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.
Page 1 of 9
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
Page 2 of 9
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.
Page 3 of 9
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
Introduction
(Introduce the company and purpose of the report)
Marks
10
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)
30
3
Conduct a PEST analysis of the company and
critically evaluate significant developments within
the company and the wider retail sector.
20
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)
25
5
Conclusion and presentation
(Up to 5 marks awarded for presentation)
15
1
100
Page 4 of 9
Faculty of Business and Management
Assessment Brief 2021/22
Page 5 of 9
Generic Marking criteria for Level 7
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.
Distinction
90–100%
Evidence
of…
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.
Distinction
80-89%
Evidence of…
Distinction
70-79%
Evidence of…
Advanced
engagement
with
research and or
practice
pertaining to the
field(s) and
disciplines of
study;
A high degree
of engagement
with research
and/or practice
pertaining to
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.
Excellent
demonstration
of
knowledge,
with the
possibility
for new
insights;
A high degree
of synthesis
relating to
research
material.
Merit
60-69%
Evidence
of…
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.
Pass
50-59%
Evidence
of…
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.
Fail
40-49%
Evidence
of…
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.
Fail
30-39%
Evidence of…
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.
Fail
20-29%
Evidence
of…
Lack of relevant
research and
little
understanding
shown;
Fail
10-19%
Evidence
of…
Severely lacking in
relevant
research and
underpinning
knowledge;
Very weak
understanding of
key issues, work
lacks critical
oversight;
Slight
understanding of
key
issues, little
attempt at critical
analysis;
Substandard
engagement with
research material,
misunderstanding
evident.
Slight engagement
with
research material,
inaccurate
knowledge and
misunderstanding
throughout.
Fail
0-9%
Evidence of…
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…
Sources
Reading and use
of appropriate
sources.
SCOPE:
accurate and
consistent
acknowledgment
and referencing
of sources.
Methodology
SCOPE: critical
engagement with
methodologies
underpinning
original research
or current
developments in
the discipline.
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.
Distinction
80-89%
Evidence of…
Distinction
70-79%
Evidence of…
Extensive range
and use of
appropriate
sources;
Substantial
range and
sophisticated
use of sources;
Extremely well
referenced
research both in
breadth and
depth, which
demonstrates
high intellectual
engagement
and rigor.
Wellreferenced
research both
in breadth and
depth, which
demonstrates
clear
intellectual
rigor.
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;
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;
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
offer new
insights and
contributions to
knowledge.
Methods used
contribute
towards new
insights to
knowledge.
Methods used
may offer new
insights or
contributions to
knowledge.
Merit
60-69%
Evidence
of…
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 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.
Pass
50-59%
Evidence
of…
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.
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.
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…
Insufficient
range of source
reading of core
and basic
texts;
Reading material
is
inadequate and
may not
include core and
basic texts;
Very weak
engagement with
source reading of
core and
basic texts;
Severely lacking
source
reading;
Negligible
attempt to
identify
source material;
Sources not
acknowledged
in
line with
academic
conventions of
referencing.
Sources
inaccurately
referenced.
Inconsistent
and/or limited
referencing of
sources.
Unsatisfactory
application of
research
techniques
pertaining
to the
discipline;
An
underdeveloped
understanding of
established
methodologies
and those used
by the student;
Very weak
understanding of
established
methodologies
and
those used by
student;
Unsatisfactory
research
undertaken,
resulting in
underdevelope
d and poorly
executed work.
Research work
is weak and
executed
inaccurately.
Substandard
research,
methods mainly
erroneous.
Sources either not
present
and/or not
referenced.
Research works
show very
little planning and
understanding;
Erroneous use of
methods to
explain the work.
No indication of
source
reading.
Negligible
understanding of
established
research
methods
and those used
by the student;
No research
methods
evident.
Generic Marking criteria for Level 7
Analysis
Critical analysis
and
interpretation.
SCOPE:
appropriate
analytical
discussion and
interpretation of
source material.
Communication
Communication
skills: creative,
written and
presented.
SCOPE:
communication
of intent,
adherence to
academic
subject discipline
protocols.
Distinction
90–100%
Evidence
of…
A sophisticated
command of
imaginative,
insightful,
original
or creative
interpretations;
Distinction
80-89%
Evidence of…
Distinction
70-79%
Evidence of…
Advanced
command of
imaginative,
insightful,
original
or creative
interpretations;
An excellent
command of
imaginative,
original or
creative
interpretations;
An unparalleled
level of
analysis and
evaluation;
Accomplished
level of analysis
and evaluation;
A high degree
of analysis and
evaluation;
A sustained
argument with
the
possibility for
new insights to
knowledge.
A sophisticated
cogent
argument
offering new and
original
contributions to
knowledge.
A highly
developed
cogent
argument with
the potential to
bring new and
original
contributions to
knowledge.
A sophisticated
response, the
academic form
matches that
expected in
published and
professional
work;
Persuasive
articulation,
where
the academic
form largely
matches that
expected in
published work;
A high degree
of skill, the
academic form
shows
exceptional
standards of
presentation or
delivery;
Mastery and
command of
specialist skills
pertaining to the
academic form;
Accomplished
command of
specialist skills
pertaining to the
academic form,
discipline and
context(s);
A high
command of
specialist
skills
pertaining to
the academic
form, discipline
and context(s).
Idiomatic and
highly coherent,
scholarly
expression.
Merit
60-69%
Evidence
of…
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.
Pass
50-59%
Evidence
of…
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.
Fail
40-49%
Evidence
of…
A lack of ability
to deal with
complex issues;
Fail
30-39%
Evidence of…
Judgements not
fully
substantiated
and
understood;
Judgements are
not
substantiated or
understood
and the critical
position is not
made clear;
The ability to
construct an
argument is
underdevelope
d
and not
supported fully
with
evidence.
Secure and
sustained
expression,
observing
appropriate
academic form;
Good
expression,
observing
appropriate
academic
form;
Unsatisfactory
demonstration
and application
of key
communication
skills;
Fluent and
persuasive
expression of
ideas, work
shows flair;
Predominantly
accurate in
spelling and
grammar,
ideas
communicated
appropriately
and
satisfactorily;
Recurring
errors in
spelling and
grammar, ideas
limited and
underdevelope
d, possibly poor
paraphrasing;
Assured
interpretation of
the style and
genre, content,
form and
technique for
specialist and
non-specialist
audiences as
appropriate.
Satisfactory
application of
specialist skills
with effective
technical
control.
Skills
demonstrated
are insufficient
for the task and
work may lack
technical
judgement.
A lack of ability
to deal with
complex issues;
Weak
interpretation of
research and
work is not
supported with
evidence.
Significant errors
evident in the
academic form;
Weaknesses in
spelling and
grammar, lacks
coherence and
structure,
possibly poor
paraphrasing;
Work lacks
technical
judgement.
Fail
20-29%
Evidence
of…
Very weak
analysis, possibly
limited to a single
perspective;
Fail
10-19%
Evidence
of…
Slight indication of
ability to
deal with key
issues;
Fail
0-9%
Evidence of…
Substandard
argument, work
lacks scholarly
analysis and
interpretation;
Slight analytical
engagement
and reflection,
work lacks
criticality
throughout;
No attempt to
interpret
research
material.
Episodes of selfcontradiction
and/or confusion.
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.
Negligible
coverage of
learning
outcomes;
Lacks evidence,
work shows
self-contradiction
and
confusion.
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
Reflection
Critical reflection
and/or
personal and
professional
application.
SCOPE:
Intellectual
engagement with
the processes by
which the work is
realised.
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…
Insightful
response to
critical selfevaluation,
reflecting
exemplary
professional
and/or
personal
standards of
engagement
and conduct
throughout;
Advanced level
of critical
self-evaluation,
reflecting
professional
and/or
personal
standards of
engagement and
conduct
throughout;
A high degree
of critical
self-evaluation,
reflecting
professional
and/ or
personal
standards of
engagement
and conduct;
An assured level
of self-evaluation,
reflecting
sustained
professional
and/or personal
standards
of engagement
and
conduct;
A satisfactory
self
evaluation,
reflecting
appropriate
standards of
professional
and/or
personal
engagement
and conduct;
Unsatisfactory
self-evaluation
of professional
and/or personal
engagement
and conduct;
Weak selfevaluation of
professional
and/or
personal
engagement and
conduct;
Very weak selfevaluation
of professional
and/or
personal
engagement and
conduct;
Slight evidence of
self-evaluation of
professional
and/or personal
engagement and
conduct;
Negligible
evidence of selfevaluation of
professional
and/or personal
engagement
and conduct;
Excellent
application of
new insights
(or a highly
skilled
application of
established
ways of
working
pertaining to
the discipline).
Assured
application of new
or established
ways of
working;
Weak
engagement with
established ways
of
working
pertaining to the
discipline;
Substandard
engagement
with established
ways of working;
Sophisticated
application
of new insights
(or highly
advanced
application of
established
ways of working
pertaining to the
discipline).
Accomplished
application
of new insights
(or advanced
application of
established
ways of working
pertaining to the
discipline).
Work evidences
thorough
independent
planning and
execution of key
tasks.
Satisfactory
engagement
with
established
ways of
working
pertaining to
the discipline;
Independent
planning and
execution.
Unsatisfactory
engagement
with
established
ways of
working
pertaining to
the
discipline;
Insufficient
planning, work
not executed in
full.
Inadequate
planning.
Inappropriate
execution of work.
Inappropriate
execution of
key tasks and
work may
be a cause for
concern.
No engagement
with
established
ways of working;
In professional
or equivalent
contexts the
work will be
cause for
concern.