the proposed capital investment project and a short discussion of the gap between the theory and practice of capital budgeting

1

Faculty of Business and Law

ACADEMIC YEAR 2018/19 ASSESSMENT BRIEF

Module Code: UMACTA-30-M / UMADNJ-30-M

Module Title: Fundamentals of Finance / Fundamentals of Accounting and Finance

Submission Deadline: CW 1: 04/12/2018 and 06/12/2018 Group Presentations CW2: 08/01/2019 Individual Report

Assessment Component CW1 and CW2

Assessment Weighting: 30% (10% CW1 + 20% CW2) per cent of total module mark

Marking and feedback deadline (20 working days)

06/02/2019

Assessment Instructions

Case study

“Foster’s Construction Ltd”

Your role

You are Harry (or Harriet) Simons, recent graduate and newly appointed assistant to Sonya Carson,

the Director of Capital Investments (CI) for Foster’s Construction Ltd. Your six-month probationary

period is almost up and you are keen to make a good impression.

Required:

You have been tasked by Sonya to produce the following coursework elements:

1) GROUP PRESENTATION (CW1): A 15-minute presentation on the investment appraisal of the proposed project for the upcoming meeting of the Board of Directors. The presentation should

include:

 An investment analysis of the proposed project discussed in the attached data. Your projected cash flows should include the impact of corporation tax, capital allowances and you should

use NPV as the discriminator.

 A scenario analysis, including sensitivity analysis, which shows the effects of a range of changes in the estimates on the investment project’s NPV value.

 A short discussion of other financial and non-financial factors involved in making

investments in the proposed capital assets.

2) INDIVIDUAL REPORT (CW2): You have been tasked to produce a business report on the

proposed capital investment project (see the following case study) for use by the Board of

Directors in their upcoming meeting. The report should contain a short discussion of sources of

finance for the proposed capital investment project and a short discussion of the gap between the

theory and practice of capital budgeting.

2

Learning outcomes tested by the GROUP presentation  Compare and contrast costs in investment appraisal.

 Undertake discounted cash flow calculations taking inflation, tax and capital allowances into account where appropriate.

 Identify and apply techniques to deal with investment decisions and discriminate between relevant and irrelevant information for decision-making purposes.

 Apply appropriate knowledge, analytical techniques and concepts to problems and issues arising from familiar and unfamiliar situations.

 Extract and critically analyse data from different sources.

 Identify and discuss financial considerations arising from sensitivity analysis.

 Think critically; examine problems and issues from a number of perspectives, challenging viewpoints, ideas and concepts, and present good arguments.

 Present information in a coherent presentation to professional standards of organisation, clarity and logical coherence.

 Discuss and defend ideas, concepts and views effectively through verbal communication.

 Use appropriate IT packages to aid efficient searching, communicating and presentation of information (general IT skills include use of standard word processing packages, internet and

spreadsheets).

Learning outcomes tested by the INDIVIDUAL report

 Apply appropriate knowledge, analytical techniques and concepts to problems and issues arising from familiar and unfamiliar situations;

 Think critically, examine problems and issues from a number of perspectives, challenging viewpoints, ideas and concepts, and present good arguments;

 Present written information in a report format to professional standards of organisation, clarity and logical coherence;

 Discuss and defend ideas, concepts and views effectively through written communication;

 Use appropriate IT packages to aid efficient searching, communicating and presentation of information (general IT skills include use of standard word processing packages, internet and

spreadsheets).

Group Presentations You will be allocated by the module leaders in a group with 4/5 members (You are not allowed to

change or choose your group). The presentations will take place on the 4th December and 6th

December 2018, the presentation schedule will be released in due course. As usual, full attendance

will be expected on both days, even if your group is not presenting. 10% of your mark will come from

peer assessment, you will be assessing your peers’ presentations. You will need to present your

findings professionally and clearly.

Your presentation will be limited by 15 minutes. You will be stopped if you have not completed your

presentation on time.

3

Submission of the INDIVIDUAL report You should submit the completed report no later than 2pm (14:00), 8th January 2019, and

electronically via Blackboard.

Please ensure that you submit all supporting files in a single Microsoft Word document submission,

Blackboard only allows marking of files included in final submission.

You are required to produce the report individually, working on this report with other students is

potentially an assessment offence. Please refer to the assessment offence section of this assessment

brief for details.

The report has a maximum word count of 1,000 words. This figure is for the main body of the report

and does not include tables, appendices and executive summary. Please refer to the word count policy

section of this assessment brief for details.

Staff Contact You can consult staff up to 13th December 2018. Support given will be limited to exploring the

possible interpretations of the assignment.

CASE STUDY Background Foster’s Construction Ltd: Organizational Background

Fosters Construction Ltd (FCL) is a privately owned company with revenue of £20 million per

annum, and 200 employees. The company has been operating for 24 years and is well established in

the marketplace. However, despite a national rate of inflation of 4 per cent per annum over the last

few years (which is expected to continue), a general economic downturn has seen FCL’s nominal

revenue reduce at a rate of about 3 per cent per annum.

The company’s main activity is the construction of large industrial buildings. It also provides

maintenance services, mainly for those buildings which it has constructed. FCL has a large investment

in construction machinery, and has always kept up with the latest technology in the industry. The

company has concentrated on developing a corporate image as an innovative, technologically

advanced construction firm, and many of the managers of FCL consider that this corporate image has

been a major factor in securing large, competitive contracts in the past.

FCL is subject to corporation tax at 35 per cent, payable twelve months after year end, and a system

of 25 per cent writing down allowance on capital assets,

FCL’s formal capital investment system

An investment in construction equipment is central to the operations of FCL. The organization has,

over many years, developed a detailed system by which capital investment proposals are considered.

The summary sheet in Exhibit 1 is taken from the firm’s capital investment procedures manual, and

outlines the formal process for capital investment decision-making within FCL.

The current CI decision: purchase of a replacement crane

The Construction Site Manager (CSM) has recently submitted a CI/12 application for the purchase of

a new crane. The new asset would replace an existing crane, which is ten years old, and which

requires major maintenance in order to meet required safety standards.

4

The CSM has indicated in the January budget setting round that the firm would need to spend money

maintaining the old crane, but had not at that stage been aware of any replacement options. It had

previously been expected that the existing crane would see out its remaining useful life, to be replaced

by a more modern crane (the Auto-Lift II, or ‘ALII’). The ALII is technologically more advanced

than the firm’s existing crane, and is able to lift much larger loads.

The new crane would cost £345,000, which is considerably more than the original £195,000 cost of

the existing crane. The CSM consulted with the site accountants, and put forward the following

information in the CI/12 application:

 Description: purchase of an ALII crane to replace an existing crane which is in need of major maintenance.

 Cost projections: purchase price = £345,000; annual running cost = £60,000. It is expected that the ALII crane would have a £30,000 scrap value at the end of its useful life in ten years’

time.

 Projected timescale: available for purchase from Allied Importers Ltd in one month’s time. Purchase price payable on 31 March of this year (year 0) – the last day of FCL’s financial

year for taxation purposes.

The site accountants and the CSM had agreed that no further information was necessary, as the CI

proposal qualified as a ‘replacement of existing asset’ Class I investment. The CSM’s CI/12

application has now been considered by the Director of CI, who feels uneasy about recommending the

ALII crane purchase for funding approval. The Director of CI has called a meeting of concerned

parties to discuss the CI application.

The meeting participants

The following people are present at the meeting to discuss the ALII purchase proposal:

 Sonya Carson (SC) Director of CI. Sonya is new to this position, and is familiarizing herself with the technical nature of the firm’s operations. She has an undergraduate economics degree

and is considered competent, if perhaps a little overambitious. However, many longer-serving

organizational members doubt Sonya’s ability to make good decisions regarding investment

in an industry about which she currently knows little. For this reason, her appointment to the

position of Director of CI was controversial.

 Julian Done (JD) Construction site manager. Julian has worked in the construction industry for 15 years, progressing through the ranks to become CSM two years ago. He is considered

to be competent in his job, but is perceived as uncompromising and confrontational. Julian

has no time for ‘the head office bosses’, and his outspoken manner at meetings has often met

with disapproval from the CEO.

 Franc Silvero (FS) CEO of Foster’s Construction Ltd. Franc came to FCL seven years ago

when the construction industry was in a boom period. Received much accolade for record

sales levels when he first joined the firm as contracts director, and so has continued to

implement the policies which had met with success in the past. Franc is now perceived as

conservative, and often resists movement towards new areas of business operations. He has a

construction background, and sometimes feels uncomfortable with his new managerial role as

CEO.

 Henry Morton (HM) Engineering manager. Henry has an engineering degree and has worked in the trade for eight years, joining FCL three years ago. Henry is often called to give advice

5

on the technical and operating implications of capital asset purchases, as well as their

probable maintenance costs. Henry keeps up-to-date on innovation and new technology in the

construction industry, and in his opinion, is well respected. However, Henry has in the past

been frustrated in several attempts to introduce advanced technology into FCL’s construction

equipment, and blames this on the conservative approach of Franc Silvero.

The meeting

The meeting called by Sonya turned out to lengthy and lively. There was a considerable debate, and

the following excerpt reflects the main comments raised by the participants.

SC: Look Julian, there just isn’t enough information here. I have to be able to work out the new

crane’s NPV and payback period. In the past, if projects haven’t had a positive NPV at a required rate

of return of 26 per cent, and paid back within five years, then they haven’t been approved. Do we

know anything about the financial benefits which the ALII might produce? What advantage is there in

buying this thing now? Couldn’t we just let our old crane run its course and consider our options once

it reaches the end of its useful life in few years’ time?

FS: Yes, I think we need to look more closely at the details here. Julian, what do you think the outlook

is if we stay with the old crane?

JD: The old crane really needs some maintenance work done on it, to bring it up to safety standards. If

we spent about £40,000 on maintenance straight away it should be OK until it goes out of commission

in five years’ time.

FS: What does it cost to run the old crane?

JD: Running costs are around £40,000 per annum. Plus, the crane’s getting unreliable. I reckon there’s

about a 50 per cent chance that it will break down at some time during the year. If it does we lose

three day’s productivity on a job at a cost of around £15,000, not to mention the cost of fixing it,

which was £10,000 last time. Even once it’s fixed there’s still a 50 per cent chance it could break

down again within the next twelve months.

FS: What if we go for the ALII?

JD: The running costs would be a bit higher, as it’s a finely tuned machine and needs regular

maintenance. I reckon we’re looking at about £60,000 a year, judging by the recommended service

programme. But, at least it’s not likely to break down. Also, I’m sure that the ALII would improve

our chances of winning contracts, as it’s faster and it will help keep costs down. Take for example that

Storex contract we missed out on last month. The kind of cost savings we could get with the ALII

could have won us that bid, and jobs like that are worth around £40,000 pre-tax profit to FCL. We

could pick up a couple more like that one each year, maybe more.

FS: How would you rate the chance of picking up more work with the ALII?

JD: Well, probably about 60 per cent chance that we’d get another two like the Storex job each year,

and perhaps about 20 per cent chance of doubling that. It’s hard to say really, but the customers out

there are feeling the pinch. We’ve got to watch our cost competitiveness if we want to stay in the

game.

HM: That’s a key point here, I think. We’ve got to take a long-term view. The way I read it, these

ALII cranes will take over the market in the next two years, and by the time we came to replace the

old crane five years from now, we’d be looking at buying an ALII anyway. The question is, do we get

in on the new technology now, or in five years’ time? We really can’t assume that the status quo will

continue if we don’t go for the ALII now. We’re looking at a fall in price competitiveness, company

6

image and profits if we don’t move with the times. If we do go with the ALII now, we’ve got an edge

over our competitors. Even then, we wouldn’t want to hang on to the ALII for more than ten years.

We need to keep upgrading to keep ahead of the game.

JD: I can’t see what the problem is with these numbers Sonya has to crunch. It’s only an asset

replacement, and I’ve given you all the information the manual says you need. Besides, I told

everyone in January that we’d need to spend some money on the crane, so we all knew this was

coming.

FS: That’s true, Julian, but we’re talking £345,000 now, whereas we only expected to spend £40,000

on maintenance. I’m not at all sure that we want to get into experimental technology anyway, it seems

pretty risky. What’s wrong with maintaining the old crane, as planned? It’s still got five years left in

it, and they’re pretty hard to sell second-hand. It’s in our books at £10,981 after accumulated WDAs.

We’d probably only get about £20,000 for it if we want to sell it, which isn’t much more than the

£5,000 scrap value we’d get for it in five years’ time.

SC: Julian, perhaps you, Henry and I can sit down and draw up the figures, including the cost and

benefit information you’ve mentioned today. Then I can run the numbers and see if it meets our

investment criteria.

There’s just a couple of things that bother me, though. It doesn’t seem right to use the same required

rate of return for every project. We should be using different rates for different types of projects. I’ve

been playing around with a few numbers, and it seems to me that 26 per cent is too high. It might be

OK for risky projects that are something new to us, but here we’re talking about a crane. That’s run-

of-the-mill stuff for FCL, and it seems to me that a 21 per cent nominal required return would be more

appropriate.

Also, looking at past records of CI analyses, it looks like the 26 per cent rate has been used as a real

discount rate, when it is actually calculated to represent a nominal rate. We really need to do some

inflation adjustments to the rates we’re using.

JD: This is all gobbledegook to me. Perhaps that’s the problem here – we’re so tied up in the numbers

that we can’t see a good investment when it hits us in the face!

FS: We have to be sure that any investment is financially viable, Julian. Sonya, why don’t you run the

numbers both ways: the way we have in the past, and again using a rate you think is appropriate. I’d

be interested in seeing what difference it makes, although there’s never been a shortage of projects in

the past that have made the 26 per cent grade. I hope you wouldn’t be cutting it too fine using a rate

like 21 per cent. It doesn’t seem to leave much margin for error if our project estimates turn out to be

wrong.

SC: I’ll run the numbers, but the best way of dealing with margins for error is by getting things right

in the first place. There’s still a lot of uncertainty on this project. All we’ve got so far are ‘feeling’ and

estimates – do you think we can firm up those figures at all?

JD: No. There just isn’t any other information. Look, I’ve been in this industry since before you

finished school – I’ve learnt enough to know what’s what. I can tell you now that sooner or later we’ll

need a new crane to be able to do our jobs, and doing our jobs is what makes money for this

company!

FS: OK, Julian, no one doubts your judgement. Sonya, how about doing what you suggested, and

sitting down with Henry and Julian. They should be able to give you the technical information, and

you can work through the numbers. I’d like to see the IRR too – I’ve never been able to understand

why we don’t calculate IRR. I know a lot of other firms that do.

7

HM: Maybe we could think about changing the CI procedures manual too. That way, the technical

people will know exactly what information the director of CI needs and things can be settled faster.

SC: Fine, that’s a good idea. Look, I know we haven’t resolved this, but thanks for coming to this

meeting. Perhaps we can all get together again in a week’s time to make a decision.

EXHIBIT 1

Fosters Construction Ltd. Capital investment procedures – summary

Capital investment (CI) is defined as ‘any major expenditure on purchasing, construction or upgrading

capital assets, the benefits from which will accrue over several years’.

1. In early January of each year the CI budget is determined. The total amount of available funds for

CI expenditure is determined by the directors, based on what they consider the company can afford.

2. Later that month, divisional managers meet to discuss forthcoming CI requirements, and the budget

allocated across divisions. Managers must present their proposed CI requirements under the following

three headings:

(i) essential replacement of existing assets (Class 1);

(ii) strategic expansion (Class 2);

(iii) safety and regulatory expenditure (Class 3).

The final allocation across divisions is a decision taken jointly by the CEO and the director of CI.

3. Throughout the year, access to funds for investment requires the submission of a standard form

CI/12 – Capital Expenditure Application. The information normally required with such as submission

includes:

(i) a description of the proposed investment;

(ii) motivation for the investment, i.e. what will the investment achieve for the company;

(iii) financial projections of the cost of the investment;

(iv) projected future financial benefits of the investment;

(v) key success indicators for the investment (used for assessing the riskiness of the project

and for subsequent post audit);

(vi) a projected time-scale for completion of the investment. However, proposed Class 3

projects may dispense with items (iv) and (v), and those in Class 1 may dispense with items

(ii), (iv) and (v).

4. The CI/12 form is assessed by the director of CI, who has the following options:

(i) accept the proposal and forward it to the CEO for financing approval;

(ii) refer the proposal back for further refinement;

(iii) reject the proposal.

CI proposals will be assessed with regard to the net present value (NPV) and payback period (PP) of

the proposed project, although Class I projects will be considered as ‘cost minimization exercises’,

since there is already an accepted need to continue with current operations and assets, and Class 3

projects are not required to meet financial criteria.

5. All CI projects are assessed within a ten-year planning horizon, i.e. investment effects beyond this

ten-year horizon are considered uncertain, and are ignored.

6. If approved, a CI proposal is then allocated funds from the annual budget. A project supervisor is

then assigned, and this person is responsible for the implementation and reporting of the CI project.

7. In due course, some selected CI projects will be subject to post audit by the director of CI.

8

Marking Criteria The following criteria will be used in evaluating this assessment:

1) Group Presentation Marking Criteria (CW1)

Group Name: Team members Student Number 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

For each criterion, rate the presentation between 1 (very poor) and 5 (very good)

Criteria Score Weight Total

Organisation

 Clear introduction

 Rationale presented to support arguments

 Conclusion logically drawn from rationale

 Logical flow of discussion

30%

Content

 Topic addressed satisfactorily

 Reasoning clearly with valid logic

 Evidence presented to support key points

 Critical evaluation of the case scenario in arriving at recommendations

40%

Team work and Q&A section

 Clear demonstration of each member contributing during the presentation and Q&A

 Individual accountability demonstrated during Q&A

 Prompt answers, creative reasoning and persuasiveness

20%

Visual aids and overall oral presentation

 Proper use of visual aids

 Engaging with the audience

 Volume, enunciation, eye contact, gesture

10%

Final Mark

Feedback From: Date:

Strengths of this assignment are:

Main ways to improve this assignment are:

Group Presentation Mark Mark

Peer Assessment Mark Final Mark

The peer assessment mark will account for 10%.

9

2) Individual Report Marking Criteria (CW2): For the individual report you will be provided with a formative feedback showing strengths and ways to improve your assignment: Student number:

Feedback From: Date:

Strengths of this assignment are:

Main ways to improve this assignment are:

Marking Criteria Issue Grade A Grade B+ Grade B Grade C Refer/Fail

Relevance to

assignment brief

Assignment’s aims

and themes are

integral to the

assignment.

Clear focus on the

themes of the

assignment.

Mainly focused on the

themes of the

assignment.

Some of the writing

is focused on the

themes of the

assignment.

Makes no attempt to address

the themes of the assignment.

Extent of evaluation Evaluation within

assignment rigorous

and appropriate.

Good clear evidence

of evaluation carried

out within

assignment.

Evaluation reasonably

well carried out

Some attempt at

evaluation within

assignment.

No attempt at evaluation within

assignment

Quality of reasoning Analytical and clear

conclusions well-

grounded in theory

and literature,

showing development

of new concepts.

Good development as

shown in summary of

arguments based on

theory/literature and

beginnings of

synthesis.

Evidence of findings

and conclusions

grounded in

theory/literature.

Limited evidence of

findings and

conclusions

supported by the

literature and theory.

Unsubstantiated/invalid

conclusion, based on anecdotes

and generalisations only.

Skill at facilitating

discussion

Excellent enabling

pacing and

summarising of

discussion.

Clear evidence of

ability to stimulate,

facilitate and

summarise

discussion.

Some ability to

stimulate and facilitate

discussion or be

directive.

Some ability to

facilitate discussion

but tendency to miss

opportunities.

Inability to stimulate/ facilitate

discussion.

Clarity and quality

of written expression

Clarity of expression

excellent.

Consistently accurate

use of grammar and

spelling

professional/academic

writing style.

Thoughts and ideas

clearly expressed.

Grammar and spelling

accurate with fluent

fluent.

Language mainly

fluent. Grammar and

spelling mainly

accurate and language

fluent

Meaning apparent

but.... language not

always fluent,

grammar and

spelling still poor.

Purpose and meaning of

assignment unclear. Language,

grammar and spelling poor.

Understanding of

subject

Work shows a well-

co-ordinated,

grounded and

reasoned

understanding of

topic and its

relevance to practice

Consistent

understanding

demonstrated in a

logical, coherent and

lucid manner.

Demonstrates

understanding in a style

which is logical,

coherent and flowing.

Attempts a logical

and coherent

understanding of the

subject area.

Fails to demonstrate

understanding of the

subject/topic area.

Referencing Referencing clear,

relevant and

consistently accurate

using the Harvard

system.

Referencing relevant

and mostly accurate

using the Harvard

system.

Minor inconsistencies

and inaccuracies in

referencing using the

Harvard system.

Referencing present

but had

inconsistencies and

inaccuracies.

Referencing inaccurate or

absent.

Use of literature Has developed own

ideas and justified

using a wide range of

sources of theories

and literature which

has been thoroughly

analysed, applied and

tested.

Ability to appraise

critically the theory

and literature from a

variety of courses,

developing own ideas

in the process.

Clear evidence and

application of readings

relevant to the subject

within the text.

Little or no evidence

of reading around

the subject.

Evidence of some limited

reading around the subject

10

Formative feedback and Support Formative feedback Formative feedback provides opportunities to reflect on your ongoing work and preparation for your assignment. You will be given a verbal feedback and a more detailed written feedback for your presentation and a written feedback for your individual assignment. Further information about this assessment is available on the Blackboard site for this module and includes: Guidance documents, module handbook, reading list sections or other resources here.

Formatting Please use the following file format(s) Word or pdf. We cannot ensure that other formats are compatible with markers’ software. All work should be word processed in 12-point font Times New Roman or Arial and single spaced. The first page of your coursework must include:

 Your student Number

 The module Name and Number

 Your word Count

 The coursework question or title

Word Limit The maximum word limit for this coursework is 1,000

 This word count includes everything in the main body of the text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, lists, etc.).

 The references, bibliography and footnotes (provided footnotes only include references) are NOT included in this word count.

 There is no direct penalty for exceeding the word count, but the marker WILL stop reading once the maximum word limit has been reached and nothing further will be taken into account in the allocation of marks.

You can view the UWE word count policy here: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/aboutus/policies

Referencing: Please adhere to the principles of good academic practice and ensure you reference all sources used when developing your assessment, using the UWE Harvard system. Failure to properly reference your work to original source material can be grounds for the assessment offence of plagiarism and may result in failure of the assessment or have more serious implications. For further guidance on correct referencing go to: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/referencing.aspx Details of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it can be found here: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/readingandwriting/plagiarism.aspx For general guidance on how to avoid assessment offences see: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/assessments/assessmentoffences.aspx

Instructions for submission You must submit your assignment before the stated deadline by electronic submission through Blackboard. Notification that the electronic submission portal is open for your assignment is displayed (usually two weeks before the submission date) in the Coursework tab in myUWE, the Coursework tab in Blackboard and via an announcement in the Blackboard course. Please allow sufficient time to upload your assignment, noting that the system becomes busier and slower as the deadline approaches. Only your final upload will be counted. Ensure all your information is submitted at one attempt to avoid ‘overwriting’ your intended submission. Always check and retain your receipts. Late submission in the 24 hours following the deadline will be accepted but the assignment mark will

11

be capped at 50%. Submissions after 24 hours will not be accepted. For full guidance on online submission through Blackboard, see: http://info.uwe.ac.uk/online/Blackboard/students/guides/assignments/default.asp Submissions of coursework by any other method (including a paper copy, on disk or by email) are NOT permissible for this module unless specifically agreed in advance of the submission date. Before submitting your work, please ensure that:

 You have proof read you work thoroughly to ensure your work is presented appropriately

 You have addressed all the required elements of the assessment

 You have referenced in accordance with the guidance provided

 You have addressed each of the marking criterion

 The submission is in the correct format

Final feedback and marks release Students will normally receive marks and feedback on their submission within 20 working days of the submission deadline (not including any public holidays or university closure days). Any delay in returning students’ work will be communicated by the module leader via Blackboard. Feedback on this module is not limited to the written comments you will receive on individual written

assessment submissions. Feedback and marks for this module will be available by 6 February 2019. For further guidance on feedback, please refer to the module handbook.

Further Guidance and Support General guidance on study skills: is available at: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills.aspx Specific study skills pages relating to this module include: Presentation skills: https://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/groupworkandpresenting/presenting.aspx Working in a group: https://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/groupworkandpresenting/groupwork.aspx Writing skills: https://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/studysupport/studyskills/readingandwriting/writing.aspx Support from the FBL Academic Success Centre: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/bl/bbs/aboutus/studentexperience/academicsupportcentre.aspx Guidance on UWE assessment regulations and terminology: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/assessments/assessmentsguide.aspx Guidance on using the library: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/library/usingthelibrary.aspx

Personal Circumstances If you are experiencing difficulties in completing a piece of assessment on time due to unexpected circumstances (for example illness, accident, bereavement), you should seek advice from a Student Support Adviser at the earliest opportunity. Please note the module leader cannot grant personal circumstances or extensions. Appointments with a student adviser can be made via an Information Point or online at: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/studentadvisers.aspx The Student Support Adviser will advise as to whether you should submit an application for ‘Personal Circumstances (PCs)’, how to do so and what evidence is required to support the application. Further details on ECs can be found here:

http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/assessments/personalcircumstances.aspx