BUS5017 Blockchain and FinTech Applications Opportunity analysis Assignment help

Assignment Brief 

As part of the formal assessment for the programme you are required to submit a Blockchain and Fintech Applications for Managers assignment. Please refer to your Student Handbook for full details of the programme assessment scheme and general information on preparing and submitting assignments.

 Learning Outcomes: 

After completing the module, you should be able to: 

1. Discuss the ways that FinTech and Blockchain technology are disrupting financial and business environments.

 2. Explore the key FinTech and Blockchain applications including cryptocurrencies. 

3. Apply Blockchain principles to a range of business and financial transaction systems. 

4. Discuss the regulatory and legal requirements that impact FinTech and Blockchains 

5. Professional Skills: achieved and demonstrated through: drafting, constructing, and commenting upon business “work products,” systems and policies; Participating in “mock” business practices and situations including role plays and business simulations ;critiquing own outputs and assessments and diagnosing business problems . All learning outcomes must be met to pass the module. 

Guidance Your assignment should include: a title page containing your student number, the module name, the submission deadline and the exact word count of your submitted document; the appendices if relevant; and a reference list in AU Harvard system(s). You should address all the elements of the assignment task listed below. Please note that tutors will use the assessment criteria set out below in assessing your work. You must not include your name in your submission because Arden University operates anonymous marking, which means that markers should not be aware of the identity of the student. However, please do not forget to include your STU number. Maximum word count: 3000 words Please refer to the full word count policy which can be found in the Student Policies section here: Arden University | Regulatory Framework The word count includes everything in the main body of the assessment (including in text citations and references). The word count excludes numerical data in tables, figures, diagrams, footnotes, reference list and appendices. All other printed words ARE included in the word count. Students who exceed the wordcount up to a 10% margin will not be penalised. Students should note that no marks will be assigned to work exceeding the specified limit once the maximum assessment size limit has been reached. 

Assignment Task You are required to identify a business process or problem that could be transformed and improved by using a FinTech or Blockchain application. You should base your answer on a real-world business or industry. (You may choose an organisation from the “for profit” business, public or charity sector. It is important that you choose a specific business process, e.g., accounting procedures, supply chain management, human resource systems, etc., and not the entire organisation, as the basis of your assignment.) You will need to research the chosen business and industry; it is acceptable to use an organisation that you have worked for. You should set your answer out in report style. Note there is no requirement for a conclusion. The report must cover the following areas: A) An introductory section that covers equally: i. A concise introduction to the business and industry that it sits in. ii. An outline and diagnosis of the business problem or process that could be transformed by a Blockchain or Fintech application. (1,000 words) (25 marks) (LOs: 1, 3 & 5) B) An outline and discussion of the proposed business solution that equally focuses upon: i. An outline of the proposed application including potential usage of cryptocurrencies ii. The benefits of the application (In this section, it is important that you refer to appropriate literature and comparative case examples to support your proposal. You should consider whether or not cryptocurrencies can be incorporated into the proposal.

 An analysis that equally focuses upon the hurdles to successful implementation, and how they may be overcome. (In this section, it is important that you refer to appropriate literature and comparative case examples to support your answer). (500 words) (20 marks) (LOs: 2 & 4) A further 15 marks are available for presentation (8 marks) and clarity (7 marks). (15 marks) (LOs 5) (Total: 100 marks) (3000 words) (100 marks) (LOs: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5) End of questions This module is marked using the Arden University Categorical Marking Criteria 

Formative Feedback You have the opportunity to submit a draft assignment to receive formative feedback. The feedback is designed to help you develop areas of your work and it helps you develop your skills as an independent learner. If you are a distance learning student, you should submit your work, by email, to your tutor, no later than 2 weeks before the actual submission deadline. If you are a blended learning student, your tutor will give you a deadline for formative feedback and further details. Formative feedback will not be given to work submitted after the above date or the date specified by your tutor - if a blended learning student. Referencing Guidance You MUST underpin your analysis and evaluation of the key issues with appropriate and wide ranging academic research and ensure this is referenced using the AU Harvard system(s). Follow this link to find the referencing guides for your subject: Arden Library Submission Guidance Assignments submitted late will not be accepted and will be marked as a 0% fail. Your assessment can be submitted as a single Word (MS Word) or PDF file, or, as multiple files. If you chose to submit multiple files, you must name each document as the question/part you are answering along with your student number ie Q1 Section A STUXXXX. If you wish to overwrite your submission or one of your submissions, you must ensure that your new submission is named exactly the same as the previous in order for the system to overwrite it. You must ensure that the submitted assignment is all your own work and that all sources used are correctly attributed. Penalties apply to assignments which show evidence of academic unfair practice. (See the Student Handbook which is available on the A-Z key information on iLearn.) 

Assessment Criteria (Learning objectives covered – all. Level 5 reflects the continuing development in knowledge, understanding and skills from Level 4. At Level 5, students are not expected to be fully autonomous but are able to take responsibility for their own learning with appropriate guidance and direction. Students are expected to further develop their theoretical knowledge within a more intellectual context and to demonstrate this through more complex forms of expression which move beyond the descriptive or imitative domain. Students are expected to demonstrate skills of analysis in both problemsolving and resolution. Grade Mark Bands Generic Assessment Criteria First (1) 80%+ An outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and any associated ethical considerations. There is sophisticated use and management of learning resources, and a high degree of autonomy is demonstrated. Writing is outstandingly well structured and accurately referenced throughout. Where appropriate, outstanding professional skills are demonstrated. The work is original and with some additional effort could considered for internal publication. 70-79% An excellent knowledge base within which the discipline is explored and analysed. There is a degree of originality in the approach. The work demonstrates confidence and autonomy and extends to consider ethical issues. Learning resources have been managed confidently. Writing is exceptionally well structured and accurately referenced throughout. Where appropriate, an excellent level of professional skills is demonstrated, and the work demonstrates a high level of intellectual and academic skills. 

Upper second (2:1) 60-69% A very good knowledge base which explores and analyses the discipline, its theory, and any associated ethical issues. There is evidence of some originality and independence of thought. A very good range of learning resources underpin the work and there is evidence of growing confidence and self-direction. The work demonstrates the ability to analyse the subject and apply theory with good academic and intellectual skills. Academic writing skills are very good, expression is accurate overall, and the work is consistently referenced throughout. Lower second (2:2) 50-59% A good understanding of the discipline which begins to analyse the subject and apply some underpinning theory. There may be reference to some of the ethical considerations. The work shows a sound level of competence in managing basic sources and materials. Academic writing skills are good and accurate overall, and the work is planned and structured with some though. Professional skills are good (where appropriate). The work lacks original thought, but academic and intellectual skills are moving into the critical domain. The work is referenced throughout. Third (3) 40-49% Satisfactory level of performance in which there are some omissions in understanding the subject, its underpinning theory, and ethical considerations. There is little evidence of independent thought, and the work shows a basic use of sources and materials. Academic and intellectual skills are limited. The work may lack structure overall. There are some difficulties in developing professional skills (where appropriate). There is an attempt to reference the work. 

To find out more about the use and distribution of programme materials please see the Arden Student Terms and Conditions. Marginal Fail 30-39% A limited piece of work in which there are clear gaps in understanding the subject, its underpinning theory, and ethical considerations. The work shows a limited use of sources and materials. Academic and professional skills are weak and there are errors in expression and the work may lack structure overall. There are difficulties in developing professional skills (where appropriate). The work lacks original thought and is largely imitative. Clear fail 29% and Below A poor performance in which there are substantial gaps in knowledge and understanding, underpinning theory and ethical considerations. The work shows little evidence in the use of appropriate sources and materials. Academic writing skills are very weak and there are numerous errors in expression. The work lacks structure overall. Professional skills (where appropriate) are not developed. The work is imitative.