Operational Facility Management
Academy of Sport
and Physical Activity
BSc Sport Business Management
MODULE TITLE: Operational Facility Management MODULE
CODE: 66-502891-CF
MODULE LEADER: Chris Moriarty
Task: REPORT PART B: Simu-Sport Centre Performance
Report
First Sit
The primary aim of this assessment task is to present
and analyse results from your Simu-SportCentre simulations, applying relevant
concepts tools to help you make sense of performance data and identify areas
for improvement.
For this assessment, you are required to
complete a 1500 word report which includes the following:
1. Based
on data from the first simulation, analyse the performance of Simu-SportsCentre with regard to the
original objectives set.
2. In preparation for the second simulation:
·
Select
relevant facility performance indicators and calculate scores for these performance
indicators.
·
Benchmark
Simu-SportCentre’s performance against your selected performance indicators
using data from the first simulation, and discuss how benchmarking helped
identify areas for improvement in the second simulation.
·
Evaluate
your attempts to improve performance of Simu-SportsCentre in the second
simulation.
The intended learning outcomes of this assessment task are
to
1.
Utilise
technology enhanced applications to make and justify decisions related to
problem solving for sport facility management.
2.
Identify,
explain and apply the key concepts and processes of facility performance
management applied to the sport industry.
The assessment
will be summatively assessed by the submission of a report
The assessment is worth 100% of the overall module grade.
Submission type: Online (Blackboard)
Turnitin[1]
used: Yes
Feedback method: Inline
Feedback type: Inline
In-Module Retrieval (IMR)[2]
available: Yes
Non-Assessment[3]
Requirements: No
Word Length, Duration and Penalties
The word length/duration of this assessment,
excluding references, is 1500 words.
You must include a word count at the
end of the assignment before the
References list. Words included within tables within the main report count
towards the word count.
1 grade point will be
deducted for work which exceeds the word limit/duration by more than
10%.
Format
Your work must be submitted in
Microsoft Word (*.doc or *.docx) format.
The task should include
Module Title, Module Code, Name and Student Number (not your Student Login) in
the ‘header’ at the top of the document. Standard presentation requirements
(size 11 font, 1.5 line spacing, 2.5 cm margins) should be adhered to.
Handing-In Details
Please submit your assessment via
a) the online submission point on the module Blackboard site
AND
b) the Turnitin link on the Module Blackboard site
You will find both these links under the Assessment / Reassessment tab
on the module Blackboard site.
Feedback will normally
be available fifteen working days after
the hand-in date. You will be notified when feedback becomes available.
Enquiries
Chris Moriarty c.moriarty@shu.ac.uk
Further Assessment Details
DESCRIPTION |
Approx. 700
words: Simulation 1 Analysis. ·
Intelligent, logical and clear consideration of
performance data generated during the
first simulation seminar. Analysis
includes consideration of which management objectives were or were not
met. Discussion interprets and
explains performance (what is the data telling you about performance?) rather
than just relating results. Approx. 600
words: Preparation for Simulation 2 : ·
Relevant sport facility performance indicators are
adopted which provide clear, empirical evidence of the performance of the
sports facility ·
Using results from Simulation 1, clear,
accurate and comprehensive application of performance indicator benchmarking
is demonstrated. Brief, highly analytical interpretation of benchmarking
results is provided. Clear consideration is given as to how benchmarking
results will inform decisions to be taken in Simulation 2
Approx. 200 words:
Reflection on Performance and Improvements between Simulations 1 and 2 ·
Using results from Simulation 2, clear and
accurate benchmarking is applied and a comparison is provided of benchmarked
performance between simulation 1 and simulation 2. A brief, but incisive commentary is
developed which reflects on performance achieved in Simulation 1 compared to
Simulation 2. |
Academy of Sport and Physical Activity Grade
Descriptor - Level 6
Class |
Category |
General Characteristics |
1st (Exceptional) |
Exceptional 1st |
Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge
and understanding of the area of study, significantly beyond what has been
taught in all areas; evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and
critical synthesis of reading and research beyond the prescribed range, in
both breadth and depth, to advance arguments; excellent communication;
performance deemed to be beyond expectation. Work at publishable or
commercial standard. The ability to make decisions and systematically
carry out tasks with autonomy in unpredictable situations; exercise of
initiative in the completion of practical tasks; exceptional leadership
skills and evidence of personal responsibility in group contexts; creative
flair; extremely well-developed problem-solving skills; the ability to carry
out sustained critical reflection on practical work within the wider context
of the industry. Exceeds expectations set by the industry context. |
1st (Excellent) |
High 1st |
Excellent knowledge and understanding of the
area of study as the student is typically able to go beyond what has been
taught (particularly for a mid/high 1st); evidence of extensive and
appropriate selection and critical synthesis and analysis of reading and
research beyond the prescribed range, to direct arguments; excellent communication;
performance deemed beyond expectation of the level. The ability to make
decisions and carry out tasks with a high level of autonomy; creative flair
and the ability to (re)interpret predefined conventions to select and justify
individual working practice; excellent problem-solving skills; accuracy and
fluency; excellent command of skills appropriate to the task; the ability to
reflect critically on practical work within the wider context of industry.
Meets expectations set by the industry/employment context. |
Mid 1st |
||
Low 1st |
||
2.1 (Very good) |
High 2.1 |
Very good knowledge and understanding of the
area of study as the student is typically able to relate facts/concepts
together with some ability to apply to taught contexts; evidence of
appropriate selection and critical evaluation of reading and research, some
beyond the prescribed range, may rely on set sources to direct arguments;
demonstrates autonomy in approach to learning; strong communication skills.
Broadly autonomous completion of practical tasks; ability to adapt in
response to change or unexpected experiences; decision making is very highly
developed; a clear command of the skills relevant to the task; ability to
reflect on practical work and set future goals within the wider context of industry.
Adherence to standards set by the industry context. |
Mid 2.1 |
||
Low 2.1 |
||
2.2 (Good) |
High 2.2 |
Good knowledge and understanding of the area
of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or
analytical; evidence of appropriate selection and evaluation of reading
and research, some may be beyond the prescribed range, but generally reliant
on set sources to direct arguments; communication shows clarity, but
structure may not always be coherent. A confident approach to practical
tasks; a solid grasp of the related processes, tools, technology; creativity
in the completion of the task; proficiency is demonstrated by an accurate and
well-coordinated performance; tasks are completed with a good level of independent
thought and autonomy; an ability to reflect on practical work and set future
goals. General adherence to standards set by the industry context. |
Mid 2.2 |
||
Low 2.2 |
||
3rd (Sufficient) |
High 3rd |
Knowledge and understanding sufficient to deal with terminology,
basic facts and concepts
but fails to make meaningful synthesis; some ability to select and evaluate
reading and research however work may be more generally descriptive; general
reliance on set sources to advance work; arguments may be weak or poorly
constructed; presentation is generally competent but with some weaknesses.
Competence in technical skills; tasks are completed with a degree of
proficiency and confidence; tasks are completed with a sufficient level of
independent thought; effective judgements have been made; evaluation and
analysis of performance in practical tasks is evident. Errors in completion
of the task; general adherence to appropriate conventions set by the industry
context. |
Mid 3rd |
||
Low 3rd |
||
FAIL
|
Borderline Fail |
Insufficient knowledge and understanding of
the subject and its underlying concepts; some ability to evaluate given
reading and research however work is more generally descriptive; naively
follows or may ignore set material in development of work; given brief
may be only tangentially addressed or may ignore key aspects of the brief;
communication shows limited clarity, poor presentation, structure may not be
coherent. Practical tasks are attempted; skill displayed in some areas; there
are a significant number of errors; a lack of proficiency in most areas;
guidance may be needed to reproduce aspects of the task and apply learned
skills. Tasks may be incomplete; failure to adhere to some of the conventions
set by the industry context. |
Mid Fail |
||
Low Fail |
||
Very Low Fail |
No evidence of knowledge or understanding of
the subject; no understanding of taught concepts, with facts being
reproduced in a disjointed or decontextualised manner; ignores set
material in development of work; fails to address the requirements of the
brief; lacks basic communication skills. A general level of incompetency in
practical tasks; an evident lack of practice; set tasks are not completed;
few or no skills relating to tasks are evident. No adherence to conventions
set by the industry context. |
|
ZERO |
Zero |
Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in
some misconduct cases. |
THRESHOLD ASSESSMENT
CRITERIA TO PASS (LOW THIRD) AND MID FIRST CLASS WORK
|
Grade |
||
Criteria |
Minimum pass |
|
Mid 1st |
Analysis of Simulation 1 |
You
have provided some consideration of performance data generated during the
first simulation seminar, but there are some areas which you have not
discussed. There is a limited attempt to use additional insights from
industry issues and trends to aid analysis.
You attempt to consider which objectives were or were not met, but
this is incomplete. You needed to
provide more interpretation of performance rather than just relating
results. |
|
You
have provided an intelligent, logical and clear consideration of performance
data generated during the first simulation seminar which brings to bear very
good additional insights from industry issues and trends to aid
analysis. Your analysis includes a
careful and intelligent consideration of which objectives were or were not
met. Discussion interprets performance
rather than just relating results.
|
Preparation for Simulation 2 |
You
have made a limited attempt to select and calculate relevant performance
indicators. Benchmarking has been attempted, but there are errors in its
application or the range of benchmarking that has been undertaken. There is limited discussion of how benchmarking
results informed decisions taken in the second simulation and there are some
doubts as to your grasp of the concept of benchmarking and its role in
helping deliver continuous improvement in sport facility operations.
. |
|
Clear,
accurate and comprehensive application of performance indicators and
benchmarking is demonstrated, and analytical interpretation of a high level
is provided to illustrate how benchmarking information informed decisions
taken in the second simulation. You demonstrate an excellent understanding
of the role of benchmarking in helping to deliver continuous improvement in
sport facility operations.
|
Brief Reflection on Simulation 2
Results |
Limited
analysis of changes in results from first to second simulation seminar which lacks
consideration of reasons for those changes in some areas |
|
You
provide a very clear analysis of changes in results from first to second
simulation seminar with very insightful consideration of reasons for those
changes.
|
References and Referencing |
The
APA referencing system has not been used and/or there are many errors
in style. |
|
An
extensive and wide-ranging set references have been sourced and used
appropriately. The APA referencing method has been used very precisely and
there are very few errors in style |
Presentation |
Poor presentation that
rarely adheres to the normal conventions of professional report writing. There
are many spelling and punctuation errors, and the report is in an
inappropriate format for the intended audience. |
|
Clear, well
composed written English, spelling and grammar throughout with very few or no
mistakes. Report formatting is logical, clear and attractively presented.
Sections and subsections are clearly differentiated with normal conventions
of professional report writing and formatting adhered to. |
[1] Turnitin is
used by academic staff to ascertain whether cheating, as defined by the
University assessment regulations, has taken place. It should also be used to evaluate
your assignment for accidental plagiarism prior to the hand-in date
[2] In-module retrieval
refers to a feature of a module s assessment design whereby if you achieve below
40 in an assessment task at the first attempt you are given an opportunity of
reworking the assessment task for a capped mark of 40%
[3] It may be stipulated for
some modules that you have to do something in order to undertake assessment on
a module. Any assessment where these requirements are not fulfilled will not
be classed as a valid attempt and will receive a mark of zero. Further details
can be found later in this assessment brief