The dissertation has been appraised under the following general headings (see notes at end)

Summary and Background (contextual setting, management, business and strategic implications)

Good organisational background information provided on Sainsburys, though somewhat lengthy historical recourse was too excessive. The topic well explained and research questions are adequate. The language used to link RQ with aims and objectives is in parts confusing (especially in Section 1.3), but the research idea was clear to understand. Background of the research (Section 1.6) found excessively lengthy, too, with information often unrelated to the subsequent sections of the dissertations. Research structure was outlined to guide the reader.

Literature Search and Review (Range, suitability and relevance of literature sources; standard of conceptualisation; etc.)

The Literature Review chapter is adequately structured by dividing it into 4 key research areas (training and development, evaluation and skills, impact of training and methods of training) which are aligned with the research questions. There was a clear attempt to ensure relevance of the literature to the topic being investigated by using relevance trees in structuring and preparing the chapter. Some evidence of evaluation of the existing body of knowledge in the topic concerned demonstrated, though in many parts in a rather descriptive manner. Substantial reference to established or conventional knowledge which was essential requirement for this dissertation, was only partially made, especially in context of the organisation concerned, Sainsburys, and its training and development techniques leaving many Methodology good points unexplained. This in turn could have enhanced the methodology chapter to draw instruments carried out, however the value of the (Appropriateness of research upon the LR and analytical techniques; rigour, dissertation was reliability, etc.) reduced by ignoring this important factor and lacking contribution to the design of the enquiry made. The Research Methodology Chapter does not look substantial as required. While the research instruments (section 3.7) defines clearly enough the means by which the student collected his data, more discussion over qualitative and quantitative methods would have been helpful to build stronger justification, and the tools of analysis. The research strategy was limited to merely describing different types of methodology (survey method, experimental research and grounded theory). That said, the student was able to evaluate these types of methodology in application to Sainsburys case study and eliminated those which, in his view, were not appropriate to select in the given research (sections 3.5-3.6 refer). This demonstrates students ability to critically evaluate various methodological options available, though success of such attempt was mixed. Appropriateness of the methods used should have been clearer articulated.
Findings and Conclusions (validity, originality, usefulness, critical reasoning, etc.)

The Interpretation and Discussion Chapter is confused with Findings and entitled as Data Analysis (Chapter 4 of the dissertation). In fact, Chapter 4 represents findings (rather than analysis) without any substantial discussion of the results presented and/or their interpretation. In addition, summary of key findings is presented in Chapter 5 (Conclusions). Such confusion can partially be attributed to the fact that supervision process ended at the stage of methodology development. The Chapter is not analytical enough, neither discursive. The quotes from the respondents remained largely unexplained whereas the diagrams are supported with extensive commentary. That said, in many instances new terminology emerged (such as questions in surveys on National Employer Skill) which was not mentioned or discussed in the previous sections. There is evidence however the student indeed collected primary data by the methods previously determined in the methodology part of the dissertation, ensuring consistency in design and flow of thought. Discussion on secondary data collected is entirely missing, and it was not possible to determine whether findings from primary data confirmed the results obtained from the literature review or there was a new development in training and development strategies at Sainsburys. Also, confidentiality was broken by disclosing names and job titles at the organisation concerned there was very clear contradiction to ethical consideration outlined in section 3.10 of Methodology Chapter. The conclusion part of the dissertation largely represents summary of key findings of what has been found on the journey. There was no commentary whether the assumptions made earlier were correct, or the methodology selected was appropriate. Recommendations are vague and very generic and one of the objectives to actually recommend concrete training activities to Sainsburys was General academic merit of the finished work not met. Whereas the student has demonstrated some knowledge of research methods and awareness of the existing body of knowledge in the subject of his interest, the practical implications of the research are questionable. The student demonstrated ability to evaluate the phenomenon critically by collecting primary data only, with almost no supplementary support from secondary data collected, but there is little evidence of actual analytical skills used to interpret the results of the research. There is some evidence of using some of research methods adequately, however, with reasonable justification in place. In-text referencing Internet sources was not in line with HRS, some issues with grammar and spelling. Format of the dissertation requires improvement.

Achievement of objectives

The objectives of the research were partially met.

Format, structure and presentation of the written dissertation. This should conform to the details provided in the module specification and the relevant University regulations
(These aspects will also be checked by the MBA Office. Internal readers do not need to complete this section unless they wish to draw particular attention to any matter). N.B. In most cases corrections are likely to be needed. Students should be forewarned of this.

Other/additional comments

Signed (internal reader): Date: Peer Review / Second Marker Comments:

Signed:

Date: .