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)
Inadequate referencing, for example occasional omission of quote marks and/or citations Collusion (working with another student or students, except for designated group work) Failure to gain ethical approval for primary research (particularly surveys, questionnaires, interviews, user testing, etc.) Failure of the assignment. Reassessment required. Reassessment assignment grade capped at a D-. Direct quotation or close paraphrasing without quote marks, sources included in reference list Taking a prohibited device into an exam, for example a calculator (unless permitted), a mobile phone, or a dictionary Communicating with anyone other than an invigilator during an exam (for example another candidate; someone outside the exam room…) Failure of the assignment. Reassessment required. Module grade capped at a D-. Using another student’s work without proper acknowledgement Modifying or inventing data that form part of the assignment Failure of the module. Module must be retaken, with attendance and fees. Direct quotation or close paraphrasing without quote marks, sources NOT included in reference list Stealing another student’s work and submitting it as if it were your own Copying from another candidate during an exam or test • In an exam, possession of unauthorised written material (e.g. crib notes), or electronic devices that could be used to access unauthorised material (e.g. smartphones) Module grade capped at a D-. Getting someone else to complete the assignment, paid or unpaid Sending someone else to take an exam for you Failure of the module. Module must be retaken, with attendance and fees. Module grade capped at a D-. Final award classification downgraded. 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
Seriously lacking in evidence of skills development or application
H – Fail
Seriously inadequate or insufficient response to the task
Seriously inadequate or insufficient response to the task
Seriously inadequate or insufficient response to the task
Seriously inadequate or insufficient response to the task
Seriously inadequate or insufficient response to the task
Seriously inadequate or insufficient response to the task
Seriously inadequate or insufficient response to the task
- The number of references for a 3000 word essay will depend on the number of points made, however, there should be approximately two references per paragraph. You can use general textbooks to support general comments on theory, or to support definitions/terms, or to cover assessment techniques. You should use research articles (available through e-resources) to support specific aspects of theory. Be wary of other web sites (unless they are .ac or .edu, as these are generally university based sites) unless you can verify the source. Under no circumstances should you use user-generated web sites (such as wikipedia). There is guidance on Harvard referencing available on the student website
