———————————————————————————————————————
Description of Assessment Requirements
A written assignment of A MAXIMUM 3000 words
———————————————————————————————————————
Assignment Brief:

The 3rd Wave articulated in a series of briefings (Econoists21014/15 Avent R. (Ed)). The development of synthetic DNA for computer memory and the new coding systems has enabled the data collection over the last five years to exceed the total collected over the previous recording period. The development of software, the Internet, Android and Windows (et al) as platforms is acknowledged as allowing global access to applications and algorithms. These are predicted to have a significant impact on cognitive-manual employment patterns
A recent report: Robot Revolution (Bank of America, Merrill Lynch 2015) suggest the impact on the Organisational Structures and the employer/employee will be significant.
You are required: To provide a critical evaluation the contention that the combination of Software/Hardware into autonomous Robots is a significant threat to the management of the organisation
The Essay should be based on the following format:
Introduction (10% of marks and 300 words)

This should provide the objectives, limitations, method and the contextualisation of the discussion.
Literature Review and Critical Evaluation (70% of Marks and 2400 words)

A: Ends and Means, Easing the transition (Economist 04/010/2014, 3rd Wave P16-18)

B: Displacement Theory (Free Market concepts)

C: Replacement Theory (Marxist concepts)

D: Infill//Substitution (Labour Economic Concepts)
Conclusion (10% of marks and 300 words)
This should provide ‘end’ statements commenting on the achievement of the objectives stated
Structure, Presentation and Referencing (10%)
Referencing Requirements
The Harvard referencing system should be employed

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
Practical 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.