Master´s ThesisLaajuus (30 op)

Osaamistavoitteet

The student demonstrates sound methodological and analytical skills after completing a development task in a real business environment. He/she shows good leadership and management skills having initiated, designed and implemented a development/change project in his/her partner organisation. He/she reports well on his/her R&D work both orally and in writing, observing the instructions of academic writing.

Sisältö

All steps of the Master’s Thesis process as instructed. Support of the methodology courses, seminars, team tutoring and individual supervision.

Esitietovaatimukset

Research Skills and Methods 5 ECTS
Business Development Methods and Tools 5 ECTS
Sufficient know-how of the subject area of the R&D project.

Arviointikriteerit, tyydyttävä (1)

1. Research problem and target setting
Reasoning: unclear, little argumentation
Clarity of definition: satisfactory
Relevance: sufficient business relevance
2. Research process
Independence of the process: completed process with significant support
Logic and clarity of the process: satisfactory
Reasoning of the methodological choices: partly unclear
Validity: sufficient
3. Conceptual framework
Depth, breadth, and clarity: mostly professional, lacks in depth, may be outdated
Reasoning of choices: somewhat unclear argumentation
Discussion and synthesis: inconsistent and illogical
Fit between framework and empirical execution (suitability, applicability): sufficient, noticeable
4. Empirical implementation
Use of methods for data collection and analysis: satisfactory, some major deficiencies
Use of development methods and tools: appropriate yet not very skillful
Documentation: inaccurate, superficial
Discussion of findings and outcomes: descriptive, little analysis nor reflection
Conclusions: partly incorrect or inconsistent
5. Results and implications
Crystallization of findings and outcomes: superficial, visually unclear or non-expressive
Results vs targets: sufficient level of achievement of the targets
Relevance and impact for the partner organization: some significance with business metrics
6. Discourse of research text
Presentation of the research and development task: unclear with little argumentation
Professional writing style: meets with the academic and professional standards, some major deficiences
Language and communication: lacks in fluency, partly non-professional, not very expressive
Referencing: mostly according to the standards

Arviointikriteerit, hyvä (3)

1. Research problem and target setting
Reasoning: quite clear, grounded
Clarity of definition: clearly defined
Relevance: quite high
2. Research process
Independence of the process: mastery of the process, some need for support
Logic and clarity of the process: good Reasoning of the methodological choices: quite well thought of, quite clearly explained
Validity: rather high
3. Conceptual framework
Depth, breadth, and clarity: professional, rather current
Reasoning of choices: quite clearly argumented
Discussion and synthesis: quite consistent and logical
Fit between framework and empirical execution (suitability, applicability): good or very good
4. Empirical implementation
Use of methods for data collection and analysis: mostly good, some minor deficiencies
Use of development methods and tools: mostly appropriate and skillful
Documentation: quite accurate, rather expressive
Discussion of findings and outcomes: quite analytical and reflective
Conclusions: quite sound and professional
5. Results and implications
Crystallization of findings and outcomes: quite exact, visually clear and expressive
Results vs targets: good level of achievement of the targets
Relevance and impact for the partner organization: significant or quite significant with business metrics
6. Discourse of research text
Presentation of the research and development task: clear with argumentation
Professional writing style: meets with the academic and professional standards, only minor deficiences
Language and communication: fluent, professional, rather expressive
Referencing: according to the standards

Arviointikriteerit, kiitettävä (5)

1. Research problem and target setting
Reasoning: well grounded
Clarity of definition: very clearly defined
Relevance: high
2. Research process
Independence of the process: mastery of the process
Logic and clarity of the process: high
Reasoning of the methodological choices: well thought of, clearly explained
Validity: high
3. Conceptual framework
Depth, breadth, and clarity: very professional, current
Reasoning of choices: clearly argumented
Discussion and synthesis: consistent, logical
Fit between framework and empirical execution (suitability, applicability): excellent
4. Empirical implementation
Use of methods for data collection and analysis: mastery of the methods
Use of development methods and tools: mastery of the methods
Documentation: flawless, expressive, inspiring
Discussion of findings and outcomes: analytical, reflective
Conclusions: sound, professional
5. Results and implications
Crystallization of findings and outcomes: exact, visual
Results vs targets: high achievement of the targets
Relevance and impact for the partner organization: very significant with business metrics
6. Discourse of research text
Presentation of the research and development task: very clear, well argumented
Professional writing style: meets with the academic and professional standards
Language and communication: very fluent, professional, expressive
Referencing: fully according to the standards