LEVEL/ LEFEL 5
MODULE CODE/ COD Y MODIWL: LCBB5000
DATA HANDLING AND BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE
ASSESSMENT TYPE/ MATH O ASESU: ASSIGNMENT
ASSESSMENT/COMPONENT/ ASESIAD/CYDRAN: 1
COMPONENT WEIGHTING/ PWYSAU’R CYDRAN: 25 %
WORD COUNT/ NIFER Y GEIRIAU: 1250 WORDS/ O EIRIAU
SUBMISSION DETAILS/ MANYLION CYFLWYNO:
Make sure that Your Name , Your Student Number, Your Module Title,
Assignment Title and Your Module Lecturer’s Name are clearly shown on
the front page of your assignment
All assignments must be submitted electronically to Moodle.
DO NOT put this form into Turnitin or it will match many similarities with
other students’ submissions.
Page 1 of 6
BACHELORS DEGREE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFICATION
Programme: | BA Business Management | ||
Lecturer: | Riaz Bhatti | Internal Verifier: | Balendran Kandasamy |
Assignment Title: | Assessment 1 | ||
Hand Out Date: | Week 2 of Term | Submission | Please refer to the assessments |
deadline: | schedule published on Students’ Hall | ||
in Moodle |
Referencing: In the main body of your submission you must give credit to authors on whose research your work is based. Append to
your submission a reference list that indicates the books, articles, etc. that you have read or quoted in order to
complete this assignment (e.g. for books: surname of author and initials, year of publication, title of book, edition,
publisher: place of publication).
Late submission will result in a late penalty mark, as follows:
Up to one week late, maximum mark of 40% for first attempts and 0% for resubmissions. No work will be
accepted more than one week after the submission deadline
(Academic Quality Handbook 2016/17 7.5 (5))
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Upon the successful completion of this module, the student should be able to demonstrate the ability to:
1. Identify and critically evaluate the current trends in data warehousing, business intelligence and data
mining.
2. Demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge and systematic understanding of essential concepts and
principles by using predictive analytic software.
TASK DESCRIPTION
Assessment Component 1 – 25%
You will write a journal review on current trend in Business Intelligence that you will have covered over the
course of the semester which you will need to agree with your tutor. Your tutor is not only interested in the
coverage and content of the article being reviewed but also in your critical assessment of the ideas and
argument that are being presented by the author.
Page 2 of 6
Use the following research article, ‘Realizing the strategic impact of business intelligence utilization’ as a
starting point for your research to help with identifying current trends in BI:
As a technology-driven process for analysing data and presenting actionable information to help
managerial decision-making, business intelligence has become an important concept with the availability
of “big data” (Puklavec et al., 2018). Business intelligence is integrated into regular work practices as an
appropriate tool to extract “big data” in a speedy way to make the right decisions. The dimensions of
business intelligence include data integration, analytical capabilities, content quality in business
processes, and decision-making culture (Eidizadeh et al., 2017).
Full report:
Lim, Y. and Teoh, A. 2020. Realizing the strategic impact of business intelligence utilization [Online]
Available at: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
[Accessed 02 October 2020].
Page 3 of 6
GUIDANCE FOR STUDENTS IN THE COMPLETION OF TASKS
NOTE: The guidance offered below is linked to the five common assessment criteria overleaf.
1. Research-informed Literature
Your work must be informed and supported by scholarly material that is relevant to and focused on the
task(s) set. You should provide evidence that you have accessed a wide range of sources, which may be
academic, governmental and industrial; these sources may include academic journal articles, textbooks,
current news articles, organisational documents, and websites. You should consider the credibility of your
sources; academic journals are normally highly credible sources while websites require careful
consideration/selection and should be used sparingly. Any sources you use should be current and up-todate, typically published within the last five years or so, though seminal works in the field may be older. You
must provide evidence of your research/own reading throughout your work, using in-text citations in the
main body of your work and a reference list that is alphabetical at the end of your work. Please use the
Harvard referencing system.
Specific to Assignment 1: You need to have a minimum of 6 academic sources, correctly referenced in
Harvard style.
2. Knowledge and Understanding of Subject
Your work must demonstrate the growing extent of your knowledge and understanding of concepts and
underlying principles associated with the subject area. Knowledge relates to the facts, information and skills
you have acquired through your learning. You demonstrate your understanding by interpreting the meaning
of the facts and information (knowledge). This means that you need to select and include in your work the
concepts, techniques, models, theories, etc. appropriate to the task(s) set. You should be able to explain
the theories, concepts, etc. meaningfully to show your understanding. Your mark/grade will also depend
upon the extent to which you demonstrate your knowledge and understanding; ideally each should be
complete and detailed, with comprehensive coverage.
3. Analysis
Your work must contain evidence of logical, analytical thinking, evaluation and synthesis. For example, to
examine and break information down into parts, make inferences, compile, compare and contrast
information. This means not just describing What! but also justifying: Why? How? When? Who? Where? At
all times, you must provide justification for your arguments and judgements. Evidence that you have
reflected upon the ideas of others within the subject area is crucial to you providing a reasoned and
informed debate within your work. Furthermore, you should provide evidence that you are able to make
sound judgements and convincing arguments using data and concepts. Sound, valid conclusions are
necessary and must be derived from the content of your work. There should be no new information
presented within your conclusion. Where relevant, alternative solutions and recommendations may be
proposed.
4. Practical Application and Deployment
You should be able to demonstrate how the subject-related concepts and ideas relate to real world
situations or a particular context. How do they work in practice? You will deploy models, methods,
techniques, and/or theories, in that context, to assess current situations, perhaps to formulate plans or
solutions to solve problems, some of which may be innovative and creative. This is likely to involve, for
instance, the use of real world examples and cases, the application of a model within an organisation
and/or benchmarking one organisation against others based on stated criteria. You should show awareness
of the limitations of concepts and theories when applied in particular contexts.
Page 4 of 6
5. Skills for Professional Practice
Your work must provide evidence of the attributes expected in professional practice. This includes
demonstrating your individual initiative and/or collaborative working. You must communicate effectively in a
suitable format, which may be written and/or oral, for example, essay, management report, presentation.
Work should be coherent and well-structured in presentation and organisation.
Essential Resources:
Resources listed on the lecture schedule and on Moodle
The student handbook
Word count guideline & marking criteria:
1. Research-informed Literature (10 mark) 200 – 220 words
2. Knowledge and Understanding of Subject (30 marks) 300 – 330 words
3. Analysis (30 marks) 300 – 330 words
4. Practical Application and Deployment (20 marks) 250 – 275 words
5. Skills for Professional Practice (10 marks) 200 – 220 words
Page 5 of 6
COMMON ASSESSMENT AND MARKING CRITERIA
OUTRIGHT FAIL | UNSATISFACTORY | SATISFACTORY | GOOD | VERY GOOD | EXCELLENT | EXCEPTIONAL | |
Assessment Criteria | 0-29% | 30-39%* | 40-49% | 50-59% | 60-69% | 70-79% | 80-100% |
1. Research-informed | Little or no evidence | Poor evidence of | References to a | Inclusion of a range | Inclusion of a wide | A comprehensive | Outstanding |
Literature | of reading. | reading and/or of | limited range of | of research- | range of research- | range of research | knowledge of |
Views and findings | reliance on | mostly relevant | informed literature, | informed literature, | informed literature | research-informed | |
Extent of research | |||||||
unsupported and | inappropriate | sources. Some | including sources | including sources | embedded in the | literature embedded | |
and/or own reading, | non-authoritative. | sources, and/or | omissions and minor | retrieved | retrieved | work. Excellent | in the work. |
selection of credible | Referencing | indiscriminate use of | errors. | independently. | independently. | selection of relevant | Outstanding |
conventions largely | sources. | Referencing | Referencing | Selection of relevant | and credible | selection of relevant | |
sources, application of | |||||||
ignored. | Referencing | conventions evident | conventions mostly | and credible | sources. High-level | and credible | |
appropriate | conventions used | though not always | consistently applied. | sources. Very good | referencing skills, | sources. High-level | |
referencing | inconsistently. | applied consistently. | use of referencing | consistently applied. | referencing skills | ||
conventions, | consistently and | ||||||
conventions | |||||||
consistently applied. | professionally | ||||||
applied. | |||||||
2. Knowledge and | Major gaps in | Gaps in knowledge, | Evidence of basic | Knowledge is | Knowledge is | Excellent knowledge | Highly detailed |
Understanding of | knowledge and | with only superficial | knowledge and | accurate with a good | extensive. Exhibits | and understanding | knowledge and |
understanding of | understanding. | understanding of | understanding of | understanding of | of the main | understanding of | |
Subject | |||||||
material at this | Some significant | the relevant | the field of study. | the breadth and | concepts and key | the main | |
Extent of knowledge | level. Substantial | inaccuracies. | concepts and | depth of established | theories. Clear | theories/concepts, | |
and understanding of | inaccuracies. | underlying | views. | awareness of | and a critical | ||
principles. | challenges to | awareness of the | |||||
concepts and | |||||||
established views | ambiguities and | ||||||
underlying principles | and the limitations | limitations of | |||||
associated with the | of the knowledge | knowledge. | |||||
base. | |||||||
discipline. | |||||||
3. Analysis | Unsubstantiated | Some evidence of | Evidence of some | Evidence of some | Sound, logical, | Thoroughly logical | Exceptional work; |
Analysis, evaluation | generalisations, | analytical | logical, analytical | logical, analytical | analytical thinking; | work, supported by | judiciously selected |
made without use of | intellectual skills, | thinking and some | thinking and | synthesis and | evaluated evidence. | and evaluated | |
and synthesis; logic, | |||||||
any credible | but for the most | attempts to | synthesis. Can | evaluation. Ability to | High quality analysis, | evidence. Very high | |
argument and | evidence. Lack of | part descriptive. | synthesise, albeit | analyse new and/or | devise and sustain | developed | quality analysis, |
judgement; analytical | logic, leading to | Ideas/findings | with some | abstract data and | persuasive | independently or | developed |
unsupportable/ | sometimes illogical | weaknesses. | situations without | arguments, and to | through effective | independently or | |
reflection; | |||||||
missing conclusions. | and contradictory. | Some evidence to | guidance. | review the | collaboration. | through effective | |
organisation of ideas | Lack of any attempt | Generalised | support findings/ | An emerging | reliability, validity & | Ability to investigate | collaboration. |
and evidence | to analyse, | statements made | views, but evidence | awareness of | significance of | contradictory | Ability to investigate |
synthesise or | with scant evidence. | not consistently | different stances | evidence. Ability to | information and | contradictory | |
evaluate. | Conclusions lack | interpreted. | and ability to use | communicate ideas | identify reasons for | information and | |
relevance. | Some relevant | evidence to support | and evidence | contradictions. | identify reasons for | ||
conclusions and | the argument. | accurately and | Strong, persuasive, | contradictions. | |||
recommendations, | Valid conclusions | convincingly. | conclusions, | Highly persuasive | |||
where relevant | and | Sound, convincing | justifiable | conclusions | |||
recommendations, | conclusions / | recommendations. | |||||
where relevant | recommendations. | ||||||
4. Practical | Limited or no use of | Rudimentary | An adequate | A good and | A very good | An advanced | Outstanding levels |
Application and | methods, materials, | application of | awareness and | appropriate | application of a | application of a | of application and |
tools and/or | methods, materials, | mostly appropriate | application of | range of methods, | range of methods, | deployment skills. | |
Deployment | |||||||
techniques. | tools and/or | application of well | standard methods, | materials, tools | materials, tools | Assimilation and | |
Effective deployment | Little or no | techniques but | established | materials, tools | and/or techniques. | and/or techniques. | development of |
of appropriate | appreciation of the | without | methods, materials, | and/or techniques. | Very good | The context of the | cutting edge |
context of the | consideration and | tools and/or | Good appreciation | consideration of the | application is well | processes and | |
methods, materials, | |||||||
application. | competence. Flawed | techniques. | of the context of the | context of the | considered, with | techniques. | |
tools and techniques; | appreciation of the | Basic appreciation of | application, with | application, with | extensive use of | ||
extent of skill | context of the | the context of the | some use of | perceptive use of | relevant examples. | ||
application. | application. | examples, where | examples, where | Application and | |||
demonstrated in the | |||||||
relevant. | relevant. | deployment extend | |||||
application of | Evidence of some | beyond established | |||||
concepts to a variety | innovation and | conventions. | |||||
creativity. | Innovation and | ||||||
of processes and/or | |||||||
creativity evident | |||||||
contexts; formulation | throughout. | ||||||
of innovative and | |||||||
creative solutions to | |||||||
solve problems. | |||||||
5. Skills for | Communication | Media is poorly | Can communicate in | Can communicate | Can communicate | Can communicate | Can communicate |
Professional Practice | media is | designed and/or not | a suitable format | effectively in a | well, confidently and | professionally and, | with an |
inappropriate or | suitable for the | but with some room | suitable format, but | consistently in a | confidently in a | exceptionally high | |
Demonstrates | |||||||
misapplied. | audience. | for improvement. | may have minor | suitable format. | suitable format. | level of | |
attributes expected in | Little or no evidence | Poor independent or | Can work as part of | errors. | Can work very well | Can work | professionalism. |
professional practice | of autonomy in the | collaborative | a team, but with | Can work effectively | as part of a team, | professionally within | Can work |
completion of tasks. | initiative. | limited involvement | as part of a team, | with very good | a team, showing | exceptionally well | |
including: individual | |||||||
Work is poorly | Work lacks | in group activities. | with clear | contribution to | leadership skills as | and professionally | |
initiative and | structured and/or | structure, | Work lacks | contribution to | group activities. | appropriate, | within a team, |
collaborative working; | largely incoherent. | organisation, and/or | coherence in places | group activities. | Work is coherent | managing conflict | showing advanced |
coherence | and could be better | Mostly coherent | and fluent and is | and meeting | leadership skills. | ||
deployment of | |||||||
structured. | work and is in a | well structured and | obligations. | Work is | |||
appropriate media to | suitable structure. | organised. | Work is coherent, | exceptionally | |||
communicate | very fluent and is | coherent, very | |||||
presented | fluent and is | ||||||
(including written and | |||||||
professionally. | presented | ||||||
oral); clarity and | professionally. | ||||||
effectiveness in | |||||||
presentation and | |||||||
organisation. |
Page 6 of 6