HC2022 Market Research
Assignment 1 – Group Project
Form a group with 2 to 4 members.
Read the article: ‘Tata Motors unveils new Zest sedan’
The outputs of this assignment will be:
1. A discussion of the target market alternatives for the Zest sedan. Recommend one.
2. A discussion of the alternative ways of defining the ‘Population’ for a research study on the Zest sedan. Recommend one.
3. A discussion of the alternative ways of defining the ‘Sampling Frame’ for the research on the Zest sedan. Recommend one.
4. A discussion of the alternative ways of defining the sampling approach for the research on the Zest sedan. Recommend one.
5. Explain why the approach expressed in the earlier sections will deliver an effective research outcome.
In your group discuss how you will manage the completion of the assignment.
Note who will do which part of the assignment. Everyone should discus all the elements of the assignment.
• An appendix should be attached to the assignment which will contain material from each of the participants
• Each member of the group to find two Journal articles on issues relevant to this research.
• Each member to present these Journal articles to a group meeting and discuss how they might influence the research.
• Prepare a ‘discussion paper’ to contain the outputs listed above.
• You should demonstrate your grasp of a wide range of ideas and you capacity to discuss these ideas.
• Your report should be built around the ideas contained in the journal articles with comment and evaluation by the group.
• You should make a recommendation.
Use of Harvard referencing to identify the source of all ideas.
Marks will be deducted for poor layout and failure to include Title Page, TOC, page numbers, reference list.
A mark of 25+ will fulfil the following criteria:
• shows clear evidence of wide and relevant reading and an engagement with the conceptual issues;
• develops a sophisticated and intelligent argument;
• shows a rigorous use and a confident understanding of relevant source materials;
• achieves an appropriate balance between factual detail and key theoretical issues;
• provides evidence of original thinking.
21 - 24
A mark in the range 21-24 will fulfil the following criteria:
• engages closely with the case study;
• shows some evidence of wide and relevant reading and an engagement with the conceptual issues;
• shows some sophistication of argument;
• shows an intelligent use and a good understanding of relevant source materials.
18 - 20
A mark in the range 18-21 will fulfil the following criteria:
• offers critical insights and shows evidence of critical thinking;
• shows a good understanding of the major factual and/or theoretical issues, and addresses the relevant literature on the topic;
• develops a focused and clear argument and articulates a sustained train of logical thought;
• shows clear evidence of planning in the formulation of the written answer and includes a judicious choice of sources and methodology.
A mark in the range 15-17 will fulfil the following criteria:
• shows some understanding of relevant major theoretical and/or factual issues;
• shows evidence of planning in the formulation of the written answer, makes selective use of appropriate sources, and demonstrates some knowledge of the literature;
• shows, at various points if not throughout the entire text, examples of a clear train of thought or argument;
• presents basic models / diagrams, where appropriate;
• provides an appropriate conclusion to the textual argument(s).
A mark in the range 12-14 will fulfil the following criteria:
• shows some awareness and understanding of the factual and/or theoretical issues, but demonstrates limited ability to develop these;
• provides clear evidence of misunderstandings;
• shows some, albeit limited, evidence of planning in the formulation of the written answer, but also includes material or arguments which are irrelevant or unrelated to the question;
• fails to develop a clear or coherent response to the question, but shows occasional knowledge or insight.
A Fail will be awarded in cases which:
• fail to answer the question or develop an argument;
• fail to demonstrate knowledge of the key issues or arguments;
• contain clear conceptual or factual errors or misunderstandings;
• are poorly organised and/or poorly written.
A Fail will be awarded in cases which:
• fail to answer the question even in part;
• show no knowledge of the question or topic;
• contain blatant conceptual or factual errors;
• are very poorly organised and/or very poorly written.