2- FINTECH AND GLOBAL MARKETS

The School of Business and Economics
Assessment details for:
FINTECH AND GLOBAL MARKETS
This module is assessed through two types of assignment:
• A 3500-word individual business case report (weighting 70%)
Find details of both assignments below.
2
Assignment 2: Individual business case report (3500 words, weighting 70%)
Choose a company involved in financial technology (tech start-up, big tech company,
financial incumbent, or fintech incumbent) and analyse how this fintech company dealt
with the challenges of conducting business in global markets during the last 10 years.
You could structure your business case report as follows:
(1) Introduction (500 words). In this section, you should introduce briefly the
objectives, conclusions and structure of your report. You could also explain
3
what type of fintech company it is and in which area of financial services the
company is involved; what the company’s history and governance are.
(2) Main analysis (2500 words). In this section you could examine the following
aspects:
a. How the company positioned itself in the global business environment.
In this regard, you could address the following questions:
i. What challenges and opportunities did the global business
environment pose/offer to the company?
ii. What challenges and opportunities did the industry-level
environment pose/offer to the company?
iii. What internal resources and capabilities did the company have?
iv. What was the company’s strategic purpose (mission)?
b. How the company implemented its strategies and organized its
resources. In this regard, you could address the following questions:
i. What were the company’s corporate and business strategies?
ii. How did the company deal with technological innovations in its
strategy?
iii. How did the company engage in internationalization strategies
and strategic alliances?
iv. How did the company aim at creating social impact?
v. How did the company organize itself to pursue its corporate and
business strategies?
vi. How did the company’s organizational culture/politics influence
strategic development and implementation?
vii. How did the company deal with organizational change?
viii. How did the company fund its operations?
ix. How did the company attract skilful employees?
x. How did the company manage its stakeholder relations?
(3) Conclusion (500 words)
a. Draw your conclusions based on your main analysis.
b. What recommendations would you give to the company concerning its
past, present, and future strategies?
4
(4) Appendix (optional, included in wordcount)
a. Include graphs and other data that further specify elements of the main
analysis.
(5) References (excluded from wordcount)
a. Use at least 15 authoritative academic, practitioner and news sources.
Formatting of assignment 2 and additional suggestions:
• The word limit is 3500 words (±10%) excluding references but including
appendices.
• Use Arial 12-point font and 1.5 line-spacing.
• Number all of the pages of the coursework.
• You are allowed to use footnotes, which are included in the wordcount.
• Use Harvard (author-date) referencing system. For Harvard-style referencing
and correct referencing practices, see: https://www.citethemrightonline.com.
You can access this web site through your library account (search the library
catalogue).
• Try to paraphrase instead of using direct quotes. It gives clarity to your writing
and demonstrates that you understand well scholars’ perspectives. Make sure
you interpret the author’s original meaning correctly.
• When paraphrasing, you should reference the source of information correctly
(author/s, year: specific page number). Remember: when you paraphrase an
idea from specific page numbers of a book/article, you should include page
numbers in your citation. There is no need to do that if you are mentioning the
general argument of a study.
•
• A reference list contains all the citations from your work, it does not include all
the items you have read irrespective of whether they have been cited or not.
5
• If you use an appendix, you should draw linkages with the main body of text;
do not leave the analysis ‘hanging’ in the appendix.
• In your business report, guide the reader through the logical steps of your
analysis (signposting).
• Use the required and recommended readings on LEARN and let your research
‘snowball’ accordingly. For example, you could check their references lists for
further academic resources. Types of sources to be used:
o Heavy scholarship (e.g., Journal of Management Information Systems).
o Practitioner-centric outlets (e.g., Harvard Business Review).
o Consultancy sources (e.g., Deloitte’s “A tale of 44 cities” report).
o Newspapers and periodicals (e.g., Financial Times).
o Company news.
• Try to combine theory and practice. You are encouraged to get in touch with
companies to find primary evidence for your business case report.
Submission of assignment 2:
The individual business case report (assignment 2) is to be uploaded (as a Microsoft
Word or PDF document) onto LEARN no later than 2pm on May 26th, 2022. It is
strongly advised to submit earlier than 2pm.
You should not include your name/s anywhere on your assignment. You should also
include the filename in the header of your assignment.
Late submissions
6
For both assignments 1 and 2, any late submissions will be penalized in accordance
with So, ensure that your submissions are no later
than the specified date and time.
All marks are provisional until ratified by the formal examination boards.
Marking criteria
8
Marking criteria for individual reports:
Four marking criteria for individual reports:
• Knowledge (knowledge of fintech issues and management theory).
• Analysis (analysis, line of argumentation, and use of literature).
• Practice (use of fintech business examples).
• Writing (grammar, syntax, structure, referencing).
80-100% Excellent (Distinction)
9
• As 70-79% criteria (knowledge, analysis, practice, writing), but in addition:
o Shows evidence of substantial and independent study and reading.
o Demonstrates capacity for independent thought.
o Presents a selection of novel ideas and explores a range of interesting
alternatives with carefully balanced critical evaluation.
o Exceptionally well-presented, well-structured, and well-referenced.
70-79% Very good (Distinction)
• Knowledge: very good understanding of the processes, practices, and issues
in fintech; very good understanding of management theories in relation to
fintech innovations.
• Analysis: very good analysis and line of argumentation based on an extensive
and critical use of relevant literature.
• Practice: full and interesting use of fintech business examples.
• Writing: well-presented, well-structured, and well-referenced.
60-69% Good (Merit)
• Knowledge: good understanding of the processes, practices, and issues in
fintech; good understanding of management theories in relation to fintech
innovations.
• Analysis: good analysis and line of argumentation based on an appropriate
use of relevant literature.
• Practice: interesting use of fintech business examples.
• Writing: generally well-written, structured, and referenced. There are some
grammar/syntax/referencing errors.
50-59% Pass
• Knowledge: satisfactory understanding of the processes, practices, and
issues in fintech; satisfactory understanding of management theories in
relation to fintech innovations.
• Analysis: satisfactory analysis and line of argumentation based on a basic use
of literature.
10
• Practice: satisfactory use of fintech business examples.
• Writing: satisfactorily written, structured, and referenced. There are several
grammar/syntax/referencing errors.
40-49% Unsatisfactory (Fail, no modular credit)
• Knowledge: unsatisfactory understanding of the processes, practices, and
issues in fintech; unsatisfactory understanding of management theories in
relation to fintech innovations.
• Analysis: unsatisfactory analysis and line of argumentation based on a basic
use of literature.
• Practice: unsatisfactory use of fintech business examples.
• Writing: unsatisfactorily written, structured, and referenced. There are many
grammar/syntax/referencing errors.
<40% Poor (Bad fail, no modular credit) • As 40-49% criteria (knowledge, analysis, practice, writing), but in addition: • No evidence of trying to understand the issues. • Serious factual errors and poor use of relevant literature. • Description rather than analysis. • No attempt to make any real use of business cases. • Unacceptable form of presentation.