Assignment Information

Module Name: Finance, Sustainability and Performance Management

Module Code: 7008SOM

Assignment Title: Individual report, supported by a group management simulation

Assignment Due:  Mar 2026, 18:00 UK time

Assignment Credit: 30 credits

Word Count (or equivalent): 3,000 words. There will be a penalty of a deduction of 10% of the mark (after internal moderation) for work exceeding the word limit by 10% or more. The word limit includes quotations and citations but excludes the references list.

Assignment Type: Percentage Grade (Applied Core Assessment). You will be provided with an overall grade between 0% and 100%. To pass the assignment you must achieve a grade of 40% or above.

Assignment Task

This assignment is an individual assignment supported by an online management simulation.

This assignment requires you to run 3 to 4 rounds of the management simulation and to write an individual report based on your simulation activities or outcomes.

Management simulation (group work)

The simulation is a mandatory activity that will serve as the basis for writing your final individual report.

You will run 3-4 rounds of the simulation in groups of 4 to 6 students during workshops. Throughout the simulation, you will apply your learning from the module, exchange ideas, and receive feedback from the tutor. 

•        You will present your decision-making process in seminars for formative feedback, which you will use to enhance your final report.

•        You must keep decision logs and reflect on the financial management techniques you’ve used to inform your choices and making decisions. With the ESG module, you will be encouraged to consider broader environmental and social impacts during the decision-making process.

Individual report, 3,000 words (weight 100%)

You are required to write a report that analyses performance and proposes a set of performance management tools, all of which reflect your management simulation activities and results.

Your report is to include the following:

1.      Critical Reflection on Decision-Making Process: 

a.      What decisions did you make and what are the underlying considerations? 

b.      How did you evaluate scenarios using financial management techniques? Like movies

c.      How did you integrate sustainability principles into your decision-making?

2.      Provide detailed analysis of the overall performance of the organisation in the simulation, using financial and non-financial metrics (e.g., profitability, sustainability performance). Then, critically reflect on how well the organisation performed based on the decisions made. with Madonna

3.      Provide suggestions on what you could have done differently in terms of financial management and sustainability considerations. This involves critically reflecting on whether alternative decisions might have improved the financial and sustainability outcomes. And Parkinson  

4.      Design a set of performance management tools (e.g., balanced scorecards, KPIs) that would help balance financial and sustainability goals in the future. The tools should address both financial performance and sustainability/ESG goals. And history of Tudor era.

You are expected to use insight obtained from the core textbook, relevant additional reading from the lectures (available on Aula) and your own research using the University’s library facilities (locate.coventry.ac.uk).

Your report should follow the below structure: 

I.                 Introduction – approx. 200 words

II.                Decision-Making Process – approx. 600 words

III.              Analysis of Performance – approx. 800 words

IV.              Discussion and critical evaluation – approx. 600 words

V.               Proposed Performance management tools – approx. 600 words

VI.              Conclusion and recommendations – approx. 200 words

VII.            References

VIII.           Appendix, which contains screenshots from the simulations and supporting materials

(calculation, tables, diagrams, charts, illustrations, etc.)

This assessment is in the Amber category for use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which means that the use of AI is permitted to assist you in the development of the assessment in line with the student guidance. Please note that if using AI tools, you must reference which tools you have used and for what purposes you have used them. This information must be acknowledged in your final submission. The below format is recommended:

Submission Instructions:

You must submit your work through Aula by the submission deadline. You can access the submission link through the module web.

•        Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Aula. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work. 

•        Please ensure that you have submitted your work using the correct file format, unreadable files will receive a mark of zero. You should submit in Microsoft Word format and not PDF.

•        All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero. 

•        The University wants you to do your best. However, we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control and not easy to predict. If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to 5 working days, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline.

•        You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://share.coventry.ac.uk/students/Registry/Pages/Deferrals-andExtension.aspx.

•        Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.

•        Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites. 

Marking and Feedback

How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked by the module team.

How will I receive my grades and feedback?

Provisional marks will be released once internally moderated.

Feedback will be provided by the module team alongside grades release.

Your provisional marks and feedback should be available within 2 weeks (10 working days).

What will I be marked against?

Details of the marking criteria for this task can be found at the bottom of this assignment brief. 

Assessed Module Learning Outcomes

The Learning Outcomes for this module align to the marking criteria which can be found at the end of this brief. Ensure you understand the marking criteria to ensure successful achievement of the assessment task. The following module learning outcomes are assessed in this task:

1.      Critically evaluate different scenarios using appropriate financial management techniques.

2.      Appraise the performance of an organisation using financial and non-financial metrics.

3.      Integrate sustainability principles into financial decision-making, considering the environmental and social impact of business activities.

4.      Design performance management tools to balance financial objectives with broader sustainability goals.

Assignment Support and Academic Integrity

If you have any questions about this assignment please see the Student Guidance on Coursework for more information. 

Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar:

You are expected to use effective, accurate, and appropriate language within this assessment task. 

Academic Integrity:

The work you submit must be your own, or in the case of groupwork, that of your group. All sources of information need to be acknowledged and attributed; therefore, you must provide references for all sources of information and acknowledge any tools used in the production of your work. We use detection software and make routine checks for evidence of academic misconduct.

It is your responsibility to keep a record of how your thinking has developed as you progress through to submission. Appropriate evidence could include: version controlled documents, developmental sketchbooks, or journals. This evidence can be called upon if we suspect academic misconduct.  

If using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the development of your assignment, you must reference which tools you have used and for what purposes you have used them. This information must be acknowledged in your final submission.

Definitions of academic misconduct, including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and collusion can be found on the Student Portal. All cases of suspected academic misconduct are referred for investigation, the outcomes of which can have profound consequences to your studies. For more information on academic integrity please visit the Academic and Research Integrity section of the Student Portal.

Support for Students with Disabilities or Additional Needs:

If you have a disability, long-term health condition, specific learning difference, mental health diagnosis or symptoms and have discussed your support needs with health and wellbeing you may be able to access support that will help with your studies.

If you feel you may benefit from additional support, but have not disclosed a disability to the University, or have disclosed but are yet to discuss your support needs it is important to let us know so we can provide the right support for your circumstances. Visit the Student Portal to find out more.

Unable to Submit on Time?

The University wants you to do your best. However, we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you cannot submit your assessment by the deadline or sit a scheduled exam. If you think this might be the case, guidance on understanding what counts as an extenuating circumstance, and how to apply is available on the Student Portal.

Administration of Assessment

Module Leader Name: Dr Liliani, Dr Shazib Shaikh

Module Leader Email: ae2917@coventry.ac.uk, ae3262@coventry.ac.uk

Assignment Category: Composite

Attempt Type: Standard

Component Code: CW

Assessment Marking Criteria 

50 to 59%        Good understanding of the core            Good application of financial and sustainability   Good critical reflection on decision-making and

Good financial and non-financial models with metrics with some issues or quite descriptive. performance, with relevant arguments, but some

good application to support decision-       parts lack depth or specificity.

Good evaluation linking decisions and making, some issues in practice.

performance across simulation rounds,          Good and functional performance management Good integration of the core finance          demonstrating good logic of what could have              tools are proposed with sufficient justifications or and sustainability frameworks,          been done differently.           contextualisation.  showing good logic with some generic

Good analyses supported by data and Good conclusions, based on evidence with parts. references, good referencing practice with some generic insights and recommendations.  some inaccuracy.

40 to 49%        Outcomes met. Basic understanding Outcomes met. Basic application of financial Outcomes met. Basic reflection on decision-

Pass   of the relevant financial and         and sustainability metrics with basic critical making and performance, with acceptable

sustainability models/theory with insights,          arguments, but some parts lack evidence or

limited application to support decision-       critical engagement.

Basic evaluation with limited evidence of making. 

simulation data and limited interpretation.               Basic conclusions, vague or partially supported

Acceptable use of theory with a            with weak recommendations.

Basic referencing practice with issues. descriptive overview or somewhat

 disconnected from the simulation. 

Fail     Outcomes not met. Demonstrates little            Outcomes not met. Minimal or flawed analysis.          Outcomes not met. Reflection is minimal or off-

30, 35%                understanding of relevant concepts.      Decisions and outcomes are reported with little          topic. Performance tools are inappropriate or Theory is misapplied or irrelevant to   evaluation and lack critical insight.           missing.  the decisions described.

The use of simulation data is minimal, Conclusions and recommendations are weak or inaccurate, or poorly interpreted, with poor inadequate. referencing practice.