Coursework Information Sheet
To be supplied to students when they receive the coursework assignment task.
Unit Co-ordinator
Dr Markus Haag
Unit Name
Digital Business Management
Unit Code
BSS013-6
Title of Coursework
Assessment 1 – Report
% weighting of final unit grade
50%
Feedback details
The university policy is that you will receive prompt feedback on your work within 15 working days of the submission date. Exceptionally where this is not achievable (for example due to staff sickness) you will be notified as soon as possible of the revised date and the reasons behind the change.
Submission Date
Friday 18 March 2016
Feedback Date
Tuesday 12 April 2016
Details of how to access the feedback
2Q feedback via BREO

BSS013-6 Digital Business Management
Specifications for Assignment 1 – Semester2 2016
[50% of the overall assessment, 2500 words]
Due Date: Week 7 – 05 March 2016 by 11.59pm
[Only via turnitin submission]
General Instructions
• This is an individual assessment.
• Each student must only submit an e-copy online using ONLY BREO’s turnitin link. Please follow the instructions provided in BREO’s “Assignment” folder. Your work will NOT be assessed if you failed to submit a copy online before 11.59pm on 05 March 2016.
• Note: Your e-copy submissions must contain the full report, i.e. front page, content, and references. And you must use full Harvard referencing.
• You will be marked as fail if you have missed the deadline for online submission.
• Your assignment will be scanned by a plagiarism detecting tool (turnitin). Any attempt of plagiarising your work will be detected and penalised.
• Your assignment must be a piece of personal and genuine work. If suspected with plagiarism, fabrication, impersonation, or any other forms of academic offence, a viva will be conducted prior to the disciplinary action.
• Any student, which fails to follow above specifications will NOT be assessed.
• Non-assessed reports will be marked as “No Attempt” which is a “0” (G).
Specifications
This assignment requires each student to critically evaluate a website of a company chosen by students. This report will build a critical analysis of your chosen website against a framework which is a distillation of the critical elements you have synthesised from your evaluation of relevant literature against specific concepts which you will be asked to investigate. Hence you will be able to comment on specific strengths and weaknesses of your chosen website and hence derive informed conclusions and recommendations for improving your chosen website. The analysis needs to focus on the website, NOT the company as such. You can evaluate the website using concepts that you learned in Digital Business Management, but other approaches of analysis are equally possible.
• First, you must research and select a company which has not been selected or previously analysed by your peers. The chosen company will be allocated to students on a first come first serve basis by registering your chosen company via a link in BREO for this unit.
• Note: Please do not start work on the company until your company has been approved by tutor. A list of companies that are not allowed for this study will be provided on BREO.
• You are expected to do much background reading from textbooks and other academic journal articles as well as conduct adequately research evidence to support your review, synthesis and discussion.
• Reference style must follow Harvard Reference Systems, e.g. EJIS style (European Journal of Information Systems). The university library web site has “A guide to academic referencing
• The report should be word-processed, the length of your critique should be around 2500 words (± 10%). Please state the number of words using Word Count function at the end of your report.
Focus of your Critical Appraisal:
? Critically discuss the digital business strategy that the website pursues. This needs to include a definition of strategy.
? Critically discuss the electronic customer relationship management approaches (eCRM) of the website.
Marking Criteria
Assignment 1 will be marked against the following criteria:
Please note that all seven criteria are equally weighted!
1. Application of business theory to construct appropriate frameworks for discussion
2. Identification of useful concepts and scenarios
3. Evaluation of e-Business model or approaches chosen by selected company
4. Depth and breadth of analysis
5. Clarity and cohesion of findings
6. Quality and justification of recommendations
7. Presentation, style, and adequate referencing

Marking Criteria
1%-34% (fail) 35%-39% (marginal fail) 40%-49% (satisfactory) 50%-59% (good) 60%-69% (commendable) 70%-100% (excellent)

Application of Business Theory Very little or no use of published work. Some attempt to use secondary data. Very limited sources with no evaluation Heavy reliance on very limited sources. Little evidence of any attempt to collect a broader range of information. Minimal evaluation of literature An adequate use of available sources. Some attempt at evaluating literature A good range of literature used. The answer demonstrates appreciation of its appropriateness A very good answer demonstrating a comprehensive consideration of the academic issues, configuring your response to enable different arguments to be presented in a logical order.
Identification of useful concepts and scenarios A failing answer; does not demonstrate an understanding of the issues posed in the question A referral answer; does not consider any concepts or scenarios that might aid understanding of the websites business in a coherent or detailed way, A poor response; a narrow view with limited use of concepts or scenarios that might aid understanding of the websites business in a coherent or detailed way, An average answer using some concepts or scenarios that might aid understanding of the websites business in in a reasonably coherent way A good answer, structures the problem in a logical way using concepts or scenarios to aid understanding of the websites business demonstrating a reasonable breadth of understanding of the issues A good answer demonstrating a comprehensive consideration of concepts or scenarios that aid understanding of the websites business in a coherent or detailed way, enabling different arguments to be presented in a logical order.
Evaluation of e Business Model / Approaches A failing answer does not demonstrate an understanding of the issues posed in the question A referral answer; does not evaluate the businesses approach of the chosen website in a coherent or detailed way, A poor response, a very narrow view of the eBusiness approach of the website, only considering a limited range of issues An average answer; consideration of some of the e-Business approaches reviewed in a reasonably coherent way A good answer; logical evaluation of the e Business approaches demonstrating a good breadth of understanding of the issues A very good answer demonstrating a comprehensive consideration of the eBusiness approach of the website. Your response enables different arguments to be presented in a logical order.
Depth and Breadth of Analysis A random collection of statements based on the student’s own point of view with no attempt to use evidence to support the arguments. Some evidence of an attempt to provide an answer to the question but insufficient detail to pass. A limited number of points made. Poor use of any external data to support the points. Poor analysis A limited range of appropriate analysis points made but more as a list then as a unified piece of work. Limited secondary sources s provided to support the points made A well constructed piece of work. Literature critically evaluated to produce a good analysis, not merely a précis. Good use of secondary data sources. A very well constructed piece of work which demonstrates the student’s ability to analyse and synthesise complex arguments. It has a logical flow and all the points made follow from and are supported by the evidence.
Clarity & Cohesion of Findings A random collection of statements based on the students own point of view with no obvious attempt to draw analysis to a conclusion Some evidence of an attempt to provide an answer to the question but insufficient detail to pass. No real attempt to move on from a few pieces of information. Poorly argued and with conclusions that just do not follow from the evidence presented A limited number of points made with little attempt to interrelate them to form a coherent discussion. Poorly argued with rather unconvincing conclusions. Doubts that the conclusions are valid .Poor use of any external data to support the points. Some appropriate points made but more as a list then as a unified piece of work. ‘Reader presented with bricks rather than building’. The work is reasonably argued but the conclusions are not entirely convincing A Very well constructed piece of work. Literature critically evaluated not merely a précis. The work is reasonably soundly argued and the conclusions are largely convincing. An excellently constructed piece of work which clearly demonstrates the student’s ability to synthesise complex arguments and to use the data to come up with novel solutions. It has a logical flow and the conclusions follow naturally from the evidence presented. No doubts are left in the reader’s mind as to their validity.
Quality and justification of Recommendations A random collection of statements based on the students own point of view with no attempt to use evidence to support the recommendations. Some evidence of an attempt to provide an answer to the question but insufficient detail to pass. No real attempt to move on from a few pieces of information. Poorly argued with no real recommendations A limited number of points made with little attempt to interrelate them to form a coherent discussion. Poor use of any external data to support the recommendations. A range of appropriate points made but more as a list then as a unified piece of work. ‘Reader presented with bricks rather than building’. Secondary sources provided to support the points made, but generally with significant lack of clarity of recommendation Clear , cohesive arguments. Literature supports the recommendations which have been developed from the information collected. A very well constructed piece of work which clearly demonstrates the student’s ability to synthesise complex arguments and to develop these ideas cohesively into clear recommendations
Presentation and Referencing Very poor - unacceptable referencing and presentation. Referral; inadequate referencing and presentation. Presentation is acceptable, but referencing at minimal standard with few references. Good presentation with a acceptable range of references. Harvard standard correctly applied A wide range of references used. The report is very well presented and written - well done. Very good report, very well written presented and referenced no major flaws.
Note: Work presented by a student in an assessment is expected to be the student's own, and while quotations from published sources are usually acceptable, such cases must be clearly identified and the source fully acknowledged. Academic Offence includes plagiarism, cheating, impersonation, fabrication and collusion. All the academic offences are not acceptable and will be penalised. The University has set of regulations to govern how academic offence is treated and you should make yourself familiar with these.
Any suspect of an academic offence will be called for a viva according to University’s QA guidelines.