Study Guide

Objective

Having completed the course the student
- understands global economical trends, business economics ans organization's key performance indicators
- perceives effects of sales operations in organization's economics
- is able to manage sales budgeting.

Materials

Jobber, D., & Lancaster, G. (2019). Selling and sales management (Eleventh edition.). Pearson.
Chapters 16-17, in particular.
Articles, videos and lecture materials provided during the lectures.

Teaching methods

Lectures, guest lectures, workshops, reading circles, peer-to-peer teaching and learning, company cases, and written and oral assignments.

Student workload

Assignment 1: Case study on budgeting, motivating salespeople and key performance indicators
Written report + oral presentation + reviewing another team
Assignment 2: Real company case: Motivating and rewarding sales personnel
Interviews with companies, sharing the results with the peers in the class

Content scheduling

23.1. (9-12) Introduction, forming teams, discussing course objectives and personal objectives, implementation and assessment
6.2. (9-12) Forecasting, Budgeting, evaluation and briefing for the assignments
27.2. (9-12) Reading circle based on given materials and Q & A session regarding the assignments
13.3. (9-12) Guest lecturer, workshop for the assignment 1
3.4. (9-12) Presentations of the case studies (assignment 1)
17.4. (9-12) Sharing the results of company interviews (assignment 2) and course feedback

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment methods and criteria

Assignment 1: 60%
Assignment 2: 40%
Activity during classes and reading circles may upgrade the max points by 1-10 points
40-59 points = 1
60-69 points = 2
70- 79 points = 3
80-89 points = 4
90-100 points = 5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

Student has basic understanding of forecasting, budgeting and evaluation of sales.
Students knows basic principles of motivating and rewarding salespeople.
Student shows limited activity in team work and in class.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

Student has good understanding of forecasting, budgeting and evaluation of sales.
Students knows a variety of methods to motivate and reward salespeople.
Student is active in team work and in class.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Student has excellent understanding of forecasting, budgeting and evaluation of sales.
Students knows a wide variety of methods to motivate and reward salespeople.
Student is very active in team work and in class.

Objective

Having completed the course the student
- understands global economical trends, business economics ans organization's key performance indicators
- perceives effects of sales operations in organization's economics
- is able to manage sales budgeting.

Materials

Informed at Itslearning -platform.

Teaching methods

Individual- and grouplearning, key lectures and "Itslearning - platform". Innovation pedagogy, PBL.

Exam schedules

No exam.

International connections

Innovation pedagogy, PBL.

Completion alternatives

No optional methods.

Student workload

5 ects = 135 h, devided into self- and group learning, and key lectures.

Content scheduling

During the autumn period, acording to separate syllabus and timetable. Detailled instructions at the "Itslearning-platform" and during the first lecture, which is compulsory in order to complete the course.

Further information

Please note, do you best effort at once, since the only way to up-grade your final result, is to come to a new course.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment methods and criteria

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund / Ourginal - Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5
• Fail (0)
There are clear mistakes in the returned tasks, or something is missing (e.g. video-presentation, peer comments etc.) or the tasks returned are very limited. Or the deadlines are neglected. References are limited or poorly used.
• Satisfactory (1-2)
All the task are returned on time and they reach satisfactory level, but they are limited / narrow and lacking deep analysis. Or the references are very limited. Presentations limited. The amount of tools & theories used is limited. Self- and peer-evaluation(when and if asked) is limited.
• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length and deep analysis. And in comparison to other group members there are clear bonus aspects. Also presentations are of high quality. And the peer comments are constructive and analytical (when asked). Above the minimum requirements in every way. The amount of used tools & theories is large. Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

• Excellent (5)
All the tasks are excellent. And results are even higher than in the grade 3-4. Presentations extremely high quality as well as peer comments. Well above all the other requirements ( in length, deep analysis etc.). Lots of references, all the tools & theories used (or at least most of them). Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund / Ourginal - Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5
• Fail (0)
There are clear mistakes in the returned tasks, or something is missing (e.g. video-presentation, peer comments etc.) or the tasks returned are very limited. Or the deadlines are neglected. References are limited or poorly used.
• Satisfactory (1-2)
All the task are returned on time and they reach satisfactory level, but they are limited / narrow and lacking deep analysis. Or the references are very limited. Presentations limited. The amount of tools & theories used is limited. Self- and peer-evaluation(when and if asked) is limited.
• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length and deep analysis. And in comparison to other group members there are clear bonus aspects. Also presentations are of high quality. And the peer comments are constructive and analytical (when asked). Above the minimum requirements in every way. The amount of used tools & theories is large. Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

• Excellent (5)
All the tasks are excellent. And results are even higher than in the grade 3-4. Presentations extremely high quality as well as peer comments. Well above all the other requirements ( in length, deep analysis etc.). Lots of references, all the tools & theories used (or at least most of them). Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund / Ourginal- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5
• Fail (0)
There are clear mistakes in the returned tasks, or something is missing (e.g. video-presentation, peer comments etc.) or the tasks returned are very limited. Or the deadlines are neglected. References are limited or poorly used.
• Satisfactory (1-2)
All the task are returned on time and they reach satisfactory level, but they are limited / narrow and lacking deep analysis. Or the references are very limited. Presentations limited. The amount of tools & theories used is limited. Self- and peer-evaluation(when and if asked) is limited.
• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length and deep analysis. And in comparison to other group members there are clear bonus aspects. Also presentations are of high quality. And the peer comments are constructive and analytical (when asked). Above the minimum requirements in every way. The amount of used tools & theories is large. Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

• Excellent (5)
All the tasks are excellent. And results are even higher than in the grade 3-4. Presentations extremely high quality as well as peer comments. Well above all the other requirements ( in length, deep analysis etc.). Lots of references, all the tools & theories used (or at least most of them). Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund / Ourginal- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5
• Fail (0)
There are clear mistakes in the returned tasks, or something is missing (e.g. video-presentation, peer comments etc.) or the tasks returned are very limited. Or the deadlines are neglected. References are limited or poorly used.
• Satisfactory (1-2)
All the task are returned on time and they reach satisfactory level, but they are limited / narrow and lacking deep analysis. Or the references are very limited. Presentations limited. The amount of tools & theories used is limited. Self- and peer-evaluation(when and if asked) is limited.
• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length and deep analysis. And in comparison to other group members there are clear bonus aspects. Also presentations are of high quality. And the peer comments are constructive and analytical (when asked). Above the minimum requirements in every way. The amount of used tools & theories is large. Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

• Excellent (5)
All the tasks are excellent. And results are even higher than in the grade 3-4. Presentations extremely high quality as well as peer comments. Well above all the other requirements ( in length, deep analysis etc.). Lots of references, all the tools & theories used (or at least most of them). Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

DISCLAIMER: Please note that all the material in the course e.g. videos, slides, etc. is designed and intended only for the use of this course. Any printing , delivering, using etc. of this material for any other purpose or outside the course is strictly forbidden.
Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5
• Fail (0)
There are clear mistakes in the returned tasks, or something is missing (e.g. video-presentation, peer comments etc.) or the tasks returned are very limited. Or the deadlines are neglected. References are limited or poorly used.
• Satisfactory (1-2)
All the task are returned on time and they reach satisfactory level, but they are limited / narrow and lacking deep analysis. Or the references are very limited. Presentations limited. The amount of tools & theories used is limited. Self- and peer-evaluation(when and if asked) is limited.
• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length and deep analysis. And in comparison to other group members there are clear bonus aspects. Also presentations are of high quality. And the peer comments are constructive and analytical (when asked). Above the minimum requirements in every way. The amount of used tools & theories is large. Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

• Excellent (5)
All the tasks are excellent. And results are even higher than in the grade 3-4. Presentations extremely high quality as well as peer comments. Well above all the other requirements ( in length, deep analysis etc.). Lots of references, all the tools & theories used (or at least most of them). Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.


Arviointi –kriteerit tiivistettyinä suomeksi (tarkemmat kriteerit yllä englanniksi). Huomaa, että Plagioinnin -tarkastus ohjelma Urkundia saatetaan käyttää tehtävien tarkastuksessa.
• Ainoastaan tehtävät, jotka on palautettu aikataulussa ohjeen mukaan arvioidaan. Myöhästyneitä suorituksia ei huomioida.
Hylätty
Oppimistehtävien suorittaminen osoittaa useissa arviointikohteina olevissa kyvyissä olevan vakavia puutteita ilman niitä kompensoivia erityisansioita. Tai opiskelija jättää tehtävät tai niihin kuuluvat esitykset pitämättä. Tai myöhästyy palautusaikataulusta / deadlinestä.
• Arviointikriteerit - tyydyttävä (1-2)
Opiskelija osoittaa hallitsevansa oppimistehtävien suorittamisen perus-kyvyt, mutta tehtävissä on selviä puutteita. Työkalujen & teorioiden ja lähteiden käyttö on vähäistä. Kieli saattaa olla haparoivaa ja tehtävät ovat lyhyitä, eivätkä kovin analyyttisiä. Esitys on heikkotasoinen. Itse- ja vertaisarviointi (mikäli sellaista pyydetään) on lyhyt ja epäanalyyttinen.
• Arviointikriteerit - hyvä (3-4)
Oppimistehtävät on hyvin ja analyyttisesti tehty ja selkeästi esitetty. Opiskelija osoittaa hallitsevansa pääosin oppimistehtävien suorittamisen edellyttämät kyvyt. Suorituksen erityisansioilla voidaan kompensoida joissakin mainituissa kyvyissä mahdollisesti ilmenneitä puutteita. Lähteiden käyttö laajaa ja käytettyjä työkaluja & teorioita on runsaasti. Itse-/ vertaisarviointi on myös laaja ja analyyttinen sekä reflektoiva ja konstruktiivinen.
• Arviointikriteerit - kiitettävä (5)
Suorituksessa on keskeiset arviointikriteerit huomioon ottaen useita huomattavia ansioita ilman näitä mitätöiviä puutteita. Kaikki edellä mainitut kriteerit ylittyvät ja työkalujen & teorioiden käyttö on erittäin laajaa. Lähteitä on runsaasti. Esitys on korkeatasoinen. Itsearviointi / vertaisarviointi (mikäli sitä pyydetään) on myös erittäin analyyttinen ja laaja sekä reflektoiva ja konstruktiivinen.