Assessment Overview In a globalised business environment, effective decision-making relies on evidence-based research and critical analysis. This assessment challenges students to apply theoretical models and research

HC1062 Decision Making and Problem-Solving 

 

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester	T32025
Unit Code	HC1062
Unit Title	Decision Making and Problem-Solving
Assessment Type	Group Assignment
Weight	40%
Submission Guidelines	• All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a        completed Assignment Cover Page. • The assignment must be in MS Word format unless otherwise specified.
Academic Integrity Information	Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding academic integrity. All assessments must comply with academic integrity guidelines. Please learn about academic integrity and consult your teachers with any questions. Violating academic integrity is serious and punishable by penalties that range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.
Penalties	All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date and time, along with a completed Assessment Cover Page. Late penalties apply. 20% penalty applicable for solo (single student) group submissions. Your answers must be based on Holmes Institute syllabus of this unit. Outside sources may not amount to more than 10% of any answer and must be correctly referenced in full. Over-reliance on outside sources will be penalised. Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Holmes Institute Adapted Harvard Referencing. Penalties are associated with incorrect citation and referencing.

Group Assignment Guidelines and Specifications

Assessment Overview

In a globalised business environment, effective decision-making relies on evidence-based research and critical analysis. This assessment challenges students to apply theoretical models and research methods to a real-world management issue faced by a multinational organisation. Through collaborative inquiry, students will explore how structured research supports informed managerial decisions, strengthens problem-solving, and fosters innovation in global business contexts.

Assessment Parts

The assessment consists of three interrelated parts (A, B, and C) designed to develop and demonstrate students’ research, analytical, and communication skills in a practical context:

Part A –Group Report (20marks):

A 2,000-word research-based report where students apply decision-making and problem-solving frameworks to analyze a selected management issue within a multinational organisation. The report integrates theoretical models with secondary data analysis to generate evidence-based recommendations.

Part B–Individual Reflection (10marks):

A 1,000-word reflective essay (approximately 250 words per student) where each member analyses their personal experience with decision-making and collaboration in this group assignment, linking individual learning to relevant theories and frameworks.

Part C–Creative Presentation/Video Brief(10marks):

A 5–6-minute group presentation that communicates the key insights, findings, and lessons learned from Parts A and B through engaging storytelling, visuals, and professional delivery.

Together, these components encourage both individual accountability and collaborative synthesis, providing a comprehensive learning experience that mirrors the multidisciplinary nature of real-world business problem-solving.

Assessment Objectives

• Reinforce key topics from Lectures 1–7.
• Apply business research, decision-making, and problem-solving theories to a real-world issue.
• Develop collaborative, analytical, and academic writing skills.
• Demonstrate ethical research design using secondary data.
• Communicate insights through a creative and engaging presentation.

Assessment Task

Each group will:

1. Select one management issue from the options below.
2. Choose a multinational organisation relevant to that issue.
3. Conduct secondary research and apply course concepts to analyse and recommend solutions.
4. Integrate individual sections into a cohesive group report.

Management Issues(Select One):

1. Declining Sales
2. Poor Customer Satisfaction
3. Ineffective Marketing Strategy

Group Research Components:

The following sections are collaboratively developed by all group members to maintain cohesion and shared responsibility throughout the research process:

• Introduction & Background
• Problem Definition & Research Questions
• Recommendations& Conclusion
• Group Reflection
• References

These sections ensure the project maintains a consistent voice and integrates all members’ contributions into a unified report.

Individual Research  Components:

Each group member will contribute a distinct yet complementary section of the overall research project. These individual components align with the key stages of the business research process, ensuringthatallmembersactivelyengagewithboththeoryandapplicationwhilecontributingequally to the final report.
 

Student	Research Aspect
A	Literature Review & Theoretical Framework – Conduct a focused review of existing research and relevant decision-making or problem-solving theories to establish a conceptual foundation for the study.
B	Research Design and Ethics – Outline the chosen research design (exploratory, descriptive, or causal) and discuss ethical considerations related to the use of secondary data.
C	Qualitative and Quantitative Methods – Explain and justify the use of qualitative and/or quantitative research methods; contribute to the analysis of collected data.
D	Data Collection and Measurement – Describe how data is gathered and measured; ensure validity, reliability, and minimise potential measurement errors.

Part A– Group Report Structure (2,000 words)–20 marks

Your group report should include the following sections:

1. Introduction & Background• Introduce the organisation and management issue.
   • Explain its importance in the decision-making context.
2. Problem Definition & Research Questions
   • Define the decision-making problem.
   • Develop research objectives and key questions.
3. Research Design & Ethics
   • Explain your chosen research design(exploratory, descriptive, or causal).
   • Address ethical considerations related to secondary data use.
4. Data Collection Approach
   • Justify the use of secondary  data and chosen methods(qualitative/quantitative).
5. Measurement & Instrument Design
   • Describe how variables are measured, ensuring validity and reliability.
6. Analysis Plan & Expected Insights

• Outline your analytical framework and how it supports managerial decision-making.

1. Recommendations & Conclusion

• Provide realistic, evidence-based recommendations.
• Summarise implications for global organisations.

1. Group Reflection

• Each member’s contribution.
• Application of decision-making and problem-solving theories.
• Key insights or collaboration takeaways.

1. References

• Minimum 6 credible sources (academic journals, textbooks, business reports).

Marking Rubric: Group Report (20 marks)

Criteria	Excellent(HD)	VeryGood(D)	Good (C)	Satisfactory (P)	Unsatisfactory (F)
Introduction&	Clear, insightful	Clear	Adequate	Basic	Missing or
Background	Introduction ;strong link	introduction; good	introduction;	introduction;	unclear
(2 marks)	Between organisation, issue, and decision-	Link to decision- making.	Some contextual clarity.(1mark)	limited relevance.	introduction. (0.2marks)
	Making context.(2marks)	(1.5marks)		(0.5marks)
Problem	Clearly defined problem;	Well-defined	Reasonably clear	Somewhat	Missing or
Definition&	well-structured objectives	Problem and	Problem and	vague	Poorly defined.
Research Question (2marks)	And research questions. (2marks)	relevant objectives. (1.5marks)	objectives. (1mark)	Problem  or questions. (0.5marks)	(0.2marks)
Research	Excellent justification of	Sound justification	Adequate	Limited	Minimal or
Design&	Design and ethical issues;	With clear ethical	Discussion of	Discussion  of	missing
Ethics (4marks)	Integrates theory and Practice.  (4marks)	focus.(3marks)	Design and ethics. (2marks)	Design or ethics.(1mark)	Discussion. (0.5marks)
Data	Thorough explanation of	Clear and	Adequate data	Basic data	Insufficient or
Collection&	Data sources, variables,	Appropriate data	Explanation with	description;	Incorrect  data
Measurement (4marks)	validity, and reliability. (4marks)	Sources and Measures.  (3 marks)	Minor gaps. (2marks)	Lacks depth. (1mark)	Discussion. (0.5marks)
Analysis&	Analytical approaches	Analysis is clear	Analysis present	Limited or	No meaningful
Insights	logical, data- driven, and	And relevant to	But lacks depth or	descriptive	analysis
(4marks)	Supports strong Managerial insights.	Problem-solving. (3marks)	Clarity. (2marks)	Analysis. (1mark)	Provided. (0.5marks)
	(4marks)
Recommend at	Highly practical, evidence-	Realistic, well-	Reasonable	Basic or	Nor irrelevant
ions&	Based recommendations	supported	recommendation;	generic	recommendation
Conclusion (2 marks)	With strong link age to findings.(2marks)	Recommendation. (1.5marks)	Some linkage to Findings. (1mark)	recommendation ons. (0.5marks)	ns. (0.2marks)
Group	Deep reflection on	Clear reflection	General	Minimal or	No meaningful
Reflection	Collaboration  and	With relevant	reflection; minor	descriptive	Reflection.
(2 marks)	learning; strong link to Decision-making theory.	Insights. (1.5marks)	Linkage to theory. (1mark)	Reflection. (0.5marks)	(0.2marks)
	(2marks)
Total 20 Marks

Part B–Individual Reflection (1,000 words total about 250 per student)–10 marks

 Each student must submit an individual reflection (attached as an appendix) explaining their own experience with decision-making, what they learned from this project, and how theoretical frameworks influenced their understanding of real-world business problems.

Criteria:

• Personal insight and critical thinking
• Connection to decision-making and problem-solving theories
• Clarity and coherence

Marking Rubric: Individual Reflection (10 marks)

Criteria	Excellent(HD)	Very Good(D)	Good (C)	Satisfactory (P)	Unsatisfactory (F)
1.Depth of	Demonstrates exceptional	Strong,	Some self-	Minimal self-	Superficial or no
Reflection&	Insight into personal decision-	thoughtful	Awareness and	reflection;	reflection; lacks
Self- Awareness (3 marks)	Making and problem-solving style; clearly connects experiences to learning outcomes; shows deep self-	reflection; shows good insight into personal	Description of experience; reflection tends to be more	Focuses mainly on recounting events rather than analyzing	personal insight or relevance.
	Awareness and growth.	learning and	descriptive than	Them.
		group	Analytical.
		Experience.
2.	Integrates theoretical	Applies relevant	Some attempt to	Limited or	No connection
Application	frameworks(e.g., decision-	theory	Link theory to	unclear	to theory or
Of Theory to Practice (3 marks)	Making models, problem- Solving techniques) Seamlessly into reflection; demonstrates strong	Effectively with Minor gaps in explanation.	Practice but lacks Depth or accuracy.	theoretical Application.	misunderstand ng of concepts.
	Understanding and practical
	Application.
3. Critical	Demonstrates high-level	Shows solid	Provides some	Limited analysis;	No evidence of
Thinking&	Critical thinking ;identifies	Critical analysis	Analysis and	mostly	Critical thinking
Learning Outcomes (2 marks)	Challenges ,evaluates outcomes, and proposes future improvements in approach or thinking.	Of experience; identifies learning and some future	Reflection on learning; future actions not well Developed.	descriptive; minimal insight into Improvement.	or learning Outcomes.
		Implications.
4.	Reflection swell-structured,	Clear and	Generally clear	Writing lacks	Poorly written;
Organization,	clear, concise, and engaging;	coherent	Writing with some	clarity or	disorganized
Clarity &Academic Writing(2marks)	Excellent grammar, flow, and Academic tone; correct referencing where applicable.	writing; minor Language or formatting issues.	structural or Grammatical errors.	coherence; Noticeable language errors.	and unclear; does not meet word or formatting Requirements.
Total 10Marks

Part C–Creative Presentation/ Video Brief(10marks)

To communicate your findings through an engaging visual presentation that connects research insights, teamwork, and personal reflection.

Structure (5–6minutestotal):

1. Introduction – Introduce group members, topic, and purpose (2 marks)
2. Summary of Report – Highlight key findings, insights, and implications (2 marks)
3. Discussion – Showcase visuals, comparisons, and frameworks (4 marks)
4. Conclusion – Summaries learning’s and future implications (2 marks)

Marking Rubric: Group Presentation(10marks)

Criteria	Excellent(HD)	Very Good(D)	Good (C)	Satisfactory (P)	Unsatisfacto ry (F)
Content Structure (3 marks)	Logical, engaging flow; clear link between report, theory, and real- World insights.	Well- Structured and coherent.	Clear but somewhat uneven Structure.	Basic or unclear structure.	Disorganized or off topic.
Depth of Analysis (3 marks)	Demonstrates excellent understanding of report findings and their Application to decision- Making.	Strong Understanding and good synthesis.	Adequate understanding with some gaps.	Limited Interpretation of findings.	Lacks analytical depth.
Visual Communication (2 marks)	Professional visuals: creative storytelling Enhances engagement and understanding.	Effective visuals; supports Message clearly.	Basic visuals; generally, supports Message.	Minimal visuals or unclear design.	Poorer missing visuals.
Delivery & Team Coordination (2 marks)	Highly confident, well- paced, and cohesive teamwork.	Confident and clear; good Teamwork.	Generally clear; minor issues in Delivery.	Some coordination issues.	Disjointed or unclear Delivery.
Total10Marks

Citation and Referencing Rules

Holmes has implemented a revised Harvard approach to referencing. The following rules apply:

1. Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources that provide full-text access for lecturers and markers.
2. In-text Citations
   All assignments must include in-text citations to the listed references. These must include the surname of the author(s) or name of the authoring body, year of publication, page number of the content, and paragraph where the content can be found. For example:
   “The company decided to implement an enterprise-wide data warehouse business intelligence strategy (Hawking et al., 2004, p3(4)).”

Reference List

The reference list must be located on the last page of your submission.
The reference list must include the details of all the in-text citations, arranged A–Z alphabetically by author surname, with each reference numbered (1 to 10, etc.) and each reference MUST include a hyperlink to the full text of the cited reference URL.

For example:
7. Hawking, P., McCarthy, B. & Stein, A. 2004. Second Wave ERP Education, Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol … Issue No. …, pages … to … http://jise.org/Volume15/n3/JISEv15n3p327.pdf

Non-Adherence to Referencing Rules

If students do not follow the above rules, penalties apply:

1. For students who submit assignments that do not comply with all aspects of the rules, a 10% penalty will be applied.
2. If citations are ‘fake’, students will be reported for academic misconduct