Business to Business Selling and Productization (5 cr)
Code: 3101114-3004
General information
Enrollment
18.11.2019 - 29.02.2020
Timing
01.03.2020 - 30.04.2020
Number of ECTS credits allocated
5 op
Virtual portion
5 op
RDI portion
1 op
Mode of delivery
Distance learning
Unit
Engineering and Business
Teaching languages
- English
Seats
10 - 40
Teachers
- Anne Leinovaara-Matomäki
Objective
The student learns to assess the special characteristics related to the selling between organizations and its impact on various situations. He/she can interpret the organizational buying behavior and integrate his/her actions accordingly. Further, while making tactical plans, the student can take into account the acquisition practices of the public sector.
The student learns to carry out a customization process consisting of a product/service combination required. He/she can analyze the special characteristics related to professional services and take them account in the realization of a productization or marketing activities in practice.
Content
Organizational buying behavior
Planning, evaluation and assessment of b2b selling
Public acquisitions
Professional services analysis and development
Productization process
Materials
Informed at Optima.
Teaching methods
PBL, Innovationpedagogy.
Exam schedules
No exam, individual assignment and cases, no group works.
International connections
PBL, Innovation pedagogy.
Completion alternatives
No optional methods.
Student workload
5 ects. Individual work. Learning by doing. This method requires a lots of motivation and self discipline from the student. No group works.
Content scheduling
5 ects.
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- 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 not obeyed. References 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.
• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length, 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 tools and theories are used widely, the more the better.
• 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 minimum requirements ( in length, in-depth analysis, usage of tools and theories, references etc.)
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- 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 not obeyed. References poorly used.
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- 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 not obeyed. References 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.
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- 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
• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length, 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.
Assessment criteria, excellent (5)
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
• 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 minimum requirements ( in length, in-depth analysis etc.)