BSC127 Information and Knowledge Management Individual Coursework | Loughborough University

COURSEWORK BRIEF

Coursework Weight: 100%

Coursework Weight: Tuesday 9th December2025

Coursework Task

The aim is for you to:

(a) design a strategy to solve information and/or knowledge problems based in a case study organisation

(b) communicate the strategy in a professional manner in a presentation format (you will not give a presentation, just design it)

(c) explain and justify your suggestions, demonstrating how you your thinking has developed across the module and how you created your suggested strategy, policies and practices in relation to key theories and frameworks discussed in the module.

You will need to:

1. Identify and prioritise key Information and Knowledge Management (IKM) issues in Hempton Rowe (the case study company) to help you design and plan a coherent and comprehensive set of IKM strategies, policies and actions to solve these issues. To communicate your plan, you will need to create a PowerPoint presentation that you would give to the senior management team at Hempton Rowe explaining your proposals for improvement and the benefits the company will realise from them (NB: you will not need to give the presentation, just design it). The presentation must include the following slides:

   1. Title slide
   2. Context and key challenges
   3. Strategic vision/vision statements and objectives
   4. Implementation roadmap/timeline
   5. Roles and responsibilities
   6. Key benefits of strategy
   7. Next steps

You can add up to THREE extra slides of your own choosing, but the overall slide deck should have no more than TEN slides. Any more than this will not be read. (20%)  

2. Answer the questions below in a report. These questions relate to specific slides and are numbered according to the list of required slides above. You need to explain and justify your ideas, apply theories and frameworks from the module, and make clear links to key reading, lectures materials and in-class activities. Real world examples (where not specifically asked for) are very welcome. (65% in total).

Questions:

• Slide 2: Create a table that includes all the IKM issues you have identified from the case study and use the table to indicate the relative importance and potential impact of each issue in the case study company. Explain with reference to literature and real-world examples why you have prioritised the issues in the order you have (15%).
• Slide 3: using diagrams, visualise links between the overall objectives and vision statements and the benefits you identify later in the slides. Explain and justify your choices of objectives and vision statements in relation to the literature and to the case study (10%)
• Slide 4 and slide 7: explain and justify your timeline. Why do you think the actions will take the time you have indicated? Why are they in this order? (10%)
• Slide 5: Clearly everyone in the company is responsible for ensuring good IKM to some degree. Explain the reasons for the specific roles and responsibilities you have identified – what theories, concepts or ideas from the module have helped you? (10%)
• Slide 6: Explain in detail using relevant theories, frameworks and other literature we have looked at in the module how and why your suggestions will achieve for these benefits for company. How have your ideas about the value (or lack of value) of specific IKM strategies, policies and/or actions developed over the module? (20%).

3. Present the slides and report attractively and effectively, including an accurate reference list at the end of your report (15%).

The coursework is worth 100% of the module assessment.

Guidance notes

The coursework consists of an individual report and a set of presentation slides based on work you will do in teaching sessions and in your own time.  The word count of the slide content and report should not exceed the overall allowable word count (i.e. 2500 words maximum).

The presentation should be presented as though it is a ‘pitch’ to convince the company of your ideas.  You need to clearly prioritise problems and solutions. NB: You are not expected to present your work, only create a presentation that you would use. The key decision makers in Hempton Rowe are not experts in IKM, so how would you convince them of your ideas?

The report: this will consist of written answers to questions (65%) as above. Your answers should be presented in a report format. The questions focus on explaining and justifying your choice of strategies, policies and actions described in your slides, and explaining your thinking behind your choices. You should clearly relate your answers to these questions to IKM concepts, literature, theories or perspectives discussed in lectures. You are expected to show knowledge and understanding of key concepts, theories and ideas we have looked at in lectures.  You may draw on examples from the literature or your own experience.

The key to getting a good mark in general: showing engagement with the module material; including plenty of detail and a range of relevant literature from the module, including specific useful examples; demonstrating case-based ideas; an accurate bibliography; using tables and figures appropriately; and a bit of creativity.

Presentation:

• The presentation needs to support the purpose of each slide and should be easily readable and comprehensible. You should focus on clarity and getting your message across effectively.
• You should tailor the presentation to your audience (whilst ensuring the marker is able to understand acronyms, organisational terms etc).
• The report should be presented in report style, with page numbers, numbered headings, a contents page, diagrams etc

Word count and format

• You do not have to use PowerPoint, but your reader needs to be able to easily open and read your presentation on a Windows laptop without having to download any extra software.
• The presentation is focused toward the company, so many academic references are not expected in the slide content, though some may be needed to avoid plagiarism. They are expected in your answers to the questions in the report though.
• You should aim to make your slides attractive and engaging – think of how best to get your key messages across. You are encouraged to make your report readable and attractive, so consider using colour, images, tables and figures, and use correct English language, grammar and punctuation.
• Words in tables and figures are not counted in the word count. But be aware it is possible to go too far with this or use these to manipulate the word count. If this seems to be what is presented, marks will be lost.
• Words used in the slides and the report are counted in the overall word count. An overall word count is allowed of 2500 maximum – any more than this will not be read. No more than 10% under this is expected.
• In text citations are counted in the word count, but the bibliography is not.
• All material (academic and other) that you include in your slides and report should be properly referenced in the text and in the reference list (in Harvard style) at the end of your report.

Coursework Marking Rubric

This assignment represents 100% of the marks for the module.  Your work will be assessed using the following criteria:

Please see the rubric at the end of this coursework brief for further details of the criteria against which you will be assessed, and descriptors of performance on the coursework for each assessment criterion.

Acceptable use of Generative AI (GenAI) tools

Please note the university’s guidance on the use of Generative AI tools in assessed work is available here: Use of Generative AI tools | Student Handbook | Loughborough University

If the module team are concerned that the use of GenAI goes beyond what has been defined as acceptable under the above guidance you may be required to attend a meeting to explain your use of GenAI.

Coursework Submission

The deadline date is provided above.  One electronic copy must be uploaded to the submission point for the module on LEARN by the submission deadline.

You must use the following file naming convention for your work.  You should not include your name anywhere on your assignment.  You should also include the filename in the header of your assignment.

StudentNumber – Module code – Coursework component (e.g. F123456-23BSP123-CW1)

Your submission should be one document only (i.e. no loose appendices etc), preferably in Word or as a pdf (not scanned copy).  If your assignment consists of different documents in varying formats you will need to embed them in a Word document or convert them to pdf and upload one document.  The file size limit for your submission is 20MB.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  You need to ensure you back up your coursework and any other important documents.   Information on data storage can be found here: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/services/it/student/storage/.

Losing your work through technical failure is not a valid reason for a Mitigating Circumstances claim or a coursework extension request.

Extensions and Mitigating Circumstances

If you have problems with meeting the deadline for this coursework, and you believe your circumstances may qualify you for an extension (please refer to: Coursework extensions | Student Handbook | Loughborough University) you may wish to request a 48-hour extension and/or submit a Mitigating Circumstances claim. This must be requested in advance via:

Coursework Extension Link: Coursework extensions | Student Handbook | Loughborough University

Mitigating Circumstances Link: Mitigating Circumstances | Student Handbook | Loughborough University

Please note that the maximum extension for a group coursework will be 48 hours.

Consultation and Feedback

The module leader is available for consultation and queries between class sessions via email (j.c.f.ravenwood@lboro.ac.uk), or in the office hours (see Learn for details).  I am happy to answer questions about anything on the module, or about the coursework. In week 6 we will have a whole teaching session about the coursework, where we will look in depth at the case, creating attractive presentations, what a good report looks like etc. I will not comment on draft versions of your report but am happy to look at outlines and ideas more generally in this session.

Provisional marks and feedback should be available by 24th January 2025.  All marks are provisional until ratified by the formal examination boards.

Assessment Rubric

Module Code:                                                        Module Title:

Assessment Title/Component:         Student/Group ID:                                                                                                                                                                             Mark:

Overall feedback comments and areas of strength:

Feedback to help you improve future work:

Student reflections: 

List up to three actions you will take forward from this feedback.

Please refer to : Feedback on your work | Student Handbook | Loughborough University to help you reflect on the feedback provided to enhance future submissions

Hempton Rowe Architects

Case Overview

Hempton Rowe Ltd is a UK-based practice specialising in architectural conservation and heritage-led design. With studios in York, Bath, and a growing office in Ghent, Belgium, the firm manages a wide range of projects from parish church repairs to large-scale museum refurbishments and historic site consultations. Hempton Rowe focuses on listed building work, sensitive adaptations of historical buildings, and design consultancy for public heritage grants.

In early May, Lena Koenig, the Design Director based in the York studio, was preparing a supplementary submission for the Bramley History Museum project. The local planning authority had requested a clear explanation for a late-stage design change to the roofline. Lena began searching for the annotated drawings.

She found three versions in the shared folder:

• Bramley_Roofline_FINAL_MARCH,
• Bramley_Roofline_FINAL_REVISED,
• and Bramley_Roofline_USE_THIS_IF_QUERY.

Each contained similar details, but none had consistent dates, sign-off notes, or cross-referenced correspondence. The CAD metadata showed different editors and modified dates. She messaged Alfie D’Souza, the site architect. “Which file did we submit to planning last March?” Alfie replied within minutes: “Not sure. Might be the March one. Or the one I updated after the site visit. Try Sophie—she might’ve cleaned up the folder.”

Sophie Tan, a junior designer initially on the project, had tried to keep track of changes, but she’d been rotated off the project in April. “I saved the revisions we got from Emile,” she said, referring to their partner architect in Belgium. “But I think the ones we sent were on Bethan’s drive. Or maybe George emailed a PDF draft?” Meanwhile, in the Bath office, Heritage Research Lead Bethan Ellis was reviewing feedback from a community engagement session held during the early project phase. She recalled that some attendees had flagged concerns about the proposed entryway design, but the summary documents in the main project folder didn’t include those notes. “I had them typed up,” she said during a check-in call. “Maybe I emailed them directly to David?” A search of her inbox revealed nothing. “It might’ve been in the handwritten feedback booklet we had. I left it in the York office last winter. Possibly under the printer.” No one had seen the booklet.

In the Ghent office, Emile Verbeke, their lead on European collaboration, had been trying to coordinate drawing packages for a concurrent project at De Witte Abbey. He’d noticed discrepancies between Hempton Rowe’s materials and the earlier information package shared six months ago. “Your updated plans differ slightly from the elevations we reviewed last quarter,” he said on a project call. “Are those changes deliberate?” David Ashcroft, Managing Partner, asked for a day to clarify. The updated plans had been completed by a subcontractor in Bath, and the review comments were tracked in a PDF marked Comments_OLD_USEFUL_MAYBE –

uploaded to the shared drive but never flagged. “Have these been signed off?” Emile asked. “I’ll confirm,” David said. Emile did not receive confirmation.

Since then…

• In the York studio, a new shelf was cleared beside the main group of desks in the open plan office. It was intended for printed documentation of current projects, but over the following weeks, it gradually filled with loose diagrams, site photos, and unlabelled folders. No one was quite sure who was maintaining it. A sticky note reading “For Review – Bramley?” stayed affixed to one binder for nearly a month.
• Lena began tagging her next elevation study with date stamps but soon reverted to shorthand labels when deadlines picked up. Sophie created duplicate folders for project files—WORKING and SHARED—but the naming conventions weren’t followed by the rest of the team, and by the end of the week, five separate “final” plans had appeared in the shared drive.
• Alfie kept a site log for a few days in a sketchbook, then switched to taking notes in his phone, which he didn’t sync. When asked about a detail in the revised stair design, he said, “I took a photo—I think I sent it to Bethan. Or maybe George. I can resend it if I still have it.”
• In Ghent, Petra Maes, the planning liaison, flagged that two different versions of an inventory of materials had been uploaded to the shared drive—one in Dutch, the other in English, each with different information about the materials that were required for a 16th century merchant house project. Neither had a modification date, and it was unclear which had been used to brief the suppliers.
• At the Bath office, Jonas Murphy, a surveyor, tried to reconcile some elevation drawing discrepancies between offices for a church project in Somerset. “I think some of the references got pulled from an old Dropbox folder,” he said. “One of the planners still uses PDFs from that old St. Barnabas job as templates. I saw a footnote for the wrong county on one of them. But I thought we don’t use Dropbox anymore?”

Crisis

In July, Hempton Rowe was notified that its Phase 2 funding application to the Heritage Lottery Fund for Bramley had been paused. The HLF panel was unable to verify a clear line of project evolution from initial proposal to the current delivery stage. Supporting documentation included overlapping versions of key design files, inconsistent report formatting, and evidence of changes without linked rationale. Catherine Martin, the firm’s Finance and Compliance Director, had led the application submission. “We met all the criteria,” she said in an internal review meeting. “But when they asked for proof of design progression, I couldn’t explain the version history. No one could.”

At the next all-office call, tensions were high. Project teams dialled in from York, Bath, and Ghent. George Beale, semi-retired but still involved in advisory work, spoke first. “We used to track this kind of thing,” he said. “We had field journals, site logs, notebooks. It wasn’t always tidy, but it made sense.” “It still does,” said Alfie. “On site, I know what’s going on. We solve things fast. The files don’t always catch up. It’s not my fault.” “They need to,” Catherine responded. “We’re at risk of losing funding because no one can show what changed and why.” In Ghent, Emile added, “We’ve been working around this for some time. There’s no shared structure. Everyone works hard, but differently. On the De Witte Abbey project, there were three different lists of material approvals. One came from York, one from Bath, and one was a screenshot from someone’s phone.”

Without sending the right information to the HLF, the Bramley project was at serious risk.

About the company

Hempton Rowe Ltd was founded in 1986 by two conservation architects, George Beale and Katherine West (both now retired), who were committed to the protection and revitalisation of the UK’s built heritage. Their early work focused on parish churches, estate cottages, and war memorials in the north of England. Over time, the firm expanded its remit to include urban heritage, museum refurbishment, and crossborder advisory work. By the mid-2000s, Hempton Rowe had built a reputation for combining careful historical research with high-quality architectural detailing. In 2011, the firm opened a small studio in Bath to better serve clients in the South and Southwest, which has since grown considerably. In 2018, a collaborative office in

Ghent, Belgium, was added to support EU-funded cultural and conservation projects. Hempton Rowe continues to focus on listed building work, sensitive adaptations, and design consultancy for public heritage grants. The firm is known for its project diversity—ranging from small rural chapels to multi-year museum redevelopments.

• Total Employees: approximately 80

o Including conservation architects, planners, researchers, project managers, and administrative support staff across three offices.

• Typical Project Scale: £250,000 to £5 million

Hempton Rowe has grown organically since it was founded. It retains a strong culture of personal expertise, informal mentoring, and deep project ownership. Internally, Hempton Rowe is known for its close-knit teams, decentralised autonomy, and a tendency to trust individuals to manage their own work. For much of its history, this approach has served it well, but the firm has recently taken on larger, multiphase projects with multi-office teams and international partners, so day-to-day operations have begun to strain as projects have grown in scale and complexity. The company remains a tightly run SME with an approachable leadership style but with increasing cross-team dependencies

Answer

Request Answer of this Assignment