Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
CRKC5003 Global Business Systems and Culture Interim Assignment and Final Assessment University of Cumbria and Robert Kennedy College
General Instructions – Please read carefully
Your overall grade for the module will be based on a portfolio consisting of your performance in the unit discussions in the Forum, the Midterm Assignment and the Final Assessment; this will be summarised in a Portfolio of Evidence to be submitted by midnight (Swiss time) on the last day of the sixth module.
The portfolio should consist of the following three activities:
1. Forum Contributions – throughout the module (20% of the overall grade)
a) Include a log of all the contributions you have made to the Forum. Your contributions should be included in a table labelled according to each unit and the forum task(s). You can include your contributions as a screen shot of your posts or you can cut and paste these from the forum. This table is not included in the word count, but it evidences your engagement with the materials in each of the units.
b) Based on the log of all your forum contributions, reflect on ONE forum exercise or task that you found particularly interesting. This reflection (500 words) should include i. an explanation as to why you found this interesting
ii. a summary of the discussion in the forum iii. a summary of what you learned from the forum discussion including any responses to your
contribution.
2. Midterm Assignment – to be submitted by midnight (Swiss time) on the last day of Unit 3 (30% of the overall grade)
You are to select any country from the Social Progress Initiative list of Tier 2 or 3 countries (see below) and prepare a 1-2 page (maximum 800 words) summary overview of the country (A) from the point of view of an international company (Company X) in one of the “higher” Tier (i.e. 1 or 2) countries (country B) that is considering A as a potential future market or supply source (either by direct investment or by importing from A). The company should be fictional, but its industry should have some relevance to country A. The summary of the country should outline its basic characteristics (e.g. size, climate, governmental system, GDP, languages, education, health, etc.) and outline its strengths and limitations relevant to the industry and any potential issues of concern relevant to Company X. The text should not include any italics, underlining or bold, and you can include one or two exhibits to support the paper (but no more). Sources can be listed at the end of the paper, and do not count towards the word-count; in-text citations are not required.
When you have completed your analysis you should press the Upload button for the assignment and copy the contents of your text document into the box marked “Text”. Then upload any supporting exhibits (maximum of two, in jpg, jpeg or png formats only) to the “Attachments” section. After uploading you should now see that a new Forum discussion thread for the interim assignment has opened. If you are the first to upload the submission you will only see your own posting, but if you are not the first you will also see the postings from the other students.
Once several students have posted their analysis, but no later than seven days after the end of Unit 3, you are required, in the new Forum thread, to critique (with both positive and negative comments supported with evidence as appropriate) the submissions of other students, both in terms of the contents of their submissions and the presentation style itself.
General feedback will be posted in the Forum by the end of Unit 4, and through your home page you will receive an indication of your performance, using the “Feedback to Student” rubric.
3. Final Assignment – to be submitted by midnight (Swiss time) on the last day of Unit 6 (50% of the overall grade)
Based on the country (A) that you have profiled for the interim assessment you are required to prepare a 1,500 word paper (including exhibits if required) for the top executives of Company Z to prepare them for a visit to A for a meeting with Alpha, a company in A that you have identified as a potential partner for Z’s entry into A. You have already made several trips to A, and held a few meetings with Alpha, and are aware that the cultural differences between A and Z’s home country, B, are significant. Based on an analysis of theories of culture and differences (e.g. CAGE, Hall, Hofstede, Lewis), the briefing document should explain the differences between the cultures of A and B, and what the executives are likely to experience in the meeting. You should also propose a way for representatives from Z and Alpha to work together in joint teams to develop the final details of this exciting new opportunity. Papers can include exhibits as necessary. Sources should be listed at the end of the paper, and in-text citations to Harvard are required. Having completed units 4, 5 and 6 you may decide to change your initial (Interim assignment) selection of country A; you may do so if you wish, provided that you remain within Tiers 2 or 3.
Feedback to Student (to be used for the interim and final submissions)
Exceptional
(70-100%)
Exceeds expectations
(60-69%)
Meets expectations
(40-59%)
Improvement needed
(30-39%)
Unsatisfactory
(0-29%)
– – – – – – – – – – – – Passing Grades – – – – – – – – – – – – – Failing Grades – – –
Participates consistently (level of engagement)
Participation seeks and exploits every opportunity for interaction in the forum through prolific follow-on contributions. Student demonstrates leadership in the discussions.
Student’s presence demonstrates eagerness to participate and support collective learning. Student demonstrates leadership in the discussions.
Student engages with colleagues in various discussion threads on a regular basis and in a meaningful manner.
Only few largely ad hoc contributions are made. Contributions only minimally promote dialogue.
Participation does not comply with SA requirements. Dialogue is not enhanced, there is no or minimal contribution to the development of knowledge in the classroom.
Collaborates towards the collective generation of higher learning inferences
Contributes substantial viewpoints in discussions with the aim to explore meanings and identify hidden values.
Contributions advance discussions by challenging class with well-substantiated viewpoints.
Contributions are well positioned in the realm of unit’s theme and well integrated with ongoing discussions.
Contributions do not reinforce unit’s concepts and ideas and remain disconnected from ongoing discussions.
Initial contribution is poor and there are no follow on contributions.
Demonstrates a good understanding of knowledge and uses theory to inform arguments
Excellent understanding of subject. Contributions add new meaning in theoretical discoveries and help the class widen its horizons.
Very good understanding of subject. Theories that span module boundaries are used to offer insightful reflections.
Satisfactory understanding of subject. Contributions are built upon appropriate theoretical perspectives.
Understanding of basics of subject. Theory is only sporadically deployed, while not always used meaningfully.
Limited understanding of subject. No theory is used in initial and/or follow on contributions
Writing meets the standards of graduate studies (language clarity, organization, citing and referencing, etc.)
Excellent writing standards are demonstrated. Postings are written in clear, concise, technically correct English suitable for academic audiences. Harvard Referencing System is correctly applied.
Writing offers an academic reading where meanings are conveyed clearly and meaningfully. Harvard Referencing System is correctly applied.
Work unfolds coherently and smoothly using an organized approach i.e. sections are used, appropriate headings are chosen, etc. Harvard Referencing System is correctly applied.
Writing uses correct language but meanings are not conveyed clearly. Work should become more coherent. There are several mistakes in the application of Harvard Referencing System.
Writing is sloppy, disconnected and exhibits strong expression difficulties. Harvard Referencing System is used wrongly.
Overall grade: – Unsatisfactory: 0-29% – Improvement needed: 30-39% – Meets expectations: 40-59% – Exceeds expectations: 60-69% – Exceptional: 70-100%
