Evaluate a variety of management skills and select those appropriate to marketing payroll services.
|
|
FDPP2335 Understanding Customers and Clients |
|
Words: |
3000 |
|
Weighting: |
100% |
|
Submission date: |
As per key date schedule |
|
Learning Outcomes Assessed: |
All |
|
Module Leader: Verified by: |
Heart of Worcester College CIPP |
|
Electronic copy available: |
Student website |
Introduction
Construct a marketing plan for the payroll or pension function within your own organisation. The plan should consider aspects such as, benefits, service expertise, communication methods, human resource implications and service standards together with the personal skills necessary to implement such a plan.
Your assignment should be in the form of a written report and examples of any promotional/communication material you intend using should be in appendices.
Note well: Throughout your work you must relate appropriate theory to the practice on which you are commenting.
Learning outcomes
- Evaluate a variety of management skills and select those appropriate to marketing payroll services.
- Design strategies that will help meet customer needs and aspirations more effectively.
- Propose appropriate marketing of payroll/pension services.
- Summarise and manage the human resource considerations when marketing payroll or pensions services.
Assessment criteria
Set within the context of your workplace:
- Service marketing
- Understanding customer needs
- Skills and considerations
Handing in
Electronic submission of assignments is mandatory. Please note that every assessment must be submitted clearly noting the student’s name and number. Work must be word-processed/typed.
You are required to keep a copy of work handed in.
Late submission of work
It is essential that you submit your work, in order to be able to pass the module. Full details of the regulations regarding late submission and applying for mitigation are available via the Student Handbook and website.
Academic Misconduct Penalties
When a student is found guilty of academic misconduct (cheating), the penalties are severe.
- The assignment will be awarded a fail grade, with zero credit.
- Penalties may extend beyond the single assignment, and may affect the module grade, and even the classification of the final award.
- The academic misconduct will be mentioned in any reference given by the university. This means that graduates will find it very difficult to enter careers that involve trust, including Accountancy, Law, Computer Systems Administration, and Computer Security.
- If the course (or module) is recognised or accredited by a professional organisation, that recognition or accreditation may be withheld from the student.
The normal penalties for a first offence are as below. Penalties for later offences (of any nature) are escalated, and the ultimate penalty is exclusion from the university. The list of offences below is not exhaustive.
|
Offence |
Penalty (all points apply) |
|
|
Word Limits
Included in the word limit is:
Anything contained within the main body of your report, between the contents page and the reference list. All quotations, citations and the captions to pictures and diagrams. The contents of any tables within the main body.
Not included in the word limit is:
The title page, contents page or reference list. Any computer programme code listings, content within diagrams, or any appendices.
The following penalties can be applied to work which exceeds the stated word limit of 3000 words:
- Up to 10% over: no penalty
- 10% to 20% over: one grade point penalty (e.g. B+ to B)
- 20% to 30% over: two grade points penalty (e.g. B+ to B-)
- More than 30% over: three grade points penalty (e.g. B+ to C+)
FDPP2335 Understanding Customers and Clients: Level 5 Grade Descriptor
|
L5 |
Relationship to assessment criteria |
Knowledge and understanding |
Evidence of independent study and relevant academic sources |
Application of disciplinary analysis |
Communication skills |
Quality of argument |
Relevant technical/creative/ transferable skills development |
|
A+ – A- |
Exceptional response to all the assessment criteria for the task |
Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge together with very strong clear independent critically evaluative understanding |
Goes well beyond what is taught in reading/researching to inform learning |
Authoritative grasp of disciplinary concepts and analysis to issues and problems |
Exceptional communication/ presentation skills, appropriate to audience, and demonstrating excellent ability in relation to accuracy, clarity and judgement in conveying understanding and meaning |
Significant ability to construct and sustain evidence-based arguments, through excellent synthesis and critical interpretation of scholarly reviews and/or primary evidence |
Exceptional demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills in managing and developing own learning and making decisions in complex contexts |
|
B+ – B- |
Strong response to most of the assessment criteria for the task |
Knowledge demonstrates thorough depth and breadth of learning together with independent critically evaluative understanding |
Evidence of insight in selection and use of material to go beyond what is taught |
Ability to relate facts/disciplinary concepts together and apply good disciplinary analysis to issues and problems |
Very good communication/ presentation skills, appropriate to audience to convey meaning, demonstrating strong competence, accuracy, clarity and judgement |
Arguments logically constructed, coherent and evidence-based on synthesis of scholarly review of a range of academic sources and critical insight |
Very good demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills in managing and developing own learning and making decisions in relatively complex contexts |
|
C+ – C- |
Good response to most of the assessment criteria for the task |
Knowledge demonstrates good depth and breadth of learning together with emerging independent critically evaluative understanding |
Good breadth of understanding of taught content and set reading/ references |
Responses are relevant to subject matter and show evidence of disciplinary analysis albeit with some limitations |
Communication/ presentation of information/ evidence to convey understanding and meaning demonstrates competence, accuracy and clarity |
Logically constructed coherent argument, using scholarly review of academic sources, with some insight but possible weaknesses in structure/evidence |
Sound demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills outside of areas in which first studied |
|
D+ – D- |
Adequate response to main assessment criteria for the task |
Knowledge sufficient to demonstrate sound learning with some standard critically evaluative understanding |
Relies on adequate selection of set materials/standard readings and references |
Responses are relevant to subject matter but balanced to descriptive and derivative rather than disciplinary analysis |
Competent accurate communication/ presentation of information/ evidence to convey understanding, possibly with some minor weaknesses |
Logically structured coherent argument with supporting evidence, using scholarly review of academic sources, but with some weaknesses/gaps |
Adequate demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills in structured predictable contexts |
|
E – Fail |
Some engagement and understanding, but overall does not quite meet criteria for task |
Some knowledge and understanding to demonstrate effective learning |
Some evidence of study from taught content and/or relevant academic sources and references |
Some ability to apply disciplinary conceptual understanding to evaluate and interpret issues/ problems/data |
Communication/presentati on is weak and problematic in conveying understanding |
Some evidence of a logically structured argument with some review of academic sources, but with weaknesses/gaps |
Some evidence of relevant skills development or application |
|
F – Fail |
Weak response to main assessment criteria for the task |
Weak or insufficient knowledge and understanding to demonstrate effective learning |
Limited evidence of use of set materials/relevant academic sources and references |
Little evidence of ability to apply disciplinary conceptual understanding |
Communication of information is inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise problematic in conveying understanding |
Argument/ explanation is weak and poorly constructed, and/or unsubstantiated |
Weak evidence of relevant skills development or application |
|
G – Fail |
Very poor response to main assessment criteria for the task |
Very poor knowledge and understanding to demonstrate effective learning |
Very little evidence of study from taught content and/or relevant academic sources and references |
Very limited disciplinary conceptual understanding evidenced |
Very poor communication indicating incoherence and/or seriously incomplete understanding |
Very poor argument/ explanation, lacking in logic and/or unsubstantiated |
