| Assignment Brief | |
| BMM6582: eBusiness and eMarketing | |
| Component number | Assignment 2 |
| Assignment type | 02 Analytical Review |
| Learning outcomes for this assessment (Please see module Handbook for all learning outcomes) | Compare, contrast, and analyse approaches used to evaluate a company’s current positioning in the traditional and electronic marketplaces. Appraise various options for developing e-business/e-marketing strategies. Evaluate the situational utilisation and impact of modern technologies in key aspects of business and marketing operations, and interpret its suitability and appropriateness. |
| Weighting: | 60% |
| Word Count or Equivalent | 2000 Words |
| Submission deadline: | This week (before 12 PM) |
| Post date: | 5th of January, 2025 |
Completing Your Assignment
This is an intensive project to be completed individually. The analytical review should be the same topic as assessment component one (the 10-minute video). You will provide a literature review that would outline the background research about your chosen topic. You would then analyse the literature and go into more depth to address your chosen topic. You should use the feedback given about the assignment 1 (video) to inform the written piece of work. The word count for the second assessment (component 02) is 2000 words (± 10%). This does not include the references list and appendices. If you exceed the word limit, any work after 2200 words will not be marked. Whilst you are not penalised for being under the word count, work that is substantially under the word count will be more limited in meeting the programme learning outcomes.
Is there a word limit?
2000 words (± 10%)
How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade?
1. Demonstrate your grasp and knowledge on the content you are talking about
2. Support your arguments with references from published literature
3. Use a range of sources. Do not just talk about Amazon or eBay – use a range of sectors/organisations to show your understanding
4. Demonstrate wider reading around the subject.
How will my assignment be marked?
Your assignment will be marked based on the marking criteria below. Make sure you read thoroughly to see how you can accumulate marks.
| Classification: Criterion: | Exceptional 1st / Distinction 100, 95, 92 | Outstanding 1st / Distinction 88, 85, 82 | 1st / Distinction 78, 75, 72 | 2.1 / Merit 68, 65, 62 | 2.2 / Pass 58, 55, 52 | 3rd / Pass 48, 45, 42 | Fail 38, 35, 32 | Abject Fail 25, 20, 10, 0 |
|
Knowledge & Understanding (30%) |
Polished grasp of corporate sustainability and related policies and practice. Astute and authoritative approach to complexity. | Comprehensive and confident grasp of corporate sustainability and related policies and practice with strong sense of subject complexity. | Thorough understanding of corporate sustainability and related policies and practice and well applied to the case stidy. | Secure, general understanding of corporate sustainability and related policies and practice; reasonable application to the case study. | Sound knowledge of corporate sustainability and related policies and practice relevant to the case study. | Limited knowledge of corporate sustainability and related policies and practice shows basic understanding. Some awareness of the context of the case study. | Faulty understanding of corporate sustainability and related policies and practice. Irrelevant or mostly absent content. | No understanding of corporate sustainability and related policies and practice. Irrelevant or absent content. |
|
Structure, Argument (30%) |
Effective and integrated over-arching argument or structure, clear, insightful synthesis. Highly creative understanding of topic. | Effective overall argument with clear and insightful connections between claims. Creative understanding of topic. | Clear and logical focus and direction with valuable connections made between claims. Good level of creativity. | Well-focused on the question with some clear connections made between claims and some overall direction. Some creativity. | Addresses the topic with some direction and makes some connections between claims or different parts of artefact/assignment. | Argument is weak and difficult to detect. Connections made between statements limited | Lack of argument. Faulty connection between statements. | No argument. Many faulty connection between statements. |
|
Analysis and Conclusions (30%) |
Original and searching analysis, critical appraisal of corporate sustainability materials, policy and practice with judicious conclusions. | Searching analysis of corporate sustainability materials, policy and practice with pertinent conclusions drawn. | Insightful analysis of corporate sustainability materials, policy and practice throughout with appropriate conclusions drawn. | Strong analysis of corporate sustainability materials, policy and practice. Some general conclusions drawn. | Some conclusions drawn based on some reasonable comparisons and examples of corporate sustainability materials, policy and practice. | Basic analysis. Remains descriptive, little evaluation or comparison of corporate sustainability materials, policy and practice. Few clear conclusions. | Insufficient evaluation or attempt to make comparisons of corporate sustainability materials, policy and practice. Conclusions illogical insufficient. | No evaluation or attempt to make comparisons of corporate sustainability materials, policy and practice. Conclusions illogical or absent. |
|
Sources & Evidence, Adherence to Referencing Conventions (10%) |
Extensive and evaluative use of evidential support for argument.
Flawless referencing or technical skills using extensive academic sources. |
Extensive use of evidence with some evaluation.
Flawless referencing or technical skills using a wide range of academic sources. |
Clear support of argument with well selected evidence.
Excellent referencing or technical skills using a range of academic sources. |
Draws on relevant independent sources and evidence to support claims.
Consistent and accurate referencing or technical skills using some academic sources. |
Makes simple use of evidence from recommended sources.
Largely consistent accurate referencing. or technical skills with limited academic sources. |
Relies on superficial statements with little supporting evidence.
Limited referencing/ adherence to convention or technical skills. Lack of academic sources. |
Lack of evidence or relevant sources.
Inadequate referencing or technical skills. |
No evidence or relevant sources. Inadequate or no referencing or technical skills. |
The post BMM6582: eBusiness and eMarketing Assignment 2 Assignment Help appeared first on Universal Assignment.
