Key Skills: The key skills addressed through this assessment are logical reasoning, analysis, evaluating, synthesis, learning and study, structure and consistency.
Harvard Referencing: Complete reference list which MUST conform to the Harvard System of Referencing must be included at the end of your assignment and in text citations where appropriate. A penalty will be applied if the references/citations are not included!
Learning Outcomes covered (based on Module Specification):
As the business impact of the COVID-19 crisis mounts, leaders in every industry are moving urgently to protect employees and build resilience. Governments are mobilizing to safeguard citizens and manage the economic fallout. Immediate action is critical, but leaders must also embrace a new agenda—one aimed squarely at what comes next.
Now more than ever, business and government have a crucial role to play in protecting people’s health, bolstering the economy, and developing both practical solutions and game-changing innovations. To address flaws exposed by the pandemic, companies should accelerate efforts to revamp their worldwide manufacturing and sourcing networks—even if that means extra cost.
Part I – Industry Analysis (1000 words)…………………………..50 Points
Choose an industry in Morocco and analyse how COVID-19 will change various aspects of management and leadership.
Part II – Individual Case Study (1000 words)………………………50 Points
Assessment Marking Criteria
90 – 100 A quite exceptional and outstanding answer, providing insights which would not be available publicly, and would, with some editing, be publishable. In addition to the features of the next section, this range is distinguished by superior organisation, economic use of language and totally comprehensive, given the conditions of the exercise.
80 – 89 An answer which demonstrates an excellent understanding of the question and of the complexity of the issues involved. There is a sound basis of relevant factual knowledge and/or the theoretical issues involved. Most of the important issues are dealt with in a detailed, specific and systematic way. There is either some measure of original thinking in the answer or an accurate and comprehensive account is given in a way which demonstrates understanding, for example by structuring the material such that it could not have been based just on reproduction of lecture notes and programme material. Evidence of creativity, critical approach, and wide reading beyond the core subject matter.
70 – 79 As above but a slightly less consistently excellent level. Alternatively, this range of mark may be given for an answer which, while not having original insights, gives comprehensive and accurate coverage of the issues at a high level throughout the answer, without significant omissions or errors.
60 – 69 An answer which demonstrates a clear understanding of the question and grasp of the complexity of the issues involved. There is a sound basis of relevant factual knowledge and/or of theoretical issues involved, with few significant errors. The issues involved are dealt with in a systematic way. Some of the issues may be limited in critical approach, but organised to display a comprehensive understanding and factual information essentially complete.
50 – 59 An answer which demonstrates an understanding of the major or basic issues in the question. There is a basis of factual knowledge and/or of relevant theoretical issues. Although some errors may be present, the overall framework of the answer is sensible and accurate. Most of all the issues may be dealt with at the level of obviously available programme material given to the student. The answer shows planning in its construction, with a clear train of thought or development of argument present. Average competent performance, well presented, demonstrating understanding of most of the essential issues.
40 – 49 An answer which demonstrates a limited understanding of the major or basic issues in the question. There is some relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues, but it is patchy. A few significant errors may be present. The answer is not well planned, with little development of argument, and often much irrelevant material is present. Lacks clarity of expression.
The lower range (40-45) would include an answer where relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues is poor and confused, but not absent. Many significant errors may be present. The answer is poorly planned, with little clear train of thought or development of argument, and much of the answer may be irrelevant.
38 – 39 An answer which fails to demonstrate any appreciable understanding of the major issues or basic issues of the question. Relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues, if present at all, is very poor and confused and very limited. Many significant errors may be present. Much or all of the answer may be irrelevant. Poorly organised and very limited in scope.
30 – 37 Attempts an answer, but relevant factual knowledge and/or awareness of theoretical issues is very poor and confused, and very limited with many significant errors.
10 – 29 Not clear that an answer is properly attempted. Only a few minor points made at all relevant to the answer and these may be superficial. Most material is irrelevant or incorrect.
1 – 9 An answer that is so short or irrelevant that only a few marks are justified. For example, one or two points may be made which show some peripheral awareness of certain possibly relevant issues.