Big Data in Marketing Intelligence EFIMM0059

Big Data in Marketing Intelligence EFIMM0059

Summative assessment information

Unit Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

On completion of this unit, you should be able to:

LO1Distinguish between data contained in large data sets and “big data” and reflect upon the practical, legal and ethical challenges associated with the collection, management and analysis of each.
LO2Given a set of market insights objectives, compose a strategy for identifying and harvesting appropriate data.
LO3Distinguish between data that has value and relevance to a given context and that which has not, and synthesise data from multiple sources into a single database.
LO4Consider various methods of data presentation, analyse the data and present the results in a form that is appropriate and comprehensible to a given set of stakeholders.

Your summative assessment for this unit is based on two components: (1) a data analysis group report (50% of the final grade), and (2) an individual report (50% of the final grade). 

Big Data in Marketing Intelligence EFIMM0059

Summative assessment component 1

Task

The first assessment, the data analysis report, consists of a (group) document only.

You are required to work in group of 3-5 persons of your choice per group. Given the specific market scenario (Beauty sector), you are required to collect the data, analyse them, interpret them and present the results in a way that is comprehensible to a layperson.

You should support your arguments by using appropriate evidence.

Guidance on word limit: The assessment for this unit is subject to a word limit to ensure consistency of approach across all units. Your work should not exceed 2,500 words excluding appendices and references. What is important is that the work satisfies the stated learning outcomes which are articulated through the assessment criteria.

Guidance on format for proposal:

1.         Clearly identify and distinguish data that has value and relevance to the given contexts and that which has not.

2.         Critically discuss a range of possible strategies identifying appropriate data and synthesise data from multiple resources.

3.         Effectively analyse data with the most appropriate method

4.         Present the results in a form that is appropriate and comprehensible to the given set of stakeholders

Feedback

Feedback opportunities will be available during class. Students will receive grades and marks within 15 working days after the submission deadline.

Submission

Students will submit their work through Blackboard only (one submission per group).

Length

2,500 words (maximum)

References

An accurate Harvard referenced list of all sources cited within the text should be provided at the end of the document.

Formatting

Times New Roman 12; 1,5 or double (2) spaced; justified.

Summative assessment component 2

Task

The second assessment consists of the individual report based on the company chosen in the group coursework.

You are required to work individually. Given the marketing objective to improve customer loyalty, you are required to (guidance on format for proposal):

  1. Assess the main practical, legal and ethical challenges that the company of your choice would face during the collection, management and analysis of the big data
  2. Critically evaluate the effectiveness of the data extracted, by comparing and contrasting data that has value and relevance to the given marketing objective and that which has not with supporting arguments
  3. Recommend to the CEO the possible marketing actions to improve the value delivered to customers by increasing customer loyalty, and on possible additional data (from which sources and why) to be analysed with the related analytical tool to enhance the quality of recommendations for the CEO.

Feedback

Feedback opportunities will be available during class (a dedicated review session is planned during the last week of the unit). Students will receive grades and marks within 15 working days after the submission deadline.

Submission

Students will submit their work through Blackboard only.

Length

2,500 words (maximum)

References

An accurate Harvard referenced list of all sources cited within the text should be provided at the end of the document.

Formatting

Times New Roman 12; 1,5 or double (2) spaced; justified.

Exceeding the size limit in summative work 

The University of Bristol Business School does not have a policy for applying penalties for over-length work, but assignment briefs (including the Dissertation) will indicate a word length guide that is expected for that piece of work. 

If your work is greater than the suggested maximum, you should interpret this as a signal that you have not expressed your ideas concisely or with sufficient focus. Similarly, if it is less than the suggested minimum, you should interpret this as a signal that your coverage of the subject is insufficiently comprehensive, either in depth or breadth of coverage. Therefore, submitting work that is outside of the word length guide could affect the marking of your work and will be reflected in your feedback. 

Marking criteria

CriteriaDistinction 70-100%Merit 60-69%Pass 50-59%Fail 40-49%Fail 0-39%
Evaluation – content and theoretical underpinningAssessment components demonstrate originality, innovation and depth in the content and theory which is comparable to published work.In the main the assessment components are insightful with an appropriate selection of content and theory in key areas identified in the brief.Key theories and ideas are included in the proposal document in an appropriate manner although not consistently across all tasks.Appropriate selection of content/theory but some key aspects missed/misconstrued. Lack of theory in most tasks.Does not address the assignment brief. Uses Inaccurate or inappropriate content/theory
Application and illustrationAssessment components consistently demonstrates application of theory/critical analysis and contests the published literature through high level of debate.Engagement with critical perspectives and solid comparison of author’s views. Clear evidence of application and questioning of theory through critical analysis.Assessment components are mainly descriptive but meets learning outcomes. There is some critical analysis but mainly explores the issues in general, showing knowledge and application.Assessment components are mainly descriptive with very little critical analysis. Lack of evidence provide to achieve masters level work.No critical thought/  analysis/reference to theory.
Academic writing and PresentationMostly comparable to published literature in this subject area. Presentation standard of assessment components is excellent; consistent with academic protocol. Referencing clear, relevant and consistently accurate using the Harvard systemSound academic writing in comparison to published work showing some potential. Presentation overall of good standard with few errors in grammar and syntax. Referencing relevant and mostly accurate using the Harvard system.Presentation has limitations including some errors in grammar and syntax. Minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing using the Harvard system.Meaning apparent but language not always fluent, grammar and spelling often inaccurate. Presentation is poor in structure and includes errors in grammar and syntax. Referencing present having many inconsistencies and inaccuracies.Purpose and meaning of assignment unclear. Language, grammar and spelling poor. Structure and presentation are not of an acceptable standard including faulty grammar and syntax. Referencing mainly inaccurate or absent.