Critically analyse the processes and dynamics of team collaboration during Assessment 1 Evaluate the quality of the final group report Identify and reflect on areas for improvement in team

MGT505 Managing Performance & Innovation Assessment 2 Brief 2026 |

Module Title MGT505 Managing Performance & Innovation Word Count 1,000 words (+/- 10%) Assessment Type Report Assessment Title Assessment 2 – Team Performance Review ( Individual)

MGT505 Assessment 2 Brief Formative feedback* helps you improve your work ahead of final submission. Use it to:

Identify strengths and areas for improvement Apply assessment criteria to guide your development Practise giving and receiving peer feedback Build confidence in recognising and producing high-quality work Learning Outcomes Assessed MLO2 – Analyse and develop value propositions, combining intellectual curiosity and creativity MLO4 – Analyse and reflect on different ideas, including your own, to inform decision making Assessment Details  Aims

This assignment aims to develop your abilities to critically reflect on team performance and collaboration during a group project. Students will individually analyse the processes and dynamics of their team while working on Assessment 1, evaluate the quality of the final report, and identify areas for improvement in team collaboration and performance.

Objectives

Critically analyse the processes and dynamics of team collaboration during Assessment 1 Evaluate the quality of the final group report Identify and reflect on areas for improvement in team collaboration and performance Enhance individual reflective and analytical skills Task Requirements 

You are required to submit an individual report of 1,000 words, analysing the team’s performance in conducting Assessment 1. The report should include:

An analysis of the processes and dynamics the team went through to produce the final report. An evaluation of the quality of the final report produced by the team. A reflection on how well the team worked together. Identification of areas where the team’s collective approach could have been improved, with suggestions for future improvements. You need to produce one copy of the report to be no more than 1,000 words in length (not including executive summary and appendices). You are expected to upload an electronic copy of the report, along with all appendices, to BlackBoard by 12 noon on Friday, 24th of April 2026 (Friday of week 11). 

You must submit by the deadline. If you are late, the maximum you can get for the report will be a mark capped at 40%. The late submission period is 3 days after the deadline. During this late submission period, the report mark will be capped at a maximum of 40%. If you submit after this point, you will automatically get a zero for the report and may have to re-sit next term!

Structure and Coherence

Suggested Format of The Report 

1.0 Analysis of Team Processes and Dynamics: Discuss the steps and processes the team went through, including any challenges and how they were addressed.

2.0 Evaluation of the Final Report: Assess the quality of the final group report, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

3.0 Reflection on Team Collaboration: Reflect on how well the team worked together, including communication, roles, and contributions.

4.0 Suggestions for Improvement: Identify ways the team’s approach could have been improved, with specific recommendations for future projects.

References: List all sources used in the report and reflection

Appendices: appropriate and relevant appendices

Formative Assessment

You will have an opportunity to submit a draft outline of their individual report by Friday, 10th April. This outline will include:

Key points for each section of the report. Initial reflections on team processes and collaboration. The formative assessment will provide feedback to guide students in developing their final report. (For further details on timing, see elsewhere within the relevant folder on BlackBoard.)

Referencing

You should use only public domain resources for your research. Identify the sources that you have used by citing them in the text of your assignment and provide an accurate and complete list of all sources at the end of your document using the Harvard system. Our Library has a comprehensive referencing support section to help you.

Academic Integrity & Misconduct 

Always do your own work, cite sources, and follow the rules. See the Academic Misconduct guidance for details.

Time Management

To help you plan and manage your time, we estimate that, on average, you will spend 36 hours to complete this assignment; this will vary from student to student. Should you need support, you can contact the Academic Skills team

Marking

Marking criteria

Team performance evaluation (40%): Depth and quality of the analysis of team processes and dynamics. Identification of issues for improvement (20%): Identification of improvement opportunities Actions to improve (20%): Explaining how to improve the identified issues Work as a whole (20%): Clarity and logical flow of the report, professional presentation, documenting the use of A.I. (if appropriate) and accurate referencing Marking Rubric Criteria Band 0 0%-19% Very Poor Band 1 20%-39% Poor Band 2 40%-49% Satisfactory Band 3 50%-59% Reasonable Band 4 60%-69% Very Good Band 5 70%-85% Excellent Band 6 86%-100% Outstanding Criterion 1 (40%) Team Performance Evaluation: Depth and quality of team processes and dynamics Very Poor: Minimal or no analysis of team processes and dynamics Poor: Limited analysis, lacks depth and quality, significant gaps in understanding team processes and dynamics Satisfactory: Basic analysis of team processes and dynamics, some relevant points, but lacks depth and critical insights. Reasonable: Adequate analysis, some critical insights, moderate depth in understanding team processes and dynamics Very Good: Thorough analysis, good depth and quality, strong understanding of team processes and dynamics. Excellent: Comprehensive analysis, high depth and quality, insightful understanding of team processes and dynamics.. Outstanding: Exceptionally thorough analysis, profound depth and quality, exceptional understanding of team processes and dynamics. Criterion 2 (20%): Identification of issues for improvement, Identification of improvement opportunities Very Poor: Issues are irrelevant, very poorly defined, or missing entirely. Poor: Some issues identified, but with major gaps and inaccuracies. Lacks depth. Satisfactory: Issues identified are somewhat relevant but lack a comprehensive understanding. Reasonable: Relevant issues identified with some understanding, though not exhaustive. Very Good: Most relevant issues are identified with a good understanding and some depth. Excellent: Issues are comprehensively identified with strong insight and depth. Outstanding: All relevant issues are thoroughly identified with exceptional insight and depth. Criterion 3 (20%) Actions to improve: Explaining how to improve the identified issues Very Poor: No clear suggestions for improvement, lacks relevance and practicality. Poor: Actions suggested are poorly aligned with the issues, lack feasibility, and are not well thought out. Satisfactory: Actions suggested address the issues but lack detail and practical applicability. Reasonable: Actions are mostly relevant and practical but lack innovation or detailed planning. Very Good: Actions are relevant, practical, and show a clear understanding of the issues, with some innovative elements. Excellent: Actions are highly relevant, innovative, and well thought out, demonstrating strong practicality and alignment with the issues. Outstanding: Actions are exceptionally relevant, highly innovative, and expertly planned, demonstrating excellent practical applicability and alignment with the issues. Criterion 4 (20%) Work as a whole: Clarity and logical flow of the report, professional presentation, documenting the use of A.I. (if appropriate) and accurate referencing Very Poor: Disorganised structure, poor presentation, no discussion of A.I. (if appropriate), and incorrect or no referencing. Poor: Inconsistent structure, minimal effort in presentation, poor discussion of A.I. (if appropriate), and poor referencing. Satisfactory: Basic structure, adequate presentation, some discussion of A.I. (if appropriate), Reasonable: Clear structure, reasonable presentation, reasonable discussion of A.I. (if appropriate), and mostly correct referencing. Very Good: Well-organised structure, good presentation, good discussion of A.I. (if appropriate) correct and consistent referencing Excellent: Highly organised structure, excellent presentation, excellent discussion of A.I. (if appropriate), accurate and detailed referencing. Outstanding: Exceptional structure, flawless presentation, outstanding discussion of A.I. (if appropriate), and impeccable referencing. Useful links for Academic and Wellbeing Support Academic Skills

Help with academic writing and study techniques. Book sessions or email: academicskills@regents.ac.uk

Exceptional Circumstances

Contact ask@regents.ac.uk and your module tutor. Submit an Exceptional Circumstances Request Form with evidence before the deadline. 

Late Submissions

Coursework up to 3 days late may be eligible for submission under late submission rules (capped marks apply). Later submissions receive 0%.   Wellbeing Support

Reach out for support via appointment or email: ask@regents.ac.uk

Student Support Agreements (SSA)

For assessment adjustments, email: studentsupport@regents.ac.uk. Notify your tutor at least one week in advance of the relevant Assessment deadline if extra time is needed