ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Assessment Final project
Assessment code: 010
Academic Year: 2023/2024
Trimester: 1
Module Title: Business Improvement and Change
Module Code: MOD003696
Level: 7
Module Leader: Dr Gbadebo Ogunlami
Weighting: 100 per cent
Word Limit: 2,500
This excludes the bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.83 of the Academic Regulations.
Assessed Learning Outcomes Knowledge and Understanding
1. Critically assess and evaluate the business processes and systems within and between organisations
2. Critically assess and evaluate an organisation's capabilities and competencies,
Intellectual, practical, effective and transferrable skills
3. Apply a variety of benchmarking concepts for business processes and systems improvement.
4. Diagnose, analyse and evaluate alternative change management programmes for an organisation.
Submission deadline:
This assignment must be received by no later than 14:00 on Click here to enter a date.
WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
• This assignment must be completed individually.
• You must use the ARU Harvard referencing system.
• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation
6.74).
• Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
• Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
• Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
• You must number all pages.
SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
• In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – if your work is submitted on the same day as the deadline by midnight, your mark will receive a 10% penalty. If you submit your work up to TWO working days after the published submission deadline – it will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.
• Work cannot be submitted if the period of 2 working days after the deadline has passed (unless there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you have failed the assessment.
• Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause considered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact
DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. A request must normally be received and agreed by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least 24 hours prior to the deadline. See rules 6.64-6.73:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
• Exceptional Circumstances: The deadline for submission of exceptional circumstances in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team - DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. See rules 6.112 –
6.141: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
You act as the change implementation consultant to Boston Dynamics, a US based robotics services corporation. As part of its European expansion, Boston Dynamics has invited you to produce a report suggesting how its services can be used for repairing the railway infrastructure run by Network Rail.
The report should focus on the following tasks:
Task 1
Critically evaluate how the operations and maintenance business areas of Network Rail could benefit from Boston Dynamics’ SPOT and ATLAS. Include a BPMN 2.0-style business process representation as part of the critical evaluation.
(50 marks)
Task 2
Develop an implementation plan that represents the critical tasks within the proposed operations and maintenance business transformation. Critically assess one activity in your Gantt chart’s representation of the implementation plan.
(20 marks)
Task 3
Critically evaluate elements of two appropriate change management models. Assess their importance to the proposed business transformation being successfully implemented. Include diagram(s) that link tasks in your implementation plan to specific elements of the change management models that were chosen.
(20 marks)
Report writing and referencing
Demonstration of academic skills and adherence to scholarly conventions
(10 marks)
Total (100 marks)
GUIDANCE – POINTS TO CONSIDER:
Please follow the recommended format of an academic report; the following is indicative.
• Executive summary
• Table of contents
• Task one – include a business process diagram
• Task two – include a Gant chart of the implementation plan
• Task three – include model element diagrams with links to Gantt chart tasks)
• References
In completing the assignment, you will need to use relevant resources. The following are examples:
https://growjo.com/company/Boston_Dynamics ; https://www.bostondynamics.com/resources/case-studies
Who we are - Network Rail
Our business areas - Network Rail
Please note that the sources listed are expected for your written assessment. These sources will be part of the module and their content is deemed necessary to produce a relevant assessment. Module markers will expect to see them integrated into your work and appropriately referenced.
Failure to include these sources may result in a “Viva Voce” meeting during which you would be required to explain your work and your reasons for not including these key sources.
GRADING CRITERIA FOR SUBMITTED WORK
Your submitted report will be marked in accordance with Table 1. Marks will be awarded based on the quality of the submitted report. Students should demonstrate critical thinking and evidence of wider research. A significant degree of latitude will be given when marking the report. There are no set correct or wrong answers. As such students will be awarded marks for the quality of their evaluation, their diagrammatic representations of the business
process, implementation plan, and the intelligibility of their suggested links between implementation plan artefacts and change management model elements.
The credibility of their report is also an important consideration.
For example:
Adequate knowledge would be demonstrable in a report that would list the target business process and system, set out the implementation plan, omit some milestones or decision points, and list the change management models.
Sound knowledge would be demonstrable in a report that would include BPMN 2.0 diagram(s) of the target business process and system, provide underlying detail to the implementation plan, outline the interdependencies between milestones and describe the change management model elements.
Good analysis would be demonstrable in a report that would have diagrams of the target business process and system. In addition to the contents of the average report it would include more detailed justifications of underlying detail in support of elements of the implementation plan. It will also contain good elaboration of the change management model elements and how they support the business transformations envisaged in specific parts of the implementation plan.
Table 1: Marking grade boundaries (Also, see Table 2)
0%: Non-submission; dangerous practices; failing to address the assignment brief by not answering the question and the related learning outcomes.
1-9%: No evidence of knowledge of appropriate conceptual frameworks and application of knowledge to business improvement or change management practice. The report is completely incoherent and descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever. There is no evidence of use of scholarly conventions.
10-19%: Deficient evidence of knowledge of appropriate conceptual frameworks and application of knowledge to business improvement or change management practice. The report is wholly descriptive, with inadequate synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate argument. There is inadequate evidence of use of scholarly conventions.
20-29%: Little evidence of knowledge of appropriate conceptual frameworks and application of knowledge to business improvement or change management practice. The report is largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. There is little evidence of use of scholarly conventions.
30-39%: Limited evidence of knowledge of appropriate conceptual frameworks and application of knowledge to business improvement or change management practice. The report is largely descriptive with superficial and unclear exposition of issues. There are various omissions and inconsistencies within the development and implementation of required techniques and recommendations.
40-49%: Adequate knowledge of key issues/concepts, relevant arguments in change management. The report is generally descriptive with little supporting evidence to substantiate the claims and assumptions within the report. There is limited analysis of the operational context and arguments are not fully developed.
50-59%: Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts and relevant techniques in change management. The report is descriptive in parts but displays some ability to demonstrate a level of critical analysis in places. There is some development of most aspects of the change management architecture, but omissions may still be present.
60-69%: Good analysis and synthesis of the key issues/concepts and relevant application of change management methodology. There is development of conceptual structures and arguments, but minor omissions may be present in the answer.
70-79%: Excellent analysis and synthesis of key issues/concepts and relevant application of operational management theories and techniques. There is high-level use of the conceptual models. Relevant approaches are discussed, analysed and evaluated. The report displays evidence of independence of thought. There is a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency when discussing the relevant change management issues. It contains excellent expressive skills with considerable creativity and originality.
80-89%: Outstanding analysis and synthesis of key issues and relevant application of change management methodology. Relevant methodologies are discussed, analysed and evaluated to an outstanding and near professional change management practitioner level. The answer displays consistent and convincing evidence of independence of thought. There is a high level of intellectual
rigour and consistency when discussing relevant models on virtually all issues. It contains outstanding expressive skills with considerable creativity and originality.
90-100%: Exceptional analysis and synthesis of key issues and relevant application of change management methodology. Relevant methodologies are discussed, analysed and evaluated to an exceptional and professional change management practitioner level. The report displays exceptional academic/intellectual skills. It pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication.

Table 2: ARU Generic Assessment Criteria And Marking Standards: Level 7 – postgraduate taught
Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous, demonstrating independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, modify and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate and focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance or display.
Mark Bands Outcome Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)
Knowledge & Understanding Intellectual (thinking),
Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills
90-
100% Achieves module outcome(s) Exceptional analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy. Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument making an exceptional use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates exceptional independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills, independence of thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/ intellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication
80-
89% Outstanding analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with clear originality and autonomy. Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument making an exemplary use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates outstanding independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics.
Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a high
level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding expressive/professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Outstanding academic/intellectual skills
70-
79% Excellent analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics. Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument making excellent use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and a
high level of intellectual rigour and consistency Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, excellent level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills, and considerable creativity and originality
60-
69% Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument making consistent use of scholarly conventions Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions
50-
59% Sound knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions
40-
49% A marginal pass in
module outcome(s) Adequate knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Inconsistent use of scholarly conventions Adequate knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Inconsistent use of scholarly conventions
30-
39% A marginal fail in
module
outcome(s).
Satisfies default
qualifying mark Limited knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions. Limited research skills impede use of learning resources and problem solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions
20-
29% Fails to achieve module
outcome(s).
Qualifying mark not satisfied Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions. Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/
Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Little evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions
10-
19% Deficient knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Wholly descriptive, with deficient synthesis of existing scholarship and deficient argument. Deficient use of scholarly conventions. Deficient use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Deficient
academic/intellectual skills. Deficient use of scholarly conventions
1-
9% No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions. No evidence of use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy in expression. Team/
Practical/Professional skills nonexistent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions
0% Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes