BSD313MidtermActivitybriefandrubric-ReverseEngineeringGoogle-revised.docx

MIDTERM ASSESSMENT – Reverse Engineering Google

Written assignment (case)

Activity brief

BSD313 – Innovation Management for Digital Media
Online campus
Professor: Anthony Lawson | [email protected]

Description

Analyze the Reverse Engineering Google’s Innovation Machine case, paying particular attention to the table on page 6 and 7. Of these factors, which could be easily imitated by other companies?

Format

This activity must meet the following formatting requirements:
· Font size 12
· Double-spaced
· 2000 words
· Harvard Referencing System
· pdf only

Goal(s)

Analyze the Reverse Engineering case.

Due date

Date: Monday, 21 June 2021
Time: 14:00

Weight towards final grade

This activity has a weight of 40% towards the final grade.

Learning outcomes

1. Outcome one Understand the concept of innovation, and critically compare innovation, creativity, R & D and other associated terms.

2. Outcome two Assess innovation in the context of digital media.

Assessment criteria

See rubric below.

Rubric: written assignment

Criteria

Accomplished (A)

Proficient (B)

Partially proficient (C)

B line (D)

Fail (F)

Problem identification

(25%)

The business issue has been correctly identified, with a competent and comprehensive explanation of key driving forces and considerations. Impact on company operations has been correctly identified. Thorough analysis of the issue is presented.

The student correctly identified the issue(s), taking into account a variety of environmental and contextual drivers. Key case information has been identified and analyzed.

The student correctly identified the case (issues), considering obvious environmental/contextual drivers. There is evidence of analysis, but it lacks depth.

The student correctly identified the issue(s) but analysis was weak. An absence of context – the work is basically descriptive with little analysis.

The student failed to correctly identify the issue(s); analysis was incorrect or too superficial to be of use; information was misinterpreted.

Information gathering

(25%)

The student showed skill in gathering information and analyzing it for the purposes of filling the information gaps identified. Comprehensive and relevant.

Relevant information gaps were identified and additional relevant information was found to fill them. At least two different types of sources were used. The student demonstrates coherent criteria for selecting information but needs greater depth.

The student correctly identified at least one information gap and found relevant information, but which was limited in scope. Some evidence of sound criteria for selecting information but not consistent throughout. Needs expansion.

An information gap was identified and the student found additional information to fill it. However, this was limited in scope. Weak criteria for the selection of necessary information.

Information was taken at face value with no questioning of its relevance or value. Gaps in the information were not identified or were incorrect.

Conclusions

(25%)

The student evaluated, analyzed, synthesized all information provided to create a perceptive set of conclusions to support the decisions and solutions.

The student evaluated, analyzed and synthesized to create a conclusion(s) which support decisions and solutions.

The student reached conclusions, but they were limited and provided minimal direction for decision-making and solutions.

The conclusion was reasonable but lacked depth and would not be a basis for suitable strategy development.

The student formed a conclusion, but it was not reasonable. It was either unjustified, incorrect or unrelated to the case in hand.

Solutions

(25%)

The student used problem solving techniques to make thoughtful, justified decisions about difficult and conflicting issues. A realistic solution was chosen which would provide maximum benefit to the company. Alternative solutions were explored and ruled out.

The student used problem solving techniques to make appropriate decisions about complex issues. Relevant questions were asked and answered. A realistic solution was chosen. Alternatives were identified, explored and ruled out.

The student used problem-solving techniques to make appropriate decisions about simpler issues. The solution has limited benefit but does show understanding of implications of the decision. Alternatives were mentioned but not explored.

The student used problem solving techniques to make decisions about simpler issues but disregarded more complex issues. Implications of the decision were not considered. Alternatives were not offered.

The student formed a conclusion, but it was not reasonable. It was either unjustified, incorrect or unrelated to the case in hand.