Page 1 of 13

MSc in Professional Accountancy (MPAcc)
Module: PAM006 Strategic Financial Project (SFP)
Final Individual Project (Study Session: January to June 2022)
Submission deadline: Monday 13th June 13.00 UK/BST (Week 23).

UOL regulations require all submissions to adhere to this deadline. If there are extenuating circumstances, you
should log an enquiry via your student Portal to request an extension (complete with evidence of
circumstances) to be considered.

1. Introduction
This project assignment carries 70% of the total grade for this Module. It comprises TWO
(2) sections, each with their respective weightings. It is an individual not a group-based
assignment. The tasks/requirements are detailed in point 5 on pages 5, 6 and 7.
Please take careful note of the flowing points:
• The submission deadline is Monday 13th June 2022 by 1pm (1300 hours) UK/BST
(week 23).
• Any work received after the submission deadline will receive a recorded mark of zero.
There will be no extensions given except in evidenced extenuating circumstances.
• There are 2 sections for this Project assignment. You will submit ONE (1) combined
document containing both sections.
• The upper limit of the word count should not be exceeded – see point 3 further below
on page 2 – and it is essential that you state an accurate word count for each
Section’s submitted document on their respective title pages.
• If you do not state an accurate word count for each Section will receive a 5-mark
penalty for each omission.
• You should cite references using, preferably, the Harvard referencing system although other
appropriate alternatives are acceptable when used consistently. If you use a referencing
system other than Harvard you should state the name at the start of your referencing list.
• Submitted assignments are subject to a range of quality control and scrutiny checks
including, as appropriate, double marking and/or moderation and/or scrutiny by the
module’s Internal and/or External Examiners. All submitted assignments are subject to
Turnitin checking for plagiarism (see point 2 below on page 2). All results when first
published are provisional until confirmed by the Examination Board.
• Assessment criteria are referred to in point 4 on page 3/page 13.
Page 2 of 13

2. Plagiarism
This is cheating. Do not be tempted and certainly do not succumb to temptation.
Plagiarised copies are invariably rooted out and severe penalties apply. All assignment
submissions are electronically tested for plagiarism. More information may be accessed
via: https://accountancy.elearning.london.ac.uk/mod/lesson/view.php?id=3809

3. Penalties for exceeding the word count
1. There are penalties for exceeding the specified word count.

2. The total word count for both submission documents combined, should NOT exceed 6,000
words.

3. For Section 1 your submission should be between 4,000 and 4,500 words. You may use less
than 4,000 words but in so doing you may be penalising yourself as it is likely to be
challenging to respond to Section 1’s requirement in less than 4,000 words.

4. You MUST state an accurate word count (excluding the list of references) on the
Section 1 title page. If you do not state an accurate word count for Section 1 on
the title page you will receive a 5-mark penalty.

5. If you submit more than 4,500 words for Section 1, the following penalties apply:
- up to 10% more than 4,500 words your mark for Section 1 will be reduced by 5
marks;
- for more than 10% than 4,500 words you will receive zero marks for Section 1.
6. For Section 2 your submission should be between 1,000 and 1,500 words. You may use less
than 1,000 words but in so doing you may be penalising yourself as it is likely to be
challenging to respond to Section 2’s requirement in less than 1,000 words.

7. You MUST state an accurate word count (excluding the list of references) on the
Section 2 title page. If you do not state an accurate word count for Section 2 on
the title page you will receive a 5-mark penalty.

8. If you submit more than 1,500 words, the following penalties apply:
- up to 10% more than 1,500 words your mark for Section 2 will be reduced by
5 marks;
- for more than 10% more than 1,500 words you will receive zero marks
for Section 2.

Page 3 of 13

4. Guidelines regarding criteria for achieving particular grade boundaries
The grade standards represented by the mark ranges are:
Mark range Grade standard
85 - 100 Outstanding Distinction
70 - 84 Distinction
60 - 69 Merit
50 - 59 Pass
40 - 49 Fail standard
0 - 39 Bad fail standard

5. Tasks and requirements
To be submitted by Monday 13th June 2022 by 1pm (1300 hours) UK/BST.
Section 1 (90% weighting of this assignment)
Please provide a front cover/title page for this section.
Also state an accurate word count on the front title page of Section 1. Failure to do state the
word count for each Section in your submission will result in a 5-mark penalty.

Your Individual New business venture proposal/Workplace business-strategic plan report
You are required to produce a 5-year business/strategic plan report.

There are three potential report scenarios from which you should select one:

1. You may if you wish, situate your report within a Workplace scenario. If you do so, it
should be suitable for consideration by a new management team for your workplace in
the context of the strategic challenges facing the company.
2. You may if you wish, use a workplace/company which is not your primary workplace but
one which you are familiar with and can gain access to relevant data and information
(which can be quite challenging). The report should be suitable for a new management
team to take your plan forward within the context of strategic challenges facing the
company. If you choose a publicly listed company please think about how much
information and data you can gather on them before embarking upon this.
3. You may if you wish, prepare a business/strategic plan report for a new business venture
(NBV) scenario, the report should be suitable for potential investors and relevant
stakeholders.

In any of these three scenarios, appropriate permission of use of internal data should be
Page 4 of 13

sought. If you are using publicly available information you do not require permission.
Where data is of a confidential nature, a note should be placed on the front of your title page:

This project is CONFIDENTIAL and is not to be made accessible outside those
academics who are marking/examining the project and the UOL Programme
Team.

Your report should be between 4,000 words and a maximum of 4,500 words. Penalties apply
for exceeding the word count. No formal penalties apply for using fewer than 4,000 words but in
so doing you may be penalising yourself as it is likely to be challenging to respond to the
requirement in less than 4,000 words. When combined with Section 2 the total word count
should not exceed 6,000 words. State an accurate word count on the title page of Section 1.

In producing your report you should:
a) Provide appropriate context: research the relevant ‘real world’ industry, market and business
environment the company/venture is situated in. You should use a combination of relevant real-
world primary and/or secondary research to provide the basis upon which your strategic choices
are made.
b) Utilise a range of strategic tools (SWOT, PESTLE, Ansoff, Porter, Business Canvas and others as
appropriate) to help analyse the relevant situated context.
c) Identify, explore and evaluate alternative strategies for developing the business. All strategy
permutations are not required to be submitted in the final report (you have limited space!),
however there should be consideration of alternatives as part of your own ‘process of
elimination’ rather than just magically showing a final set of strategies! You may wish to show
glimpses of these alternatives – key figures and/or refer to key aspects that would not be
viable etc. – to show that there were indeed alternatives considered.
d) Arising out of a), b) and c) above, set out a compelling five-year business plan consultancy report
designed to enhance shareholder value. You must define the shareholder value or stakeholder
value (where the organization is not-for-profit) you are addressing and must explain and justify
its selection. The report may identify a range of strategies for consideration but should
ultimately put forward your recommendation (and perhaps some contingency alternative) with
evidenced justification for why the proposed is the best way forward.
e) Identify specific key performances (KPIs) to assist in measuring to what degree
shareholder value (or stakeholder value if you are focusing on a non-profit organisation)
is being enhanced. These KPIs should be justified and appropriately monitored such that
it facilitates a good overview of performance.
f) Include extracts of your spreadsheet planning tool results/financial forecasts within your
report to strengthen your justifications and evidence. You may wish to conduct a CapEx
analysis as part of the financials, building upon your knowledge in this area. You are not
required to submit the actual planning tool. However, the connectivity of your financial
plans should flow throughout your report and should be presented in a user-friendly and
robust manner.
g) Review your proposed plan and identify and assess the key risks within it.
h) You should include graphs, tables and figures within the main body of the report where
appropriate. Please refer to the Project Presentation Guide document within the Final Project
Page 5 of 13

section on the VLE for word count guidance for tables and graphs.
If you carry out any primary research, you should include relevant extracts (not included in the word
limit) within the main body or an appendix as part of the evidence of carrying out that primary
research and appropriate analysis. Where you carry out secondary research you should ensure you
reference appropriately and clearly.
PLEASE NOTE:
Any appendices should not contain any materials central to the core thrust of the assignment:
it should not contain information or large amounts of text which you cannot fit into the main body of
your report to escape the word count limit! As such, appendices content will not be considered within
the mark scheme formally but will, of course, provide the highlights of your evidence for reference
purposes.
The following criteria will be assessed on a scale of up to 10 mapped to
the mark ranges for this module (see point 4, page 3):
• Overall contextual research into the relevant industry, market and business
environment [15%].
• Use of primary and/or secondary research to justify the strategic option(s) being set
out for the organisation [12%].
• Definition and justification of shareholder/stakeholder value for chosen organisation [8%].
• Recommended strategy/strategies and justification of those strategies, as well as any core
contingency alternatives where appropriate. [11%].
• Robust linkages with your financial forecasts [11%].
• New business venture/workplace scenario-specific KPIs justification [10%].
• Identification and assessment of key risks within the proposed plan. May include and link to the
contingencies proposed [10%].
• The quality of the report taking account of cohesion, links with your research, evidence,
financials, justifications and associated considerations [20%] - Note: this will be assessed using
the assessor’s academic judgement of the overall submission presented.
• Overall communication [3%] – Note: this will be assessed using the assessor’s academic
judgement of the overall submission presented.

To help you frame your thoughts around the report, here are a few items
to think about:
• In essence, you are doing something similar to the Icarus activity in that you are thinking
ahead strategically for an organisation over the next 5 years.
• Whether you are using a workplace scenario or a new business venture (NBV) scenario,
there a skeleton spreadsheet will be available on the VLE which you can use to explore
Page 6 of 13

different scenarios. The skeleton tool, however, is just that – a tool. We have provided
this to help you but the extent of its usage is up to you. If you are using your workplace,
you may already have access to a tool or may need to develop a simple one using the
skeleton or your own to aid your exploration of options. If you are going for the NBV
scenario, you may wish to create your own simple tool or create an adapted version of
the skeleton or you can use workings of your own design. Again, this is your choice to
make. You are not expected to develop the level of detail provided to you in the Icarus
app!
• Ultimately you are being asked to plan for the future, a future which will enhance
shareholder/stakeholder value. Remember you define (and justify) what you mean by
shareholder wealth or stakeholder value. Having done so, you will need to identify and
set out appropriate objectives to aim for and to be measured. This should involve
identifying a range of KPIs for such holistic measurement – not just financial but also
qualitative metrics which link to financial and vice versa.
• You may wish – not unreasonably - to use your workplace’s current financial position and
its strategy(ies) as your departure point. Or you may need to project the first year’s
financial status for your NBV and build upon that.
• The research you carry out could well be based upon primary and/or secondary research
(as covered in the first 11 weeks of the module) where appropriate. Finding out about
the business landscape/industry that your NBV/your workplace scenario is based within
is a first step. The strategies you will wish to try out will depend upon your independent
research.
• The skeleton tool can help you generate forecast results for the alternative scenarios and
strategies you decide to explore be they, for example, exploring a new international
market or extending an existing product line or introducing a new product line. You
should select the scenario and strategy you feel most appropriate for the business. You
should then ‘officially’ recommend and endorse it, and in so doing provide justification,
citing ‘evidence’ where necessary. This is much like the rationales you and your team
provide as support for the choices you make for each round in Icarus – but with further
development.
• The skeleton tool is there for you to use, adapting it as you see fit. You will definitely
need to make adjustments to the tool but it is to help you plan - as each orgnisation will
have its own unique set of items to include/exclude from the tool – unfortunately, there
is not a one-size-fits-all tool! Remember, the main output for this assessment is the
report – the skeleton tool should be viewed as part of the process you use to arrive at
the report you submit. Unlike Icarus, you do not have the luxury of ‘rolling the world
forward’ but nonetheless, the mindset Icarus should have put you in will help think about
the issues you will need to address for this assignment.
• Try not to spend all of your time playing with any planning/skeleton tool you choose
to utilise ‐ your justifications must come from your research into the environment, target
Page 7 of 13

markets and possibly even primary research to back up your assertions. This helps inform
the numbers you pump into the tool!
• The skeleton tool is not a perfect one – indeed, a ‘perfect’ one probably does not exist!
You will need to tweak it yourself if you find any issues and/or if you change anything
yourself. But it is a general one to help kick-start your thought process and to help
provide some inspiration for you. Remember, you do not have to use this tool, you can
create/adapt one of your own.
• At the end of the day, if this was your business... What would you do? and will someone
objective reading your plan for the first time understand what you are trying to
achieve, why and how?
• If someone were to pick up your report and read the conclusion first, then the main body
and then the introduction, would it all tie together? There should be a thread/narrative
throughout that allows the reader to be able to go back, go forward and come back again
and still allow good linkages. Does it ‘hang together’?


A note about structuring the report
There is no one set way to structure your report for this assessment. There is room for
individuality and creativity but with a goal of providing an easy to follow, clear and well-
evidenced report. Below are some areas/headings that you may wish to utilise to help structure
your report or to help ensure you cover key assessment areas. But, again, this is not set in stone
and can be adapted as you see fit.
• Introduction
• Background Industry/market analysis using relevant frameworks tools.
• Any key primary research (if applicable) conducted with results, particularly in the context
of identifying and exploring strategic alternatives/opportunities.
• Identification of overall objectives in-line with (defined) shareholder/stakeholder value;
relevant KPI selection and justification; selection and justification of key strategies.
• Financial plans/projections
• Risk assessments
• Recommendations and conclusion
• Full consistent reference list using accepted referencing style e.g. Harvard or APA.

A note about an executive summary
You may provide an Executive Summary at the start of your report. This is simply a concise summary
for a reader to get the flavour of your report before reading the content in its entirety.
• It is not compulsory.
• It does not count towards the word limit.
• It should not contain anything that is not developed within the main body of your report.
Page 8 of 13

• There are no marks awarded for an executive summary.


A note about using tables containing text
• You may be looking to insert tables of financial forecasts or financial statements from your
planning tool – these can be pasted into your main body as images. They do not count
towards the word limit.
• If you have a table which contains mostly numbers or data i.e. no
analyses/narrative/prose/explanations etc., this can be excluded from the word limit.
• You are permitted to use a table that captures the essence of things like a
SWOT/PESTLE/other strategic framework/comparison/alternative strategies in bullet point
form or lists or notes.
• However, the above allowance is on the proviso that there is no analyses or interpretation
or narrative or critique within a table. The analyses/interpretation/narrative/critique should
be part of the main body and is definitely included in the word limit.
• The bottom line is to ensure that we are sensible and not trying to evade the word limit
by using tables to contain writing that really should be part of the main body and included
in the word limit.


END OF SECTION 1

Page 9 of 13

Section 2 (10% weighting of this assignment)
Your Individual Reflective piece – please provide a front cover for this section.
Note if you do not participate in the Icarus activity at an adequate level, you will forfeit the 10%
weighting this section carries.

Please state the team number and team name you were part on the front cover of Section 2.
Also state an accurate word count on the front title page of Section 2. Failure to do state the
word count for each Section in your submission will result in a 5-mark penalty.

This relates to one main area: the Icarus activity.
The total word count for Section 2 is 1,000 – 1,500 words maximum.
Penalties apply for exceeding the word count. No formal penalties apply for using fewer than
1,000 words but in so doing you may be penalising yourself as it is likely to be challenging to
respond to the requirement in less than 1,000 words. When combined with Section 1 the total
word count should not exceed 6,000 words.

Context and Requirement Context
“We do not learn so much from experience as we do from reflecting on our experience.” –
John Dewey
John Dewey (1859-1952) is considered by some to be one of the most influential thinkers about
the philosophy of education in the twentieth century. His writings in Dewey, J. (1933) How We
Think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Revised edn.),
Boston: D.C. have inspired many of those involved in the education process – educators and
students. His ideas are located in more recent, populist writings, illustratively:
Harry stared at the stone basin. The contents had returned to their original,
silvery white state, swirling and rippling beneath his gaze.
“ What is it?” Harry asked shakily.
“This? It is called a Pensieve,” said Dumbledore. “ I sometimes find, and I am
sure you know the feeling, that I simply have too many thoughts and memories
crammed into my mind.”
“Err,” said Harry who couldn’t truthfully say that he had ever felt anything of
the sort.
“At these times” said Dumbledore, indicating the stone basin, “ I use the
Penseive. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one’s mind, pours them
into a basin, and examines them at one’s leisure. It becomes easier to spot
patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form.’
Excerpt from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, by J. K. Rowling
(Rowling, J.K., (2000) Harry Potter and the goblet of fire. London, Bloomsbury
Publishing.)
Page 10 of 13

Reflection is important within educational experiences. A reflective statement is a statement that
captures thoughts about, perceptions of, a past experience, such as that you have experienced in
your study of this module. They help us to understand past events and associated experiences and
to learn lessons. Having written a reflective statement, it is then possible to analyse it and draw
lessons about future decisions, behaviour and actions. Such a statement can focus on the
consequences of the educational experience for work-related decisions, behaviour and actions,
not least in the arena of confirming or amending professional work practices.
With this in mind, look back over your Icarus rationale and minutes of meetings submissions and any
other correspondence you held with your teammates over the Icarus period (between weeks 12 to
18). If you have been keeping an ‘off-line’ diary during the activity as suggested, you should also refer
to this as it will certainly help you identify the experience ‘raw’ at the time in preparation for
analyses.

Take time to think about what you have learnt from the various interactions, research tasks,
performance analyses, and teamwork etc. that took place during each of the five rounds of play.
You should have already captured some of this during the activity. Now, you should be seeking to
articulate your experience, feelings and evaluation of the activity in terms of any personal and
professional impact upon you. Note that if you did not fully participate in Icarus, then you will be
unable to reflect on the experience and therefore will forgo the marks available for this section.
Required:
1. Using Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (see Appendix A of this document) or an appropriate
alternative reflection framework, provide a critical reflective account of your Icarus activity
experience and its impact upon your personal and professional development now and in
your future. Please also state the team number and team name you were part of at the
start/front cover of Section 2.
In addressing this task, you should ensure that you do not just describe each round of the Icarus
activity but rather reflect upon the learning experience through evaluation, analysis,
conclusions and ultimately provide your future plans for enhancing your professional practice.
The critical reflection is the focus of the piece – not a recount of what happened in detail!
Overall, the reader is seeking to be provided with a written account that captures your critical
thought process of reflection. Accordingly, the marking criteria for Section 2 will consider overall
cohesion but with particular emphasis on the quality of your evaluation, analysis, conclusions
and action plans. Note: If you are able to link the phenomena/challenges/skills development
you have focused on to theoretical concepts/frameworks this will help expand your thoughts
on how to understand what it is you are going to develop and perhaps suggest ways in which
to do it. This would heighten your critical reflection.
Please note that if you use an alternative reflective framework you should state what it is and
cite its author. The marking criteria will still be seeking evaluation, analysis, conclusions and
action plans (on a scale of up to 10).
In responding to this requirement you should, clearly, certainly refer to relevant MPAcc materials
as appropriate. You are encouraged to also draw upon other materials, as appropriate, from
other sources. Ensure that your response is not just descriptive but also reflects analysis,

Page 11 of 13

evaluation, conclusions, and plans. There are a number of sources freely available concerning the
art and science of reflection. Feel free to draw upon such sources. Alternatively, you may wish to
read Appendix A of this document.
Appendix A - Reflections guide
To help you frame your thinking around being ‘reflective’ one particular model that may be of use is
Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle or Model of Reflection (1988). This is depicted in the diagram further below
and contains six categories to be used as a departure point as you embark on thinking and writing
reflectively for each round of Icarus and indeed, for the final project.
Description – For SFP, this should only be used to help you recall the events so that you can dig into what it
is you have developed along the way as a result of the events. Do not waste your word count on describing
events for the reader.
• What happened during the round? Who was involved/not involved?
• What was the actual process that was applied as you embarked upon the activity?
• What were the aims of the round and of your team within Icarus compared to your own
aims?
• Relay the account to the reader but do not spend too much of your word count on providing an
account that is just simply descriptive.
Feelings – For SFP, this should also only be used to help you recall the events so that you can dig into what
it is you have developed along the way and to help inform your reflection.
• What did you feel? How did you react or respond?
• Why did you respond in such a way? Did your feelings affect your actions?
• Identify and examine your reactions, feelings and thoughts at the time.
• It is important to be honest.
Evaluation
• Look at the judgements and choices you made at the time about how things were going.
• What was positive? Negative? What made you think this?
• Try to stand back from the event/round/experience and be objective in your evaluations.
• What made you think something was good or bad?
• Examine your own judgements and what contributed to them. How do you feel about them
now?
Analysis
• Examine the experience/event/round in depth and identify an overarching key aspect of
the experience/event/round that affected it greatly and as such needs addressing next time.
For example, an aspect of communication or time management or organisation or
commitment that might have played a central part in the outcome.
• How was it flawed this time? In what way? Why? How should it have worked in this
situation?
• What ideas or theories are you aware of which look at this? Does theory about this aspect
help you make more sense of what happened?
• Could you use theory to improve this aspect in the future? In this section, you need to fully
examine and make sense of factors affecting the situation and exploring ways to change and
develop these.

Page 12 of 13

Conclusion
• What have you learned from each experience/event/round?
• What would you change for next time?
• Would such a change be possible?
• You should also identify what to improve. These may be specific skills or identifying new
knowledge.
Action plan
• What could you do differently next time and how could you prepare for this?
• What areas need developing or planning for? What resources do you need, and where
would they be found?
• What steps will be taken first?
Do remember that your reflections on an event/experience/round can change over time as you
reflect more and acquire more knowledge. Refine your reflections, perhaps by writing a longer, more
descriptive account first but focusing on key events/moments. Reflective writing is useful as a
positive method to help identify and develop yourself and your skills. Often, we do not get a chance
to do this.






















Reference
Gibbs, G (1988). Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.


END OF SECTION 2
Page 13 of 13