Assessment Brief 2024/2025
Please make sure you carefully read and understand the question or task. If you have unanswered questions, please post these on the course Moodle Discussion Forum, and we’ll respond.
Assignment Information
|
Course Code
|
MGT5343
|
|
Course Title
|
Human Resource Development
|
|
Weighting
|
50%
|
|
Question release date
|
13 January 2025
|
|
Submission date:
|
17 March 2025
|
|
Grades and Feedback to be released on:
|
7 April 2025
|
|
Word limit
|
3000 (+/- 10%)
|
|
Action to be taken if word limit is exceeded
|
Use academic judgement to adjust the grade to reflect failure to adhere to the word limit
|
1. QUESTION/ DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
This is an individual written assignment.
Acting as an HRD consultant, you are asked to design a leadership or management development intervention with an emphasis on sustainability for an organisation of your choice. The organisation must have a clear sustainability agenda. The intervention must NOT draw on an existing programme/intervention.
Your assignment should address/include the following:
· Work through ALL the stages of the HRD cycle and explain how each stage will be designed and implemented.
· Justify how your intervention is aligned to the sustainability strategy/goals of your chosen organisation.
· Cost the proposal and make a case for the resources required.
· Use the academic literature to frame, develop and justify, and critically evaluate your approach.
· Write a short critical reflection as a conclusion on the key skills and roles needed by an HRD practitioner in the realisation of this intervention within the specific organisational context and the implications for their CPD.
2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional guidelines
· Choose your organisation carefully: it must be an organisation with a stated sustainability agenda/strategy/goals – it can be of any nationality but must have an English-language website. Include a link to the website in the assignment.
· Find a statement on the website or other documentation relating to its sustainability agenda.
· Think about the HRD implications of this agenda.
· Analyse what the learning needs might be for leaders or managers to lead/manage this strategy. You probably won’t have access to organisational members so you will have to deduce their needs in accordance with espoused organisational strategy.
· Think about the internal and external contexts of the organisation – how will these affect HRD needs?
· How will the training intervention be aligned to the organisational sustainability agenda (vertical, horizontal or both)?
· Lay out the learning design – think about the format (face-to-face, online blended, etc.) and justify your choice(s) according to the learning aims/objectives, context and logistics. You can put sample materials in an appendix if you wish.
· How does this design allow for human diversity (think about learning styles, preferences etc.) and possible cultural differences (for example, think about the countries that this organisation is operating in and the needs of expatriate leaders/managers)?
· State how the training is going to be delivered (who is going to do it, where and when will it take place etc).
· Anticipate any problems which might arise and how you would overcome them.
· Draw up a budget for your intervention and justify the cost. State how you will ‘sell’ this plan to the senior management (especially if it goes over budget or includes some expensive items); might there be any unexpected/hidden costs to account for?
· Explain how you will evaluate the intervention – think about what you (and your organisation) need to know from the evaluation. This should be aligned to the evaluation theories you draw on, what types of evaluation you employ and when it is conducted.
· Who would you feedback the results to and why?
· What measures would you put in place for continuing improvement?
· What key skills would a HRD practitioner need to have and what roles would they need to play to realise this intervention within the specific organisational context? What might be most challenging and how might they hone and develop these through CPD along the way?
Additional Points and Tips
· Refer to theory throughout!
· You can draw on lecture material and set readings but ensure to evidence appropriate further reading (suggested and beyond) throughout as well.
· You must refer to the four-stage HRD cycle model; however, if you wish to also refer to some of the more complex models you can.
· Please engage critically with the theory and models you employ, including the HRD cycle model itself! How have they been critiqued? What are their strengths and shortcomings for your purposes? How can the shortcomings be addressed?
· Please do NOT use the same organisation as your classmates.
· Report: Please make sure that your submission includes an introduction, main body and conclusion. Include a cover page with assignment topic and word count detailed. Use headings, sections and paragraphs and avoid bullet points.
· Language: your project should be written in British, not American, English.
· Referencing style: All pieces of assessment should use the Harvard style. of referencing throughout.
· Be as creative as you like!
3. ASSESSMENT RUBRIC/ CRITERIA
|
Criteria
|
Excellent
|
Very Good
|
Good
|
Satisfactory
|
Weak
|
|
1) The organisation is clearly presented and the link to its sustainability strategy/goals is well articulated
|
The organisation is very carefully selected with interesting/unusual/ challenging sustainability agendas. Excellent concise summary of the organisation and its operations
|
Very carefully selected
interesting organisation.
Very good clear description of the organisation’s sustainability
goals and general
operations
|
Thoughtful
well justified choice of an organisation with a well stated sustainability agenda/
challenge.
Good clear description of organisational operations
|
Reasonable if rather obvious choice of organisation. Some justification given of choice given and competent description of the organisation
|
Uninspired/random choice of organisation.
Little justification for choice and little or no link to sustainability strategy. Vague and/or incomplete description of the organisation
|
|
2) Intervention design is strategically aligned to the organisation’s sustainability strategy/objectives and organisational training needs
|
Excellent, fully detailed creative and imaginative
intervention design.
Fully in alignment with sustainability agendas and wider organisational strategy
Design underpinned by and justified in terms of a comprehensive TNA strategy
|
Very good, interesting intervention design. Very clearly underpinned by a clear TNA strategy and strategic organisational needs
|
Good attempt at developing an informed and competent intervention design.
Clear evidence that TNA was conducted and good alignment to organisational needs.
|
A reasonable attempt at intervention design with some attempt at alignment to organisational strategy.
Some evidence that a TNA was conducted and has influenced the design, although details rather vague in places.
|
Some attempt at implementation design albeit rather lacking in imagination, details and justification.
Little evidence of TNA nor alignment to organisational sustainability agendas or wider strategy.
|
|
3) The delivery plan is clear and contextually appropriate with a well justified evaluation plan
|
Excellent, fully detailed creative and imaginative
delivery plan showing clear understanding of contextual and cultural context. Full understanding of possible issues and clear contingency plan.
Excellently presented and justified comprehensive evaluation plan.
|
Very good, detailed, well thought through contextually and culturally appropriate delivery plan with understanding of potential problems and solutions to them.
Well justified wide-ranging evaluation plan.
|
Good attempt at developing an appropriate and competent delivery plan.
Good appropriate evaluation plan
|
A reasonable attempt at developing a delivery plan showing some understanding of contextual and cultural issues and resulting issues.
Evaluation plan in place
although details might be vague in places.
|
Some attempt at developing a delivery plan albeit lacking in details and justification. Little consideration of cultural and contextual issues.
Evaluation plan attempted but lacking in depth and details.
|
|
4) The budget is well-presented and justified and the case for resources clearly made
|
Excellent, fully detailed, comprehensive well-presented and clearly presented budget. Thorough, well evidenced case presented with links clearly made to organisational strategy
|
Very good, very clearly presented budget with few omissions.
Compelling case for support with some links to organisational strategy.
|
A competent, well put together budget with a few omissions. Justification for expenditure generally well presented for supporting organisational needs.
|
A reasonable budget but lacks clarity and justification.
Some attempt at aligning the case for support to organisational
strategy.
|
Budget weakly constructed and presented. Numerous omissions. Justifications lacking or unclear.
Case for support rather half-hearted and/or missing supporting evidence.
|
|
5) Critical engagement with the existing literature and understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of chosen activities and learning approaches clearly demonstrated.
|
Excellent critical engagement with a wide range of literature and resources (many self-sourced).
Thorough knowledge of strengths and weaknesses of chosen approaches and activities fully articulated and balanced.
|
Very good critical engagement with a range of literature and evidence of reading beyond course materials.
Very good realisation of the strengths and weaknesses of chosen approaches and activities and clear attempts to balanced them.
|
Good engagement with literature and resources with some evidence of criticality and wider reading.
Clear efforts to complement and balance strengths and weaknesses of different activities and approaches.
|
A reasonable attempt at engagement with course materials and resources but with little criticality or evidence of further reading.
Some attempts to critique chosen approaches.
|
Some attempt at engagement with course materials and resources but generally uncritical and descriptive. No or little attempt to reach beyond the course materials.
Chosen approaches unjustified and non-critically applied.
|
|
6) Critical understanding of the key skills and roles needed by HRD practitioners in order to realise the intervention, along with CPD implications.
|
Extremely comprehensive
analysis of all key skills and roles needed. Excellent justification given for choice of most challenging skills/roles demonstrating excellent understanding of the challenges of the specific organisational context. Detailed and clear suggestions given for CPD.
|
Comprehensive
analysis of key skills and roles and roles required and well linked to the
specific organisational context. The most challenging skills/roles clearly justified and sensible suggestions given for CPD.
|
Good identification of key skills and roles needed. Some analysis of the demands of the organisational context. Some challenging skills/roles identified, and good suggestions given for CPD.
|
Able to identify some of the key skills and roles needed but some omissions.
Attempts an analysis of the demands of the organisational context and gives some suggestions for CPD
albeit incomplete in places.
|
Little attempt to identify the key skills and roles needed.
Very little attention paid to the demands of the organisational context and/or suggestions given for CPD
not given or very cursory.
|
|
7) Structure and logic of answer/argument; overall standard of presentation and written expression.
|
Answer exemplary in terms of logic and structure of answer/ argument. Will normally show greatest skill and judgement in synthesising various strands of argument in the conclusion. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Language is academic and writing is clear, concise, and persuasive. Major arguments are effectively made, and ideas always relate back to main line of argument.
|
Answer is clearly
structured with
clear and consistent logic of argument. There
may be some minor
errors. Will normally
have strong and
consistent conclusions that provide insight into
the issue. Tone is appropriate and
consistent.
Language is academic and writing is clear and
concise. Thoughtful
progression of ideas
and details. Major arguments are effectively made
|
Structure of answer and logic of argument is generally sound but with some errors and/or unevenness. Conclusions here may be more inconsistent and/or summary-like; and/or less insightful. Tone is appropriate, language is academic, and writing is clear and effective, with few lapses. Very little or no unclear sentence phrasing. The progression of ideas could be more thoughtful. Most of the time ideas are connected well and relate back to main arguments.
|
Clear attempt to structure the answer and develop logical arguments, but likely to be unconvincing and/or confused. Will normally have made a clear attempt to conclude piece, but this may be confused, inconsistent and/or lack insight. Contains informal language or conversational tone. Writing style. could be more effective. Some unclear sentence phrasing. Could weave main ideas more effectively into an overarching argument in response to the question(s) posed.
|
Answer cannot be readily followed, with illogical claims made. Answer has no clear structure. Conclusions may be absent, perfunctory or too confused to demonstrate reasonable attainment. Non-academic writing style, lacking in clarity, precision, and/or persuasiveness. Error- ridden in terms of spelling or grammar. Poor syntax, making sentences and paragraphs difficult to understand.
|