[SOLVED] MSIN0053 Mastering Entrepreneurship 2024/25

Assessment (non-exam) Brief

Module code/name	MSIN0053 Mastering Entrepreneurship
Academic year	2024/25
Term	1
Assessment title	Analysis of a high-potential business
Individual/group assessment	Individual

Submission deadlines: Students should submit all work by the published deadline date and time. Students

experiencing sudden or unexpected events beyond your control which impact your ability to complete assessed

work by the set deadlines may request mitigation via theextenuating circumstances procedure. Students with

disabilities or ongoing, long-term conditions should explore aSummary of Reasonable Adjustments. Students may use thedelayed assessment schemefor pre-determined mitigation on a limited number of assessments in a year.  Check the Delayed Assessment Scheme area on Portico to see if this assessment is eligible.

Return and status of marked assessments: Students should expect to receive feedback within 20 working days of the submission deadline, as per UCL guidelines. The module team will update you if there are delays through

unforeseen circumstances (e.g. ill health). All results when first published are provisional until confirmed by the Examination Board.

Copyright Note to students: Copyright of this assessment brief is with UCL and the module leader(s) named above. If this brief draws upon work by third parties (e.g. Case Study publishers) such third parties also hold copyright. It must  not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or shared with any other individual(s) and/or

organisations, including web-based organisations, without permission of the copyright holder(s) at any point in time.

Academic Misconduct: Academic Misconduct is defined as any action or attempted action that may result in a

student obtaining an unfair academic advantage. Academic misconduct includes plagiarism, self-plagiarism,

obtaining help from/sharing work with others be they individuals and/or organisations or any other form of

cheating that may result in a student obtaining an unfair academic advantage. Refer toAcademic Manual Chapter 6, Section 9: Student Academic Misconduct Procedure – 9.2 Definitions.

Referencing: You must reference and provide full citation for ALL sources used, including AI sources, articles, text books, lecture slides and module materials.  This includes any direct quotes and paraphrased text.  If in doubt,

reference it.  If you need further guidance on referencing please seeUCL’s referencing tutorial for students. Failure to cite references correctly may result in your work being referred to the Academic Misconduct Panel.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools in your Assessment: Your module leader will explain to you if and how AI

tools can be used to support your assessment. In some assessments, the use of generative AI is not permitted at all. In others, AI may be used in an assistive role which means students are permitted to use AI tools to support the

development of specific skills required for the assessment as specified by the module leader. In others, the use of AI  tools may be an integral component of the assessment; in these cases the assessment will provide an opportunity to demonstrate effective and responsible use of AI. See page 3 of this brief to check which category use of AI falls into

for this assessment. Students should refer to theUCL guidance on acknowledging use of AI and referencing AI.

Failure to correctly reference use of AI in assessments may result in students being reported via the Academic

Misconduct procedure. Refer to the section of the UCL Assessment success guide onEngaging with AI in your education and assessment.

Content of this assessment brief

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

Section A: Core information

Submission date	27/11/2024
Submission time	10am UK time
Assessment is marked out of:	100
% weighting of this assessment within total module mark	40%
Maximum word count/page length/duration	3,000 Words (Level 6 Students); 4,000 Words (Level 7 Students)

Section B: Assessment Brief and Requirements

Details of the assessment brief. Generic assessment criteria are included in section E. Any additional criteria specific to this assessment are detailed in section F.

This 3,000 word coursework requires you to use the Business Model Canvas, the New-Business Road Test (Macro Industry analysis) and associated SWOT analysis to assess the potential of an early-stage business start-up that has demonstrated product/market fit.

You must select an opportunity from:

• You can choose any one from this list of 2024 Startups 100: UK’s Best new Startups – https://startups.co.uk/startups-100/2024/list-in-full/ –

• For your chosen business, you are required to:

• Give a brief overview of the startup

• Document and explain their business model(s) using an appropriate business model canvas.

• Undertake Macro Industry (Porter’s 5 Forces) analysis

• Perform. a SWOT analysis of the business.

• Summarise your conclusions regarding the overall attractiveness of the opportunity along with any recommendations for mitigation or exploitation of factors identified in your analysis.

• (Level Student 7 students only) Reflect on the utility of tools and frameworks in the context of your chosen opportunity (*additional 1,000-word allowance)

IMPORTANT: All data sources (journal articles, market reports, or others) should be clearly acknowledged/referenced.

Section C: Module Learning Outcomes covered in this Assessment

This assessment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated module Learning Outcomes as highlighted below:

1. Identify and use frameworks to judge the potential of a high-potential business concept

2. Understand the difference between a true opportunity and just another “neat” idea

3. Recognise the effort and dedication needed to make a business succeed

Section D: Groupwork Instructions (where relevant/appropriate)

Specific requirements for groupwork are available here. If this section is blank, no specific requirements for groupwork are applicable to this assessment.

n/a

Section E: How your work is assessed

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.

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.

Upon receipt of your mark, 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.