Assignment Remit
| Programme Title | BSc Business Management suite | ||
| Module Title | LH Strategic Global Communication (UK) | ||
| Module Code | 32057 | ||
| Assignment Title | Individual assignment: 2500-word written assignment | ||
| Level | LH | ||
| Weighting | 70% | ||
| Module Leader(s) | Hazel Westwood/Cristina Sambrook | ||
| Hand Out Date | 16/10/24 | ||
| Deadline Date & Time | 07/01/24 | 12pm | |
| Feedback Post Date | 05/02/24 | ||
| Assignment Format | Other | ||
| Assignment Length | 2,500 words | ||
| Submission Format | Online | Individual | |
Module Learning Outcomes:
This assignment is designed to assess the following module learning outcomes. Your submission will be marked using the Grading Criteria given in the section below.
LO1. Display understanding and application of strategic stakeholder communications planning and mapping across both organisational and management communications.
LO2. Apply a range of theoretical frameworks to manage communications and relationships with different groups of stakeholders in a global context.
LO3. Critically analyse and assess communication strategies in stakeholder relationship management, including customer relationship management.
LO4. Evaluate, compare and contrast communication strategies across leadership communications.
LO5. Demonstrate an understanding of the concepts of societal and managerial culture, and the underlying attitudes, values and behaviours of different cultures (additionally assessed by group assignment
LOs 4 & 5 are additionally assessed via the group assignment, along with LO6
Assignment: Individual Written Strategic Communications Plan to Resolve a Current Issue for a Global Organisation.
Devise and write a full strategic communications plan for a specified global organisation, company, service, or brand of your choice, based on an identified current issue which requires to be managed. Choose your own multi-national case, where an issue has yet to be resolved, to analyse and develop a Strategic Communications plan for. Please note a marketing plan is not appropriate for this assignment, therefore an issue which is solely about increasing sales or market share is not an appropriate choice of case for this assignment.
Your plan should incorporate:
Grading Criteria / Marking Rubric
Your submission will be graded according to the following criteria:
Addressing the set question – including the appropriateness of the chosen case/plan
See the marking rubric at the end of the remit for more information on how your work will be marked and graded.
Ethical Use of Generative AI (GenAI)
For this assignment you are permitted to use GenAI to support your submission, but only for the following activities:
If using GenAI tools, you must exert your own careful oversight and control of any generated content and reference accordingly. You should forensically review and use the results selectively as AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, uncritical, biased or outdated.
You may not submit any work generated by an AI tool as your own. Where you include any material generated by an AI tool, it should be properly declared just like any other reference material. Alongside your assignment you should also provide a commentary in the Cover Sheet detailing how GenAI has been used to develop your final submission. If you have not used GenAI tools, you should clearly state so.
Plagiarism, including that which results from using GenAI, is a form of academic misconduct that will be dealt with under the University’s Code of Practice on Academic Integrity. https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/conduct/plagiarism/index.aspx
University guidance on ethical use of GenAI can be found here:
Further Guidance:
Feedback to Students:
Both Summative and Formative feedback is given to encourage students to reflect on their learning that feed forward into following assessment tasks. There is also in workshop opportunity to test the appropriateness of you chosen case for the assignment. The preparation for all assessment tasks will be supported by formative feedback within the tutorials/seminars. Written feedback is provided as appropriate. Please be aware to use a web browser and not the Canvas App as you may not be able to view all comments.
Plagiarism:
It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand correct referencing practices. You are expected to use appropriate references and keep carefully detailed notes of all your information sources, including any material downloaded from the Internet. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are not vulnerable to any alleged breaches of the assessment regulations. More information is available at University’s Code of Practice on Academic Integrity https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/conduct/plagiarism/index.aspx.
Wellbeing, Extensions and Extenuating Circumstances:
The processes for extensions and extenuating circumstances (ECs) are to support students who have experienced unforeseen issues that have impacted their ability to engage with their studies and/or complete assessments. Students should notify Wellbeing of any extenuating circumstances as soon as possible via the online form, following the guidance provided.
Marking Rubric:
Note that the information below is guidance and feedback only and not a quantitative measure to calculate the grade.
The final grade represents the overall quality of the work taking these criteria into account but is the academic judgement of the marker(s).
| Criteria | Class I 70% or more | Class II – Upper Division 60-69% | Class II – Lower Division 50-59% | Class III 40-49% | Fail 0-39% |
| Addressing the set question – including the appropriateness of the chosen case | Excellent response to a highly appropriate selected case. All elements are exhaustively discussed and sustained, through to a coherent, and convincing communications plan. | Very good response to the set task, with a selected case appropriate to the task. Overall, discussion is coherent with very good coverage of each required element, including the communications plan. | Good response overall. The question is addressed by argument that is sufficiently detailed. Some of the required elements are better discussed than others. | One of the main required elements of the task is poorly or completely lacking, but there is evidence of the question being addressing elsewhere. | Poor or absent response to the requirement of the set task. There is no clear discussion of the strategy required or the case chosen does not meet the requirement of the task. |
| Clarity of argument | Excellent response. All elements are exhaustively addressed. Sustained, coherent, convincing, very well-organised, and fully supported | Very good level of critical argument with elements answered coherently and very well supported. | Good level of argument, mostly well supported. | Argument is missing or inadequately developed for one key element of the set task. Elsewhere there is sufficient evidence of | Poor or absent response with inadequate understanding of concepts required to address the question. Argument often confused, unsupported |
| critical arguments presented throughout. | understanding overall. | and/or irrelevant to the set task. | |||
| Insight, analysis and creative application | An excellent depth of insight into the chosen issue is demonstrated through depth of critical analysis. With strong creative solutions offered in the Communications plan. | Very good level of insight and critical analysis overall, with creative thought evidenced in the communications plan. | A good level of critical analysis overall with some elements, like creative application, needing further development. | Either limited insight and analysis, or limited creative application is evidenced. | Insight into the chosen issue is lacking, with poor or absent analysis of the issue and stakeholders. Creative application is limited or completely absent. |
| Structure | A robustly structured assignment and Communications plan, with strong logical flow throughout. | Very good standard of structure which supports and the strengthens the assignment overall. | Overall, a wellstructured assignment which is for the most part understandable, relevant and organised. | Structure could be a little more organised to better support the assignment. | Structure has no organisation nor logical flow and impedes rather than supports the assignment and communications plan. |
| Referencing and presentation | An excellent standard of presentation that is well written with very wellselected, effective, and relevant use of academic | Very good depth of reading and an effective, accurate and appropriate use of academic literature and frameworks. Correct Harvard | Good familiarity with key academic literature and other appropriate resources. Some issues with referencing | Presentation could be improved in one or more areas. Some errors in use of Academic English. | Referencing is either poor or absent with no demonstrated familiarity with key literature and resources. Incorrect use of Academic English which |
| literature and frameworks, evidencing further reading. All sources are correctly referenced using Harvard referencing style. | style referencing. | Referenced sources are rather limited. | disrupts meaning. |
Enjoy 24/7 customer support for any queries or concerns you have.
Phone: +1 213 3772458
Email: support@gradeessays.com