Chandigarh Assignment Help

India +917015806060

MENU

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 

10 

(Introduce the company and purpose of the report) 

2 Calculate a selection of Ratios. Use ratio analysis 

30 

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 

20 

critically evaluate significant developments within  

the company and the wider retail sector. 

4 Provide a SWOT analysis of the company and 

25 

critically assess the challenges and opportunities  

for the company’s foreseeable future. 

(Include financial and non-financial elements) 

5 Conclusion and presentation 

15 

(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.

An  

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.