BU7006 May 22 cohort Assessment Brief

Faculty of Business and Management

Assessment Brief 2021/22

A: Assessment Details
Module Title	Strategic Financial management
Module Code	BU7006
Module Leader	Dr Brian Gibbs
Component Number	1
Assessment Type, Word Count & Weighting	Assignment 4,000 words, 100% of overall module grade
Submission Deadline	23rd June 2022 Before 12 noon
Submission Instructions	Via turn it in.
Feedback Return Date	28th July 2022.

B: Learning Outcomes

1. Deploy appropriate accounting theory and tools to the critical evaluation and interpretation of financial reports.

2. Master critical awareness of how management accounting has developed tools and techniques in order to improve strategic decision making and performance management.

3. Deploy appropriate accounting theory and techniques to the evaluation and analysis of performance measurement.

4. Critically evaluate strategic and stakeholder analysis using appropriate accounting theory and tools.

C: Assessment Task

JD Group half year statement: Peter Cowgill, Executive Chairman, said: “The Group continues to demonstrate outstanding resilience in the face of numerous challenges arising from the continued prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries, widespread strain on international logistics and other supply chain challenges, materially lower levels of footfall into stores in many countries after reopening and the ongoing administrative and cost consequences resulting from the loss of tariff free, frictionless trade with the European Union.

Given these challenges, the record result that the Group has delivered in the first half with a profit before tax and exceptional items of £439.5 million (2020: £61.9 million; 2019: £158.6 million) is extremely encouraging.

Full report dated 14th September 2021: JD Group half year report Sept 21.

Faculty of Business and Management

Assessment Brief 2021/22

Required:

Compile financial and non-financial information for the financial years 2018-2021. Using all of the data available, critically review the financial performance of the JD Group plc and report your findings.

Your report will need to include an analysis of any new plans and strategies. (Appendices are not required and must not be provided).

• Calculate a selection of ratios for the financial years 2018-2021 and provide an evaluation and analysis of the results.

Look at the list of Ratios, as discussed in class, and seek to identify the underlying reasons for the financial performance.

• Conduct a PEST analysis and critically evaluate significant developments within the company and the wider retail sector.

• Provide a SWOT analysis and critically assess the challenges and opportunities for the company’s foreseeable future. (Include financial and non-financial elements).

D: Specific Criteria/Guidance

• You are required to show all calculations. Do not copy and paste financial data into your report. • Do not use appendices.

E: Key Resources

Atrill, P. and McLaney, E. (2020) Accounting and Finance: An introduction, 10th Ed., Pearson. Atrill, P. and McLaney, E. (2019) Accounting and Finance for non specialists, 11th Ed., Pearson. Atrill, P. and McLaney, E. (2018) Management Accounting for decision makers, 9th Ed., Pearson.

Bhimani, A. Horngren, C, Srikant, M.D. and Madhav, V.R. (2019) Management and Cost Accounting, 7th Ed., Pearson.

Drury, C. (2018) Management and Cost Accounting, 10th Ed., Cengage learning

Dyson, J. and Franklin, E (2020) Accounting for non-accounting students, 10th Ed., Pearson

Faculty of Business and Management

Assessment Brief 2021/22

F: Submission Guidance
• Assessments should be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc and .docx), • Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt, .pptx. .pps and .ppsx), • Excel (.xls and .xlsx) or • PDF format (generated from the word-processing or presentation software you are using, not a scanned document. Do not upload Open Office documents (.odt, .odp). • Do not upload documents directly from Google Drive and One Drive. • The link to online submission guidance is: https://portal1.chester.ac.uk/LIS/LTU/pages/turnitinsubmission.aspx • The file must be no larger than 40MB. • Your writing is expected to conform to Standard English in terms of spelling, syntax and grammar. • You must include your Assessment Number (J Number) in the header or footer. • Include your word count at the end of the assignment or the front cover. • Set up your page for A4 paper in portrait style. • The font size must be a minimum of point 12 Calibri (or equivalent) for the body of the assessment and footnotes must be 2 points smaller. • Line spacing in the body of the assessment must be 1.5 lines. • Number the pages consecutively. • Students should submit work before 12 noon on the deadline date electronically via Moodle. Please follow the ‘Turnitin submission’ link on the module space and follow the on-screen instructions, paying particular attention to any specific instructions for each assignment. • You must submit your work with the following details written on the first page: • Title of your work • Module title and code • Module Leader and Seminar Tutor (if relevant) • Number of words • Your student assessment number (J Number) Student work that does not have this information on will not be identifiable after marking has taken place and risks being recorded as a non-submission.
G: Academic Integrity and Penalties
It is your responsibility to ensure that you are familiar with all of the information contained in this brief as failure to do this may impact on your achievement.

Faculty of Business and Management

Assessment Brief 2021/22

Please refer to the various Assessment Guidance below for detailed information on: Academic Integrity

Cite Them Right Online guidance

University Generic Marking Criteria (Found within 5E of the handbook)

Late Work Penalties: Unless you have an extension, any work submitted past the assessment deadline will be subject to a penalty as per university regulations (5 marks per day deduction).

H: Marking Criteria

Please attached specific rubric for marking criteria.

Suggested marking guide Marks

1 Introduction

(Introduce the company and purpose of the report)

2 Calculate a selection of Ratios. Use ratio analysis

to evaluate and analyse the financial performance

of the company over the 4 years. (2018-2021)

3 Conduct a PEST analysis of the company and

critically evaluate significant developments within

the company and the wider retail sector.

4 Provide a SWOT analysis of the company and

critically assess the challenges and opportunities

for the company’s foreseeable future.

(Include financial and non-financial elements)

5 Conclusion and presentation

(Up to 5 marks awarded for presentation)

100

Distinction

90–100%

Evidence

of…

Distinction

80-89%

Evidence of…

Distinction

70-79%

Evidence of…

Merit

60-69%

Evidence

of…

Pass

50-59%

Evidence

of…

Fail

40-49%

Evidence

of…

Fail

30-39%

Evidence of…

Fail

20-29%

Evidence

of…

Fail

10-19%

Evidence

of…

Fail

0-9%

Evidence of…

Knowledge

Knowledge and understanding of the academic

discipline, field of study, or area of professional

practice.

SCOPE: critical engagement with the primary and secondary

sources used to answer the

question.

Insightful and

sophisticated

engagement

with research

and/or practice pertaining to

field(s) and

disciplines of

study;

Sophisticated

demonstration

and application of knowledge,

offering

innovative

and/or

original insights, possibly

unparalleled in their

application;

A sophisticated degree of

synthesis, quite likely of

complex and

disparate

material.

Advanced

engagement

with

research and or practice

pertaining to the field(s) and

disciplines of

study;

Accomplished

demonstration of knowledge,

contributing

towards

innovative

and/or

original insights;

Extremely high degree of

synthesis of

research

material.

A high degree of engagement with research and/or practice pertaining to

field(s) and

disciplines of

study;

Excellent

demonstration of

knowledge,

with the

possibility

for new

insights;

A high degree of synthesis

relating to

research

material.

Sustained

engagement with research and/or practice

pertaining to

disciplines of

study;

An assured

understanding of current problems, supported by

critical analysis

with the

potential for new insights;

A sustained

application and

depth of research material and

accuracy in detail.

Engagement

with relevant

knowledge

pertaining to

discipline and key issues;

Satisfactory

understanding and

conceptual

awareness

enabling

critical

analysis;

Response is

appropriate

and

addresses the range of

learning

outcomes;

where the

knowledge is accurate.

Work

may lack

sustained

depth.

Unsatisfactory engagement

with relevant

knowledge

pertaining to

discipline and

key

issues;

Insufficient

understanding and

conceptual

awareness of

knowledge(s)

pertaining to

the

field;

Response does not address

the full range of learning

outcomes,

inaccurate

and/or

missing

knowledge at

times.

Inadequate

coverage of

relevant issues, inconsistent

understanding

shown;

Inadequate

understanding of underpinning

issues, weak

and

underdeveloped analysis;

Response does not address

learning

outcomes,

inaccurate

and missing

knowledge.

Lack of relevant research and

little

understanding

shown;

Very weak

understanding of key issues, work lacks critical

oversight;

Substandard

engagement with research material, misunderstanding evident.

Severely lacking in relevant

research and

underpinning

knowledge;

Slight

understanding of key

issues, little

attempt at critical analysis;

Slight engagement with

research material, inaccurate

knowledge and

misunderstanding throughout.

Negligible

understanding of key

issues, which is likely to show

no critical

analysis or

engagement

with the learning brief;

No engagement with research

tasks.

Generic Marking criteria for Level 7

Distinction

90–100%

Evidence

of…

Distinction

80-89%

Evidence of…

Distinction

70-79%

Evidence of…

Merit

60-69%

Evidence

of…

Pass

50-59%

Evidence

of…

Fail

40-49%

Evidence

of…

Fail

30-39%

Evidence of…

Fail

20-29%

Evidence

of…

Fail

10-19%

Evidence

of…

Fail

0-9%

Evidence of…

Sources

Reading and use of appropriate

sources.

SCOPE:

accurate and

consistent

acknowledgment and referencing of sources.

Extensive range and

sophisticated

use of

appropriate

sources;

Unparalleled

standard of

research both in breadth and

depth, which

demonstrates a very high

intellectual

engagement

and rigor.

Extensive range and use of

appropriate

sources;

Extremely well

referenced

research both in breadth and

depth, which

demonstrates

high intellectual engagement

and rigor.

Substantial

range and

sophisticated

use of sources;

Well

referenced

research both

in breadth and depth, which

demonstrates clear

intellectual

rigor.

An assured range of reading,

with sustained

reference to

key and core

texts. The work

may include

current research at the leading

edge of the

discipline;

Very good

referencing in

breadth and/or

depth, which

shows a very

good level of

intellectual rigor;

Sources

acknowledged

appropriately

according to

academic

conventions of

referencing.

A satisfactory range of core

and basic

texts, which

references

current

research in

the discipline;

Sources

acknowledged appropriately according to

academic

conventions of referencing.

The work may contain minor errors and be

limited in

breadth, depth and

intellectual

rigor.

Insufficient

range of source reading of core and basic

texts;

Sources not

acknowledged in

line with

academic

conventions of referencing.

Reading material is

inadequate and may not

include core and basic texts;

Sources

inaccurately

referenced.

Very weak

engagement with source reading of core and

basic texts;

Inconsistent

and/or limited

referencing of

sources.

Severely lacking source

reading;

Sources either not present

and/or not

referenced.

Negligible

attempt to

identify

source material;

No indication of source

reading.

Methodology

SCOPE: critical engagement with methodologies

underpinning

original research or current

developments in the discipline.

Insightful and

sophisticated

interpretation,

application and evaluation of the possibilities

and limitations of the

methodologies used by the

student and key scholars/

practitioners

pertaining to the field(s) of

study;

Methods used

offer new

insights and

contributions to knowledge.

Advanced

interpretation,

application and evaluation of

the possibilities and limitations

of the

methodologies used by

the student and key

scholars/

practitioners

pertaining to the field(s) of

study;

Methods used

contribute

towards new

insights to

knowledge.

Excellent

interpretation,

application and evaluation of

the possibilities and limitations of the

methodologies used by

the student

and key

scholars/

practitioners

pertaining to

the field(s) of

study;

Methods used may offer new insights or

contributions to knowledge.

A comprehensive understanding

shown and a

sustained

application of

established

methodologies

and methods

applicable to the student’s own

research;

Research work

planned in

scale and scope so that robust

and appropriate evidence can

be gathered and articulated.

A satisfactory application of

research

techniques

and

enquiry that

are used to

create

and interpret

knowledge in the

discipline;

Research

work planned

systematically in scale and

scope so that appropriate

evidence can be gathered.

Unsatisfactory application of

research

techniques

pertaining

to the

discipline;

Unsatisfactory research

undertaken,

resulting in

underdevelope d and poorly

executed work.

underdeveloped understanding of established

methodologies

and those used by the student;

Research work is weak and

executed

inaccurately.

Very weak

understanding of established

methodologies

and

those used by

student;

Substandard

research,

methods mainly erroneous.

Research works show very

little planning and understanding;

Erroneous use of methods to

explain the work.

Negligible

understanding of established

research

methods

and those used by the student;

No research

methods

evident.

Generic Marking criteria for Level 7

Distinction

90–100%

Evidence

of…

Distinction

80-89%

Evidence of…

Distinction

70-79%

Evidence of…

Merit

60-69%

Evidence

of…

Pass

50-59%

Evidence

of…

Fail

40-49%

Evidence

of…

Fail

30-39%

Evidence of…

Fail

20-29%

Evidence

of…

Fail

10-19%

Evidence

of…

Fail

0-9%

Evidence of…

Analysis

Critical analysis and

interpretation.

SCOPE:

appropriate

analytical

discussion and interpretation of source material.

A sophisticated command of

imaginative,

insightful,

original

or creative

interpretations;

An unparalleled level of

analysis and

evaluation;

A sophisticated cogent

argument

offering new and original

contributions to knowledge.

Advanced

command of

imaginative,

insightful,

original

or creative

interpretations;

Accomplished

level of analysis and evaluation;

A highly

developed

cogent

argument with

the potential to

bring new and

original

contributions to knowledge.

An excellent

command of

imaginative,

original or

creative

interpretations;

A high degree of analysis and evaluation;

A sustained

argument with the

possibility for

new insights to knowledge.

A convincing and sustained

command of

accepted critical positions;

A developed

conceptual

understanding

that enables the student to find

new meanings in established

hypotheses;

A developed and sustained

argument with the possibility

for new insights to knowledge.

An ability to

deal with

complex

issues both

systematically and

creatively;

A satisfactory evaluation of

current

research and critical

scholarship in the discipline;

Ability to

devise a

coherent

critical/

analytical

argument is

supported with evidence.

A lack of ability to deal with

complex issues;

Judgements not fully

substantiated

and

understood;

The ability to

construct an

argument is

underdevelope d

and not

supported fully with

evidence.

A lack of ability to deal with

complex issues;

Judgements are not

substantiated or understood

and the critical

position is not

made clear;

Weak

interpretation of research and

work is not

supported with evidence.

Very weak

analysis, possibly limited to a single perspective;

Substandard

argument, work

lacks scholarly

analysis and

interpretation;

Episodes of self contradiction

and/or confusion.

Slight indication of ability to

deal with key

issues;

Slight analytical

engagement

and reflection,

work lacks

criticality

throughout;

Lacks evidence, work shows

self-contradiction and

confusion.

Negligible

coverage of

learning

outcomes;

No attempt to

interpret

research

material.

Communication

Communication skills: creative,

written and

presented.

SCOPE:

communication of intent,

adherence to

academic

subject discipline protocols.

A sophisticated response, the

academic form matches that

expected in

published and

professional

work;

Mastery and

command of

specialist skills pertaining to the academic form;

Idiomatic and

highly coherent, scholarly

expression.

Persuasive

articulation,

where

the academic

form largely

matches that

expected in

published work;

Accomplished

command of

specialist skills pertaining to the academic form, discipline and

context(s);

A high degree of skill, the

academic form shows

exceptional

standards of

presentation or delivery;

A high

command of

specialist

skills

pertaining to

the academic

form, discipline and context(s).

Secure and

sustained

expression,

observing

appropriate

academic form;

Fluent and

persuasive

expression of

ideas, work

shows flair;

Assured

interpretation of the style and

genre, content,

form and

technique for

specialist and

non-specialist

audiences as

appropriate.

Good

expression,

observing

appropriate

academic

form;

Predominantly accurate in

spelling and

grammar,

ideas

communicated appropriately

and

satisfactorily;

Satisfactory

application of

specialist skills with effective

technical

control.

Unsatisfactory demonstration

and application of key

communication skills;

Recurring

errors in

spelling and

grammar, ideas limited and

underdevelope d, possibly poor paraphrasing;

Skills

demonstrated

are insufficient for the task and work may lack technical

judgement.

Significant errors evident in the

academic form;

Weaknesses in spelling and

grammar, lacks coherence and

structure,

possibly poor

paraphrasing;

Work lacks

technical

judgement.

Very weak

observation of

academic

conventions;

Severe

deficiencies in

spelling

and grammar and expression

undermines

meaning, possibly poor

paraphrasing;

Substandard

relationship

between content, form and

technique.

Slight observation of academic

conventions;

Weak expression, mostly

incoherent and

fails to secure

meaning, poor

paraphrasing;

Slight engagement with the

work.

Negligible

observation of

academic

conventions;

Incoherent and confused

expression, poor paraphrasing;

No discernible

demonstration

of key skills

(pertaining to

the

discipline);

No engagement with the work.

Generic Marking criteria for Level 7

Distinction

90–100%

Evidence

of…

Distinction

80-89%

Evidence of…

Distinction

70-79%

Evidence of…

Merit

60-69%

Evidence

of…

Pass

50-59%

Evidence

of…

Fail

40-49%

Evidence

of…

Fail

30-39%

Evidence of…

Fail

20-29%

Evidence

of…

Fail

10-19%

Evidence

of…

Fail

0-9%

Evidence of…

Reflection

Critical reflection and/or

personal and

professional

application.

SCOPE:

Intellectual

engagement with the processes by which the work is realised.

Insightful

response to

critical self

evaluation,

reflecting

exemplary

professional

and/or

personal

standards of

engagement

and conduct

throughout;

Sophisticated

application

of new insights (or highly

advanced

application of

established

ways of working pertaining to the discipline).

Advanced level of critical

self-evaluation, reflecting

professional

and/or

personal

standards of

engagement and conduct

throughout;

Accomplished

application

of new insights (or advanced

application of

established

ways of working pertaining to the discipline).

A high degree of critical

self-evaluation, reflecting

professional

and/ or

personal

standards of

engagement

and conduct;

Excellent

application of

new insights

(or a highly

skilled

application of

established

ways of

working

pertaining to

the discipline).

An assured level of self-evaluation, reflecting

sustained

professional

and/or personal standards

of engagement

and

conduct;

Assured

application of new or established

ways of

working;

Work evidences thorough

independent

planning and

execution of key tasks.

A satisfactory self

evaluation,

reflecting

appropriate

standards of

professional

and/or

personal

engagement

and conduct;

Satisfactory

engagement

with

established

ways of

working

pertaining to

the discipline;

Independent

planning and

execution.

Unsatisfactory self-evaluation of professional and/or personal

engagement

and conduct;

Unsatisfactory

engagement

with

established

ways of

working

pertaining to

the

discipline;

Insufficient

planning, work not executed in full.

Weak self

evaluation of

professional

and/or

personal

engagement and conduct;

Weak

engagement with established ways of

working

pertaining to the discipline;

Inadequate

planning.

Very weak self

evaluation

of professional

and/or

personal

engagement and conduct;

Substandard

engagement

with established ways of working;

Inappropriate

execution of work.

Slight evidence of self-evaluation of professional

and/or personal

engagement and conduct;

Inappropriate

execution of

key tasks and

work may

be a cause for

concern.

Negligible

evidence of self evaluation of

professional

and/or personal engagement

and conduct;

No engagement with

established

ways of working;

In professional or equivalent

contexts the

work will be

cause for

concern.