Innovation Audit words:2500Submission method optionsAlternative submission method
Task
Innovation is increasingly being considered as a core competency that organisations must develop. Companies that consistently innovate don’t rely on chance; they address innovation in a systematic way.
Your task is as follows:
- Drawing on a wide range of literature on innovation (not just 1 or 2 sources), develop a framework that you could use to assess an organisation in terms of innovation. Describe your framework and justify the critical elements (with reference to the literature).
- The next step is to apply this framework to a particular organisation of your own choice. Where are the gaps? What is being done well, what areas need to be improved? Note: This organisation may be your own workplace, or an organisation you would like to work for.
- Finally, develop a plan to address areas of weakness. You may choose to focus on a few key areas and discuss them in detail.
Note: If you chosen organisation has a focus on services make sure that you choose literature that is appropriate for service innovation.Rationale
This assessment task is designed so that you can utilise your work experience in conjunction with your critical literature work on innovation to design a theoretical framework to conduct an audit of your workplace and make recommendations for change.
This task aligns with subject learning outcomes 1 and 2.Marking criteria
| Criteria to be Assessed | HD | DI | CR | PS | FL |
| Use of relevant innovation literature to design and justify innovation frameworkValue 30% | Integration and originality in the selection and handling of relevant theory to build and justify framework. Wide range of sources integrated in systematic way. | Insightful and appropriate selection of theory from a good range of sources to systematically build and justify framework. | Good selection of theory from a range of sources to build and adequately justifies useful framework. | Framework developed but limited research or framework incomplete in areas. Lacks justification of choice of elements. | Inaccurate or inappropriate use of literature on innovation. Framework not developed. |
| Critical evaluation of chosen organisationValue 30% | Identifies and insightfully discusses areas of strength and weakness in innovation capabilities. Strong links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation. | Identifies and clearly explainsareas of strength and weakness in innovation capabilities.Links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation | Identifies and discusses areas of strength and weakness in innovation capabilities. Discussion of some relevant issues in theory and organisational content in evaluation. | Simple discussion of areas of strength and weakness in innovation capabilities. Works reflects limited engagement with organisational context or relevant theory. Not all aspects of task completed in sufficient detail. | Poor evaluation.Significant gaps in knowledge of innovation and lack of understanding of company’s capabilities. |
| Recommendations to address areas of weaknessValue 30% | Excellent recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used in insightful way to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of innovation capabilities | Very good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Used theory systematically to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of innovation capabilities | Good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation results / may not have linked back systematically to relevant theory | Some recommendations made / not well linked to the results of the evaluation or relevant theory | No recommendations made / no justification |
| Referencing using APAValue 5% | Referencing is consistently accurate | Referencing is mainly accurate | Referencing is mainly accurate | Some attempt at referencing | Referencing is absent / not systematic |
| PresentationValue 5% | Polished and imaginative approach / very professionally presented | Logically organised / professionally presented / | Shows organisation and coherence. | Attempted to organise in a logical manner | Disorganised / incoherent |
PLEASE NOTE THAT DESCRIPTIONS ARE TYPICAL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GRADE RANGEAssessment item 4New product success
