Module code/name

MSIN0006 Business Intelligence

Module leader name

Dr Jeffrey Pittaway

Academic year

2023/24

Term

1

Assessment title

Coursework 2 – Sessions 6-10 Individual Research for Tableau Project

Individual/group assessment

Individual

Section

Content

A

Core information

B

Coursework brief and requirements

C

Module learning outcomes covered in this assessment

D

Groupwork instructions (if applicable)

E

How your work is assessed

F

Additional information

Note: Generic assessment criteria are included in section E. Any additional criteria specific to this

assessment are detailed in section F.

Details of the assessment brief

This coursework requires individual, not group or collaborative analysis and writing. Read and follow all instructions in this official brief. It supersedes any other representations made verbally by instructors, TAs, or others. No other criteria will necessarily be applied to submission grading, including representations or file submissions outside of the instructions or after the fact.

Submit a DOC, DOCX or PDF file and INCLUDE one plot as per instructions below. Structure and label each section exactly according to the sections in the following list. See the Grading Criteria section of this document to learn how/what you should write for the graders. Upon submission, you are advised to check the similarity score of your submission with the link beneath the submission box to avoid collusion in this individual coursework which is formal academic misconduct.

Data Transformation

Examine one column of data in one data set/table that is relevant to your group Proposition but different from your other group members. Use your findings to write a 1 paragraph management report answer to the following questions. What does each row of the data set represent? To measure the relevant factor/outcome with this column of data, do you need every single row or some grouping or subtotals of rows (e.g., by Week, location, device)? Is there some data you require (for each row or group) that needs to be calculated from this column (e.g., sum, average, count, just Month or Week or Year)? How does this column of data relate to other data: i.e., would you link to other data by userid, date/time, demographics, etc.?

Data Visualisation

Use Tableau with data on Tableau to create a plot (chart/visualisation) that relates one factor measure to one outcome measure from your group Proposition that is different from other group members. Include this plot in your submission document. Interpreting your plot, write a 1 paragraph management report answer to the following questions. What does the plot say about each measurement (e.g., changing much over time or not)? How do the Factor and Outcome plots compare (e.g., are there significant peaks/valleys at similar points if you used time series visualisation, or a correlation if you used an appropriate correlation visualisation)?

The Storyboard

Use the taught Chart Decision Tree to write a 3 brief paragraph explanation in your own distinct words (a) your rationale for the chart designs for each of the 3 viz in the group storyboard and (b) how

and why one of your preferred viz clearly delivers insight for the CEO with respect to the PROPOSITION for your group.

This coursework requires UNIQUE individual research contribution, NOT group or collaborative analysis

and writing.

Within each section of this assessment you may be assessed on the following aspects, as applicable and appropriate to this assessment, and should thus consider these aspects when fulfilling the requirements of each section:

• The accuracy of any calculations required.

• The strengths and quality of your overall analysis and evaluation;

• Appropriate use of relevant theoretical models, concepts and frameworks;

• The rationale and evidence that you provide in support of your arguments;

• The credibility and viability of the evidenced conclusions/recommendations/plans of action you put forward;

• Structure and coherence of your considerations and reports;

• Appropriate and relevant use of, as and where relevant and appropriate, real world examples, academic materials and referenced sources. Any references should use either the Harvard OR Vancouver referencing system (see References, Citations and Avoiding Plagiarism)

• Academic judgement regarding the blend of scope, thrust and communication of ideas,

  contentions, evidence, knowledge, arguments, conclusions.

• Each assessment requirement(s) has allocated marks/weightings.

RUBRIC

Be aware that graders will ONLY look for the answer within the structure specified herein. They will NOT go looking for answers in other sections or poorly structured paragraphs and documents. It is your obligation to submit a report that would be brief, credible and informative to a management reader.

1. Application of Formal Taught Concepts (e.g., Theories & dimensions) (16%)

   The most relevant frameworks/theories from the module are explicitly applied in sufficient detail, and significantly less relevant detail is omitted. See coursework brief and related lecture notes to make an educated choice about the ‘REQUIRED’ and ‘EXPECTED’ theories/dimensions for this question. A strong answer clearly and correctly identifies and defines the theories/dimensions it uses, even if the question does not explicitly say so. ‘Theory’ can refer to any formal concept or framework.

2. Explanatory Logic (16%)

   Cause-effect logic should be clearly explained for every claim in every paragraph. Like a hypothesis, explanatory logic identifies a specific variable (cause) and an action by which it produces an outcome (effect). Only theory or other formal concepts that are taught in this module will be accepted. The logic statement should be falsifiable (testable) with empirical data. It should use active verbs (e.g., “increases…because”) rather than passive verbs (e.g., “is”, “will be”, “was”), which are vague.

3. Evidence (16%)

   Qualitative or quantitative ‘data’ is presented that proves each claim by showing that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the logic for the claim are true. Such data is meaningless as evidence if it is does not explicitly relate to a logic statement. It can also be meaningless if presented as raw data without context, where context can be communicated through comparison, proportion or significance.

4. Implications (16%)

   Interpret with judgement any conclusions, since acting on any conclusion will likely have different implications for different stakeholders. Multiple perspectives/ alternatives are explicitly compared, trade-offs well analysed, and recommendations explicitly attempt to balance trade-offs. Contingencies explicitly explain uncontrollable/ environmental conditions and how they effect the valence of alternative or chosen options.

5. Assumptions & Conditions (16%)

All argument conclusions are dependent on some assumptions, such as other variables not changing. Ideally, the author surfaces assumptions as limitations or conditions under which the argument would hold and conditions that, if changed, could alter the conclusion.

1. Participation (20%)

   Commensurate with individual’s collaborative learning with and contributions to the group work on a weekly basis based on minuted evidence and Module Leader observation.

   Be aware that assessments can be negatively impacted:

   • by including irrelevant detail and by omitting relevant detail (you must demonstrate educated critical choices here)

   • by errors of definition, logic or interpretations

   • by poor grammar and spelling mistakes (use apps to help you!)

   • by using incorrect section labels

   • by failing to read and comply with all instructions herein

   • by poor document structure

Student submissions are reviewed/scrutinised by an internal assessor and are available to an External Examiner for further review/scrutiny before consideration by the relevant Examination Board.

It is not uncommon for some students to feel that their submissions deserve higher marks (irrespective of whether they actually deserve higher marks). To help you assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of your submission please refer to SOM Assessment Criteria Guidelines, located on the Assessment tab of the SOM Student Information Centre Moodle site.

The above is an important link as it specifies the criteria for attaining the pass/fail bandings shown below:

At UG Levels 4, 5 and 6:

80% to 100%: Outstanding Pass – 1st; 70% to 79%: Excellent Pass – 1st; 60%-69%: Very Good Pass – 2.1; 50% to 59%: Good Pass – 2.2; 40% to 49%: Satisfactory Pass – 3rd; 20% to 39%: Insufficient to Pass – Fail; 0% to 19%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass – Fail.

At PG Level 7:

86% to 100%: Outstanding Pass – Distinction; 70% to 85%: Excellent Pass – Distinction; 60%-69%: Good Pass – Merit; 50% to 59%: Satisfactory – Pass; 40% to 49%: Insufficient to Pass – Fail; 0% to 39%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass – Fail.

You are strongly advised to review these criteria before you start your work and during your work, and before you submit.

You are strongly advised to not compare your mark with marks of other submissions from your student colleagues. Each submission has its own range of characteristics which differ from others in terms of breadth, scope, depth, insights, and subtleties and nuances. On the surface one submission may appear to be similar to another but invariably, digging beneath the surface reveals a range of differing characteristics.

Students who wish to request a review of a decision made by the Board of Examiners should refer to the UCL Academic Appeals Procedure, taking note of the acceptable grounds for such appeals.

Note that the purpose of this procedure is not to dispute academic judgement – it is to ensure correct application of UCL’s regulations and procedures. The appeals process is evidence-based and circumstances must be supported by independent evidence.