Filter by keyword, subject, or both. Updates live as new model answers are added to our portal.
Data Management / Business Analytics
2,500 words
Data and Decision Making (BS776) — Business Report: Two-Source Data Analysis in Python for Evidence-Based Decision-Making
This Level 7 report applies data management theory to a self-selected industry problem and carries it through to a working Python analysis and a defensible business recommendation. The brief is deliberately open on sector — finance, healthcare, transport, cyber security, business intelligence and others are all permitted — but firm on one point: the chosen topic must carry a genuine business implication rather than being a purely technical or clinical analysis. The work therefore begins by framing a specific data-driven decision the organisation needs to make, and returns to that decision at every stage. Two distinct data sources are then identified from approved open repositories and critically evaluated side by side. The evaluation covers the data types each holds, how the data was collected and what bias that introduces, how each is stored and managed, and where the weaknesses lie — proposing concrete data management solutions for the problems identified rather than simply cataloguing them. The analytical core examines, transforms and explores both datasets using univariate and multivariate techniques. All work is carried out in Python within Google Colab, with full screenshots of the code and outputs placed in the appendices and the live Colab link shared for verification. Charts and tables sit in the main body where they support interpretation, each labelled and referenced back to its data source, and each appendix is cited from the narrative so the reader can move between argument and evidence. Data cleaning and transformation steps are shown and justified, not glossed. Findings are reported at length and converted into a clear recommendation covering both the immediate decision and the current and future direction of data management for the business. The limitations section is written honestly — sample coverage, data recency, the assumptions the transformation forced, and what the proposed solution cannot address. Running alongside this, the module's weekly consolidation discussions are evidenced. Five or more critical responses across units two to nine are screenshotted, dated, individually labelled as appendices, and each supported by academic and practice references. Crucially, these are not left sitting in the appendix: they are cited and used within the main body to support the critical discussion, which is where the marks for that component sit. The report follows the prescribed structure — title page, executive summary, contents, introduction, main section with subsections per task, findings, recommendations, limitations, conclusion, Harvard reference list and full appendices — submitted as a single file.
Read Model Answer →
Data Visualisation / Business Intelligence
2,500 words
Data Visualisation (BS666) — Business Analyst Client Report: Dashboard Development, Tool Evaluation and Accessibility in Power BI and Tableau
This Level 7 resit assessment takes the form of a single client-facing report written from the position of a qualified business analyst. Rather than assembling semester activities, it asks for one sustained piece of analytical writing that carries a business case from raw open data through to a defended set of visualisations and the decisions they support. The report opens by identifying a data source drawn from an approved open repository and setting out the business problem the client faces. Provenance, structure, granularity and known limitations of the dataset are examined honestly at this stage, since every downstream claim rests on them, and all data is referenced in full — including data appearing inside charts, as the brief specifically requires. The main body works through three connected strands of critical evaluation. The first traces the development sequence of the visualisations themselves: how the data was prepared and cleaned, why particular chart types were selected over the alternatives available, how layout and interactivity were arranged for the intended audience, and how the design changed across iterations once weaknesses became visible. At least three completed visualisations are then evaluated individually and critically — what each one reveals, where each falls short, and what a reader could reasonably conclude from it. The second strand compares Power BI and Tableau as working environments for this specific dataset rather than in the abstract. Data connectivity, transformation and calculation capability, visual flexibility, publishing and sharing, licensing and governance are all weighed against what the client actually needs, with the practical friction encountered during the build reported rather than smoothed over. The third strand addresses accessibility and cognitive processing. It examines how each platform handles colour contrast and colour-vision deficiency, text alternatives, keyboard navigation and screen reader support, and then moves into the perceptual side — pre-attentive attributes, data-ink economy, chart junk, working memory limits and how visual encoding choices either reduce or inflate the effort a reader must spend to extract meaning. The argument connects this directly to decision quality in organisations with diverse analytical literacy. Findings are reported at length and translated into concrete business implications, with a conclusion that states what the client should do and on what evidence. The submission follows the prescribed structure throughout: title page, executive summary, contents, introduction, business problem, main evaluative section, findings, conclusion, Harvard reference list and appendices, presented as a single file for Turnitin.
Read Model Answer →
Data Visualisation / Business Intelligence
2,500 words
Data Visualisation (BS664) — Portfolio: Tableau and Power BI Dashboard Development for Evidence-Based Decision-Making
This Level 7 portfolio accumulates work across a full semester of data visualisation study and is submitted as one continuous document combining reflective writing, tool evaluation and an applied dashboard project. The emphasis throughout falls on interpretative rigour — showing not just that a visualisation was built, but why each design decision serves the decision-maker who has to act on it. The first activity documents sustained critical participation across the module's weekly discussion topics. Five or more substantive responses are evidenced with dated screenshots, each paired with the corresponding workshop date, and each grounded in both academic literature and practitioner sources rather than opinion alone. Live URLs to the Power BI and Tableau dashboards built during the module are included, and the activity closes with a consolidated review of how understanding developed across the units. The second activity covers formal training completion in both platforms, with certificates and badges reproduced, and then turns to accessibility. It examines the visualisations produced during that training against accessibility principles — colour contrast and colour-blind safe palettes, text alternatives, chart type legibility, cognitive load — and argues why accessibility is not a compliance afterthought but a determinant of whether a dashboard actually informs decisions inside a global organisation with a diverse user base. The third activity is a structured comparison of Tableau and Power BI, conducted through the evaluative frameworks introduced in workshops rather than a feature checklist. Benefits and limitations are weighed across data connectivity, calculation capability, visual flexibility, licensing and cost, collaboration and governance, and organisational fit. The section ends with a reasoned recommendation of one platform for the applied work that follows, with the trade-offs of that choice acknowledged openly. The fourth and largest activity is the applied project. A dataset is selected from an approved open source and its provenance, quality and limitations discussed. The target business, its stakeholder groups and the varying analytical literacy of the intended audience are analysed, because these determine what the dashboard must show and how plainly. The report then walks through the full development sequence — data preparation and cleaning, chart selection and justification, layout and interactivity, iteration in response to identified weaknesses — with screenshots evidencing each stage. Findings are reported and translated into specific, evidence-based decisions the business could take on the strength of them. The submission follows the prescribed structure with title page, contents, introduction, business problem, main analysis, findings, Harvard reference list and appendices, presented as a single file.
Read Model Answer →