Page 1 of 4
Coursework Assignment Brief
Semester: E15 Autumn Semester 2015
Module Code: PM301
Module Title: Total Quality Management
Programme BSc (Hons) Business Management
BSc (Hons) Business Management (Travel & Tourism)
BSc (Hons) Computer Science with Business Informatics
Level: Level 6
Awarding Body: Plymouth University
Module Leader Rupal Pattni
Format: Report
Presentation: No
Any special
requirements:
? All work should be submitted on the Student Portal.
? Work to be submitted in a professional manner, and as
directed by the Module Leader.
Word Limit: 2,500 words (with 10% plus or minus leeway)
Deadline date for
submission:
Thursday, 10 December 2015
Learning outcomes to
be examined in this
assessment (please
note that this is NOT the
assessment task)
? Understand the nature and purpose of total quality
management and how it is influenced by the management
culture of organisations.
? Identify a range of total quality management techniques
including benchmarking and process re- engineering.
? Determine how the introduction of total quality management
involves reconsideration and synchronisation of functional
policies to achieve maximum efficiency in organisational
performance.
Percentage of marks
awarded for module:
This assignment is worth 50% of the total marks for the module
Assessment criteria Explanatory comments on the
assessment criteria
Maximum marks for
each section
Knowledge and
Research (content,
relevance, and
originality)
Clear demonstration of rigorous research
from recognised authoritative sources.
Audience focus. Meeting the deliverables.
45%
Page 2 of 4
Writing and
Presentation (format,
references or
bibliography, and
style)
Rigorous use of the Harvard Methodology for
citation and referencing; page numbering;
correct display of direct quotations.
10 %
Argument and
Analysis (Critical
analysis, evaluation,
and application)
Constructive critical analysis, introduction,
conclusion. Demonstration of a clear
understanding of the issues. Use of
academic models. Full articulation of ideas
developed. Offering well-argued solutions
and/or alternatives if and where appropriate.
45%
Assignment Task
Using an organisation of your choice, evaluate the reasons why a company would be interested in the
benchmarking process. In addition, discuss the steps that this organisation will undertake in order to
implement benchmarking practices, including the difficulties it may face doing this. Finally, recommend ways
to mitigate the risks and difficulties that the organisation may face.
Total Marks for assignment: 100
Page 3 of 4
Marking Criteria for Assessment at Level 6 (Bachelors Degree with Honours)
Marks 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3
rd
) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1
st
) 70-85 (1
st
)
Assessment
categories
Knowledge &
Understanding
of Subject
Major gaps in
knowledge and
understanding of
material at this
level. Substantial
inaccuracies.
Gaps in knowledge,
with only superficial
understanding.
Some significant
inaccuracies.
Threshold level.
Understanding of
key aspects of field
of study; coherent
knowledge, at least
in part informed by
current research in
the subject
discipline.
Systematic
understanding of
field(s) of study, as
indicated by
relevant QAA
subject benchmark
statements for the
degree programme.
Good understanding
of the field(s) of
study; coherent
knowledge, in line
with subject
benchmark, at least in
part informed by
current research in
the subject discipline.
Excellent knowledge
and understanding of
the main concepts
and key theories/
concepts of the
discipline(s). Clear
awareness of the
limitations of the
knowledge base.
Highly detailed
knowledge and
understanding of the
main theories/concepts
of the discipline(s), and
an awareness of the
ambiguities and
limitations of
knowledge.
Cognitive/
Intellectual
Skills
(e.g. analysis
and synthesis;
logic and
argument;
analytical
reflection;
organisation and
communication
of ideas and
evidence)
Unsubstantiated
generalizations,
made without use
of any credible
evidence. Lack of
logic, leading to
unsupportable/
missing
conclusions.
Lack of any
attempt to
analyse,
synthesise or
evaluate. Poor
communication of
ideas.
Some evidence of
analytical
intellectual skills,
but for the most
part descriptive.
Ideas/findings
sometimes illogical
and contradictory.
Generalized
statements made
with scant
evidence.
Conclusions lack
relevance.
Threshold level.
Evidence of some
logical, analytical
thinking and some
attempts to
synthesise, albeit
with some
weaknesses.
Some evidence to
support findings/
views, but evidence
not consistently
interpreted.
Some relevant
conclusions
Evidence of some
logical, analytical
thinking and
synthesis. Can
analyse new and/or
abstract data and
situations without
guidance.
An emerging
awareness of
different stances
and ability to use
evidence to support
the argument.
Valid conclusions
Sound, logical,
analytical thinking;
synthesis and
evaluation. Ability to
devise and sustain
persuasive
arguments, and to
review the reliability,
validity & significance
of evidence. Ability to
communicate ideas
and evidence
accurately and
convincingly.
Sound, convincing
conclusions.
Thoroughly logical
work, supported by
judiciously selected
and evaluated
evidence. High quality
analysis, developed
independently or
through effective
collaboration..
Ability to investigate
contradictory
information and
identify reasons for
contradictions.
Strong conclusions.
Exceptional work;
judiciously selected
and evaluated
evidence. Very high
quality analysis,
developed
independently or
through effective
collaboration.
Ability to investigate
contradictory
information and identify
reasons for
contradictions.
Highly persuasive
conclusions.
Use of
Researchinformed

Literature
(including
referencing,
appropriate
academic
conventions and
academic
honesty)
Little evidence of
reading.
Views and
findings
unsupported and
non-authoritative.
Academic
conventions
largely ignored.
Evidence of little
reading and/or of
reliance on
inappropriate
sources, and/or
indiscriminate use
of sources.
Academic
conventions used
inconsistently.
Threshold level.
References to a
range of relevant
sources. Some
omissions and
minor errors.
Academic
conventions
evident and largely
consistent, with
minor lapses.
Knowledge,
analysis and
evaluation of a
range of researchinformed
literature,
including sources
retrieved, analysed
independently.
Academic skills
consistently
applied.
Knowledge, analysis
and evaluation of a
range of researchinformed
literature,
including sources
retrieved, analysed
independently with
accuracy and
assurance. Good
academic skills,
consistently applied.
Excellent knowledge
of research informed
literature embedded
in the work.
Consistent analysis
and evaluation of
sources. High-level
academic skills
consistently applied.
Outstanding knowledge
of research-informed
literature embedded in
the work. Consistent
analysis and evaluation
of sources. High-level
academic skills
consistently and
professionally applied.
Page 4 of 4
LEVEL 6 cont…
Graduate Skills
for Life and
Employment
(e.g. researchrelated
skills;
written, graphical
and oral
communication
skills;
group working;
problem-solving;
practical and
professional skills)
Little or no
evidence of the
required skills in
any of the
graduate skills
identified in the
programme
specification at
this level.
Limited evidence of
the graduate skills
identified in the
programme
specification.
Significant
weaknesses
evident, which
suggest that the
candidate has not
gained the skills
necessary for
graduate-level
employment.
Research skills:
Can competently
undertake
reasonably
straightforward
research tasks with
minimum guidance,
but with minor
weaknesses.
Can communicate
in a range of
formats, including
orally, at a standard
appropriate for
graduate-level
employment, and
with limited
weaknesses.
Can generally work
effectively within
a team, negotiating
in a professional
manner and
managing conflict.
Is largely confident
and effective in
identifying and
defining complex
problems and
applying knowledge
and methods to
their solution.
Able to recognise
own strengths
and weaknesses
in relation to
graduate
employment, with
minor areas of
weakness.
Research skills:
Can competently
undertake
reasonably
straightforward
research tasks with
minimum guidance
Can communicate
effectively in a
range of formats,
including orally, at
a standard
appropriate for
graduate-level
employment, and
with limited
weaknesses.
Can consistently
work effectively
within a team,
negotiating in a
professional
manner and
managing conflict.
Is confident and
flexible in
identifying and
defining complex
problems and
applying knowledge
and methods to
their solution.
Able to evaluate
own strengths
and weaknesses
in relation to
graduate
employment.
Research skills:
Can successfully
complete a range of
research-like tasks,
including evaluation,
with very limited
external guidance.
Can communicate
well, confidently and
consistently in a
range of formats,
including orally, at a
standard appropriate
for graduate-level
employment.
Can consistently
work very well
within a team,
leading & negotiating
in a professional
manner and
managing conflict.
Is confident and
flexible in identifying
and defining a range
of complex
problems and
applying knowledge
and methods to their
solution.
Able to take initiative
in evaluating own
strengths and
weaknesses in
relation to graduatelevel
professional and
practical skills, and
act autonomously to
develop new areas of
skills as necessary.
Research skills:
Can very successfully
complete a range of
research-like tasks,
including evaluation,
with a significant
degree of autonomy.
Can communicate
professionally and
confidently in a range
of formats, at a high
standard appropriate
for graduate-level
employment.
Can work
professionally
within a team,
showing leadership
skills as appropriate,
managing conflict and
meeting obligations.
Is professional and
flexible in
autonomously
identifying and
defining a range of
complex problems
and applying
knowledge and
methods to their
solution.
Able to show insight
and autonomy in
evaluating own
strengths and
weaknesses and
developing
professional and
practical skills needed
for graduate-level
employment.
Research skills:
Exceptionally
successful in a wide
range of research-like
tasks, including
evaluation, with a high
degree of autonomy
Can communicate
with an exceptionally
high level of
professionalism, in a
range of formats,
including orally,
appropriate for
graduate-level
employment.
Can work
exceptionally well
and professionally
within a team,
showing leadership
skills as appropriate,
managing conflict, and
meeting all obligations.
Is exceptionally
professional and
flexible in
autonomously
defining and solving
a range of complex
problems and applying
knowledge and
methods to their
solution.
Outstanding ability to
evaluate own
strengths and
weaknesses, showing
outstanding attributes
for graduate-level
employment.
Marks for Level 6 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3
rd
) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1
st
) 86-100 (1
st
)

Page 1 of 4
Coursework Assignment Brief
Semester: E15 Autumn Semester 2015
Module Code: PM301
Module Title: Total Quality Management
Programme BSc (Hons) Business Management
BSc (Hons) Business Management (Travel & Tourism)
BSc (Hons) Computer Science with Business Informatics
Level: Level 6
Awarding Body: Plymouth University
Module Leader Rupal Pattni
Format: Report
Presentation: No
Any special
requirements:
? All work should be submitted on the Student Portal.
? Work to be submitted in a professional manner, and as
directed by the Module Leader.
Word Limit: 2,500 words (with 10% plus or minus leeway)
Deadline date for
submission:
Thursday, 10 December 2015
Learning outcomes to
be examined in this
assessment (please
note that this is NOT the
assessment task)
? Understand the nature and purpose of total quality
management and how it is influenced by the management
culture of organisations.
? Identify a range of total quality management techniques
including benchmarking and process re- engineering.
? Determine how the introduction of total quality management
involves reconsideration and synchronisation of functional
policies to achieve maximum efficiency in organisational
performance.
Percentage of marks
awarded for module:
This assignment is worth 50% of the total marks for the module
Assessment criteria Explanatory comments on the
assessment criteria
Maximum marks for
each section
Knowledge and
Research (content,
relevance, and
originality)
Clear demonstration of rigorous research
from recognised authoritative sources.
Audience focus. Meeting the deliverables.
45%
Page 2 of 4
Writing and
Presentation (format,
references or
bibliography, and
style)
Rigorous use of the Harvard Methodology for
citation and referencing; page numbering;
correct display of direct quotations.
10 %
Argument and
Analysis (Critical
analysis, evaluation,
and application)
Constructive critical analysis, introduction,
conclusion. Demonstration of a clear
understanding of the issues. Use of
academic models. Full articulation of ideas
developed. Offering well-argued solutions
and/or alternatives if and where appropriate.
45%
Assignment Task
Using an organisation of your choice, evaluate the reasons why a company would be interested in the
benchmarking process. In addition, discuss the steps that this organisation will undertake in order to
implement benchmarking practices, including the difficulties it may face doing this. Finally, recommend ways
to mitigate the risks and difficulties that the organisation may face.
Total Marks for assignment: 100
Page 3 of 4
Marking Criteria for Assessment at Level 6 (Bachelors Degree with Honours)
Marks 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3
rd
) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1
st
) 70-85 (1
st
)
Assessment
categories
Knowledge &
Understanding
of Subject
Major gaps in
knowledge and
understanding of
material at this
level. Substantial
inaccuracies.
Gaps in knowledge,
with only superficial
understanding.
Some significant
inaccuracies.
Threshold level.
Understanding of
key aspects of field
of study; coherent
knowledge, at least
in part informed by
current research in
the subject
discipline.
Systematic
understanding of
field(s) of study, as
indicated by
relevant QAA
subject benchmark
statements for the
degree programme.
Good understanding
of the field(s) of
study; coherent
knowledge, in line
with subject
benchmark, at least in
part informed by
current research in
the subject discipline.
Excellent knowledge
and understanding of
the main concepts
and key theories/
concepts of the
discipline(s). Clear
awareness of the
limitations of the
knowledge base.
Highly detailed
knowledge and
understanding of the
main theories/concepts
of the discipline(s), and
an awareness of the
ambiguities and
limitations of
knowledge.
Cognitive/
Intellectual
Skills
(e.g. analysis
and synthesis;
logic and
argument;
analytical
reflection;
organisation and
communication
of ideas and
evidence)
Unsubstantiated
generalizations,
made without use
of any credible
evidence. Lack of
logic, leading to
unsupportable/
missing
conclusions.
Lack of any
attempt to
analyse,
synthesise or
evaluate. Poor
communication of
ideas.
Some evidence of
analytical
intellectual skills,
but for the most
part descriptive.
Ideas/findings
sometimes illogical
and contradictory.
Generalized
statements made
with scant
evidence.
Conclusions lack
relevance.
Threshold level.
Evidence of some
logical, analytical
thinking and some
attempts to
synthesise, albeit
with some
weaknesses.
Some evidence to
support findings/
views, but evidence
not consistently
interpreted.
Some relevant
conclusions
Evidence of some
logical, analytical
thinking and
synthesis. Can
analyse new and/or
abstract data and
situations without
guidance.
An emerging
awareness of
different stances
and ability to use
evidence to support
the argument.
Valid conclusions
Sound, logical,
analytical thinking;
synthesis and
evaluation. Ability to
devise and sustain
persuasive
arguments, and to
review the reliability,
validity & significance
of evidence. Ability to
communicate ideas
and evidence
accurately and
convincingly.
Sound, convincing
conclusions.
Thoroughly logical
work, supported by
judiciously selected
and evaluated
evidence. High quality
analysis, developed
independently or
through effective
collaboration..
Ability to investigate
contradictory
information and
identify reasons for
contradictions.
Strong conclusions.
Exceptional work;
judiciously selected
and evaluated
evidence. Very high
quality analysis,
developed
independently or
through effective
collaboration.
Ability to investigate
contradictory
information and identify
reasons for
contradictions.
Highly persuasive
conclusions.
Use of
Researchinformed

Literature
(including
referencing,
appropriate
academic
conventions and
academic
honesty)
Little evidence of
reading.
Views and
findings
unsupported and
non-authoritative.
Academic
conventions
largely ignored.
Evidence of little
reading and/or of
reliance on
inappropriate
sources, and/or
indiscriminate use
of sources.
Academic
conventions used
inconsistently.
Threshold level.
References to a
range of relevant
sources. Some
omissions and
minor errors.
Academic
conventions
evident and largely
consistent, with
minor lapses.
Knowledge,
analysis and
evaluation of a
range of researchinformed
literature,
including sources
retrieved, analysed
independently.
Academic skills
consistently
applied.
Knowledge, analysis
and evaluation of a
range of researchinformed
literature,
including sources
retrieved, analysed
independently with
accuracy and
assurance. Good
academic skills,
consistently applied.
Excellent knowledge
of research informed
literature embedded
in the work.
Consistent analysis
and evaluation of
sources. High-level
academic skills
consistently applied.
Outstanding knowledge
of research-informed
literature embedded in
the work. Consistent
analysis and evaluation
of sources. High-level
academic skills
consistently and
professionally applied.
Page 4 of 4
LEVEL 6 cont…
Graduate Skills
for Life and
Employment
(e.g. researchrelated
skills;
written, graphical
and oral
communication
skills;
group working;
problem-solving;
practical and
professional skills)
Little or no
evidence of the
required skills in
any of the
graduate skills
identified in the
programme
specification at
this level.
Limited evidence of
the graduate skills
identified in the
programme
specification.
Significant
weaknesses
evident, which
suggest that the
candidate has not
gained the skills
necessary for
graduate-level
employment.
Research skills:
Can competently
undertake
reasonably
straightforward
research tasks with
minimum guidance,
but with minor
weaknesses.
Can communicate
in a range of
formats, including
orally, at a standard
appropriate for
graduate-level
employment, and
with limited
weaknesses.
Can generally work
effectively within
a team, negotiating
in a professional
manner and
managing conflict.
Is largely confident
and effective in
identifying and
defining complex
problems and
applying knowledge
and methods to
their solution.
Able to recognise
own strengths
and weaknesses
in relation to
graduate
employment, with
minor areas of
weakness.
Research skills:
Can competently
undertake
reasonably
straightforward
research tasks with
minimum guidance
Can communicate
effectively in a
range of formats,
including orally, at
a standard
appropriate for
graduate-level
employment, and
with limited
weaknesses.
Can consistently
work effectively
within a team,
negotiating in a
professional
manner and
managing conflict.
Is confident and
flexible in
identifying and
defining complex
problems and
applying knowledge
and methods to
their solution.
Able to evaluate
own strengths
and weaknesses
in relation to
graduate
employment.
Research skills:
Can successfully
complete a range of
research-like tasks,
including evaluation,
with very limited
external guidance.
Can communicate
well, confidently and
consistently in a
range of formats,
including orally, at a
standard appropriate
for graduate-level
employment.
Can consistently
work very well
within a team,
leading & negotiating
in a professional
manner and
managing conflict.
Is confident and
flexible in identifying
and defining a range
of complex
problems and
applying knowledge
and methods to their
solution.
Able to take initiative
in evaluating own
strengths and
weaknesses in
relation to graduatelevel
professional and
practical skills, and
act autonomously to
develop new areas of
skills as necessary.
Research skills:
Can very successfully
complete a range of
research-like tasks,
including evaluation,
with a significant
degree of autonomy.
Can communicate
professionally and
confidently in a range
of formats, at a high
standard appropriate
for graduate-level
employment.
Can work
professionally
within a team,
showing leadership
skills as appropriate,
managing conflict and
meeting obligations.
Is professional and
flexible in
autonomously
identifying and
defining a range of
complex problems
and applying
knowledge and
methods to their
solution.
Able to show insight
and autonomy in
evaluating own
strengths and
weaknesses and
developing
professional and
practical skills needed
for graduate-level
employment.
Research skills:
Exceptionally
successful in a wide
range of research-like
tasks, including
evaluation, with a high
degree of autonomy
Can communicate
with an exceptionally
high level of
professionalism, in a
range of formats,
including orally,
appropriate for
graduate-level
employment.
Can work
exceptionally well
and professionally
within a team,
showing leadership
skills as appropriate,
managing conflict, and
meeting all obligations.
Is exceptionally
professional and
flexible in
autonomously
defining and solving
a range of complex
problems and applying
knowledge and
methods to their
solution.
Outstanding ability to
evaluate own
strengths and
weaknesses, showing
outstanding attributes
for graduate-level
employment.
Marks for Level 6 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3
rd
) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1
st
) 86-100 (1
st
)