDENT PORTAL: -19/09/2017 DATE ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED: -19/10/2017 SUBMISSION METHOD/MODE:- Online via Turnitin, —————————————————————————————————————- Assessment Type:An individual Assignment of 3000 words (max) ———————————————————————————————————————– Indicative Assessment Requirements for the Module;- Task: The concept of innovation and entrepreneurship are probably Schumpeter’s most distinctive contributions to economics. One of the most common themes in Schumpeter’s writing was the role of innovation (“new combination”) and entrepreneurship in economic growth. Critically evaluate the various dimensions of Innovation and the drivers that contribute to the growth of small start-up entrepreneurs. ———————————————————————————————————————   Maximum Word Limit and Assessment weighting for each aspect within the assessment: • Individual assessment contribution (an individual set of supporting documentation from each student equivalent to 3000 words absolute maximum); Assessment Weighting 40% ———————————————————————————————————————– Description of Assessment Requirements The report should be based on the following outline: 1. Introduction: A statement of objectives (what you propose to do) with a statement of what is not included. (10 marks and 300words) 2. Literature review (20 Marks and 900 words) 3. Critical review (50 marks and 1500 words) 4. Summary/Conclusions. What are your findings? These should be related specifically to your objectives (10 marks and 300 words) A further 10 marks are awarded for appropriate structure and referencing. ———————————————————————————————————————- Learning Outcomes • Demonstrate a critical understanding of some of the major international trends and developments in technology and innovation and their relationship to international business • Critically evaluate a range of normative questions in relation to people, technology and the marketplace in the 21st Century • Reflect analytically on the knowledge developed for innovative action • Understand the significance of innovation and how it links to wider strategic issues within the firm • Appreciate how process innovations alter the ways of transforming a range of inputs into products and services for customers and end users • Have insights into contingency factors of firm size, technological complexity and environmental uncertainty which influence the precise choice of processes   Notes on Plagiarism & Harvard Referencing Plagiarism Plagiarism is passing off the work of others as your own. This constitutes academic theft and is a serious matter, which is penalised in assignment marking. Plagiarism is the submission of an item of assessment containing elements of work produced by another person(s) in such a way that it could be assumed to be the student’s own work. Examples of plagiarism are: • the verbatim copying of another person’s work without acknowledgement • the close paraphrasing of another person’s work by simply changing a few words or altering the order of presentation without acknowledgement • the unacknowledged quotation of phrases from another person’s work and/or the presentation of another person’s idea(s) as one’s own. Copying or close paraphrasing with occasional acknowledgement of the source may also be deemed to be plagiarism if the absence of quotation marks implies that the phraseology is the student’s own. Plagiarised work may belong to another student or be from a published source such as a book, report, journal or material available on the internet. Harvard Referencing The structure of a citation under the Harvard referencing system is the author’s surname, year of publication, and page number or range, in parentheses, as illustrated in the Smith example nears the top of this article. • The page number or page range is omitted if the entire work is cited. The author’s surname is omitted if it appears in the text. Thus we may say: “Jones (2001) revolutionized the field of trauma surgery.” • Two or three authors are cited using “and” or “&”: (Deane, Smith, and Jones, 1991) or (Deane, Smith & Jones, 1991). More than three authors are cited using et al. (Deane et al. 1992). • An unknown date is cited as no date (Deane n.d.). A reference to a reprint is cited with the original publication date in square brackets (Marx [1867] 1967, p. 90). • If an author published two books in 2005, the year of the first (in the alphabetic order of the references) is cited and referenced as 2005a, the second as 2005b. • A citation is placed wherever appropriate in or after the sentence. If it is at the end of a sentence, it is placed before the period, but a citation for an entire block quote immediately follows the period at the end of the block since the citation is not an actual part of the quotation itself. • Complete citations are provided in alphabetical order in a section following the text, usually designated as “Works cited” or “References.” The difference between a “works cited” or “references” list and a bibliography is that a bibliography may include works not directly cited in the text. • All citations are in the same font as the main text. Examples Examples of book references are: • Smith, J. (2005a). Dutch Citing Practices. The Hague: Holland Research Foundation. • Smith, J. (2005b). Harvard Referencing. London: Jolly Good Publishing. In giving the city of publication, an internationally well-known city (such as London, The Hague, or New York) is referenced as the city alone. If the city is not internationally well known, the country (or state and country if in the U.S.) is given. An example of a journal reference: • Smith, John Maynard. “The origin of altruism,” Nature 393, 1998, pp. 639–40. An example of a newspaper reference: Bowcott, Owen. “Street Protest”, The Guardian, October 18, 2005, accessed February 7, 2006   ASSIGNMENT MARKING CRITERIA MARK 29 or less 30 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 + CONTENT: Has the question been answered? Vague, random, unrelated material Some mention of the issue, but a collection of disparate points Barely answers the question – just reproduces what knows about the topic Some looseness/ Digressions Well focused Highly focused TOPIC KNOWLEDGE Is there evidence of having read widely and use of appropriate and up to date material to make a case? No evidence of reading. No use of theory – not even hinted at implicitly. No evidence of reading. An implicit hint at some knowledge of theory, etc. No evidence of reading. Very basic theories mentioned but not developed or well used. Some reading evident, but confined to core texts. Good reading. Good range of theories included. Excellent reading. Well chosen theories. UNDERSTANDING & SYNTHESIS Are ideas summarized rather than being reproduced, and are they inter-related with other ideas? No theory included. Vague assertions/poor explanations. Long winded descriptions of theory. Some long winded sections. Some quotations but stand alone. Some inter- connections. Good summary of theory. Good use of quotations that flow with narrative. Good inter-connections. Succinct, effective summaries of theory. Excellent choice and threading of quotations into argument. Good counterpoising of a range of perspectives. APPLICATION Does it show appropriate use of theory in a Practi
cal situation? No examples No/limited/ inappropriate examples Few examples Uneven examples Good examples Excellent range of examples. ANALYSIS Does it identify the key issues, etc in a given scenario, proposal or argument? Vague assertions about issues. Largely descriptive with no identification and analysis of central issues. Limited insight into issues. Some good observations. Good, detailed analysis. Comprehensive range of issues identified and discussed fully. EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS Does it critically assess material? Are there workable and imaginative solutions? No evaluation. Uncritical acceptance of material. Some evaluation but weak. Little insight. Good interpretation. Some but limited sophistication in argument. Good critical assessment. Independent thought displayed. Full critical assessment and substantial individual insight. REFERENCING Thorough and accurate citation and referencing No referencing No referencing Limited/poor referencing Some inconsistencies in referencing Appropriate referencing Appropriate referencing PRESENTATION Logical and coherent structure to argument and effective presentation No structure apparent. Poor presentation. Poor structure. Poor presentation. Acceptable, but uneven structure. Reasonable presentation. Reasonable structure. Good presentation. Good argument. Well presented material. Excellent argument. Very effective presentation format.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *