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.