HC1062 Group Assignment T3 2025

Group Assignment

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines

Trimester: T3 2025
Unit Code: HC1062
Unit Title: Decision Making and Problem-Solving
Assessment Type: Group Assignment
Weight: 40%

Submission Guidelines

• All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format unless otherwise specified.

Academic Integrity Information

Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding academic integrity. All assessments must comply with academic integrity guidelines. Please learn about academic integrity and consult your teachers with any questions. Violating academic integrity is serious and punishable by penalties that range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.

Penalties

• All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date and time, along with a completed Assessment Cover Page. Late penalties apply.
• 20% penalty applicable for solo (single student) group submissions.
• Your answers must be based on Holmes Institute syllabus of this unit. Outside sources may not amount to more than 10% of any answer and must be correctly referenced in full. Over-reliance on outside sources will be penalised.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Holmes Institute Adapted Harvard Referencing. Penalties are associated with incorrect citation and referencing.

Group Assignment Guidelines and Specifications

Assessment Overview

In a globalised business environment, effective decision-making relies on evidence-based research and critical analysis. This assessment challenges students to apply theoretical models and research methods to a real-world management issue faced by a multinational organisation. Through collaborative inquiry, students will explore how structured research supports informed managerial decisions, strengthens problem-solving, and fosters innovation in global business contexts.

Assessment Parts

The assessment consists of three interrelated parts (A, B, and C) designed to develop and demonstrate students' research, analytical, and communication skills in a practical context:

Part A – Group Report (20 marks):
A 2,000-word research-based report where students apply decision-making and problem-solving frameworks to analyse a selected management issue within a multinational organisation. The report integrates theoretical models with secondary data analysis to generate evidence-based recommendations.

Part B – Individual Reflection (10 marks):
A 1,000-word reflective essay (approximately 250 words per student) where each member analyses their personal experience with decision-making and collaboration in this group assignment, linking individual learning to relevant theories and frameworks.

Part C – Creative Presentation / Video Brief (10 marks):
A 5–6-minute group presentation that communicates the key insights, findings, and lessons learned from Parts A and B through engaging storytelling, visuals, and professional delivery.

Together, these components encourage both individual accountability and collaborative synthesis, providing a comprehensive learning experience that mirrors the multidisciplinary nature of real-world business problem-solving.

Assessment Objectives

• Reinforce key topics from Lectures 1–7.
• Apply business research, decision-making, and problem-solving theories to a real-world issue.
• Develop collaborative, analytical, and academic writing skills.
• Demonstrate ethical research design using secondary data.
• Communicate insights through a creative and engaging presentation.

Assessment Task

Each group will:

1. Select one management issue from the options below.
2. Choose a multinational organisation relevant to that issue.
3. Conduct secondary research and apply course concepts to analyse and recommend solutions.
4. Integrate individual sections into a cohesive group report.

Management Issues (Select One):

1. Declining Sales
2. Poor Customer Satisfaction
3. Ineffective Marketing Strategy

Group Research Components:

The following sections are collaboratively developed by all group members to maintain cohesion and shared responsibility throughout the research process:

• Introduction & Background
• Problem Definition & Research Questions
• Recommendations & Conclusion
• Group Reflection
• References

These sections ensure the project maintains a consistent voice and integrates all members' contributions into a unified report.

Individual Research Components:

Each group member will contribute a distinct yet complementary section of the overall research project. These individual components align with the key stages of the business research process, ensuring that all members actively engage with both theory and application while contributing equally to the final report.

Student

Research Aspect

A

Literature Review & Theoretical Framework – Conducts a focused review of existing research and relevant decision-making or problem-solving theories to establish a conceptual foundation for the study.

B

Research Design and Ethics – Outlines the chosen research design (exploratory, descriptive, or causal) and discusses ethical considerations related to the use of secondary data.

C

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods – Explains and justifies the use of qualitative and/or quantitative research methods; contributes to the analysis of collected data.

D

Data Collection and Measurement – Describes how data is gathered and measured; ensures validity, reliability, and minimises potential measurement errors.

Part A – Group Report Structure (2,000 words) – 20 marks

Your group report should include the following sections:

i. Introduction & Background

• Introduce the organisation and management issue.
• Explain its importance in the decision-making context.

ii. Problem Definition & Research Questions

• Define the decision-making problem.
• Develop research objectives and key questions.

iii. Research Design & Ethics

• Explain your chosen research design (exploratory, descriptive, or causal).
• Address ethical considerations related to secondary data use.

iv. Data Collection Approach

• Justify the use of secondary data and chosen methods (qualitative/quantitative).

v. Measurement & Instrument Design

• Describe how variables are measured, ensuring validity and reliability.

vi. Analysis Plan & Expected Insights

• Outline your analytical framework and how it supports managerial decision-making.

vii. Recommendations & Conclusion

• Provide realistic, evidence-based recommendations.
• Summarise implications for global organisations.

viii. Group Reflection

• Each member's contribution.
• Application of decision-making and problem-solving theories.
• Key insights or collaboration takeaways.

ix. References

• Minimum 6 credible sources (academic journals, textbooks, business reports).

Marking Rubric: Group Report (20 marks)

Criteria

Excellent (HD)

Very Good (D)

Good (C)

Satisfactory (P)

Unsatisfactory (F)

Introduction & Background (2 marks)

Clear, insightful introduction; strong link between organisation, issue, and decision-making context. (2 marks)

Clear introduction; good link to decision-making. (1.5 marks)

Adequate introduction; some contextual clarity. (1 mark)

Basic introduction; limited relevance. (0.5 marks)

Missing or unclear introduction. (0.2 marks)

Problem Definition & Research Question (2 marks)

Clearly defined problem; well-structured objectives and research questions. (2 marks)

Well-defined problem and relevant objectives. (1.5 marks)

Reasonably clear problem and objectives. (1 mark)

Somewhat vague problem or questions. (0.5 marks)

Missing or poorly defined. (0.2 marks)

Research Design & Ethics (4 marks)

Excellent justification of design and ethical issues; integrates theory and practice. (4 marks)

Sound justification with clear ethical focus. (3 marks)

Adequate discussion of design and ethics. (2 marks)

Limited discussion of design or ethics. (1 mark)

Minimal or missing discussion. (0.5 marks)

Data Collection & Measurement (4 marks)

Thorough explanation of data sources, variables, validity, and reliability. (4 marks)

Clear and appropriate data sources and measures. (3 marks)

Adequate data explanation with minor gaps. (2 marks)

Basic data description; lacks depth. (1 mark)

Insufficient or incorrect data discussion. (0.5 marks)

Analysis & Insights (4 marks)

Analytical approach is logical, data-driven, and supports strong managerial insights. (4 marks)

Analysis is clear and relevant to problem-solving. (3 marks)

Analysis present but lacks depth or clarity. (2 marks)

Limited or descriptive analysis. (1 mark)

No meaningful analysis provided. (0.5 marks)

Recommendations & Conclusion (2 marks)

Highly practical, evidence-based recommendations with strong linkage to findings. (2 marks)

Realistic, well-supported recommendations. (1.5 marks)

Reasonable recommendations; some linkage to findings. (1 mark)

Basic or generic recommendations. (0.5 marks)

No or irrelevant recommendations. (0.2 marks)

Group Reflection (2 marks)

Deep reflection on collaboration and learning; strong link to decision-making theory. (2 marks)

Clear reflection with relevant insights. (1.5 marks)

General reflection; minor linkage to theory. (1 mark)

Minimal or descriptive reflection. (0.5 marks)

No meaningful reflection. (0.2 marks)

Total

20 Marks

Part B – Individual Reflection (1,000 words total about 250 per student) – 10 marks

Each student must submit an individual reflection (attached as an appendix) explaining their own experience with decision-making, what they learned from this project, and how theoretical frameworks influenced their understanding of real-world business problems.

Criteria:

• Personal insight and critical thinking
• Connection to decision-making and problem-solving theories
• Clarity and coherence

Marking Rubric: Individual Reflection (10 marks)

Criteria

Excellent (HD)

Very Good (D)

Good (C)

Satisfactory (P)

Unsatisfactory (F)

1. Depth of Reflection & Self-Awareness (3 marks)

Demonstrates exceptional insight into personal decision-making and problem-solving style; clearly connects experiences to learning outcomes; shows deep self-awareness and growth.

Strong, thoughtful reflection; shows good insight into personal learning and group experience.

Some self-awareness and description of experience; reflection tends to be more descriptive than analytical.

Minimal self-reflection; focuses mainly on recounting events rather than analysing them.

Superficial or no reflection; lacks personal insight or relevance.

2. Application of Theory to Practice (3 marks)

Integrates theoretical frameworks (e.g., decision-making models, problem-solving techniques) seamlessly into reflection; demonstrates strong understanding and practical application.

Applies relevant theory effectively with minor gaps in explanation.

Some attempt to link theory to practice but lacks depth or accuracy.

Limited or unclear theoretical application.

No connection to theory or misunderstanding of concepts.

3. Critical Thinking & Learning Outcomes (2 marks)

Demonstrates high-level critical thinking; identifies challenges, evaluates outcomes, and proposes future improvements in approach or thinking.

Shows solid critical analysis of experience; identifies learning and some future implications.

Provides some analysis and reflection on learning; future actions not well developed.

Limited analysis; mostly descriptive; minimal insight into improvement.

No evidence of critical thinking or learning outcomes.

4. Organisation, Clarity & Academic Writing (2 marks)

Reflection is well-structured, clear, concise, and engaging; excellent grammar, flow, and academic tone; correct referencing where applicable.

Clear and coherent writing; minor language or formatting issues.

Generally clear writing with some structural or grammatical errors.

Writing lacks clarity or coherence; noticeable language errors.

Poorly written; disorganised and unclear; does not meet word or formatting requirements.

Total

10 Marks

Part C – Creative Presentation / Video Brief (10 marks)

To communicate your findings through an engaging visual presentation that connects research insights, teamwork, and personal reflection.

Structure (5–6 minutes total):

1. Introduction – Introduce group members, topic, and purpose (2 marks)
2. Summary of Report – Highlight key findings, insights, and implications (2 marks)
3. Discussion – Showcase visuals, comparisons, and frameworks (4 marks)
4. Conclusion – Summarise learnings and future implications (2 marks)

Marking Rubric: Group Presentation (10 marks)

Criteria

Excellent (HD)

Very Good (D)

Good (C)

Satisfactory (P)

Unsatisfactory (F)

Content & Structure (3 marks)

Logical, engaging flow; clear link between report, theory, and real-world insights.

Well-structured and coherent.

Clear but somewhat uneven structure.

Basic or unclear structure.

Disorganised or off topic.

Depth of Analysis (3 marks)

Demonstrates excellent understanding of report findings and their application to decision-making.

Strong understanding and good synthesis.

Adequate understanding with some gaps.

Limited interpretation of findings.

Lacks analytical depth.

Visual Communication (2 marks)

Professional visuals: creative storytelling enhances engagement and understanding.

Effective visuals; supports message clearly.

Basic visuals; generally, supports message.

Minimal visuals or unclear design.

Poor or missing visuals.

Delivery & Team Coordination (2 marks)

Highly confident, well-paced, and cohesive teamwork.

Confident and clear; good teamwork.

Generally clear; minor issues in delivery.

Some coordination issues.

Disjointed or unclear delivery.

Total

10 Marks

Citation and Referencing Rules

Holmes has implemented a revised Harvard approach to referencing. The following rules apply:

1. Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources that provide full-text access for lecturers and markers.
2. In-text Citations
   All assignments must include in-text citations to the listed references. These must include the surname of the author/s or name of the authoring body, year of publication, page number of the content, and paragraph where the content can be found. For example, "The company decided to implement an enterprise-wide data warehouse business intelligence strategy (Hawking et al., 2004, p3(4))."
3. Reference List
   • The reference list must be located on the last page of your submission.
   • The reference list must include the details of all the in-text citations, arranged A-Z alphabetically by author surname with each reference numbered (1 to 10, etc.) and each reference MUST include a hyperlink to the full text of the cited reference url.
4. For example:
   7. Hawking, P., McCarthy, B. & Stein, A. 2004. Second Wave ERP Education, Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol … Issue No. … , pages … to … http://jise.org/Volume15/n3/JISEv15n3p327.pdf
5. Non-Adherence to Referencing Rules
   If students do not follow the above rules, penalties apply:
   1. For students who submit assignments that do not comply with all aspects of the rules, a 10% penalty will be applied.
   2. If citations are 'fake', students will be reported for academic misconduct.