This is an individual assignment. Question 1 is a report relating to the case study below called ‘Cramer Technology Systems’. Question 2 is a critical reflection.
Question 1: Report. Using services marketing theory/concepts, analyse and explain Cramer’s loss of customers. Recommendhow it might improve the customer experience and customer retention. Identify any potential challenges or risks associated with your recommendations.
Question 2: Critical reflection. Describe the nature and context of a service encounter (online, offline, or multi-channel) where you were the customer. Select and apply one services marketing framework/concept to analyse and evaluate the encounter. Identify strengths and limitations of your chosen framework/concept as a tool for analysing your encounter.
- It is your decision as to what theories/frameworks/concepts to use in Question 1. Quality of application is more important than the quantity of frameworks applied.
- Remember that the requirement in question 1 is to apply rather than describe theory. The requirement in question 2 is to apply and also critically evaluate (critique) theory.
- You may use subheadings in your answers but avoid excessive use of bullet points.
- There is no need to reference the case study.
- Evidence of relevant reading beyond the lecture slides, with appropriate application of this reading, will be rewarded. Besides textbooks, you may want to search for relevant articles from Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Service Research, or Service Industries Journal.
- Include a title page, contents, and references. There is no need for an abstract or executive summary. Please number your pages.
The following criteria will be used in evaluating this assessment:
|Analysis, Q1. (35%)||Recommendations, Q1. (35%)||Structure, presentation, referencing, Q1/2. (10%)||Critical reflection, Q2. (20%)|
|80-100 PASS Exceptional||Insightful analysis with originality of thought. Identifies underlying issue(s). Excellent application of theory. Excellent integration of relevant literature from outside reading list.||Highly appropriate, with originality of thought. Consistent with analysis. Exceptional clarity and detail. Supported where possible by theory and literature. Highlights potential challenges/risks.||Exceptional organization and flow of material with excellent connections between ideas. Exceptional standard of literacy and presentation. Near faultless referencing.||Identifies significant aspects of the encounter. Insightful analysis/evaluation with appropriate framework. Excellent contextualised critique of framework with suggestions for improvement.|
|70-79 PASS Excellent||Insightful analysis. Identifies underlying issue(s). Excellent application of theory. Excellent integration of relevant literature from outside reading list.||Excellent and appropriate, with some originality of thought. Consistent with analysis. Excellent clarity and detail. Supported where possible by theory and literature. Highlights potential challenges/risks.||Excellent organization and flow of material. Ideas are well connected. Excellent standard of literacy and presentation. Referencing is excellent but with one or two slips.||Identifies significant aspects of the encounter. Excellent analysis/evaluation with appropriate framework. Excellent contextualised critique of framework with suggestions for improvement.|
|60-69 PASS Very good / good||Good analysis. Identifies underlying issue(s) but may not discuss in depth. Good application of theory. Good integration of relevant literature, some from outside reading list.||Good and mostly appropriate. Largely consistent with analysis. Good clarity and detail. Good theoretical support. Acknowledges some challenges/risks.||Good organization and flow of material with ideas that are mostly well connected. Good standard of literacy and presentation. Just a few errors. Referencing is good, but with a few errors or omissions.||Identifies relevant aspects of the encounter. Good analysis/evaluation with appropriate framework. Good, mostly contextualised critique of framework. May suggest improvements.|
|50-59 PASS Competent||Competent analysis. May miss underlying issue(s). Reasonable application of theory though not always systematic or accurate. Evidence of reading beyond the lecture slides.||Competent and generally appropriate. Some inconsistency with analysis. Lack of clarity and detail in places. Some theoretical support. Limited reference to challenges/risks.||Competent organization of material but flow may not always be logical. Ideas not always connected. Competent standard of literacy and presentation. Referencing is competent but there may be several errors or omissions.||Identifies some relevant aspects of the encounter. Competent analysis/evaluation. Largely appropriate framework. Competent but generic critique of framework. May not suggest improvements.|
|40-49 PASS Adequate||Adequate analysis. Misses underlying issue(s). Adequate but unsystematic application of theory and a lack of understanding in places. No evidence of reading beyond lecture slides.||Adequate, though not all appropriate. A lack of consistency with analysis. A substantial lack of clarity and detail. Limited theoretical support. No reference to challenges/risks.||Some attempt to structure the report but not always effective. Ideas often unconnected. Adequate literacy and presentation but with several areas of weakness. Many instances of incorrect/missing references.||Vague description of encounter. Limited analysis/evaluation. Framework has limited relevance. Limited and generic critique of theory. No suggestions for improvement.|
|35-39 FAIL Inadequate||Superficial analysis. Misses underlying issue(s). Limited and unsystematic application of theory, demonstrating a lack of understanding. No evidence of reading beyond lecture slides.||Inadequate, with limited appropriateness. A lack of consistency with analysis. A substantial lack of clarity and detail. Little or no theoretical support. No reference to challenges/risks||Vague structure. Limited logic to the flow of material. Ideas unconnected. Inadequate literacy and presentation with substantial areas of weakness. Many incorrect/missing references. Significantly under/over word count.||Superficial description of encounter. Very little analysis/evaluation. Framework is inappropriate with very little critique. No suggestions for improvement.|
|0-34 FAIL Poor||Poor analysis. Misses underlying issue(s). Very limited and unsystematic application of theory, demonstrating a lack of understanding. No evidence of reading beyond lecture slides.||Very few, and largely inappropriate. A lack of consistency with analysis. A substantial lack of clarity and detail. Little or no theoretical support. No reference to challenges/risks.||Disorganized, with no logic to the flow of material. Poor connections between ideas. Poor literacy and presentation. Many instances of incorrect/missing references. Significantly under/over word count.||Poor description of encounter. Little or no analysis/evaluation. Framework is inappropriate with little or no critique. No suggestions for improvement.|
Formative feedback and support during the module
Formative feedback provides opportunities to reflect on your ongoing work and preparation for your assignment. You will work on a variety of tasks throughout the module which will provide the opportunity to apply theory to analyse and evaluate scenarios, and receive formative feedback. Specific tutorials have been set aside to answer questions on the assignment. There is an assignment briefing video on Blackboard.
Please use the following file format: Microsoft Word file. We cannot ensure that other formats are compatible with markers’ software and cannot guarantee to mark incorrect formats.
All work should be word processed in 12-point font Times New Roman or Arial and single spaced.
The first page of your coursework must include:
- Your student number
- The module name and number
- Your word count
The maximum word limit for this coursework is 2,500 words for Question 1 and 700 words for
Do you need help with this assignment or any other? We got you! Place your order and leave the rest to our experts.