Much further cited research required for chapter 1 to develop a compelling, logical introduction to your research. The literature review needs to evaluate further research and consider the overall argument. Likewise the methodology could be developed in terms of the level of sophistication to the argument As the study is made on the increasing performance of TQM practice of Toyota, there were many employees so it was better to have a mail questionnaire. This process helped to send the questions to all the employees of health care and automobile industry of china questionnaire helped the researcher to save his own time and money compared to interviewing. However, everything has a negative effect as well, similarly, in the process of questionnaire many of the employees did not reply to the questions. Qualitative method has been applied in this study for interviewing the employees of healthcare and automobile industries. Qualitative method helps to improve the quality of the result of the quantitative questionnaire (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). For the interview process 5 questions has been asked to the employees.

When writing this please bear in mind that in concluding you should ask yourself how your findings agree with, differ and extend literature with regards to my research issue as stated in chapter 1 You should then have a recommendations section that should be detailed. I would recommend formatting this in paragraphs rather than tables. Overall, there is quite a lot to do. Please start with developing the wording to the title, aim and objectives (remove the research questions). The continue working through the chapters using this feedback as guidance. Look to check for grammar throughout so the dissertation reads well. Check to ensure evidence of primary data is included within the appendices alongside the completed ethics checklist.

Findings-look at structure and level of analysis for this chapter. For example, include a clear introduction and then describe the data before applying the statistical testing. Then, have a section with the qualitative data. For this, I would recommend analysing the data by theme rather than by interview. Please refer to Miles and Huberman 1994 who have some good tips on analysing qualitative data. You need to address the research issue as stated in chapter 1.

Research Strategy Primary Approach Sampling Strategy Data Analysis Approach Validity, Reliability and Generalisability Ethical Issues Limitations Should 3.6 be "Mixed Method"? Then followed by each method. Therefore, why talk about sampling before discussing the methods? Please refer to the structure above for this chapter. Sampling could be much clear. You mention purposive and convenience sampling. Please ensure this chapter is clear. How can paretic tests be used with non probability based sampling? This is really important. Indeed, you also need to ensure you explain each test under data analysis fully.

To develop recommendations for……..that………. The above will provide a clear focus to your research which is really important. There is no need to include research questions as the aim and objectives will provide the focus for this research. Literature review-once you have developed the aim and objectives you will then be able to consider the argument for the literature review. For example, why describe approaches to quality unless this provides an insight into how you will go about operationalising your research through the methodology chapter. Remember, the literature review is used to position your work regarding what others have said and secondly to allow you to operationalise your research. As it stands this is quite descriptive and you need to consider that you are arguing and then use further research to develop this chapter. Methodology-why include table 1? This can be deleted. Remember a good methodology chapter would explain what you did, how your did this and why you did it this way using the key headings below: Philosophical Position

As it stands the introductory chapter does need quite a lot of work. I would also advise reviewing your aim. This should start ‘To evaluate….’ or ‘To assess…..’ As above, you need to explain and justify why you are looking at the two industries which are first sight seem quite different. There may a benefit of this and you need to plain this..... Likewise, you need to develop the objectives. This is really important. The objectives are in effect the steps your research will take. I have outlined one approach below and you simply need to fill in the blanks: To critically evaluate the xxx literature(s) to shed light on yyy To apply zzz primary approach to assess yyy

I would recommend developing the wording to this The' in font of value makes sense What do you mean by TQM 'standard' Abstract-this should be approx 1.5 sides and summarise the entire dissertation. Introductory chapter-look at the structure and content to this chapter. I discuss this below. You also need to consider a justification for why you are using the healthcare and automobile industries. This is a logic issue. Structure and content to the introductory chapter-Start by clearly introducing the research issue and expand on this using cited research. Then develop a research informed justification for the research, again using cited research. Then introduce cited research for the literature leading to a brief overview of the context leading to the aim/objectives.

I think the chapter 1 just like previous primary research For the methodology chapter follow the below structure please: Philosophical Position Research Strategy Primary Approach Sampling Strategy Data Analysis Approach Validity, Reliability and Generalisability Ethical Issues Limitations

For the methodology chapter follow the below structure please: Philosophical Position Research Strategy Primary Approach Sampling Strategy Data Analysis Approach Validity, Reliability and Generalisability Ethical Issues Limitations Consider China. Others just up to you

The aim needs to be clearly stated and the objectives require significant development. Please listen to the scoping session under learning units on blackboard where I discuss aims and objectives in detail. tase need to be focused which currently your research is not focused appropriately. For the questions stated later on p6 you need to also look ate these. For example the first question does not make complete sense. The second is a statement and not a question. The 3rd has entail but again does not make complete sense. Ideally have a single aim and objectives. This way you will not need research questions.

Title- look to see if you can develop this so it reads better. For the introductory chapter I would recommend starting with the first paragraph by introducing the research issue and why this is important i.e. the justification for the research using further cited research. You can label this first section 'Introduction'. This first part can be approx. 1 page followed by context information (Label this 'Context'), again using cited research, leading to a brief review of the literature (Label this 'Theoretical Basis for the Research') using cited research and then the aim and objectives (Label this section 'Aim and Objectives'). The final section can include a synopsis of the dissertation. (Label this section 'Synopsis of the Dissertation'). This is the structure I would recommend for the dissertation itself (opening chapter). Please ensure you develop this opening chapter using further cited research as this will help develop the level of detail and meet the requirements for the MBA.

Written presentation Within word count +/-10%. Sources appropriately cited and referenced. Clearly written English, very well structured and presented. Within word count +/-10%. Sources appropriately cited and referenced. Well written and presented. Within word count +/-10%. Most sources appropriately cited and referenced. Reasonably well written and presented. Some effort to structure appropriately. Meaning can be understood even if use of English is poor. Greatly exceeds wordcount with much largely irrelevant data. Most sources are cited and referenced, although the Harvard system has not been consistently followed. Very badly written and presented, ‘thrown together’ with multiple spelling and grammar errors. Meaning often obscured through poor use of English. Either far too long or far too short. Incorrect citing and referencing of material, several references missing. Ineffective structuring

50-59% 40-49% Fail The dissertation is mainly focused with a reasonable line of argument, although the reader needs to make a few assumptions as it develops. Theory, secondary and primary evidence are reasonably well integrated, stronger in some areas than others. The conclusions and recommendations are related to the foregoing but the linkages between other chapters are less clear. Objectives are largely met. The dissertation begins with a focus and there are some linkages back to the original objectives. There is evidence of an intelligible argument, even if patchy and inconsistent. Some clear attempts are made to integrate theoretical ideas and the findings from secondary and primary research. Some of the conclusions and recommendations follow logically from the foregoing. Objectives are partially met. The dissertation lacks focus and comprises several individual elements with little or no integration between them.

Criteria 70% + 60-69% Integration and Argument The dissertation is clearly focused and the line of argument consistently and explicitly reflects this focus. Argument displays much originality and is highly persuasive. Each chapter builds logically on the foregoing and drives the argument forward. Theory, secondary and primary data are carefully rigorously integrated. Conclusions and recommendations are logically derived from and fully supported by previous evidence. Objectives are fully met. The dissertation is clearly focused and there is a clearly discernible line of argument running through the work. Argument shows some originality and is convincing. Some of the linkages in the argument are more explicit than others. Theory, secondary and primary data show a high level of integration, mainly rigorous. Conclusions and recommendations are logically derived from and mainly supported by previous evidence. Objectives are mostly met.

Demonstrates a problem solving orientation in the design of methodology even if the execution of it is weak. Offers some critical reflection on research design and execution. The student must have collected both secondary and primary data and made some effort to abstract meaning from it. Demonstrates little ability to conduct a major piece of self-managed research. Methodology is ineffective for producing useful findings, or, approach taken does not take methodology into account. Scanty primary research data gathered, limited analysis, overall superficial attempt which would not be passed at undergrad level, let alone Master’s.

Design and execution of research methodology Methodology is well explained and entirely justifiable in relation to objectives, high level of reflection on and critique of own approach. Sampling is appropriate and very fit for the purpose. Demonstrates a high level of scholarship in identifying, gathering, analysing and presenting authoritative and relevant data. Methodology is sound and student shows ability to identify limitations and critique own approach. Sampling is appropriate and complete enough for the purpose. Demonstrates good ability to identify, gather, analyse and present authoritative and relevant data. Likely to show a range of strengths and weaknesses rather than an overall consistent approach e.g. good methodology, evaluation and critique of approach but sampling could be improved. Demonstrates reasonable ability to identify, gather, analyse and present authoritative and relevant data. Shows ability to learn from own mistakes.

Shows evidence of ability to identify assumptions and to evaluate and critique complex concepts, although much of the literature review borders on the descriptive side. The material selected is partially related to the objectives set. Very limited range of sources consulted; few or no journal articles. Many key sources are omitted; literature review is largely superficial and descriptive. Material likely to be drawn mainly or wholely from web sites. Literature review bears little relation to the objectives set.

Evaluation and application of theoretical concepts Material selected from a wide range of appropriate sources; scholarly level of evaluation and critique, many original insights. Excellent use of journal articles. Material followed logically, systematically and persuasively with direct relevance to objectives Material selected from a good range of sources, level of evaluation and critique is mainly but not consistently high, some original insights. Good use of journal articles. Generally systematic presentation with a high degree of persuasiveness, generally relevant to objectives. Reasonable range of sources consulted and demonstrates reasonable ability to evaluate and critique complex concepts, with mostly sensible relevance to the argument. Reasonable range of journal articles. A few original insights. Relevance to the objectives is clear, even if not always consistent.

The student is able to define the research problem, although the objectives and rationale lack clarity. Some links are made to an appropriate academic area of business / management, even if contextualisation is limited. Strategic importance of dissertation is stated, but with little substantiation. The nature of the research problem is not clear and must be largely assumed. Objectives and rationale are absent or ill-defined. Relationship to an appropriate area of business / management is tenuous. Strategic importance of problem reads like a corporate brochure.

Base on My Dissertation Proposal and research plan, Primary Research make a Draft Dissertation of 12000-15000 words.Last time your Primary Research however the feedback from the professor was not good, please try to work hard for this time. thank you so much! Criteria 70% + 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% Fail Defining and contextualising the research problem Very clear definition of research problem, objectives and rationale. Thoroughly related to an appropriate academic area of business / management in a wider context. Strategic importance of problem very clearly presented. Clear definition of research problem, objectives and rationale. Well related to an appropriate academic area of business / management in a wider context. Strategic importance of problem clearly presented. Research problem is stated, objectives and rationale are reasonably clear. Related to an appropriate academic area of business / management, and reasonable links are made to the wider overall context. Strategic importance of problem is explicit, although requiring some assumptions by the reader.