Management Environment

Identify an organisation with which you are familiar. This could be your own organisation, one that you have worked for in the past or one which can readily be researched from existing materials. Prepare a structured report which addresses all the parts listed below.
Part 1
Set out the main “Business Transformation Process” of the organisation by identifying inputs, outputs and the fundamental value-adding process. Consider and explain the extent to which there have been significant changes to the transformation process over time.
Part 2
Identify the broad organisational structure of the organisation and consider any advantages or disadvantages of this structure. Support your answer with an organogram or hierarchy chart.
Part 3
Consider one of the functions of the organisation (such as Marketing OR Operations OR Human Resource Management) and identify the key challenges facing a manager in charge of this function.
Part 4
Identify two major factors in each of the organisation’s PESTE elements (two Political factors, two Economic factors, two Social factors, two technological factors and two Environmental factors). Describe how these influence the organisation and conclude whether current conditions are helpful or harmful to the organisation.
Part 5
Select one of the management schools of thought (such as Fayol’s 14 Principles of Management OR Systems Theory OR Scientific Management etc.) and identify any elements which are present in the organisation and consider evidence of aspects of this thinking in the organisation’s planning AND/OR decision-making AND/OR strategy practices or processes.

Form of Submission:
Students are required to submit via CampusMoodle online submission facility a 2500 word report, to be submitted by 29th October 2012 in Microsoft word format. The report will be self-contained and include a response to all Parts of the Assignment Task. Full references of source materials must be appropriately attributed and a comprehensive reference list provided.

Additional supporting background should be included in an Appendix.
Assessment Weighting
Apportionment of Marks:
The assignment has five parts. The indicative apportionment of percentage marks is:
Part 1 20% Part 2 20% Part 3 20% Part 4 20% Part 5 20%

The Robert Gordon University Aberdeen Business School

Module Performance Descriptor
Management Environment
BS3120
The module is assessed by one component:
C1 – Coursework – A single combination coursework
assessment for issue during the delivery of the module and submission following delivery of the module (100% weighting)
Module Grade Explanation of basis of combination
A 70% or above
B 60%-69%
C 50%-59%
D 40%-49%
E 35%-39%
F 0%-34%
NS Non submission

Criteria of Marking: BS3120 Management Environment
Mark Definition Assessment Criteria (Description of levels of achievement for a given mark)
70- Excellent, Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the subject by
100% outstanding identifying all or almost all of the relevant facts and principles
performance for the given task, excellent levels of analysis and evaluation with no erroneous inclusions… identifies a very high number of directly relevant examples to illustrate declared theory, well founded conclusions. Almost all of the following are demonstrated to a high standard: written communication is clear, grammatically correct; points are developed in a logical manner.
60- Commendable Demonstrates a very good understanding of the subject by
69% , very good, meritorious identifying most of the relevant facts and principles for the given task, high levels of analysis and evaluation with few erroneous
performance inclusions identifies a significant number of directly relevant examples to illustrate declared theory, very clear conclusions.
Most of the following are demonstrated to a very good standard:
written communication is clear, grammatically correct; points are developed in a logical manner.
50- Good, highly Demonstrates a good understanding of the subject by identifying
59% competent performance a majority of the relevant facts and principles for the given task, clear ability to perform analysis and evaluation with some erroneous inclusions… identifies a number of directly relevant examples to illustrate theory, clear conclusions. Almost all of the following are demonstrated proficiently: written communication is clear, grammatically correct; points are developed in a logical manner.
40- Satisfactory, Demonstrates adequate understanding of the subject by
49% competent identifying some of the relevant facts and principles for the
performance given task, competent levels of analysis and evaluation with satisfactory inclusions where relevant ones outweigh erroneous inclusions… identifies a few directly relevant examples to
illustrate theory, adequate conclusions. Some of the following is demonstrated: written communication is clear, grammatically correct; points are developed in a logical manner.
35- Fail, Demonstrates marginally weak understanding of the subject by
39% Unsatisfactory identifying some of the relevant facts and principles for the
Borderline given task, near adequate levels of analysis and evaluation… identifies only occasional relevant examples to illustrate theory, brief and near adequate conclusions. Response may be composed of elements of unsubstantiated or anecdotal evidence.
Evidence of erroneous or limited content. Few of the following
are demonstrated: written communication is clear,
grammatically correct; points are developed in a logical manner.
0-34% Fail, Unsatisfactory Demonstrates a weak understanding of the subject by identifying almost none of the relevant facts and principles for the given task, no (or very limited) demonstration of analysis or evaluation, no (or very limited) relevant examples used to support theory. Emphasises anecdotal examples at the expense
of theory. Significant level of erroneous content or very limited content. No evidence of reaching a conclusion. Almost none of the following are demonstrated: written communication is clear, grammatically correct; points are developed in a logical manner.
The work presented by the candidate is largely absent, very limited and/or irrelevant. Coursework content not in own words/has significant verbatim content from other sources whether acknowledged or not.