cw2

ASSESSMENT BRIEF

BBABM312 DECISION ANALYSIS (5 ECTS) Academic year 2025/26

Semester/Term Fall

Professor Vasileios Myrthianos – Rohan Otto

Participation in all assessment activities stated in this document is required. The minimum pass grade for the course is

70. Due dates and times are always in Geneva time. Unless otherwise stated, the submission point for Turnitin activities will open exactly 10 days before the deadline.

MINOR ASSESSMENTS

Task 2.1: Quiz on Lessons 5 and 6

Assessment type: Quiz

Due date: 5 Dec. 25 (14:00)

Weight: 5%

Description: Multiple choice quiz on Lessons 5 and 6.

Duration: 30 minutes, 1 attempt.

Task 2.2: Quiz on Lessons 7 to 10

Assessment type: Quiz

Due date: 19 Dec. 25 (14:00)

Weight: 5%

Description: Multiple choice quiz on Lessons 7 to 10.

Duration: 30 minutes, 1 attempt.

FINAL ASSESSMENT

Task 2.3: Final Assignment

Assessment type: Written assignment

Due date: 26 Jan. 26 (14:00)

Weight: 50%

Description: Students are to answer and analyse the questions regarding the provided case study.

Go to the next page

ASSESSMENT BRIEF

INSTRUCTIONS

Case Study: EcoRide Mobility

Background: EcoRide Mobility is a growing company specializing in electric bicycles and scooters for urban commuters. Over the past decade, the company has built a reputation for affordable, eco-friendly transportation solutions. However, increased competition, rising battery costs, and stricter safety regulations are affecting its profitability.

Current Situation: EcoRide is considering expanding into electric delivery vehicles for businesses, as demand for last- mile logistics solutions is increasing. However, entering this market requires significant investment, infrastructure adjustments, and navigating strict regulatory requirements. The company also faces uncertainty about how quickly businesses will adopt eco-friendly delivery solutions.

The management team at EcoRide must decide whether to invest in the new electric delivery vehicle line, form partnerships with courier companies to share risks and costs or pause expansion plans and strengthen their core e- bike and scooter business.

Questions:

Question 1: Decision-Making Framework

• Part A: Using the six elements of decision quality discussed in Unit 1, evaluate the decision EcoRide is facing. Identify and explain how each element applies to this case, highlighting any areas where EcoRide may need to improve its decision-making process.

• Part B: Discuss how EcoRide’s organizational decision-making systems, as explored in Unit 2, might influence the outcome of this decision. Consider factors such as leadership style, corporate culture, and communication channels.

Question 2: Problem Structuring

• Part A: Define the problem EcoRide is trying to solve with the expantion into electric delivery vehicles. Discuss the scope of the problem and identify the key objectives that EcoRide should consider.

• Part B: Propose at least three feasible alternatives EcoRide could pursue in response to this decision problem. Justify each alternative by explaining how it aligns with the company’s overall goals and market position.

Question 3: Decision Analysis Tools

• Part A: Explain how EcoRide can use decision trees to analyze the potential outcomes of investing in the new electric delivery vehicle line versus partnerships or pausing expansion plans.

• Part B: Create a decision tree that outlines these alternatives, including potential risks, rewards, and probabilities. Clearly label each branch and decision node.

Question 4: Scenario Planning

• Develop a scenario plan for EcoRide that considers different future market conditions. Create at least two scenarios—one optimistic and one pessimistic—and outline the strategic responses EcoRide should consider for each scenario. Discuss how these scenarios can help EcoRide manage uncertainty in its decision-making process.

Question 5: Influence Diagram

• Create an influence diagram that represents the decision-making process EcoRide should follow for the new investment strategy. Identify key variables, such as market demand, regulatory changes, and technological advancements, and show how they influence each other and the final decision.

Question 6: Risk and Uncertainty Management

• Part A: Discuss the role of risk and uncertainty in EcoRide’s decision-making process. Identify and explain the key sources of uncertainty and risk for the new investment strategy.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF

• Part B: Propose strategies EcoRide could use to manage these risks, incorporating concepts from Unit 6 (probabilistic thinking) and Unit 8 (risk management). Include recommendations on how to mitigate the impact of these risks on the company’s decision.

Question 7: Stakeholder Analysis

• Conduct a stakeholder analysis for EcoRide’s potential investment strategy. Identify the key stakeholders involved, including customers, suppliers, regulators, and internal teams. Discuss how the interests and influences of these stakeholders should be considered in EcoRide’s decision-making process.

Question 8: Final Decision and Justification

• Based on your analysis from the previous questions, make a final recommendation on whether EcoRide should proceed with the investment into the new electric delivery vehicle line. Justify your decision by integrating insights from all the units covered in this course, emphasizing decision quality, stakeholder considerations, and risk management.

FORMAT

Your submission must meet the following formatting requirements:

• Number of files for submission: 1 • Required file format for main submission: PDF • Word count: 2000

All refencing and citations require Harvard referencing style. Students must avoid plagiarism and use the Harvard Referencing Guide and Turnitin to ensure that their sources are correctly cited. Plagiarism includes the use of artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT and Grammarly, when output is copied and pasted from these sites. Please refer to the Academic Policies and Procedures Manual and the Student Good Practice Manual in AI Literacy available on the Student Services page for further details.

Go to the next page.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Written Assignment

Fail 0-59%

Borderline fail 60-69%

Fair 70-79%

Good 80-89%

Exceptional 90-100%

Purpose, Understanding & Content    25%

Purpose is unclear or absent. The work demonstrates serious misunderstandings or confusion regarding key concepts. Content lacks relevance or depth, and arguments are either missing or unsupported by evidence.

An attempt is made to address the task, but the purpose is vague or inconsistently applied. Some relevant concepts are included, but analysis is weak or descriptive. Key ideas may be misapplied or underdeveloped.

The purpose is mostly clear and appropriate to the level. Demonstrates a competent grasp of the topic, though some gaps in understanding may remain. Arguments are generally supported, with limited but relevant insight.

Clear, coherent and well- supported purpose. Demonstrates strong conceptual understanding and the ability to apply knowledge with increasing independence. Arguments are logical and appropriately evidenced.

Purpose is focused and intellectually engaging. Demonstrates excellent understanding and thoughtful application of complex ideas. Content is accurate, nuanced, and supported by robust evidence. Analytical insight is sustained throughout.

Organisation & Coherence   20%

Lacks logical progression. Paragraphs or sections are disconnected or poorly ordered. No clear introduction or conclusion. Difficult to follow.

Basic structure is present but inconsistently applied. Sections may be repetitive or misaligned. Transitions are weak, and flow is uneven.

Organisational structure is sound, with clear sections. Flow may be occasionally awkward, but the reader can generally follow the argument.

Well-organised and coherent. Each section contributes to a logical progression of ideas. Transitions are smooth, and the structure enhances clarity.

Structure is sophisticated and purposeful, guiding the reader through a well- crafted argument. Transitions are seamless, and the organisation enhances impact. Introduction and conclusion are incisive and effective.

Communication & Expression   15%

Communication is ineffective, with frequent language or structural errors that obscure meaning. Tone is inappropriate for academic work.

Meaning is occasionally unclear due to language issues or lack of fluency. Academic tone is inconsistently applied. Written or spoken delivery lacks confidence or clarity.

Communication is mostly clear and appropriate, though occasional language issues or stylistic lapses may affect readability. Generally suitable academic tone.

Clear and fluent academic communication with only minor errors. Style is professional and well-suited to the discipline. Oral delivery is confident and articulate.

Language is precise, fluent, and engaging. Tone and style are highly appropriate, demonstrating command of academic discourse. Oral or written communication is confident, polished, and compelling.

Authenticity, Critical Thinking & Integration   20%

No critical thinking or originality is evident. Work relies on description or unexamined ideas. Ideas are not connected or developed. No synthesis or evaluation.

Some attempt at original thought, but arguments are basic and underdeveloped. Little engagement with opposing perspectives. Connections between ideas are weak.

Shows evidence of critical thinking and evaluation. Some original insights and attempts to synthesise ideas are present but not fully developed or consistently maintained.

Demonstrates thoughtful, analytical engagement. Critical perspectives are explored, and independent judgement is evident. Good integration of ideas from various sources.

Original, reflective, and critically sophisticated. Demonstrates synthesis across concepts, sources, or frameworks. Offers compelling, well- argued insights supported by evidence and evaluation.

Use of Sources & Referencing 20%

Uses few or no appropriate sources. Citations may be absent or incorrectly formatted. Work may contain plagiarism or demonstrate poor academic integrity.

Some attempt to use sources, but integration is weak or inappropriate. Referencing is inconsistent and may include significant formatting errors.

Relevant sources are used, but not always effectively integrated. Citation style is mostly accurate, though some inconsistencies may be present. Limited engagement with the source material.

Uses a good range of credible, relevant sources. Referencing is accurate and enhances the credibility of arguments. Shows clear understanding of academic practice.

Sources are expertly chosen, critically evaluated, and integrated seamlessly. Referencing is precise and fully compliant with academic conventions. Demonstrates deep engagement with scholarly material.