Assessment Brief/ Task The detailed requirements for this task are as follows: Write a cohesive case study that critically analyses a specific instance of organisational change/transformation management that you have experienced (*). Using appropriate academic sources to support your work, give emphasis to why the change was attempted, how the change process was managed, how the reality reflected in your storyline compares to relevant academic literature and how successful you think implementation was handled. The case study MUST be structured as follows using the headings. (Italicised words are not part of the heading but are given by way of further information). £ Title of case study (including the name of your chosen organisation) £ Key theme (a list of up to six keywords in order to frame the change implications of your case study) £ Introduction (to the theory of change) £ Organisational background and stated need for change (brief overview of context with SWOT/STEEPLE) £ Description of the change process (phase by phase) £ Roles and perspectives (of the key stakeholders pre and post change) £ Application of the key theory to the case study (critical analysis/application of theory to practice) £ Conclusions (summary evaluation of what has worked well/not well/do differently next time) £ Lessons Learnt: Personal and Organisational £ References (at least 15-20) £ Appendices (if relevant) (*) If you feel you have not experienced such a change, then you must choose an organisation that has accessible information in relation to changes it has experienced and conduct extensive secondary research before developing your case study. The following information is important when: Preparing for your assessment Checking your work before you submit it Interpreting feedback on your work after marking. Assessment Criteria The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated on page 1. The precise criteria against which your work will be marked is as follows: Description. Full address of why the change was attempted, the contextual environment, how the process was managed and differing behavioural and ethical perspectives. Evaluation and application. Critical evaluation of the case and application of relevant literature. Critical analysis and application. Critical analysis of the change/transformation through applying theoretical frameworks, ideas and models. Reflection. A reflective assessment of the scenario from multiple viewpoints. A cohesive story line and balanced presentation that reflects an appropriate format and use of Harvard referencing system. Performance descriptors Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the above criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated. Assess-ment criteria (70-100%) A Work of an outstanding, excellent & v. good standard (*) (60-69%) B Work of a good standard. (50-59%) C/D Work of a competent/pass standard. (40-49%) E Fail (0-39%) F Fail Description Impressive organisational overview and its context and challenges. A comprehensive description of the change process and reflection of perspectives of key players involved. A good overview of the organisation, its context and change process including reflection of perspectives of key players. A reasonable overview of the organisation, its context and change process including some reflection of perspectives of key players. Some overview of the organisation, its context and change process and reflection of perspectives of key players. These aspects could be improved upon and made clearer. Confused overview of the organisation (possibly lacking insight), its context and change process. Possibly incoherent description in places or no real attempt to address assignment brief in respect of description. Evaluation and application A fine critical review and application of relevant authors, rival theories, major debates and methodologies, etc. to a very good, possibly excellent (even outstanding) standard. References beyond those identified in session sources, possibly a range of extensive thought. Clear evidence of independent thought. Critical evaluation and application of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates appropriate to the implied case requirements. Good application of existing academic work and some evaluation of salient theories and issues. Some critical review of relevant authors, rival theories, major debates and methodologies, etc. Appropriate range of references utilised. Good analysis, application and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates. The structure & focus are evident & relevant to the assessment task. There is evidence of engagement and application of pertinent theory and issues. Key authors & major debates are clearly presented and applied to the case study. Evidence of suitable basic reading. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis, application or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered. Lists of theory with no application. Fundamental misconceptions how to evaluate and apply relevant academic work. Instead the work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding or application of relevant theory. Possibly too few references to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought and/ or criticality. Possibly no real attempt to address assignment brief in respect of evaluation. Lists of theory with no application. Critical analysis and application Demonstrates a clear capacity to apply relevant theoretical frameworks as part of an appropriate (even insightful) analysis of the change/ transformation process described in the case scenario to a high standard. Clear evidence of independent thought and very effective use of academic frameworks in order to analyse the case scenario. Possibly displays a distinct level of originality. Demonstrates a capacity to apply relevant theoretical frameworks as part of an appropriate analysis of the change/transformation process described in the case scenario. Examples of effective use of academic frameworks in order to analyse the case scenario. Examples of sound argument and solid evidence. The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning outcomes. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. Fundamental misconceptions over analysing the case in the context of relevant academic thinking. Limited analysis of a superficial nature only lacks any attempt at analysis, relying on description instead. Reflection Original and perceptive reflections clearly and fully expressed and flowing naturally from the case analysis. An ability to successfully synthesise theoretical issues into practice and evaluate the possible implications and lessons. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned. Possibly original and insightful reflections appropriately articulated which have relevance to the scenario. The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within chosen case context. Some meaningful well reasoned conclusions and attention given to lessons learned The work demonstrates a competence to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within chosen case context. Some helpful conclusions and acknowledgement of lessons learned. There may be little evidence of an ability to apply theoretical principles to the case scenario or a wider context. Conclusions unrelated to the scenario. Lessons learned either superficial or lacking. No application of theoretical principles to the case scenario or a wider context. Conclusions unrelated and confused or illogical and unsubstantiated. Lessons learned either superficial or lacking. Possibly no real attempt to address assignment brief in respect of reflection. Present-ation A balanced, well structured case, generally coherent in approach. Well-written, well presented and largely or wholly free of spelling and/or typographical errors. Very good, possibly faultless application of Harvard referencing system. A balanced, well structured case. Overall clear well-written, well presented. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar. Good application of Harvard referencing system. Case is cohesive, but may be hindered by inappropriate balance, structure or writing style. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar. Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address the case requirements overall. Possibly lacking in balance, structure or writing style. Some repeated errors in referencing and/or grammar. Significant failings in case balance, structure or writing style. Repeated possibly significant errors in referencing and/or grammar. Critical failings in case balance. Possibly lacking in coherence, is unstructured and/or is badly presented. (*) 70-79% very good; 80-89% excellent; 90%+ outstanding
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]