PINN6222_P2

22; 23; 24 2023
MODULE NAME: MODULE CODE

PRACTICE OF INNOVATION PINN6222
PRACTICE OF INNOVATION PINN6222p
PRACTICE OF INNOVATION PINN6222w
ASSESSMENT TYPE: PROJECT 2 (PAPER AND MARKING RUBRIC)
TOTAL MARK ALLOCATION: 100 MARKS
TOTAL HOURS: 10 HOURS
By submitting this Project, you acknowledge that you have read and understood all the rules as per
the terms in the registration contract, in particular the Project and assessment rules in The IIE
Assessment Strategy and Policy (IIE009), the intellectual integrity and plagiarism rules in the
Intellectual Integrity Policy (IIE023), as well as any rules and regulations published in the student
portal.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. No material may be copied from original sources, even if referenced correctly, unless it is
a direct quote indicated with quotation marks. No more than 10% of the Project may
consist of direct quotes.
2. Make a copy of your Project before handing it in.
3. Projects must be typed unless otherwise specified.
4. All work must be adequately and correctly referenced.
5. Begin each section on a new page.
6. Follow all instructions on the Project cover sheet.
7. This is an individual assignment.
8. Pay attention to the word limit per question. Work that exceeds this limit will not be
marked.
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

Page 1 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
Referencing Rubric
Providing evidence based on valid and referenced academic sources Markers are required to provide feedback to students by indicating
is a fundamental educational principle and the cornerstone of high- (circling/underlining) the information that best describes the
quality academic work. Hence, The IIE considers it essential to student’s work.
develop the referencing skills of our students in our commitment to
achieve high academic standards. Part of achieving these high Minor technical referencing errors: 5% deduction from the
standards is referencing in a way that is consistent, technically overall percentage. – the student’s work contains five or more
correct and congruent. This is not plagiarism, which is handled errors listed in the minor errors column in the table below.
differently.
Major technical referencing errors: 10% deduction from the
Poor quality formatting in your referencing will result in a penalty of overall percentage. – the student’s work contains five or more
according to the following guidelines a maximum of ten percent errors listed in the major errors column in the table below.
being deducted from the overall percentage. Please note, however,
that evidence of plagiarism in the form of copied or uncited work If both minor and major errors are indicated, then 10% only (and
(not referenced), absent reference lists, or exceptionally poor not 5% or 15%) is deducted from the overall percentage. The
referencing, may result in action being taken in accordance with examples provided below are not exhaustive but are provided to
The IIE’s Intellectual Integrity Policy (0023). illustrate the error.
Required: Minor errors in technical correctness of Major errors in technical correctness of
Technically correct referencing referencing style referencing style
style Deduct 5% from overall percentage. Deduct 10% from the overall percentage.
Example: if the response receives 70%, Example: if the response receives 70%, deduct
deduct 5%. The final mark is 65%. 10%. The final mark is 60%.
Consistency Minor inconsistencies. Major inconsistencies.
• The referencing style is generally • Poor and inconsistent referencing style used in-
• The same referencing format consistent, but there are one or two text and/or in the bibliography/ reference list.
has been used for all in-text changes in the format of in-text • Multiple formats for the same type of
references and in the referencing and/or in the bibliography. referencing have been used.
bibliography/reference list. • For example, page numbers for direct • For example, the format for direct quotes (in-
quotes (in-text) have been provided for text) and/or book chapters (bibliography/
one source, but not in another instance. reference list) is different across multiple
Two book chapters (bibliography) have instances.
been referenced in the bibliography in
two different formats.
Technical correctness Generally, technically correct with some Technically incorrect.
minor errors. • The referencing format is incorrect.
• Referencing format is • The correct referencing format has been • Concepts and ideas are typically referenced,
technically correct throughout consistently used, but there are one or but a reference is missing from small sections
the submission. two errors. of the work.
• Concepts and ideas are typically • Position of the references: references are only
• The correct referencing format referenced, but a reference is missing given at the beginning or end of large sections
for the discipline has been from one small section of the work. of work.
used, i.e., either APA, OR • Position of the references: references are • For example, incorrect author information is
Harvard OR Law only given at the beginning or end of provided, no year of publication is provided,
every paragraph. quotation marks and/or page numbers for
• Position of the reference: a • For example, the student has incorrectly direct quotes missing, page numbers are
reference is directly associated presented direct quotes (in-text) and/or provided for paraphrased material, the
with every concept or idea. book chapters (bibliography/reference incorrect punctuation is used (in-text); the
list). bibliography/reference list is not in
• For example, quotation marks, alphabetical order, the incorrect format for a
page numbers, years, etc. are book chapter/journal article is used,
applied correctly, sources in information is missing e.g. no place of
the bibliography/reference list publication had been provided (bibliography);
are correctly presented. repeated sources on the reference list.
Congruence between in-text Generally, congruence between the in-text A lack of congruence between the in-text
referencing and bibliography/ referencing and the bibliography/ referencing and the bibliography.
reference list reference list with one or two errors. • No relationship/several incongruencies
• There is largely a match between the between the in-text referencing and the
• All sources are accurately sources presented in-text and the bibliography/reference list.
reflected and are all accurately bibliography. • For example, sources are included in-text, but
included in the bibliography/ • For example, a source appears in the text, not in the bibliography and vice versa, a link,
reference list. but not in the bibliography/ reference list rather than the actual reference is provided in
or vice versa. the bibliography.
In summary: the recording of In summary, at least 80% of the sources are In summary, at least 60% of the sources are
references is accurate and correctly reflected and included in a incorrectly reflected and/or not included in
complete. reference list. reference list.
Overall Feedback about the consistency, technical correctness and congruence between in-text referencing and bibliography:

Page 2 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
Project Overview
The focus of this second formative project is on the internal innovation management system of an
innovative organisation and the supporting innovative organisational culture. In this individual
project, you will investigate and analyse an exemplary innovative organisation and its culture:
LEGO.
An innovative organisational culture fosters creativity, open communication, and a willingness to

embrace change, driving continuous improvement, adaptive strategies, and cutting-edge solutions
for sustained success and growth. Studying organisational cultures for exemplary innovation
practices is crucial as it reveals the values, norms, and behaviours that either encourage or hinder
innovation.
By examining key elements like current innovation initiatives, types of innovators, and the
innovation culture, you will uncover the driving forces behind LEGO's iconic innovation success.
Through the analysis of LEGO, one is able to extract valuable insights and best practices that can
guide future projects and organisations in fostering a culture of innovation and sustaining long-
term creativity and growth.
You are tasked with investigating LEGO’s innovation culture through secondary research. Focus on
the brand’s approach to innovation management, and the organisational culture. Several
resources are given below as a starting point. However, there is a lot of information available on
LEGO, and you are strongly encouraged to research beyond the given resources to ensure that
you are able to sufficiently respond to the questions in this project. You have to answer all the
questions with reference to the LEGO brand.
Remember: Secondary research involves examining a diverse range of existing materials, spanning
books, articles, reports, academic databases, and online resources like websites, industry news,
blogs, and multimedia content from social media platforms.
Specific guidelines:
• Submit a professional document that is complete and well formatted.
• Include comprehensive in-text referencing and a reference list, using the Harvard
referencing method.

Page 3 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
• Use your prescribed readings in conjunction with secondary research throughout the
project.
• Ensure that all theory and answers are applied consistently and appropriately to the given
brand. Demonstrate theoretical understanding through insightful and justified application
to the LEGO brand.
• Your document must be a minimum of 4500 and a maximum of 5300 words (excluding
cover page, contents page, and references). Pay attention to the maximum word count per
question where applicable. Any work that exceeds the word count limit will not be marked
and you will only receive marks for what falls within the limit.
• Formatting should include a cover page; a contents or index page (all pages should be
numbered) and a reference list or Bibliography using Harvard style referencing.
• Type your assessment in Arial 12pt, 1.5 spacing and start each question on a new page.
• You are required to submit the assignment via SafeAssign and Learn.
An Icon in Innovation: LEGO

Carefully analyse the following resources. Then, conduct your own secondary research on the
LEGO brand as needed so that you are able to respond to all the questions below with sufficient
detail and insight.
Introduction to LEGO’s success story: Brick by Brick: A Case Study on LEGO’s Culture of Innovation
How does a company swing from scrapping together toys from actual scraps in the Great
Depression to becoming a household name to nearly filing for bankruptcy to being one of history’s
greatest innovation superstars? By being really good at building, and rebuilding, one brick at a
time. I’m talking, of course, about LEGO.
LEGO wasn’t always an innovation success story. Like all large companies, they’ve gone through
more than a few ups and downs. But somehow, they always managed to turn things around. Let’s
take a look at how they consistently innovated their way into the hearts of kids and adults alike.
How LEGO built itself from nothing

LEGO bricks actually began as scraps of wood in 1932 by Danish woodworker Ole Kirk Kristiansen.
Before making toys, he made practical objects like ladders, ironing boards, and farm equipment.
The Great Depression made work scarce, so he switched to making toys since scraps were easier

Page 4 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
to come by than large bits of lumber. But even resourcefulness and innovation didn’t immediately
save him. People considered toys a luxury in the Depression, and many of the folks in town
couldn’t afford them. Ole often traded toys for food just to survive.
Fast forward to the 1940s and when the Nazis occupied Denmark. Not only was lumber crazy
expensive, but Ole’s workshop also caught fire, and he lost his entire inventory and blueprints.
He managed to hold on to the business until the early 1950s when he met his next roadblock.
World War II had made lumber nearly impossible for Ole to get his hands on. Instead, he used a
new material: plastic. This is when he developed the patented interlocking system that made the
LEGO bricks famously stackable.
LEGOs became wildly successful shortly after.
Success meets a brick wall

By the 1990s, LEGO’s popularity took a hit. The digital era began seeking its way into kids’ games
and quickly caught the eyes of the brand’s curious customers. Nintendo was the sexy new stud on
the block. Small toy shops closed their doors thanks to heavy competition from big box stores like
Toys ‘R Us.
LEGO tried to keep up with the new trends in toymaking, even getting into the video game
business to keep up with Nintendo. But it quickly became a case of trying too many things, getting
away from its core business, and stretching itself too thin.
Teetering on the edge, LEGO barely avoided bankruptcy in the early 2000s. But a few emergency
loans kept it afloat long enough to simplify its business and get back to its roots. By chasing every
trend in the world of toys, LEGO had lost sight of what they were good at. They recentred their
business on their iconic building sets, launching franchise sets including Star Wars, Harry Potter,
Indiana Jones, and many other cult favourites.
That one move saved the company.
More renovations
The success of LEGO franchise sets gave the company enough liquidity to experiment again. But
this time, they tried something they hadn’t done in years: openly accepting feedback from their

Page 5 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
fans. The relationship between customers and small toy shop owners used to be their main
avenue for customer feedback. But thanks to competition from big box stores, small toy shops
were closing and that invaluable feedback was lost. Until 1998.
In 1998, LEGO launched the Mindstorms robotics kits, a combination of hardware and software
that let fans build robots using the iconic LEGO bricks. Just hours after the launch, thousands of
hackers hijacked the software to make unauthorized modifications that gave new functions to the
robots. LEGO had a choice: prosecute the hackers… or embrace them.
LEGO recognized that they could collaborate with fans for feedback, and that would turn out to be
invaluable. They took a gamble and it paid off. Big time.
Using an open innovation strategy, LEGO re-launched the Mindstorms NXT series in 2006 which
went on to become one of their biggest successes of all time. Why? They co-created with their
customers.
LEGO used the feedback ecosystem they developed around the Mindstorms products as a model
to create their now-famous culture of innovation. They started the LEGO Ambassador Program,
which allowed fans to engage with the company around its kits. This continuous feedback loop
gave LEGO tons of new ideas and partnerships, while making fans key decision-makers in the
process.
Around the same time, LEGO started the crowdsourcing platform LEGO Ideas. The platform
encourages fans to submit their ideas, and fellow fans can vote on which products they’d like to
see put into production. Once an idea hits 10,000 votes, it moves on to a LEGO review board. If
selected, the original creator receives 1% of the product’s revenue.
Building on success
Using feedback from their fans, LEGO consistently churns out great idea after great idea. Go to
their website and, besides ordering products, you can build things, share them with friends, and
watch videos. Five times a year they publish a magazine that kids go crazy over. They produced
Beyond the Brick: A LEGO Brickumentary – a documentary for adult fans of LEGO bricks. They’ve
released Hollywood feature films that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars. Their YouTube

Page 6 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
channel has millions of subscribers. They have eight amusement parks. There’s even a game you
can download from the app store.
All from a company that sells little rectangular pieces of plastic. One very important factor in
Lego’s success, is their unique culture of innovation. Google’s corporate campus has nothing on
LEGO’s. Little toy bricks are everywhere. LEGO encourages all its employees to play regularly and
submit ideas. So not only do they source ideas from their fans, but from everyone at the
company, as well. From Frank in Accounting to Nadia in HR, everyone is invited to make the
company better.
Source adapted from: Johnson, C. 2022. Brick by Brick: A Case Study on LEGO’s Culture of Innovation.
[Online]. Available from: https://www.carlajohnson.co/brick-by-brick-a-case-study-on-legos-culture-of-
innovation/ [Accessed 10 August 2023]
Resources on the LEGO brand:

LEGO stands as a pioneering brand synonymous with innovation. Renowned for its interlocking brick
system, LEGO continually redefines creative play, education, and imagination, captivating
generations through its inventive designs, collaborative community, and enduring commitment to
fostering innovation.
• Read this site to better understand the LEGO brand values, brand framework and brand
promise: https://www.lego.com/en-za/aboutus/lego-group/the-lego-brand
• Watch this video to better understand the LEGO brand and product offerings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOdcAdqGFnM
Resources on LEGO and innovation:

• Watch this video about “Innovate the LEGO way”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar4oTxOJ2Q4
• Watch this video for examples of LEGO’s “Innovation at play”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDBv1EpD3xE
• LEGO Ideas - official platform for how LEGO Ideas work: https://ideas.lego.com/howitworks

Page 7 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
Resources on Lego’s organisational culture:

• A Great Company Culture Example - LEGO: https://inside.6q.io/company-culture-example-
lego/
• Play Has A Place In Company Culture—How LEGO Fosters Creativity At Work:
https://libertymind.co.uk/play-has-a-place-in-company-culture-how-lego-fosters-creativity-at-
work/
• Watch the video of LEGO CEO talking about their organisational culture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9WOG7RS6nc&t=242s
• LEGO’s website on “why work for us”: https://www.lego.com/en-za/careers/why-join-us
Project Questions _____
Question 1 (Marks: 30)

Discuss the enablers, drivers, and barriers of LEGO’s innovation success story.
Provide your answer in an academic essay format, using relevant theory and practical examples
where needed to support your discussion.
Do not exceed 1500 words. Reference all sources according to Harvard referencing.

Using the Board of Innovation’s Innovation Matrix, identify the type of innovator(s) you believe is
found at LEGO. Motivate your answer by referring to relevant theory and supporting evidence
from the brand.
Do not exceed 1000 words. Reference all sources according to Harvard referencing.

Page 8 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023

Evaluate LEGO’s current innovation culture by conducting a brief Innovation Audit
(https://www.boardofinnovation.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Innovation-audit-
questionnaire.pdf).
Use the following key questions adapted from the Board of Innovation’s Innovation Audit tool to
assess and evaluate LEGO’s innovation culture:
• On a scale of 1 – 10, how innovative is LEGO? Motivate your answer with practical evidence
from the brand.
• Are employees at LEGO encouraged to try new things?
• How is failure seen within the company?
• Would you say LEGO is an inside-out or outside-in company?
• How has LEGO’s innovation culture changed and evolved until now?
• What type of innovation does LEGO focus on mainly?
Provide your answer in a short-essay format, using relevant theory and practical examples where
needed to support your assessment. Do not exceed 1200 words. Reference all sources according
to Harvard referencing.
Q.4.1 LEGO’s organisation culture has been identified by many in industry as (15)
exemplary. Discuss the qualities of a great organisation culture (Wong, 2023) and
illustrate how the qualities are exhibited at LEGO through practical application.
Do not exceed 800 words. Reference all sources according to Harvard
referencing.
Q.4.2 Argue whether you think LEGO is a good example of an innovative organisational (15)
culture or not. Motivate your argument by drawing on the characteristics of an
innovative organisation (Pisano, 2019), and practical evidence from the LEGO
brand. Do not exceed 800 words. Reference all sources according to Harvard
referencing.
[TOTAL: 100 MARKS]

Page 9 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
Appendix A Assessment Sheet (Marking Rubric)
MODULE NAME MODULE CODE

PRACTICE OF INNOVATION PINN6222/p/w
DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED PARTIALLY EXCEEDS THE GREATLY EXCEEDS THE REQUIRED
CRITERIA MEETS THE REQUIRED STANDARD
STANDARD REQUIRED STANDARD STANDARD
0-14 15-18 19-22 23-30
• Demonstrates inadequate or • Demonstrates a basic grasp • Demonstrates a solid • Displays a profound
incorrect application of and application of innovation understanding and understanding of innovation
innovation enablers, drivers, enablers, drivers, and application of innovation enablers, drivers, and
and barriers, lacking barriers, though it may lack enablers, drivers, and barriers. Skilfully applies
understanding of the topic. depth. barriers, supported by relevant innovation theories
Q.1 • Provides limited or absent • Offers an adequate analysis of relevant innovation theories. to illustrate and analyse each
Discuss the analysis of enablers, drivers, enablers, drivers, and • Offers a substantive analysis aspect.
enablers, drivers, and barriers, lacking barriers, with references to of enablers, drivers, and • Provides a comprehensive
and barriers of substantive exploration or innovation theories present barriers, with references to analysis of enablers, drivers,
LEGO’s innovation insights. but lacking in-depth relevant innovation theories and barriers, substantiated by
success story. • Incorporates minimal to no alignment. that support the discussion. in-depth reference to
Provide your examples from LEGO's history • Incorporates some examples • Competently incorporates pertinent innovation theories
answer in an to illustrate the influence of from LEGO's history, relevant practical examples that align seamlessly with the
academic essay enablers, drivers, and illustrating the influence of from LEGO's history, discussion.
format, using barriers. enablers, drivers, and illustrating the influence of • Skilfully incorporates
relevant theory • Offers minimal to no barriers, though the depth each enabler, driver, and compelling and relevant
and practical thoughtful analysis or insight might be limited. barrier on the company's practical examples from
examples where beyond surface-level • Provides superficial insights innovation journey. LEGO's history, illustrating
needed to support observations. with minimal exploration of • Displays reasonable thinking how each enabler, driver, and
your discussion. • Displays a lack of appropriate nuances or thoughtful by delving into some nuances barrier has influenced the
use of secondary research analysis, relying mostly on and offering insights beyond company's innovation
[30 MARKS] sources, with minimal ability surface-level observations. surface-level observations, journey.
to gather or synthesise • Displays basic ability in using showcasing commendable • Demonstrates insightful
information. secondary research sources, thoughtfulness. analysis by delving into
• Disregards the specified word though the depth and • Demonstrates acceptable nuances and providing
limit, indicating a lack of breadth of synthesis might be ability in using secondary thoughtful insights beyond
conciseness and impacting limited. research sources, enhancing surface-level observations,
overall communication.

Page 10 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
• Adheres to the specified word the essay's depth and breadth showcasing exceptional
limit to an acceptable extent, to an acceptable level. critical thinking abilities.
but conciseness might be • Maintains adherence to the • Showcases the ability to
lacking. specified word limit, gather and synthesise
indicating an acceptable level information from diverse and
of conciseness and effective authoritative sources,
communication. significantly enhancing the
essay's depth and breadth.
• Adheres meticulously to the
specified word limit,
demonstrating impeccable
conciseness and effectively
communicating ideas with
exceptional clarity.
0-9 10-11 12-14 15-20
• Demonstrates inadequate or • Demonstrates a basic grasp • Demonstrates a solid • Demonstrates a profound
Q.2 incorrect application of the and application of the understanding and understanding of the
Using the Board of Innovation Matrix theory to Innovation Matrix theory to application of the Innovation Innovation Matrix theory and
Innovation’s identify the innovator type(s) identify the innovator type(s) Matrix theory to identify the skilfully applies it to identify
Innovation Matrix, at LEGO. at LEGO. innovator type(s) at LEGO. the innovator type(s) at LEGO.
identify the type • Provides limited or absent • Offers an adequate • Offers a substantive • Provides a comprehensive
of innovator(s) explanation of the chosen explanation of the chosen explanation of the chosen explanation of the chosen
you believe is innovator type(s) based on innovator type(s) based on innovator type(s) based on innovator type(s) based on
found at LEGO. the Innovation Matrix, lacking the Innovation Matrix. the Innovation Matrix. the Innovation Matrix,
Motivate your substantive references to References to relevant References to relevant substantiated by in-depth
answer by relevant innovation theory. innovation theory are present innovation theory reasonably reference to relevant
referring to • Incorporates minimal to no but may lack depth. support the chosen type. innovation theory that aligns
relevant theory relevant evidence from • Incorporates some relevant • Competently incorporates seamlessly with the chosen
and supporting LEGO's brand history to evidence from LEGO's brand relevant evidence from type.
evidence from the illustrate how the identified history to illustrate how the LEGO's brand history to • Skilfully integrates compelling
brand. innovator type(s) aligns with identified innovator type(s) illustrate how the identified and relevant evidence from
[20 MARKS] the company's innovation aligns with the company's innovator type(s) aligns with LEGO's brand history,
approach and outcomes. innovation approach and the company's innovation elucidating how the identified
outcomes. approach and outcomes. innovator type(s) aligns with

Page 11 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
• Offers minimal to no analysis, • Provides superficial analysis • Displays reasonable depth in the company's innovation
lacking exploration of with minimal exploration of analysis by delving into some approach and outcomes.
nuances or thoughtful insights nuances or thoughtful nuances and providing • Demonstrates insightful
beyond surface-level insights, relying mostly on insights beyond surface-level analysis by exploring nuances
observations. surface-level observations. observations, showcasing and providing thoughtful
• Displays a lack of appropriate • Displays basic ability in using commendable insights that surpass surface-
use of secondary research secondary research sources, thoughtfulness. level observations,
sources, with minimal ability though the depth and • Demonstrates acceptable showcasing exceptional
to gather or synthesise breadth of synthesis might be ability in utilising secondary critical thinking abilities.
information from various limited. research sources, enhancing • Showcases the ability to
sources. • Adheres to the specified word the response's depth and gather and synthesise
• Disregards the specified word limit to an acceptable extent breadth to an acceptable information from diverse and
limit, indicating a lack of but may lack optimal level. authoritative sources,
conciseness and impacting conciseness, impacting overall • Maintains adherence to the significantly enhancing the
overall communication. communication. specified word limit, response's depth and
indicating an acceptable level breadth.
of conciseness and effective • Adheres meticulously to the
communication. specified word limit,
0-9 10-11 12-14 15-20
Q.3 incorrect application of and application of innovation understanding and understanding of innovation
innovation culture concepts. culture concepts. Conducts a application of innovation culture and conducts an in-
Evaluate LEGO’s Conducts an insufficient or basic Innovation Audit with culture concepts. Conducts an depth Innovation Audit.
current innovation incorrect Innovation Audit. limited depth. adequate Innovation Audit Skilfully applies relevant
culture by • Provides limited or absent • Offers an adequate evaluation with moderate depth. innovation theories to assess
conducting a brief evaluation of LEGO's of LEGO's innovation culture • Offers a substantive LEGO's innovation culture.
Innovation Audit. innovation culture based on based on the Innovation Audit evaluation of LEGO's • Provides a comprehensive
Use the questions the Innovation Audit questions. References to innovation culture based on evaluation of LEGO's
provided to assess questions, lacking substantive innovation theories are the Innovation Audit innovation culture based on
and evaluate exploration or insights. present but may lack depth. questions. References to the Innovation Audit

Page 12 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
LEGO’s innovation • Incorporates minimal to no • Incorporates some examples relevant innovation theories questions. In-depth reference
culture. Provide examples from LEGO's from LEGO's practices to support the assessment. to pertinent innovation
your answer in a practices to illustrate illustrate strengths and • Competently incorporates theories supports the
short-essay strengths and weaknesses in weaknesses in the innovation relevant practical examples assessment.
format, using the innovation culture. culture, though the depth from LEGO's practices, • Skilfully incorporates
relevant theory • Offers minimal to no might be limited. illustrating strengths and compelling and relevant
and practical thoughtful analysis or insight • Provides superficial insights weaknesses in the innovation practical examples from
examples where beyond surface-level with minimal exploration of culture. LEGO's practices, illustrating
needed to support observations. nuances or thoughtful • Displays reasonable thinking strengths and weaknesses in
your assessment. • Displays a lack of appropriate analysis, relying mostly on by addressing some nuances the innovation culture.
use of secondary research surface-level observations. and offering insights beyond • Demonstrates insightful
[20 MARKS] sources, with minimal ability • Displays basic ability in using surface-level observations. analysis by delving into
to gather or synthesise secondary research sources, • Demonstrates acceptable nuances and providing
information. though the depth and ability in using secondary thoughtful insights beyond
• Disregards the specified word breadth of synthesis might be research sources, enhancing surface-level observations,
limit, indicating a lack of limited. the assessment's depth and showcasing exceptional
conciseness and impacting • Adheres to the specified word breadth to an acceptable critical thinking abilities.
overall communication. limit to an acceptable extent, level. • Showcases the ability to
but conciseness might be • Maintains adherence to the gather and synthesise
lacking. specified word limit, information from diverse and
indicating an acceptable level authoritative sources,
of conciseness and effective significantly enhancing the
communication. assessment's depth and
breadth.

Page 13 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
0-7 8-9 10-11 12-15
incorrect application of the and application of the understanding and understanding of the qualities
qualities of a great qualities of a great application of the qualities of of a great organisation
organisation culture based on organisation culture based on a great organisation culture culture based on relevant
Wong (2023). Lacks Wong (2023). Analyses these based on Wong (2023). theory.
understanding of the topic. qualities with basic depth. Analyses these qualities with • Skilfully applies relevant
• Provides limited or absent • Offers an adequate analysis moderate depth. organisational culture
Q.4.1
analysis of the qualities of a of the qualities of a great • Offers a substantive analysis theories to analyse and
great organisation culture, organisation culture, with of the qualities of a great discuss these qualities.
LEGO’s
lacking substantive references to Wong (2023) organisation culture, with • Provides a comprehensive
organisation
exploration or insights. and organisational culture references to Wong (2023) analysis of the qualities of a
culture has been
• Incorporates minimal to no theories present, but lacking and organisational culture great organisation culture,
identified by
practical examples to in-depth alignment. theories present, although substantiated by in-depth
many in industry
illustrate how the identified • Incorporates some practical alignment may be limited. reference to Wong (2023)
as exemplary.
qualities are exhibited at examples to illustrate how • Competently illustrates how and pertinent organisational
Discuss the
LEGO. the identified qualities are the identified qualities are culture theories.
qualities of a great
• Offers minimal to no exhibited at LEGO, though the exhibited at LEGO through • Skilfully illustrates how the
organisation
thoughtful analysis or insight depth might be limited. relevant practical examples, identified qualities are
culture (Wong,
beyond surface-level • Provides superficial insights demonstrating a connection exhibited at LEGO through
2023) and
observations. with minimal exploration of between theory and compelling and relevant
illustrate how the
• Displays a lack of appropriate nuances or thoughtful application. practical examples,
qualities are
use of secondary research analysis, relying mostly on • Displays reasonable thinking demonstrating a strong
exhibited at LEGO
sources, with minimal ability surface-level observations. by addressing some nuances connection between theory
through practical
to gather or synthesise • Displays basic ability in using and offering insights beyond and application.
application.
information. secondary research sources, surface-level observations. • Demonstrates insightful
[15 MARKS] • Disregards the specified word though the depth and • Demonstrates acceptable analysis by delving into
limit, indicating a lack of breadth of synthesis might be ability in using secondary nuances and providing
conciseness and impacting limited. research sources, enhancing thoughtful insights beyond
overall communication. • Adheres to the specified word the discussion's depth and surface-level observations,
limit to an acceptable extent, breadth to an acceptable showcasing exceptional
but conciseness might be level. critical thinking abilities.
lacking. • Maintains adherence to the • Showcases the ability to
specified word limit, gather and synthesise

Page 14 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
indicating an acceptable level information from diverse and
of conciseness and effective authoritative sources,
communication. significantly enhancing the
discussion's depth and
breadth.
0-7 8-9 10-11 12-15
Q.4.2
incorrect application of the and application of the understanding and understanding of the
characteristics of an characteristics of an application of the characteristics of an
Argue whether
innovative organisation innovative organisation characteristics of an innovative organisation
you think LEGO is
according to Pisano (2019). according to Pisano (2019). innovative organisation according to Pisano (2019).
a good example of
Lacks understanding of the Analyses these characteristics according to Pisano (2019). Skilfully applies relevant
an innovative
topic. with basic depth. Analyses these characteristics innovation theory to analyse
organisational
• Provides limited or absent • Offers an adequate analysis of with moderate depth. and discuss LEGO's
culture or not.
analysis of whether LEGO is a whether LEGO is a good • Offers a substantive analysis organisational culture.
Motivate your
good example of an example of an innovative of whether LEGO is a good • Provides a comprehensive
argument by
innovative organisational organisational culture or not. example of an innovative analysis of whether LEGO is a
drawing on the
culture or not, lacking References to Pisano (2019) organisational culture or not. good example of an
characteristics of
substantive exploration or and relevant innovation References to Pisano (2019) innovative organisational
an innovative
insights. theories are present, but may and relevant innovation culture or not. In-depth
organisation
• Incorporates minimal to no lack in-depth alignment. theories are present, though reference to Pisano (2019)
(Pisano, 2019),
practical evidence from • Incorporates some practical alignment may be limited. and relevant innovation
and practical
LEGO's practices to illustrate evidence from LEGO's • Competently integrates theories supports the
evidence from the
alignment or divergence from practices to illustrate practical evidence from argument.
LEGO brand.
the characteristics of an alignment or divergence from LEGO's practices, illustrating • Skilfully integrates compelling
innovative organisation. the characteristics of an alignment or divergence from and relevant practical
[15 MARKS]
• Offers minimal to no innovative organisation, the characteristics of an evidence from LEGO's
thoughtful analysis or insight innovative organisation. practices, illustrating

Page 15 of 16
22; 23; 24 2023
beyond surface-level though the depth might be • Displays reasonable thinking alignment or divergence from
observations. limited. by addressing some nuances the characteristics of an
• Displays a lack of appropriate • Provides superficial insights and offering insights beyond innovative organisation.
use of secondary research with minimal exploration of surface-level observations. • Demonstrates insightful
sources, with minimal ability nuances or thoughtful • Demonstrates acceptable analysis by delving into
to gather or synthesise analysis, relying mostly on ability in using secondary nuances and providing
information. surface-level observations. research sources, enhancing thoughtful insights beyond
• Disregards the specified word • Displays basic ability in using the argument's depth and surface-level observations,
limit, indicating a lack of secondary research sources, breadth to an acceptable showcasing exceptional
conciseness and impacting though the depth and level. critical thinking abilities.
overall communication. breadth of synthesis might be • Maintains adherence to the • Showcases the ability to
limited. specified word limit, gather and synthesise
• Adheres to the specified word indicating an acceptable level information from diverse and
limit to an acceptable extent, of conciseness and effective authoritative sources,
but conciseness might be communication. significantly enhancing the
lacking. argument's depth and
breadth.
TOTAL: 100 MARKS
END OF RUBRIC

Page 16 of 16

PINN6222_P2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PINN6222_P2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

22; 23; 24 2023

MODULE NAME: MODULE CODE

ASSESSMENT TYPE: PROJECT 2 (PAPER AND MARKING RUBRIC)

TOTAL MARK ALLOCATION: 100 MARKS

TOTAL HOURS: 10 HOURS

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

An innovative organisational culture fosters creativity, open communication, and a willingness to

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

An Icon in Innovation: LEGO

How LEGO built itself from nothing

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

LEGOs became wildly successful shortly after.

Success meets a brick wall

That one move saved the company.

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

Resources on the LEGO brand:

Resources on LEGO and innovation:

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

Resources on Lego’s organisational culture:

Project Questions _____

Question 1 (Marks: 30)

Question 2 (Marks: 20)

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

Question 3 (Marks: 20)

Question 4 (Marks: 30)

[TOTAL: 100 MARKS]

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

Appendix A Assessment Sheet (Marking Rubric)

MODULE NAME MODULE CODE

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2023

You might also like