I need help with this assignment. Must be original work. Business Finance Assignment Help

Management in Practice

Assignment 1: Individual Report – Diagnosing the causes of the organisational challenge.

Weight: 20%

Length: Maximum of 3000 words

Feedback mode:

Formative feedback is provided throughout the semester in your in-class workshops/tutorials. Your workshop leader will work with you providing you with real-time feedback based on the work that you share with her/him. If you come prepared to your workshops then your workshop leader will have more opportunity to provide you with formative feedback.

Summative feedback will be provided in the marking rubric. We will provide comments in each cell of the marking rubric and in the general comments section at the end. We aim to provide feedback that is:

• Specific – that is, the feedback will relate to the work that you have completed
• Informative – that is, the feedback will help you to understand the level of achievement that you attained
• Directive – that is, the feedback will give you strategies, ideas and a direction for further improvement

Assessment Declaration:

I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the Assessment declaration (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..

Learning Objectives Assessed:

This assignment assesses Learning Objectives 1 and 5

Details:

Purpose of the assignment:

This assignment is designed to get you to identify and analyse the contextual elements that contribute to the challenge that the partner organisation faces. You are to present your work in a business report format. This involves undertaking and external and internal analysis of the organisation and making predictions about the future.

Requirements for the assignment:

• Examine the data provided by the partner organisation and undertake your own research to find more relevant data.
  • Have you got all the data you need? What other data would be helpful?
• Analyse the data you have collected using appropriate management tools and theories
  • External organisational analysis
  • Internal organisational analysis
• Explain how the nature of the challenge is a result of the combination of external and internal factors that you have discovered through your research and subsequently re-define the management challenge as a problem that can be solved through the combination of management theory and practice. (Note: we are not expecting you to provide the solution at this stage – just re-define the problem through a management theory lens)
• Write a business report describing the nature of the challenge through the particular management lens that you are viewing the problem (we will provide you with a list from which you can choose, or you can choose your own.)
  • Use a report format.

  Rubric:

  	High Distinction 80%–100%	Distinction 70%–79%	Credit 60%–69%	Pass 50%–59%	Fail 30%–49%	Serious Fail <30%
  Breadth and depth of organisational and contextual research (30%)	Provides an in-depth synthesis of information from relevant sources, representing various points of view/approaches.	Demonstrated the ability to critically review, analyse, synthesise, and apply a theoretical and technical body of knowledge in a broad range of areas and diverse contexts perhaps with some synthesis.	Presents information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches. Demonstrates some analysis of those views/approaches.	Presents factual information from some relevant sources representing limited points of view/approaches. Lack of analysis or critical appreciation of knowledge sources.	Little evidence of knowledge of the relevant body of knowledge to make a persuasive case. Failure to review critically, analyse, consolidate and combine knowledge and draw relevant conclusions.	Presents information from irrelevant sources or in very insufficient quantity.
  Use of appropriate theory (25%)	All elements of the methodology and/or theoretical frameworks are skillfully developed. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be synthesised from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines. Identifies flaws in published work.	Shows reasoning and creative skills to use knowledge and awareness to exercise critical thinking and judgement in selecting and applying methods and technologies in identifying and solving problems with intellectual independence. Critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are thoroughly developed, however, more subtle elements may be ignored or unaccounted for.	The elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are developed but some elements may be missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused. Coherent arguments supported by evidence and illustration from the work of other authorities or by direct empirical analysis, but without the intellectual independence found in the higher grades.	The suggested methodology demonstrates a basic understanding of the methodology or theoretical frameworks. Theories and/or frameworks are applied in an unsophisticated manner.	The suggested methodology demonstrates a poor understanding of the methodology or theoretical frameworks. There may be basic errors in the application of the theories and/or frameworks.	Fails to demonstrate any coherent methodology or application of theoretical frameworks.
  Problem definition (25%)	Demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors. Identifies potentially significant yet previously less-explored aspects of the issue(s). Highly original or insightful work.	Demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the subject. Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors having been considered and analysed. Appropriately addresses most relevant aspects of the issue.	Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors. The volume of reading of sufficient breadth and depth for a competent understanding of main issues, underlying principles and concepts but without the comprehensiveness of higher grades.	Demonstrates an ability in identifying a problem statement or related contextual factors. Important aspects of the problem not addressed. The depth of reading insufficient to award a credit grade. Problem statement may be factual and descriptive rather than analytical.	Develops a problem statement but lacks academic rigour, with material that is incomplete or irrelevant. Little evidence of knowledge of the relevant body of knowledge to make a persuasive case.	Unable to or poorly demonstrates an ability to write a problem statement or identify important contextual factors. Work may have failed for one or more of the following: non-submission, academic misconduct, answering a different question from the one asked, poor or incoherent vocabulary, no evidence of correct scholarly referencing.
  Report structure and academic standards (20%)	Work is fully referenced according to accepted scholarly standards (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution). The report contains no flaws in spelling, grammar, format and exhibits high degrees of creativity and professionalism.	Work is fully referenced according to accepted scholarly standards (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution). The report contains no flaws in spelling, grammar, format, and is of a professional standard.	Work is fully referenced according to accepted scholarly standards (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) Report contains no flaws in spelling, grammar, format and is of a good standard.	Students use correctly some of the following information use strategies (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution). The report contains minor flaws in spelling, grammar, format.	Improper citation of sources and referencing of work. (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) Report contains some flaws in spelling, grammar, formatting.	Students fail to use the following information use strategies (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) Report contains extensive flaws in spelling, grammar, format, or the students failed to use a report format at all.

Deep Down Mining Corp. (DDM) is a publicly traded, Canadian-based mining operation with various mines located throughout Canada. Investors benchmark earnings compared to market expectations and to other similar companies.

DDM’s loan facility with a consortium of banks stipulates that DDM’s long-term debt cannot exceed 1.5 times the book value of its equity. DDM is not currently in danger of breaching this covenant, but is planning some acquisitions that will increase its debt significantly and bring its debt-to-equity ratio much closer to the stipulated maximum. Wherever feasible, DDM prefers to adopt accounting policies that increase short-term profitability, to keep the equity base strong.

As part of its compensation package, DDM awards bonuses to its executives on an annual basis. The primary criterion considered by the board of directors when determining the size of the bonuses to be awarded to the executives overseeing the production side of the mine is the firm’s actual earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) compared to the budgeted EBIT for the year.

Projected financial results for the Xavier mine, an open-pit gold mine in northern British Columbia, are shown below. However, projections are notoriously unreliable, because the selling price of gold per ounce fluctuates significantly from year to year. When prices are high, the mine increases production volume and when prices are low, production volume is reduced. The results below are based on expected high price/high volume in Year 2 and low price/low volume in Year 3, but the opposite situation might unfold, or prices might be constant. Extraction costs are stable per tonne processed, and are projected to increase by inflation only.

(The projected financial results are in the pdf attached)

Brian, the company’s chief financial officer, has asked you, the financial controller and a CPA, to make recommendations with respect to an appropriate depreciation method for a brand new class of equipment recently purchased by DDM for the Xavier mine.

Details of the equipment

machine ages, the capacity declines by about 5% per year, because the time lost for maintenance and repair shutdowns increases as the machine ages.

Yearly production (% of maximum)

Estimated maximum useful life

75% to 100%

10 years

16 million tonnes

50% to 75%

15 years

18 million tonnes

25% to 50%

25 years

20 million tonnes

Other information

Required:

Prepare a memo to Brian analyzing each of the three most widely used depreciation methods. Your memo should include a summary of pertinent information and do the following:

1 An ore body is an area of land that contains minerals such as gold, silver or zinc and is commercially viable to mine (extract the minerals).

Your response should be supported by a quantitative and qualitative analysis that considers the precepts of the IFRS Conceptual Framework and the requirements of IFRS, DDM’s financial reporting environment, the financial reporting goals and the potential biases of stakeholders. It is recommended that you use point form in your memo and use language appropriate for a financially sophisticated user, as Brian is the CFO of a public company.

This is a peer review response essay. Read my partner’s essay, and then Answer the following questions at least 300 words:

1) What’s most interesting about this topic to you, as a reader? If nothing stands out as particularly interesting, how could the essay’s writer engage your interest? Be sure to explain your response.

2) What do you think of the order of the body paragraphs in the essay outline? Are there alternative ordering or organizing strategies that you can suggest? Try to offer at least one potential alternative “re-order” and explain how or why that reordering might benefit the overall effectiveness of the essay.

3) What important aspects of the main argument are unanswered or unaddressed by this outline? Play the role of a skeptical reader (even if you are prone to agree with your peer’s argument) and think about which parts of the argument are least likely to convince someone. Why wouldn’t those parts of the argument be convincing? What could be changed (added, subtracted, re-arranged, etc) to make the argument more convincing? Offer at least two critical issues you’d like your peer to address in revision related to the argument itself (so, not grammar/syntax/citations/etc) and explain why you think those issues should be addressed.

4) Optional: Is there any other feedback that you’d like to offer the writer based on what you’ve read?

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PEER REVIEW:

• It should be a formal letter addressed to your peer (So, “Dear <Peer’s Name>,” and written in the second person), not to the instructor (Nick).
• It must address the three required parts of the prompt listed above in no less than 300 words.
• It must be reasonably proofread and error free.

If you’re struggling to meet the assignment requirements, reach out to me ASAP. I’m happy to help if you’re stuck, and I’ll also have read your peer’s 2.1, so I’ll have some thoughts, too. Once I receive everyone’s completed peer reviews, I’ll email them to you directly so you can use them in your revision process.

Part 1:

Work with your supervisor at your Host Company, to identify a project that you can work on, i.e. a defined piece of work that you can plan, investigate, develop and deliver during your time at your internship.

Your project does not have to be big, but it cannot be routine, everyday work, such as working on help desk, assembling PC’s, fixing bugs in programs, and so on. You will use this project to produce an RMP (Risk Management Plan) in weeks 7 and 8 of the course

Now create a Scope Statement for your project, using the template provided and the separate instruction document for completing it. Please take care to enter information in ALL required fields. The information you write in your Scope Statement should be 200 – 300 words:

You should have at least 3 constraints, 3 assumptions and 3 risks. Write at least a paragraph (several sentences) for the Project Description and the Business Benefit.

Part 2:

Upload your completed Scope Statement to the forum for the others to read and comment on.

Compare your Scope Statement with at least 2 other classmates.

Question 2

Download the RMP (Risk Management Plan) template.

Complete Part 1: Project Context, using the information from your Scope Statement.

Upload the template to the forum.

You do not need to comment on the responses of any of your classmates here