BCOBM311 CREATIVE BUSINESS CASES (5 ECTS)

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2 BCOBM311 CREATIVE BUSINESS CASES (5 ECTS) Academic year 2025/26 Semester/Term Summer I Participation in all assessment activities stated in this document is required. The minimum pass grade for the course is 70. Deadlines are always in Geneva time. MINOR ASSESSMENTS Task 2 .1 : Guidelines for Case Analysis Assessment type : Forum Due : 10 July 14:00 CE S T Weight : 5 % Description : What is the significance of assessing the macro and competitive environments in a case study analysis? Task 2 .2 : Evaluating Strategic Choices Assessment type : Forum Due : 17 July 14:00 CE S T Weight : 5% Description : What are the most significant drivers / factors that we should take into consideration when analyzing a case study? Please provide one example of a brand or company or industry of your choice. Your forum posts must meet the following requirements : Submit a post ( 150 - 215 words) and respond to a peer ( 75 - 110 words) ASSESSMENT 2 (FINAL) Task 2 .3 : Final Project Assessment type : Written assignment + Presentation Due : 27 July 14:00 CE S T Weight : 5 0% Description : You will analyze a business case in your area of specialization, propose well - justified solutions using relevant frameworks, and present your findings in a written report and a recorded video presentation. INSTRUCTIONS You will select a business case within your area of specialization and conduct a thorough analysis, proposing well - justified solutions. This project has two components : a written report and a recorded video presentation. Both components will require you to demonstrate independent critical thinking, apply relevant theories and frameworks, and justify your recommendations in the context of contemporary business challenges . Written Component You will submit a detailed, well - structured report that: • Clearly defines the problem and explains its significance within the selected area of specialization. • Establishes the business context and reviews relevant quantitative and qualitative data .

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2 • Conducts an environmental analysis , applying relevant theoretical frameworks (e.g., SWOT, PESTLE, Porter’s Five Forces, Change Management, Organizational Culture). • Evaluates strategic solutions , considering resource implications, sustainability, stakeholders’ expectations, and current drivers of change such as technology, AI, digital transformation, and diversity. • Justifies your final recommendations with a cost - benefit analysis , probability and impact matrices , and clear rationale. Presentation Component You will record a video presentation where you: • Present and defend your proposed solutions. • Demonstrate your problem - solving process , including analysis, evaluation, and decision - making. • Justify your recommendations in a convincing, structured manner , addressing contemporary drivers and challenges. Suggested Structure for the Written Report 1. Introduction and establishment of your area of specialization 2. Problem statement and significance of the case 3. SWOT analysis (with citations) 4. PESTLE analysis (with citations) 5. Porter’s Five Forces or other relevant macro/competitive/internal analyses 6. Additional models relevant to your specialization (e.g., Change Management, Organizational Culture, HR, Sustainability, Marketing, CSR) 7. Potential solutions and practical recommendations addressing current drivers of change 8. Stakeholder mapping (Power and Interest Grid) 9. Discussion of sustainability issues 10. Cost - benefit analysis 11. Probability matrix 12. Impact matrix 13. Practical r ecommendations and p otential solutions 14. Conclusions and lessons learned 15. Bibliography Bibliography is required for both components, written and presentation. You are welcome to discuss your case study selection – according to your area of specialization and share drafts of work for feedback before submission. FORMAT Your submission must meet the following formatting requirements: Written Assignment • Number of files for submission : 1 • Required file format for submission : PDF o Word count : 2,100 ±10% (excluding references and appendices) Presentation • Required format for submission : URL link to presentation on OneDrive (as online text) o Duration : 7 - 8 minutes All refencing and citations require Harvard referencing style . Students must avoid plagiarism and use the Harvard Referencing Guide and Turnitin to ensure that their sources are correctly cited.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2 Plagiarism includes the use of artificial intelligence tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Grammarly, or similar) when output is copied and pasted from these sites. Students should also note that they must submit new and original work for every attempt. Submitting the same work for multiple assessments is considered an academic offence and may result in disciplinary action. For further guidance, please refer to the Academic Policies and Procedures Manual and the Student Good Practice Manual in AI Literacy available on the Student Services page for further details. Go to the next page .

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Forum Fail 0 - 59% B orderline fail 60 - 69 % Fair 70 - 79% Good 80 - 89% Exceptional 90 - 100% Posts reflect insufficient mastery of content, with frequent inaccuracies and misunderstanding of key concepts. Contributions rarely link to course materials or peers’ posts, failing to support discussion. Engagement with others is minimal or irrelevant. P osts are often late, limiting interaction. Tone, clarity, and professional conventions are frequently neglected. Posts demonstrate limited achievement, with partial understanding and superficial or inconsistent application of concepts. Links to course materials and peer contributions are weak, and discussions lack depth. Engagement with others is minimal, often restr icted to brief or repetitive responses. Posts are mostly on time but rarely stimulate extended peer interaction. Professional conventions are inconsistently applied, with occasional lapses in tone, clarity, or respect. Posts show sound understanding of content, generally applying concepts and terminology accurately, though with some minor gaps or inconsistencies. Connections to course materials and peers’ posts are clear and contribute to discussion, but critical engagem ent is limited. Engagement with others is constructive, typically through elaboration or clarification of ideas. Posts are timely, supporting meaningful interaction. Professional conventions are generally adhered to, with clear, respectful communication. Posts demonstrate high - quality understanding, with consistent, accurate use of concepts and terminology. Ideas are strongly connected to course materials and professional contexts, providing insightful or applied examples. Engagement with peers is meaningf ul, often extending discussion through critical questioning, elaboration, or reflection. Posts are consistently timely and enhance forum dialogue. Conventions are well followed, with professional, clear, and respectful communication throughout. Posts exhibit exceptional mastery and critical insight, with precise, sophisticated, and nuanced use of concepts and terminology. Contributions make strong connections to course materials, research, and professional practice, offering original perspectives or critical analysis. Engagement with peers is proactive, challenging, and expanding discussion in substantial ways. Posts are consistently timely and foster a rich, collaborative forum environment. Professional conventions are exemplary, with polished, a rticulate, and highly respectful communication. Written A ssignment Fail 0 - 59% B orderline fail 60 - 69 % Fair 70 - 79% Good 80 - 89% Exceptional 90 - 100% Purpose , Understanding & Content 25% Purpose is unclear or absent. The work demonstrates serious misunderstandings or confusion regarding key concepts. Content lacks relevance or depth, and arguments are either missing or unsupported by evidence. An attempt is made to address the task, but the purpose is vague or inconsistently applied. Some relevant concepts are included, but analysis is weak or descriptive. Key ideas may be misapplied or underdeveloped. The purpose is mostly clear and appropriate to the level. Demonstrates a competent grasp of the topic, though some gaps in understanding may remain. Arguments are generally supported, with limited but relevant insight. Clear, coherent and well - supported purpose. Demonstrates strong conceptual understanding and the ability to apply knowledge with increasing independence. Arguments are logical and appropriately evidenced. Purpose is focused and intellectually engaging. Demonstrates excellent understanding and thoughtful application of complex ideas. Content is accurate, nuanced, and supported by robust evidence. Analytical insight is sustained throughout. Organisation & Coherence Lacks logical progression. Paragraphs or sections are disconnected or poorly ordered. Basic structure is present but inconsistently applied. Sections may be repetitive or misaligned. Organisational structure is sound, with clear sections. Flow may be occasionally awkward, Well - organised and coherent. Each section contributes to a logical progression of ideas. Structure is sophisticated and purposeful, guiding the reader through a well - crafted argument.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2 20% No clear introduction or conclusion. Difficult to follow. Transitions are weak, and flow is uneven. but the reader can generally follow the argument. Transitions are smooth, and the structure enhances clarity. Transitions are seamless, and the organisation enhances impact. Introduction and conclusion are incisive and effective. Communication & Expression 15% Communication is ineffective, with frequent language or structural errors that obscure meaning. Tone is inappropriate for academic work. Meaning is occasionally unclear due to language issues or lack of fluency. Academic tone is inconsistently applied. Written or spoken delivery lacks confidence or clarity. Communication is mostly clear and appropriate, though occasional language issues or stylistic lapses may affect readability. Generally suitable academic tone. Clear and fluent academic communication with only minor errors. Style is professional and well - suited to the discipline. Oral delivery is confident and articulate. Language is precise, fluent, and engaging. Tone and style are highly appropriate, demonstrating command of academic discourse. Oral or written communication is confident, polished, and compelling. Authenticity, Critical Thinking & Integration 20% No critical thinking or originality is evident. Work relies on description or unexamined ideas. Ideas are not connected or developed. No synthesis or evaluation. Some attempt at original thought, but arguments are basic and underdeveloped. Little engagement with opposing perspectives. Connections between ideas are weak. Shows evidence of critical thinking and evaluation. Some original insights and attempts to synthesise ideas are present but not fully developed or consistently maintained. Demonstrates thoughtful, analytical engagement. Critical perspectives are explored, and independent judgement is evident. Good integration of ideas from various sources. Original, reflective, and critically sophisticated. Demonstrates synthesis across concepts, sources, or frameworks. Offers compelling, well - argued insights supported by evidence and evaluation. Use of Sources & Referencing 20% Uses few or no appropriate sources. Citations may be absent or incorrectly formatted. Work may contain plagiarism or demonstrate poor academic integrity. Some attempt to use sources, but integration is weak or inappropriate. Referencing is inconsistent and may include significant formatting errors. Relevant sources are used, but not always effectively integrated. Citation style is mostly accurate, though some inconsistencies may be present. Limited engagement with the source material. Uses a good range of credible, relevant sources. Referencing is accurate and enhances the credibility of arguments. Shows clear understanding of academic practice. Sources are expertly chosen, critically evaluated, and integrated seamlessly. Referencing is precise and fully compliant with academic conventions. Demonstrates deep engagement with scholarly material.