New Business Development

New Business Development

Special instructions

a) The assignment must be an individual piece     of work.

b) The new business MUST be located in             Malaysia and all the costs incurred             must be written in Malaysia Ringgit           (RM).

c) The budget provided is RM 500,000                (yourself) + RM 500,000 (borrow from             bank) = RM1,000,000 ONLY in creating a     new business.

d) Include the attached assessment criteria in     your report as your last page and page           number is not required for this particular         page.

All reports should be word-processed printed double-spaced on white paper in 12pt Times New Roman font.

All the citation, quotation and references list must be written in Harvard Referencing Style as shown in the another file (file no. 3) attached below.
New Business Development
Assessment 1
Assignment 1: Initial Proposal

Module title            New Business Development
Assessment        Initial Proposal
Weighting             30%
Size and/or time limits for assessment            1000 words excluding appendices

Deadline of submission            26/10/2015 by 11.59 pm.
Assessment Regulations
All assessments are subject to the University Regulations for Assessment.  These include regulations relating to Errors of Attribution and Assessment Offences.  In exercising their judgement, Examiners may  penalise any work where the standard of English, numeracy or presentation adversely affects the quality of the work, or where the work submitted exceeds the published size or time limits, or where the work fails to follow normal academic conventions for acknowledging sources
note regulation regarding correct referencing conventions

The requirements for the assessment
This should take the following format:-
A description of the basic product/service offer – i.e. concept, approach, scope and “value added” or Unique Selling Proposition.
A clear, supported (with data) rationale for such a product/service and a preliminary identification of market(s) or market niche.
A skills profile and personal Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis

Special instructions

The assignment must be an individual piece of work.

The new business MUST be located in Malaysia and all the costs incurred are counted in Malaysia Ringgit (RM).

The budget provided is RM 500,000 (yourself) + RM 500,000 (borrow from bank) = RM1,000,000 ONLY in creating a new business.

Include the attached assessment criteria in your report as your last page and page number is not required for this particular page.

Return of work

To be advised

Assessment criteria

The assessment criteria are attached.

Careful referencing of sources is vital when making use of the work of others.  You are expected to employ the referencing conventions recommended by your Institution.  These conventions apply to information taken from internet sources, as well as books, journals and lectures.  These are some of the points you should check before submitting your work:

•    are all direct quotations, from both primary and secondary sources, suitably acknowledged (placed in quotation marks or indented)?
•    have you provided full details of the source of the quotation, according to the referencing convention used in your Institution?
•    have you acknowledged the source of ideas not your own, even if you are not quoting directly from the source?
•    have you avoided close paraphrase from sources? (Check that you are not presenting other people’s words or phrasing as if they are your own.)
•    if you have worked closely with others in preparing for this assessment, is the material you are presenting sufficiently your own?

Assessment 1 Criteria Initial Proposal Report
Mark Range    Knowledge & Understanding    Analysis    Research    Writing Style
Weighting    20    30    40    10
85%+    As for 76-84% but presented in such a way that it cannot be faulted
76-84%    Excellent subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates.
Excellent application of models employed
Evidence of an ability to synthesise information in a way that shows a full grasp of the material and application of underpinning theory and practice.  Excellent level of analysis and observation with SWOT clear evidence of research and analysis

Very effective deployment of contemporary data in supporting arguments.
Critical appropriate use of evidence.    Lively and articulate writing that shows evidence of knowledge, enthusiasm for the material and strong control of the arguments being deployed.
70–75%    Evidence of a wide knowledge of relevant theory applied in a critical and thoughtful way.
Evidence of full and precise knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the models being employed.    Strong evidence of ability to make a sustained argument on the basis of appropriate evidence.  Perceptive SWOT: data based observations    Evidence of appropriate selection of material from an appropriate range of sources.

Strong evidence of independent research.    Use of English that makes the meaning clear to the marker and shows control of the arguments being deployed.

60–69%    Good subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates.
Evidence of a full understanding of the possibilities and limitations of the models employed.
Evidence of critical understanding of the application of relevant theoretical material to the chosen organisation.
Evidence of ability to critically evaluate evidence and synthesise appropriate generalisations from it.  SWOT shows Good level of analysis and judgement data based
Appropriate research with effective use of a wide range of relevant sources.

Evidence of independent research.    Clear and correct usage with very few imprecise statements.
50–59%    Sound subject knowledge.
Understanding, but not evidently critical, of key issues
Evidence of an understanding and application of the models used and how they are relevant to the topics in the assessment task.    Evidence of a satisfactory level of analysis and judgement based on evidence, including statements about the criteria used.    Evidence of selection of appropriate material from an appropriate range of sources, with coherent structure and clear argument.
Correct English usage with few imprecise statements.

40–49%    Evidence of some knowledge of appropriate theory, but lacking depth.
Limited understanding of key issues and debates.  Lack of application to chosen organisation.    Some evidence of analysis but criteria used not clear.  Evidence of preparedness to state a position but with limited use of argument and appropriate evidence. E.g. old sources, descriptive SWOT

Materials used come from inappropriate sources.
Limited evidence of research.    Correct English usage, but with some lack of precision.

Use of English in such a way that the marker cannot understand some of the points made, thus limiting the mark by the material that can be understood.
30–39%    Evidence of some relevant knowledge, but with serious omissions.
Little understanding of key issues and debates.
Some evidence of appropriate deployment of language and concepts from the topic under consideration.    Evidence of a general, but rudimentary, grasp of task, descriptive, generalisation in SWOT with only a limited ability to sustain this response.
Scant or superficial research
Over-reliance on a single source, without analysis, criticism or interpretation.    Some incorrect use of English.
Failure to use technical terminology appropriately.

Failure to adhere to specified format for assignment.
20–29%    Evidence of some knowledge, reading and material, but these ideas are marginal to assessment task set. And not applied in any real world sense.
Inadequate understanding of subject with significant errors and omissions.    Evidence that the assessment task has been understood but that there is little development of research and the SWOT observations are erroneous in light of the evidence presented.    Superficial reading of inappropriate sources.
Failure to use research in an appropriate manner  to support  argument.
Significantly flawed use of English with little coherence or structure.

1–19%    The work contains significant misconceptions and basic errors and shows little familiarity with the concepts and language expected of such a project    Seriously flawed with no attempt to justify position.    No evidence of research.    Incorrect use of English to such an extent that the assignment cannot be understood.

0%    Plagiarism
Collusion
Use of work that has been previously or simultaneously presented for assessment
Falsifying of data
Non-presented work

New Business Development
Assessment 2
Assignment 2:  The Business Plan
Module code            ILP 326
Module title            New Business Development
Assessment        Business Plan
Weighting             70%
Size and/or time limits for assessment        3000 words excluding appendices
Deadline of submission
Your attention is drawn to the penalties for late submission; see Undergraduate Modular Scheme
19 November 2015
Sunday by 11.59pm
Assessment Regulations
All assessments are subject to the University Regulations for Assessment,  These include regulations relating to Errors of Attribution and Assessment Offences.  In exercising their judgement, Examiners may  penalise any work where the standard of English, numeracy or presentation adversely affects the quality of the work, or where the work submitted exceeds the published size or time limits, or where the work fails to follow normal academic conventions for acknowledging sources
Please note regulation regarding correct referencing conventions

The requirements for the assessment
This should take the following format:- “Research, develop and publish a business plan for a new enterprise within any industry”.
It should include the sections outlined below
• Executive Summary
• 1.0. Company Description
• 2.0. Market Environment
• 3.0. Marketing Plan
• 4.0. Management Plan
• 5.0. Operations Plan
• 6.0. Financial Plan
• 7.0. Contingency Plan
All reports should be word-processed printed double-spaced on white paper in 12pt Times New Roman font.

Special instructions
The second assessment is designed to build on the initial proposal. However, if a student wishes, an alternate concept can be developed: although the Assessment 1 mark will be carried forward.

The assignment must be an individual piece of work.

Attach the TURNITIN report (the first page only – with similarity index) after the appendices.

Include the attached assessment criteria in your report as your last page and page number is not required for this particular page.

Assessment criteria

The assessment criteria are attached

Careful referencing of sources is vital when making use of the work of others.  You are expected to employ the referencing conventions recommended by your Institution.  These conventions apply to information taken from internet sources, as well as books, journals and lectures.  These are some of the points you should check before submitting your work:

•    are all direct quotations, from both primary and secondary sources, suitably acknowledged (placed in quotation marks or indented)?
•    have you provided full details of the source of the quotation, according to the referencing convention recommended by your Institution.?
•    have you acknowledged the source of ideas not your own, even if you are not quoting directly from the source?
•    have you avoided close paraphrase from sources? (Check that you are not presenting other people’s words or phrasing as if they are your own.)
•    if you have worked closely with others in preparing for this assessment, is the material you are presenting sufficiently your own?

Assessment 2 Business  Plan
Mark Range    Knowledge & Understanding    Analysis/Synthesis    Reading and Research    Writing Style
Weighting    35    35    20    10
85%+    As for 76-84% but presented in such a way that it cannot be faulted
76-84%    Excellent subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates.
Excellent application of models employed    Evidence of ability to make a sustained argument on the basis of evidence in original terms.
Evidence of an ability to synthesise information in a way that shows a full grasp of the material.
Strong evidence of appropriate critical evaluation of a wide range of evidence incorporated into excellent plan    Evidence of the ability to range widely and eclectically for information.
Very effective deployment of reading in supporting arguments.
Lively and articulate writing that shows evidence of knowledge, enthusiasm for the material and strong control of the arguments being deployed.
70–75%    Evidence of a wide knowledge of relevant theory applied in a critical and thoughtful way.
Evidence of full and precise knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the models being employed.    Strong evidence of ability to make a sustained argument on the basis of appropriate evidence.
Strong evidence of ability to critically evaluate evidence and synthesise appropriate generalisations from it to produce a focussed marketing plan with few errors    Evidence of appropriate selection of material from an appropriate range of sources.
Reading used critically and deployed effectively in supporting arguments     Use of English that makes the meaning clear to the marker and shows control of the arguments being deployed.

60–69%    Good subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates.
Evidence of a full understanding of the possibilities and limitations of the models employed.
Evidence of critical understanding of the application of relevant theoretical material to the chosen organisation.    Evidence of ability to make a sustained argument on the basis of appropriate evidence.
Evidence of ability to critically evaluate evidence and synthesise appropriate generalisations from it to produce a good marketing plan in most areas.    Appropriate reading with effective use of a wide range of relevant sources.
Effective deployment of reading in supporting arguments.
Clear and correct usage with very few imprecise statements.
50–59%    Sound subject knowledge.
Understanding, but not evidently critical, of key issues
Evidence of an understanding and application of the models used and how they are relevant to the topics in the assessment task.    Evidence of ability to make an argument on the basis of evidence appropriate to the theoretical issues being discussed.
Evidence of the ability to collate information, weigh up evidence and construct general conclusion about the information expressed in a competent well written plan.
Evidence of selection of appropriate material from an appropriate range of sources, with coherent structure and clear argument.
Satisfactory deployment of evidence to support argument.
Correct English usage with few imprecise statements.

40–49%    Evidence of some knowledge of appropriate theory, but lacking depth.
Limited understanding of key issues and debates.  Lack of application to chosen organisation.    Some evidence of analysis but criteria used not clear.
Evidence of preparedness to state a position but with limited use of argument and appropriate evidence expressed in a marketing plan with minor omissions and errors
Evidence of selection of mainly relevant material from a range of sources, but evidence not deployed accurately.
Narrow selection of material.
Limited evidence of research.    Correct English usage, but with some lack of precision.

Use of English in such a way that the marker cannot understand some of the points made, thus limiting the mark by the material that can be

understood.
Mark Range    Knowledge & Understanding    Analysis/Synthesis    Reading and Research    Writing Style
30–39%    Evidence of some relevant knowledge, but with serious omissions.
Little understanding of key issues and debates.
Some evidence of appropriate deployment of language and concepts from the topic under consideration.    Evidence of a general, but rudimentary, grasp of the planning issue  with only a limited ability to sustain this response in a marketing plan with significant omissions and errors.    Scant or superficial reading.
No evidence of research beyond directed reading or lecture notes or VLE.
Over-reliance on a single textbook source, without analysis, criticism or interpretation.    Some incorrect use of English.
Failure to use technical terminology appropriately.

Failure to adhere to specified format for assignment.
20–29%    Evidence of some knowledge, reading and material, but these ideas are marginal to assessment task set. And not applied in any real world sense.
Inadequate understanding of subject with significant errors and omissions.
Evidence that the assessment task has been understood but that there is little development of the plan and the conclusions drawn are erroneous in light of the evidence presented.    Superficial reading of inappropriate sources.
Failure to use reading appropriately in support of argument.
Significantly flawed use of English with little coherence or structure.

1–19%    The work contains significant misconceptions and basic errors and shows little familiarity with the concepts and language expected of such a project
Seriously flawed with no evidence of analysis or synthesis.    No evidence of reading.    Incorrect use of English to such an extent that the assignment cannot be understood.

0%    Plagiarism
Collusion
Use of work that has been previously or simultaneously presented for assessment
Falsifying of data
Non-presented work