Individual Portfolio of ‘Innovation Profiles’



MGT7174 Global Innovation Management

2020-2021 (Semester 2)



Re-Assessment 1: Individual Portfolio of ‘Innovation Profiles’ (3 x 350 words; 40% weighting)



Key Requirements

You will prepare a portfolio comprising 3 short written analytical profiles of different innovation examples. All 3 examples should come from one of the specified industries below.
Choose one of the following broad industries: ‘Financial Services’ or ‘Agri-Food
From the chosen industry, identify and research (using reputable online sources) one recent (last 10 years) example of each of the following types of innovation:
  1. Either an example of ‘radical innovation’ or an example of ‘disruptive innovation’ (per week 3 topic)
  2. A specific ‘business model innovation’ (per week 4 topic)
  3. A specific ‘open innovation’ initiative (per week 5 topic)
For each of the three chosen examples, you should compose a short written analytical profile (maximum of 350 words each) comprising the following required elements:
  An initial paragraph that provides a concise description and explanation of the key features of the chosen innovation example, and justifies it as an example of that type of innovation (i.e. with reference to relevant academic definitions and concepts).  
  Two additional paragraphs of analysis, guided by insights from the relevant academic literature. Each of these paragraphs should have a clear focus (normally a single main point, with elaboration and evidence) and have a thematic heading. See further guidance below for ideas on content.  
You should structure each profile into three paragraphs, as per the content requirements above.
  • Write in clear, plain English were possible. Keep sentences short and direct (‘to the point’). You can use thematic sub-headings to provide structure within each innovation profile.
  • Follow the ‘style guidelines’ (see below) when formatting your assessment.
  • Follow normal Harvard citation and referencing Include a reference list after each of your innovation profiles (not included in the word count).
  • Figures, tables and other visual exhibits (e.g. images) should be included in your profiles to support your written narrative (e.g. concisely present supporting evidence) and engage the reader.
  • Note, this task is mainly assessing the first module learning outcome (“Understand, and critically appraise, a range of classic and contemporary innovation conceptualizations, and be able to apply these to real-world practice at the level of the firm”) and topic material covered in Block B (weeks 3-5).



Assessment Criteria

  • This assessment will be marked against the following criteria, using a marking rubric (see Appendix 1).
  • The QMS postgraduate conceptual marking scale will be used to judge levels of attainment for each criterion (see Appendix 2).
  • There are 3 main criteria for assessing this task:
    1. Quality of description, explanation and justification of the chosen innovation examples.
    2. Quality of analysis of the chosen innovation examples, using insights from relevant academic literature, and demonstrated level of academic understanding.
    3. Evidence of relevant research on the chosen examples and use of supporting evidence/citations.

Note: The second criterion above will have particular importance in determining the mark awarded.


Further Guidance on Approach and Content

     What sorts of analysis could be included in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of my innovation profile?

  • g. for your first example, you must decide whether to choose an example of radical innovation or disruptive innovation – and be very clear on the distinction between these concepts. It could be a product or process innovation. It may be a system innovation or component innovation.

If choosing an example of radical innovation, you might want to contextualise it in relation to previous radical and incremental innovations in the same industry; examine the technological or knowledge foundations of this innovation; examine evidence of its impact on the marketplace and competitors; introduce related concepts like the S-curve model, etc.

If choosing an example of disruptive innovation, you might want to evaluate the example against Christensen’s ideas about the characteristics of disruptive innovations, contrast it against sustaining innovations, examine evidence of its impact on incumbent firms in the marketplace, or consider the perspectives of other authors on what does or does not constitute disruptive innovation.

  • g. for the chosen example of business model innovation, it is advisable to use a framework such as Osterwalder & Pigneur’s (2010) ‘Business model canvas’ to identify and comparatively analyse the most innovative dimensions of the BM innovation and explain how it creates, delivers and captures value. You might also consider the impact of the BM innovation on the marketplace. o e.g. for the chosen example of open innovation, you might want to classify as the OI as inbound/outbound, identify some of the likely benefits/challenges of OI in the chosen example. You should try to identify/describe the OI strategy or model used (see Saebi & Foss, 2015). In the case of OI, and compared to the radical/disruptive and business model examples, it may be less easy/possible to evaluate the impact on the marketplace; and you may need to focus on a particular OI process or initiative, rather than a specific product resulting from OI.
  • in addition, any of your examples could be evaluated against some of the ‘myths of innovation’ (see week 1 – Anthony, 2011; Berkun, 2013; Birkinshaw et al., 2011; Sawhney & Wolcott, 2004) or you could consider some of the characteristics of the organisation responsible for the innovation or the organisational processes that led to the innovation (see Week 2).



Some Mistakes to AVOID

  • Merely describing examples without any analysis. Description/explanation of the chosen examples is necessary but not sufficient. Academically informed analysis is required to pass the task. Good analysis tries to determine why things are as they are. Analysis often requires an in-depth look at the constituent parts of a phenomenon and how they relate to one another. Analysis usually results in clear arguments.
  • Ignoring academic theory and simply offering opinions. Good profiles will show evidence of engagement with the recommended topic readings. They will use relevant academic theory/frameworks/concepts to the guide and inform analysis of the chosen examples.
  • Using poor quality or unreliable data sources. Reputable and trustworthy data sources should be used to inform your explanation and analysis. You should be cautious about online data sources that can be edited by a user community (like Wikipedia) or when the publisher is an unknown organisation.


Style Guidelines

  • All assignments must be word processed in Word. You must submit a Word file (not any other format).
  • Please use a clear, plain font such as Calibri, Verdana or Arial (minimum font size 11pt).
  • Please use double line-spacing (to improve on-screen readability) and insert page numbers.
  • The first page of your essay should be a title page that contains the following information:
    1. Your name and student ID number.
    2. Module code and module title – i.e. MGT7174 Global Innovation Management.
    3. The title of the assessment (i.e. ‘Assessment 1: Individual Portfolio of Innovation Profiles’)
  • You must state an accurate word-count at the end of each profile (excludes figures, tables and reference list). Work that exceeds the word limit or omits an accurate word-count may be penalised.
  • Please use the Harvard referencing system. A complete reference list, giving full details of all sources used, must be provided at the end of your assignment. Guidance on referencing can be found here.


Academic Conduct Warning

  • This will be an individual You should NOT collaborate with any other student. Collusion (e.g. working with another student) and plagiarism (e.g. copying from another student or published or online sources; allowing your own work to be copied; ‘passing off’ the ideas of others without proper acknowledgement; getting someone to help you write your assignment) are academic offences.
  • Turnitin software and tutor judgement will be used to identify potential offences.
  • Suspected offences will be referred to an academic offences panel, which may result in a sanction.
  • You are strongly encouraged to familiarise yourself with the university expectations and procedures on academic conduct. Useful student-focused guidance on these issues can be found here:
    • Student guide to University procedures for dealing with academic offences: intsandMisconduct/AcademicOffences/StudentGuide/

  • Advice on understanding plagiarism and how to avoid it: ingPlagiarism/


Late Submissions

Assessed work submitted after the deadline will be penalised at the rate of 5 marks for each working day late up to a maximum of five working days, after which a mark of zero should be awarded, i.e., day one is -5 marks; day two is -10 marks; day three is -15 marks, etc.


Exceptional Circumstances

If you have genuine Exceptional Circumstances and you think you need an extension, you should inform the Module Coordinator and your Adviser of Studies as soon as possible.

Click here for detailed guidance on the QUB Exceptional Circumstances policy, including definition of normally acceptable exceptional circumstances and what you process you need to follow.

Please note: module coordinators have no role in the awarding of extensions. This is the responsibility of the School EC panel and Director of Education.



Appendix 1: Marking and Feedback Sheet for Assessment 1


MGT7174 Global Innovation Management: Assessment 1 Feedback Sheet Individual Portfolio of Innovation Profiles (3 x 350 words; 40% weighting)


Student Name XX Provisional Mark Awarded* XX
  • Note: all grades remain provisional until ratified, or otherwise, by the relevant assessment board




Merit (60-69) Pass (50-59) Fail (0-49)
Assessment against specific criteria:        
Quality of description, explanation and justification of the chosen innovation examples
Quality of analysis of the chosen innovation examples, using insights from relevant academic literature, demonstrated academic understanding
Evidence of relevant research on the chosen examples and use of supporting evidence/citations


Overall comments:




Strengths of the work:


Areas for improvement (feed-forward):







Appendix 2: QMS Conceptual Equivalents Scale For Postgraduate Courses


  • Module content should be interpreted as the topic or area of research being undertaken in the study in keeping with the learning outcomes for the module.


The above criteria can be applied to both taught modules at M-level and the M-level dissertation (ignoring reference to module content).