ASSIGNMENT FEEDBACK REPORT

SEMESTER TWO 2015

ENTREPRENEURSHIP (ENT001)

Problem areas per question

Question 1:
1.1 The problem area was in terms of the limited application of non-
quantitative factors in valuing a business to the actual case study in context
or others merely referring to the business name.
1.2 The problem area is in terms of the application stakeholder groups and
to explain integrity in context of these stakeholders. Students don’t even
identify who the owner is in the case study. Students din’t indicate in their
discussion who the communities are where this business is expanding to
or functioning in, or the government in which it is conducting business.
Question 2:
The ten iinnovative thinking options were identified by students but the
applications were weak, as it is not supported by a clear understanding of
what it entails and how it could relate in reality to such an organisation as
presented in the case study. Many students make statements assuming
the assessor can really read their minds – knowing where they come from
and where they are going with the idea – as many ideas are “hanging in the
air”. Some students presented ideas which are extremely old and NOT
innovative, that they will never survive in any entrepreneurial environment.
It is evident when a student did do some research and then developed
innovative ideas and when a student merely copied something from the
book, which did not relate to the case – unfortunately few did the research.
 Page 2 of 2

Question 3:
3.2 The application of the ethical decision-making process required the
student to actually apply the problem in full, identify a list of solutions,
compare and evaluate them in detail, etc. Very few students attempted to
do this. Most only provided a theoretical reference to the process with some
naming.

Areas of Excellence per question

Question 1:
1.1 The theoretical component which required the identification and
discussion of non-quantitative factors in valuing a business was done well.
1.2 The theoretical component, requires the identification of stakeholder
groups and explains integrity in context of these stakeholders. This was
done effectively.
Question 2:
The ten iinnovative thinking options were well identified by all students.
Question 3:
3.1 The majority of students successfully answered the question, which
required them to establish the key question when evaluating a franchise
opportunity. Note the focus was not to evaluate a franchisor.
3.2 The stage of the ethical decision-making process was successfully
identified by most students.
Comments on presentation based on the following criteria:
 Structure and Grammar
 Citation
 Referencing
Many stuents submitted an assignment with 1500-1800 words. The
requirement is 2500 words. The implication of that is noticable as the
application is limited to even weak in some cases. Referencing still needs
attention, especially in terms of technique.

General remarks
There were some students who did put in some good effort and therefore
performed well. Others need to walk the extra mile.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
© IMM Graduate School of Marketing
Assignment Feedback Report ENT001