Assessment Brief – Postgraduate

SM4022 –Globalisation, Innovation and Sustainability

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.
Assessment Brief – Postgraduate

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 and Team Numbers, 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
Assessment Brief – Postgraduate

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 aspects of your decision making within the business simulation from any one
functional business area of your choice (i.e. state and apply any one from finance, marketing, HRM
or operations management):
How effective and responsible were your functional decisions? Have you considered the impact of
your functional decisions on the company’s stakeholders?
Provide evidence of how your functional decisions were influenced by appropriate academic theory.
How effective was your company demonstration of functional interdependence? In short,
demonstrate the effectiveness of your functional decisions (from the one area selected) 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.
 Assessment Brief – Postgraduate

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
 Assessment Brief – Postgraduate

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.
 Assessment Brief – Postgraduate

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
 Reference list  Appendices
Contents page  Appropriate
 Quotes from tables, figures
 Glossary  Bibliography interviews and and illustrations
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.
 Assessment Brief – Postgraduate

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.
 Assessment Brief – Postgraduate

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 allocating group marks.

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.
 Assessment Brief – Postgraduate

Appendix I
Business Simulation: Peer Evaluation Form on Group Presentations
Seminar Seminar
Day/Time 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

Attend Actively Contribute Present
weekly take part to during
Name(s) group in presentation weekly Total /20
meetings decision preparation presentation
making

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:

Attend Actively Contribute Present

weekly take part to during
Now consider how your group group in presentation weekly Total /20
members might evaluate you: meetings decision preparation presentation
making
 NBS EMA RUBRIC TEMPLATE - BUSINESS SIMULATION – MO9701, SM4022, MN0490, MK9700
,
MK9705, BM9720
Appendix II Marking rubric

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 Very poor choice of Tells a story but does Adequate explanation Good explanation of Very good discussion Excellent Outstanding discussion
measures and goes little not convey real which shows performance – with sound analysis discussion of all of all key measures
Acquire, interpret and beyond tables/graphs so understanding, it is reasonable student clearly which covers most key measures which shows sound
apply knowledge of completely insufficient insufficient in its lack of understanding of a understands what areas and shows which shows sound understanding of
international business, in terms of analysis. In linkage between basic range of happened but misses clearly the links understanding of strategy, decisions,
management and terms of understanding, measures and/or poor performance some key measures between decisions, strategy, decisions, forecasts and outcomes
organisational completely insufficient choice of measures. measures, not very and/or links. Good forecasts and forecasts and using an extensive
functions evidence is shown. Does not make use of well linked, at best use of data. outcomes. Makes very outcomes using a range of data.
simulation data in a adequate. good use of data on wide range of data.
sufficient way. competition.

[0 – 19] [20 – 24] [25 – 29] [30- 34] [35 – 39] [40 – 44] [45 – 50]
Goal 2 Objective 3 Almost no links between Links not properly made Student is able to Good evaluation Very good critical Excellent critical Outstanding critical
learning and the and/or a very limited make adequate links although limited in evaluation of the evaluation of the evaluation of the
Understand the wider simulation, range of topics between some range. Application of decision based on decisions decisions demonstrating
impact of individual or demonstrating mentioned, therefore elements of the learning is good but learning from rest of demonstrating significant application of
organisational decision completely insufficient insufficient decisions and the interdependence of module. Some thorough learning from the rest of
making on social and learning. No evidence understanding learning, but the functions not appreciation of application of the module and an
environmental the student attended demonstrated. Little adequate evaluation recognised, the functional learning from the extending
contexts any classes or evidence that the tends to be nature of interdependence. rest of the module understanding of
understands how student has made any strengthened. responsibility in and an responsible decision
decisions are made use of the learning and decision making understanding of making. Clear and
responsibly hence is insufficient in needs to be responsible significantly articulated
completely insufficient demonstrating this use strengthened. decision making. appreciation of the
understanding of its role of learning. Clear appreciation interdependence of
or importance. of the functions.
interdependence
of functions.

[0 – 9] [10 – 12] [13 – 14] [15 – 17] [18 – 19] [20 – 22] [23 – 25]

Goal 2 Objective 1 Performance described The performance is There is an adequate The evaluation is There is a very good There is an There is an outstanding
but far too brief and described but contains evaluation although good but requires evaluation of both excellent critical critical evaluation of the
Demonstrate their completely insufficient insufficient evaluation tends to lack analytical greater critical team and self evaluation of the team and the role of
ability to work in to be useful. and the accompanying rigour. There is thinking. There is (student) but use of team and the role you as the individual
culturally diverse analysis of self and adequate detail to adequate application HR9737 material has of you as the within this, making
groups and teams and team is insufficient. understand how team of the academic the potential to be individual within extensive and rigorous
 NBS EMA RUBRIC TEMPLATE - BUSINESS SIMULATION – MO9701, SM4022, MN0490, MK9700
,
MK9705, BM9720
make appropriate and and performance material presented in either extensive or this, making use of material from
personal contribution functioned. module HR9737. rigorous extensive use of Residential and module
to team effectiveness material from HR9737
Residential and
module HR9737
[0 – 5] [6-7] [8] [9] [10-11] [12] [13-15]
Introduction and Non-existent to very The vision is insufficient There is an adequate The vision is There is an Strategic objectives Strategic objectives are
Conclusion brief introduction and in detail in terms of description of the explained, objectives organisational vision are set out clearly set out clearly and there
summary, completely price, market segment vision of the are good but could be that covers most of and there is a clear is a clear organisational
insufficient in terms of and related organisation, a little improved. The market segments, organisational vision around market
setting the scene or organisational aims. more rationale would conclusion provides module types, quality vision around segments, module
concluding the key Objectives are be welcome. some good evaluation and pricing. This is market segments, types, quality and
findings insufficient and are not Objectives could be of performance. translated into module types, pricing. The conclusion
measurable. The more specific. The relatively clear quality and pricing. is based on outstanding
conclusion may be conclusion adequately objectives. The The excellent evaluation of the
superficial and states what has conclusion is very good conclusion company performance
therefore insufficient happened, but little or in evaluating the evaluates the against both market and
for a report at this level. nothing more. company performance company original vision for the
against the market, performance company.
less so against vision. against both
market and original
vision for the
company.
[0 – 3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9 – 10]
Overall Comments The report has serious Although reasonable The report is The quality of The report is very good An excellent report An outstanding report
weaknesses. The understanding is adequate, but there presentation is good and easy to read. All which is easy to which is easy to read
student is completely shown, the report fails are likely to be and fairly easy to the key points are read and well-laid and is presented to the
insufficient in in at least one major weaknesses in follow. The student there with a good level out. The student highest standard. The
demonstrating that aspect to convey an presentation and has been selective in of discussion. There is demonstrates student demonstrates
he/she understands appreciation of the link writing. An adequate choosing key data to clear critical thinking mastery of the mastery of the module
what happened in the between strategy, understanding of what discuss. The student demonstrating module material material and
simulation and has been decision-making and happened in the shows good awareness of how and appreciates demonstrates a full
unable to use the performance. The simulation is evident, understanding of how decisions affected the links with understanding of the
learning from Semester standard of but the linking decisions in each performance and how performance and links with performance
1 in an effective way. presentation and together of strategy, functional area have the organisation met the decision- and the decision-making
This covers all aspects of writing is likely to be decision-making and affected its objectives. Team making process. process. The level of
the assessment. less than would be performance is performance, decision making is The level of critical critical thinking is
expected for a limited. The adequate although there is typically very good in thinking is outstanding. This also
professional piece of evaluation of the team probably more scope its evaluation, making excellent. This also extends to the
work. The decision- decision making may for being evaluative, use of external extends to the assessment of the team
making evaluation is likely have the same this extending to the material from the assessment of the decision making.
also likely to be at best gaps in evaluation. assessment of the programme. team decision
descriptive. team decision making making.
[0 – 29 [40 – 49] [50 – 59] [60 – 69] [70 – 79] [80 – 89] [90 – 100]
NBS EMA RUBRIC TEMPLATE - BUSINESS SIMULATION – MO9701,
SM4022, MN0490, MK9700 , MK9705, BM9720