Assessment Brief V2023
7MK508 – Marketing Metrics
Contents
Part A: Practical Development (Physical dashboard) 3
Description of the assessment 3
Part B: Critical Thinking (Client report) 5
Description of the assessment 5
Module Leader
Dr. Andy Hirst
My contact details are as follows:
Office hours are Monday to Friday, 10am, to 4pm.
Please email for an appointment.
Please do not hesitate to come into contact with me if you have any questions on the assignment brief. We will discuss the details in class as well.
Key dates and details
There is one assignment for this module, with two parts. Smaller, formative tasks will also be done in the weekly seminars. These will be discussed in class, but not formally graded.
| Assessment Type: | Individual |
| Assessment weighting: | 50% |
| Word count/Length: | n/a. |
| Learning Outcomes: | 1, 2, 3, 4. |
| Submission Method: | Submitted via Course Resources on the dedicated submission point under the Assessment tab. The submission point for Part A is a Blackboard Assignment submission. |
| Submission Date: | 12 noon UK time, 18/01/2024 |
| Provisional Feedback Release Date: | w/c 15/02/2024 |
Description of the assessment
Your task is to work as a marketing consultant to advise a company of your choice and develop a marketing dashboard for them. This dashboard is a prototype, trial dashboard that you will use to tender to the company.
- Create an integrated dashboard which calculates the relevant and significant metrics which will inform strategic decision making at the company board. You can utilise Excel’s formulas to create dashboard metrics, so that you can simulate real data.
- You must choose metrics which are useful and relevant to your chosen business / brand. There are no minimum or maximum amount of metrics to use, but bear in mind that this must be a comprehensive and robust resource that must be useful to your client. It cannot be superficial but it must also not use so many metrics as to become impossible to navigate.
- We advise that use some example data to demonstrate to the ‘client’ how it would work in nature.
- The dashboard should have charts and graphics (as appropriate) which would demonstrate the performance of the relevant metrics. The overall dashboard should be professionally designed for your client.
This dashboard is entirely your own design and bespoke to the company.
Working individually, you will therefore select an organisation that you want to have as a client. It might be a good idea to select a business / brand which shares figures (sales, production, costs, etc) in the public domain. This might be via their website, other websites, their year-end reports, etc. It is unlikely that all information and figures that you will require to build a comprehensive dashboard, will be available. In those cases, it is okay to make projections, extrapolate figures from other, similar businesses or simply use some example data to demonstrate to the client how it would work in nature. We are not necessarily interested in the input data, but in evaluating your skills at working with that data. Remember, you are creating a prototype dashboard.
Then, create a consultancy name for yourself. You will act as consultant for your chosen business / brand, offering them a metrics dashboard (and report, as in Part B).
Please submit your dashboard (Part A) to the Blackboard assignment submission point (under the Assessment tab on Course Resources) before 12:00 noon UK time, on the 17th of January 2023.
Please ensure that you identify the company that you are producing the work for, and your own consultancy name so that we can tie the two pieces of work (Part A and Part B) together. Identify these in the title of your submissions, especially.
| Assessment Type: | Individual |
| Assessment weighting: | 50% |
| Word count/Length: | 2000 words (± 10%) |
| Learning Outcomes: | 1, 2, 3, 4. |
| Submission Method: | Submitted via the Turnitin submission point, under the Assessment tab on the module’s Course Resources site. |
| Submission Date: | 12:00 noon UK time, 17/01/2023 |
| Provisional Feedback Release Date: | w/c 14/02/2023 |
Description of the assessment
Your second task is to create a management report for your client (your chosen business / brand) which critically justifies the design of your dashboard and why the collection of metrics are relevant and useful for them. The report should be academically underpinned throughout to support your justifications. It should offer a narrative to accompany your dashboard. Remember that you are writing this for your client (they would be your ‘readers’ / ‘audience’).
The report should include:
- a professional cover
- executive summary
- contents with
- introduction,
- description of metrics and their use,
- justifications,
- conclusions, and
- in-text references.
- Reference list
The maximum word count is 2000 words (± 10%). The word count excludes the cover, executive summary and reference list.
Please note: This is an anonymous submission so please only include your student number and do not include your name on the cover sheet. As with Part A, please ensure that you identify the company that you are producing the work for, and your own consultancy name so that we can tie the two pieces of work together. Identify these in the title of your submissions, especially.
A reminder that (per the Electronic Marking Policy):
- deadlines for electronic submission of assignments set to 12:00 noon local time on a University working days (Mon -Thurs).
- provisional grade and feedback release falls on University working days and between the hours of 0900 and 1600 (Mon -Thurs).
Assessment Rubric
The following assessment rubrics will be used for your coursework assignments (please see the last pages of this document). Please acquaint yourself with the criteria and ask any questions that relate to this, in the sessions dedicated to assignment support (see Module Handbook for more). Separate copies of the rubric are also available under the Assessment tab of the module Course Resources site.
Anonymous Marking
Include the appropriate statement from this list (delete all others and the title). Not assessments that are not anonymously marked need to logged and approved on this tracker (link)
Submissions in Turnitin and Blackboard
You must submit your work using your student number to identify yourself, not your name. You must not use your name in the text of the work at any point. When you submit your work in Turnitin you must submit your student number within the assignment document and in the Submission title field in Turnitin. A video showing how to do this can be found in the Student Guides on Blackboard.
Submissions that are not electronic
You must submit your work using your student number to identify yourself, not your name. You must not use your name in the work at any point. You must clearly indicate your student number both on the work itself where possible (e.g. in a document footer; somewhere on an aretefact), as well as on the hand-in sheet you use when submitting your work.
Submissions that require a name
This assignment cannot be marked in line with the Anonymous Marking Policy requirements as you are required to be assessed by your name by (XX PSRB etc.). Please ensure that in this assessment you are identified by your name.
Where an assessment is not submitted by a student, e.g. a practical activity, there is no opportunity for the student to submit by student number. Student information is not required on this.
Assessment Regulations
The University’s regulations, policies and procedures for students define the framework within which teaching and assessment are conducted. Please make sure you are familiar with these regulations, policies and procedures.
Part A: Marking rubric for CW1 – The Marketing Metric Dashboard
| Grade | Layout and Design (40%) | Choice of display tool (charts, sliders, graphs) (30%) | Appropriate metrics for performance measurement (30%) |
| 90% and over Outstanding Exceptional achievement distinguishable even amongst the best quality work and deserving of the highest possible marks within the Distinction grade. | Outstanding quality, ready for implementation and professional use, with no need for any customisation Professional standard, no errors, well designed and easy to use even by less experienced end user.. | Outstanding quality, professional level, accurate formulas/metrics, mistake proofing were considered, with excellent practical use of slicers and filtering options. | Outstanding quality, professional standard level. Ready to be used by the professional in the business |
| 80-89% Excellent Very high-quality work worthy of a high Distinction grade mark. | Excellent, extremely high quality, the main design is ready for implementation based on the demonstration sample data. Very minor customisation may be needed to suit the professional need in the business Excellent, at a high-quality standard level, presentation, and user interface, may need some minor customisation for professional use and ease of use | Excellent, extremely high quality, excellent use of slicers and filtering options, works without flaws with demo dataset, may need some minor customisations for professional use | Excellent, very high-quality work. May need some minor customisation effort to make it suitable for professional use. |
| 70-79% Excellent High quality work deserving a distinction grade | Excellent, high quality work, the dataset and demo data work with no error. Some customisations needed for the professional implementation Excellent, clear presentation well-ordered and laid- out, only very minor issues/opportunities for improvements.. | Excellent, high quality work, excellent use of slicers and filtering options with some rooms for improving the filtering options. Fits together well as a suite of measures. Some customisations for professional use | Excellent, high quality work. The dashboard works with no errors with demo data, however, need some customisation for implementation. Wide selection of measure chosen |
| 60-69% Very Good Well above pass standard and worthy of a Merit grade. | Very good design, tools and data can be easily identified and measures are organised in a coherent manner Truly clear presentation, very good structure, layout clear, some minor issues in structure, style | A good choice of display tool for most measures | Very good work. Dashboard measures critical issues. There are some improvement opportunities for more metrics that matter |
| 50-59% Good/Satisfactory Satisfactory overall –a clear pass | The layout is difficult to understand and interpret. The implementation needs customisations and there are some errors. Good presentation and clear structure and layout, some issues in structure, style, layout, etc | Limited number of metrics. Not relevant to company goals and aims | Good metrics, graph, and table selections, however there are obvious rooms/opportunities for improvements and room for misunderstanding by the end users. |
| 40-49% Unsatisfactory Work is unsatisfactory but shows potential for achieving learning outcomes if feedback is addressed. -Marginal fail | A fair attempt was made to create the data tables, however there are serious issues, lack of adequate fields/column heading. Clumsy looking design with little thought for the manager. A fair attempt was made, however there are major presentation issues, and the design is not user friendly or understandable by the end users | Limited variety and poor choice of display tool | A fair attempt but plenty of scope for misunderstanding by the end user. Measures are not critical and will not support decision making. |
| 39% and below Very Poor A clear failure well short of the pass standard | Very Poor or no attempt at designing the datasets/tables are evident Extremely poor design/presentation, not understandable by the end user. | Extremely poor or no attempt, major lack of application. | Poor or no attempt to provide adequate metrics in the dashboard. |
Part B: Marking rubric for CW2 – Report
| Grade | Executive Summary (10%) | Contextualisation – Introduction to the business area and the importance of the metrics (why the metrics are important for the specific business) (30%) | Justification of the choice of metrics, appropriate for measuring marketing performance of your chosen business with academic underpinning. (50%) | Presentation (Structure including professional cover, contents, introduction, conclusions, and references) (10%) |
| 90% and over Outstanding Exceptional achievement distinguishable even amongst the best quality work and deserving of the highest possible marks within the Distinction grade. | Professional in nature, extremely clear message communicated throughout. | Professional level understanding and application of appropriate theory, backed by high-level, good-quality references, practitioner and academic insights offered, process is water-tight with no errors and little room for improvement | Professional level understanding and application of appropriate theory/metrics, backed by high-level, good-quality references, practitioner and academic insights offered, process is water-tight with no errors and little room for improvement | Professional standard, no errors, professionally written with perfect references |
| 80-89% Excellent Very high-quality work worthy of a high Distinction grade mark. | Extremely high clarity, noticeably clear message communicated throughout | Excellent at very high-level quality with application of appropriate theory/metrics, backed by high-level, good-quality references, practitioner and academic insights offered, with no errors and little room for improvement. | Excellent at very high-level quality with application of appropriate theory/metrics, backed by high-level, good-quality references, practitioner and academic insights offered, with no errors and little room for improvement. | Excellent at extremely high standard, no errors, beautifully written with perfect references |
| 70-79% Excellent High quality work deserving a distinction grade | Excellent clarity, clear message communicated throughout | Excellent selection process with clear application of a good range of up-to-date theory/metrics and clear logical steps with no errors, process would work well in practice with no complications | Excellent selection process with clear application of a good range of up-to-date theory/metrics and clear logical steps with no errors, process would work well in practice with no complications | Excellent clear presentation, well ordered and laid- out, only very minor errors, written with excellent references |
| 60-69% Very Good Well above pass standard and worthy of a Merit grade. | Very good clarity, a clear message communicated throughout. | Very good selection process with clear application of theory and clear logical steps, minor errors in application or understanding, but process would work well in practice | Very good selection process with clear application of theory and clear logical steps, minor errors in application or understanding, but process would work well in practice | Noticeably clear presentation, very good structure, layout clear, very good writing and a good range of relevant references, some minor errors in structure, style, references, etc. |
| 50-59% Good/Satisfactory Satisfactory overall –a clear pass | Good clarity, a clear message communicated to some extent. | Good selection process demonstrating clear understanding of the steps needed for a workable selection, some application of theory, some errors of understanding, but process could work in practice | Good selection process demonstrating clear understanding of the steps needed for a workable selection, some application of theory, some errors of understanding, but process could work in practice | Good presentation and clear structure and layout, proficient writing and range of references, some errors in structure, style, layout, references, etc. |
| 40-49% Unsatisfactory Work is unsatisfactory but shows potential for achieving learning outcomes if feedback is addressed. -Marginal fail | In adequate clarity, with lack of clear message communicated to some extent. | Fair attempt at selection process showing some important steps and some application of theory, errors in understanding, selection process may not work in practice | Fair attempt at selection process showing some important steps and some application of theory, errors in understanding, selection process may not work in practice | Readable text presented in unsatisfactory format, limited or poor references, significant errors in structure, style, layout, references, etc. |
| 39% and below Very Poor A clear failure well short of the pass standard | Poor clarity, unclear message communicated. | Selection process extremely poor with many errors, would not work in practice | Selection process extremely poor with many errors, would not work in practice | Unreadable and/or illogical text, poorly structured and formatted, extremely limited or no references, significant errors throughout |
Get expert help for Marketing Metrics 7MK508 and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
