E-commerce report
ASSESSMENT: <Individual Report>
| Module Code: | BHO0171 |
| Module Title: | E-commerce |
| Assessment Type | Individual Report |
| Academic Year | 2020/21 Term 1 |
| Assessment Task |
|
For this assignment you need to develop a brief proposal for an E-commerce startup business. Accordingly, the aim of your proposal is to attract the attention of potential angel investors.
|
| Task specific guidance:
In this work you must use the following sections:
1. Executive summary This is a brief summary of your business plan. The executive summary can help your potential angel investors to learn about your idea without having to read the full proposal. This section should be developed once you have completed sections 2 to 7 of your proposal. The words in this section will not be counted into the total word limit and should be between 150 – 250 words.
2. Table of contents You should create a table of contents via MS Word’s Automatic Table of Contents function, which can be found at the top left corner after you clicked References button at the top centre of MS Word. To use this function, you need to set the styles of your section titles and contents when writing. You can find available styles: Normal, Heading 1, Heading 2, etc. at the top right of MS Word window.
3. Description of the business (approximately 200 words) In this section you are expected to provide motivation and rationale for selecting a particular business domain. The aim of your proposal is to attract the attention of potential angel investors, who will be interested in the specific domain of business and your rationale for selecting it. You need to select one of the following business domains: • book publishing and retailing, • music publishing and retailing, • tourism and travel, • clothing retailing, • or any other idea for business you may have.
|
| 4. Describe your E-commerce business model (B2C or B2B), as well as the payment system and security measures you are planning to develop (approximately 800 words)
In this section you need to provide details and justification for your specific B2C or specific B2B model. You will also need to provide details regarding the payment system and security measures you are planning to develop.
This section is covered in teaching weeks 7 and 11. Teaching week 7: E-commerce business strategy (business models); Chapter 5. Teaching week 11: Payment systems and E-commerce security (Chapter 4).
5. Marketing strategy (approximately 300 words) in this section you need to consider and motivate the type of marketing strategy for your business.
This section is covered in teaching week 8. Teaching week 8: E-commerce, marketing, advertising (Chapter 6; Section 6.2).
6. Conclusion (approximately 200 words) Summarise the attractive points in your proposal (innovation).
7. Develop your website (WordPress) and provide the Link to the website Construct a functioning e-commerce website for your business, using a development tool such as WordPress. Copy the URL address of your website and paste it in this section.
This section is covered in teaching week 10. Teaching week 10: E-commerce Infrastructure and Developing your website – WordPress (Chapter 2, Section 2.4; Chapter 3, Sections 3.5 and 3.6).
8. References (there is no word limit for this section).
Required Reading:
Laudon, K. C., & Traver, C. G. (2021). E-commerce 2020-2021: Business, Technology, Society (Global Edition). Pearson Education Limited.
|
|
| General study guidance:
• Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from a source. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list.
• Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style. For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link: o APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/
|
|
| • | The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct. You can contact them at busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk. |
| • |
If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation Development Centre team busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk. It is possible to arrange 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop. |
| •
|
Do not exceed the word limit. |
| Learning Outcomes |
|
This section is for information only.
The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.
On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:
Learning Outcomes:
5. Understand, analyse and implement current business modelling techniques within an online context. |
| Assessment criteria |
|
• The Assessment Criteria are shown the end of this document. Your tutor will discuss how your work will be assessed/marked and will explain how the assessment criteria apply to this piece of work. These criteria have been designed for your level of study.
• These criteria will be used to mark your work and will be used to support the electronic feedback you receive on your marked assignment. Before submission, check that you have tried to meet the requirements of the higher-grade bands to the best of your ability. Please note that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
• The Learning Innovation Development Centre can help you to understand and use the assessment criteria. To book an appointment, either visit them on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk
|
| 6. Demonstrate efficient implementation and effective improvement mechanisms that allow online business growth through the use of ecommerce and associated technologies.
7. Explore current technological innovation and advise on its implementation within an e-commerce environment 8. Practice implementing e-commerce solutions through the use of web-based software technology.
Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.
|
|
| Submission information | |
| Word Limit: | 1500 |
| Submission Date: | 18/12/2020 |
| Feedback Date: | 27/01/2020 |
| Submission Time: | 15:00 |
| Submission Method: | Electronically via module site in Brightspace. Paper/hard copy submissions are not required. For technical support, please contact: busvle@hud.ac.uk |
Appendix 1 Assessment criteria
These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed. They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.
Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
The grades between Pass and Very Good should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module. The Exceptional and Outstanding categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the Excellent requirements, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.
| 90-100 | 80-89 | 70-79 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | 30-39 | 20-29 | 10 – 19 | 0 – 9 | |
| Level | Exceptional
(Outstanding+) |
Outstanding ( Excellent +) | Excellent | Very good | Good | Pass | Unsatisfactory | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
| Fulfilment of relevant
learning outcomes |
Met | Met | Met | Met | Met | Met | Not met or partially met | Not met or partially met | Not met or minimal | Not met or minimal |
| Response to the
question /task |
Full command
of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity |
Clear command of
assessment task; sophisticated approach |
Very good response to task; elements of sophistication in response | Well-developed response to
assessment task with evident development of ideas |
Secure response to assessment task but not
developed sufficiently developed to achieved higher grade |
Adequate response that meets minimum threshold, but
with limitations of development |
Nearly a
sufficient response but lacks key aspects. |
Insufficient response | Little response | No response |
| Knowledge and understanding (F, I and H)
Knowledge requirements are different at F, I and H level. Please use the relevant level knowledge assessment criteria |
||||||||||
| Knowledge of the key concepts and principles required in the
assessmen t task (F) |
Work demonstrates
originality/creati vity or an inspired individual perspective on information, theories and concepts, and a considered individual voice. |
Effective and extensive use of relevant wider information, theories and concepts and sophisticated integration of ideas | Extended breadth of information, theories and concepts evident and integration of ideas.
No misunderstan dings / gaps.
|
Appropriate information,
theories, concepts and in appropriate depth using module. Some integration ideas.
No major errors or |
Most relevant information,
theories, concepts and appropriately.
Lacks depth of integrating ideas.
Few inaccuracies.
|
Adequate account of basic information, theories and concepts relevant to the assessment. Some significant gaps.
Limitations in understanding |
Mentions some terminology relating to theories, concepts.
Some poor or mistaken of knowledge of concepts and principles relevant to the |
Very poor of knowledge of concepts and principles
relevant to the assessment brief. Major misunderstandi ngs or omissions. |
Negligible of knowledge of concepts and principles
relevant to the assessment brief |
None demonstrated in the submission. |
| 90-100 | 80-89 | 70-79 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | 30-39 | 20-29 | 10 – 19 | 0 – 9 | |
| Level | Exceptional
(Outstanding+) |
Outstanding ( Excellent +) | Excellent | Very good | Good | Pass | Unsatisfactory | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
| misunderstandi ngs. | and/or inaccuracies | assessment brief.
Extensive gaps. |
||||||||
| Detailed knowledge and critical understand ing of
relevant knowledge in the subject (I) |
Skilfully integrate ideas from beyond the module or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative insights into the subject, tensions, and ambiguities in a considered individual voice. Shows an ease with contingency and ambiguity. | Skilfully integrates extended knowledge/ ideas from beyond the module, and disciplinary areas to provide
excellent critical insights. Shows a level of comfort with contingency and ambiguity.
|
Comprehensi vely draws on an extended knowledge to show welldeveloped critical insights and good knowledge integration.
No major errors or misunderstan dings or gaps.
|
Accurately demonstrates extended knowledge
showing good critical insights and some knowledge integration.
No major errors or misunderstandi ngs or gaps.
|
Accurately demonstrates most basic knowledge
offers a basic critical understanding .
Lacks depth of integrating ideas.
Few errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance. |
Adequately demonstrates relevant basic knowledge and
some, but limited, critical understanding
No integration of ideas.
Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance |
Mentions some terminology relating to theories,
concepts
Little critical understanding of relevant wellestablished area(s) of knowledge with a many of errors, misunderstandi ngs, and omissions |
Very poor knowledge or
critical understanding of relevant wellestablished theories / principles. Major misunderstandi ngs or omissions. |
Negligible coverage of knowledge or
critical understanding of wellestablished / major theories / principles |
Wholly irrelevant. |
| Conceptual and critical understand ing of
contempor ary knowledge in the subject and its limitations (H) |
Skilfully integrates conceptual knowledge from other modules or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative critical insights into the subject and its ambiguities in a considered individual voice | Excellent conceptual knowledge and critical appreciation of the key tensions, controversies disagreement s and disputes drawing on ideas from beyond the module bounds. Offers original, | Draws on an extended conceptual knowledge
Shows very strong ability to apply/ critique ideas and a welldeveloped consideration of the limitations of knowledge.
Performance at this level |
Demonstrates competent conceptual knowledge drawing on a broader knowledge base. A good attempt at integrating and critiquing. Some solid insights into the limitations of knowledge.
No major errors or |
Demonstrates secure conceptual knowledge,
conventional critical understanding of relevant knowledge. Some awareness of the limitations of knowledge.
Lacks depth of integrating ideas.
|
Demonstrates adequate basic conceptual knowledge,
some formulaic critical understanding and awareness of limitations of knowledge.
No integration of ideas.
Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance |
Mentions some terminology relating to theories,
concepts
Demonstrates insufficient grasp of a basic knowledge. Very limited critical understanding and awareness of the limitations of knowledge.
|
Demonstrates
little core knowledge. No critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.
Major misunderstandi ngs and significant omissions. |
Demonstrates
virtually no core knowledge or critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.
Many errors in understanding and extensive omissions. |
Wholly irrelevant. |
| 90-100 | 80-89 | 70-79 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | 30-39 | 20-29 | 10 – 19 | 0 – 9 | |
| Level | Exceptional
(Outstanding+) |
Outstanding ( Excellent +) | Excellent | Very good | Good | Pass | Unsatisfactory | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
| compelling, insightful or interesting additional perspectives. | and above shows
intellectual comfort with doubt, ambiguity, controversy, uncertainly and complexity rather than seeking certainty and a single right answer. |
misunderstandi ng. |
Few inaccuracies.
|
Many errors in understanding and omissions. | ||||||
|
Cognitive / Intellectual skills A range of means of framing cognitive and intellectual skills are provided to reflect the variety of assessment tasks across the School. Module leaders should consider the following criteria and select the one(s) that best reflect the assessment tasks. Assessment task briefs should be designed with sufficient information to provide students with a clear understanding of the core intellectual skills expected within the bounds of the module– corresponding with the appropriate level of study
Module leaders should be clear about the nature of information / data to be analysed, as well as the ‘tools’ of analysis expected. Analytical tools can be based on logic (comparison, connection, categorisation, evaluation, justification) and/or numerical (e.g. statistics, financial) or other.
|
||||||||||
| Analysis of information / data using qualitative or quantitative
analytical methods |
Shows inspired / creative insights of both
analytical method and results/ findings/ conclusions. |
Adapts, combines, and possibly reconfigures recognized analytical methods in a way that
leads to enhanced insight into a problem area. |
Extended and accurate analysis of information / data.
Expected analytical methods used are wholly appropriately within normal boundaries.
Fully appropriate results/conclu sions of analysis within the scope of the tool. |
Competent
analysis with evident use of analytical methods.
Fully appropriate results / conclusions / findings.
No major errors or misunderstandi ng. |
Secure basic analysis with generally sound use of analytical methods.
Largely appropriate results with few significant errors |
Adequate basic analysis with largely appropriate use of analytical methods.
Partially appropriate results/ finding/conclusio ns with some errors |
Inadequate analysis with largely appropriate use of analytical methods. Partially appropriate results with some errors | Barely any relevant
analytical methods of information / data. Major misunderstandi ngs or omissions |
Negligible analysis of information /
data Many errors in understanding and omissions. |
No relevant analysis of information / data |
| 90-100 | 80-89 | 70-79 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | 30-39 | 20-29 | 10 – 19 | 0 – 9 | |
| Level | Exceptional
(Outstanding+) |
Outstanding ( Excellent +) | Excellent | Very good | Good | Pass | Unsatisfactory | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
|
|
||||||||||
| Application of
knowledge / skills to practice / a solution(s) / proposal / conclusion |
Creative & original
application of knowledge /skills to produce new insights and offers a novel and comprehensive solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the boundary of the brief. |
Applies knowledge /
skills to develop a comprehensi ve solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the original boundary of the brief.
Extended insights. |
Applies knowledge /
skill in a sophisticated manner to develop a well conceptualise d and solution / proposal / conclusion.
Alternative approaches might be considered.
Thoughtful and developed insights/ creativity. |
Applies knowledge/skill
in a logical and developed manner to provide a considered solution / proposal / conclusion.
Some good insights /creativity
No logical errors. |
Applies knowledge/ski
ll in a logical manner to provide a more developed solution / proposal / conclusion.
Some but limited insights/creati vity.
Few logical errors |
Applies knowledge/skills in a basic manner to develop a simple but limited
solution/ proposal/conclus ion. No insights / creativity Logical errors evident. |
Use of some knowledge to provide a solution / proposal / conclusion, but limited solution/ proposal / conclusion | Some use of knowledge, but mostly insufficient. | Weak use of knowledge / skills evident. Very limited solution / proposal / conclusion. | No evidence of attempt to analyse or interpret information or provide a
solution/propo sal/ conclusion. |
| Argument, reasoning | Intellectually coherent and comprehensive argument that articulates authentic, considered stance in own voice | Compelling argument that shows intellectual agility and captures ambiguity. Wholly relevant. | Sharply focused and complex argument.
All points wholly relevant
Convincing and coherent reasoning. |
Clearly articulated argument with consideration of different perspectives.
Mostly relevant points.
Logically coherent reasoning. |
Satisfactory argument but limited in complexity.
Broadly relevant points.
Some limitations in terms of reasoning |
Adequate basic level of
argument provided. Some relevant points but also a number of irrelevant points Errors in reasoning. |
Weak argument with substantial
errors in reasoning. |
Descriptive or largely incoherent | Largely incoherent | No argument is offered |
| Use of referenced* evidence and sources to support task
*Normally APA 7th or OSCOLA |
Systematic and rigorous use of evidence/ sources beyond the normal bounds of the module to robustly support purpose of the work. Evidence | Comprehensi ve use of high-quality evidence and sources beyond the normal bounds of the module and shows | Task is very well supported by very extensive use of evidence / sources.
All points fully substantiated. |
Task is well supported by more developed use
of sources/eviden ce
Most points are substantiated |
Task is supported by several sources /evidence.
Some points are unsubstantiat ed. |
Task supported by basic evidence and sources but is over-reliant on very few sources.
Significant number of points |
One or two apparent references to concepts introduced in the assessment task
|
Little or no
evidence
Significant errors and omissions in citation and application of referencing |
Unsupported
Very little attempt to cite or reference |
No evidence No citations |
| 90-100 | 80-89 | 70-79 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | 30-39 | 20-29 | 10 – 19 | 0 – 9 | |
| Level | Exceptional
(Outstanding+) |
Outstanding ( Excellent +) | Excellent | Very good | Good | Pass | Unsatisfactory | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
| of independent reading and research.
Referencing fully competent and accurate |
evidence of independent reading and research.
Referencing fully competent and accurate |
No unsubstantiat ed points.
Referencing fully competent and accurate |
and no major unsubstantiate
d points
Referencing largely competent and accurate. Some minor errors in citations or references. |
Referenced appropriately
Referencing largely competent and accurate but may include errors |
are unsubstantiated. Some effort to reference, but frequent errors and omissions | Very few points are substantiated using evidence / sources.
Significant errors and omissions in referencing |
||||
| Structure and, style in supporting the
developmen t of ideas (criteria relevant for essay-style work) |
Elegant flow and structure is
integral to the argument. An exceptional demonstration of academic writing which effectively guides the reader. |
Elegance of flow that
skilfully through the work and excellently supports key message.
|
Well-ordered logical flow of material in a fluid style which contributes
well to the development of the key messages and guides the reader through the writer’s thinking.
|
Clear logical and structured flow of material that guides the reader and supports the development of key messages. | Basic logical flow of material with elements of signposting for the reader which supports key messages to some extent, but which can lapse in places. | Some logical flow of material with some observable elements of signposting for the reader but elements of disorganisation May contain repetition or irrelevant material which obscures the key messages. | Some attempt at structure, but disorganized and ineffectual in reflecting argument or analysis. | No evident intent of structure. Disorganised, irrelevant or repetitive content. | None | Insufficient evidence |
| Language and style | Lucid, fluent, elegant, and compelling, using a distinctive and individual voice | Clear and fluent with a breadth of vocabulary. Discernible author voice. | Clear functional writing with a discernible author voice. | Clear and straightforward use language.
Largely error free |
Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax.
Limited flaws. |
Basic use of vocabulary,
grammar and syntax that conveys the meaning of the text.
|
Many
vocabulary, grammar and syntax errors that obscure meaning |
Extensive flaws in vocabulary,
grammar and syntax that prevent the text from being understandable . |
Unacceptable | Insufficient evidence |
| Formatting
of work (font, pagination, labelling) |
Impeccable formatting
entirely consonant with assessment brief expectations |
Excellent formatting.
Polished and consonant with the assessment brief expectations. |
Formatting consonant with
assessment brief expectations. No formatting issues. |
Formatting very largely free from major presentational problems and consonant with assessment brief. | Formatting broadly consonant
with assessment brief but some breaches of guidance. |
Acceptable formatting, but some breaches of guidance.
Some unprofessional aspects |
Formatting not sufficiently consonant with
assessment brief. Multiple formatting issues. |
Formatting not consonant with assessment
brief. Very poor with multiple formatting issues |
No discernible attempt format work. | No formatting |
| Reflection, creative thinking, and questioning | Profoundly insightful and creatively original | Excellent insight and demonstratin | Clearly articulated insight and creativity | Some good
insights and evidence of |
Demonstrates some basic insights. Limited | Largely descriptive with some basic | Descriptive with very limited
inadequate insight |
Inadequate insight or understanding | No persuasive evidence of reflection | None |
| 90-100 | 80-89 | 70-79 | 60-69 | 50-59 | 40-49 | 30-39 | 20-29 | 10 – 19 | 0 – 9 | |
| Level | Exceptional
(Outstanding+) |
Outstanding ( Excellent +) | Excellent | Very good | Good | Pass | Unsatisfactory | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | Unacceptable |
| g meaningful creativity | individual creativity | creativity and originality. | insight. Limited creativity. | |||||||
| Reflexivity and
developmen tal learning
|
Outstanding and profound
self-awareness and critical reflection on inner world and its implications for development at multiple levels. |
Profound self-
awareness arising from extensive critical reflection on inner world and its implications for development |
Demonstrates insightful selfawareness
and critical reflection on inner world and insightful implications for development |
Demonstrates clear self-
awareness and reflection on inner world and some awareness of implications for development |
Some selfawareness and fair reflection on inner world. Limited awareness of potential for development. | Basic, but restricted selfawareness. Little reflection on inner world and limited awareness of potential for
development |
Lack of selfawareness or reflection on inner world and scant awareness of potential for development. | Minimal selfawareness or ability to express inner world and potential for development. | No selfawareness or ability to articulate in a world | None |
