Name of the module: Sales, Account management and Services marketing (SAS, 3000SAS_20)

Programme (IB Full-Time, IB FTP or IB PT): IB Full-Time Year: 2021-2022

Description and learning goals

Sales, Account management and Services marketing focusses on the creation of customer value through integrated
customer centricity across the firm. The central theme of the module is the creation of synergy between a transaction-
based (sales) orientation and a relationship-based (services) orientation. The module offers an in-depth treatment of
contemporary trust-based sales and account management theory, including how to prepare and execute sales dialogues,
expanding customer relationships and sales management. The transaction-based orientation is confronted with the
relationship-based orientation by offering insights into relationship marketing, including a discussion of core concepts
such as trust, loyalty, and customer lifetime value. For the application into professional practice, the module uses a
service-centric approach, based on structured analysis with state-of-the art academic theories. The learning goals are:

1. Understand the presented and discussed theories on Services Marketing and Sales Management.
2. Formulate theory-informed research questions and execute an analysis of problems regarding services
marketing and sales management in a real company.
3. Select and develop a research methodology, in line with Services Marketing and Sales Management theories.
4. Execute research according to the chosen methodology.
5. Analyse the collected data in terms of the theories used, showing understanding and capacity to apply the
course-theories in practice.
6. Develop and present the findings in a well-structured (group/team) report and (group/team) presentation, in
proper Business English.
7. Develop relevant recommendations for improvements on services and sales for the company, taking into account
investments in time, organisation, finance and ethics.

Teaching methods

Teaching and learning is done via a blend of acquiring theory through regular (online and offline) lecturing, flipped
class rooms and applying learned theory in assignments with real life internationally operating companies of your
own choice, allowing you to identify and address sales and services marketing issues.

Assessment methods

1st chance examination

Learning
# Description Form of Test Lecture week # Weight (%)
objective(s) #
1 Theory exam Individual continuous assessment 1, 2, 3 3&7 50%
(quizzes, decentral examination)
2 Project Group assignment (decentral exam) 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 11 50%

Resit
# Description Form of Test Learning Lecture week # Weight (%)
objective(s) #
1 Theory exam Individual exam (decentral exam) 1, 2, 3 12 50%
2 Project Group assignment (decentral exam) 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next year 50%

1
Assessment (and resit) methods

The theory exam assesses your individual knowledge and understanding of the course literature counts for
50% of the end grade. It includes the literature (books) as mentioned below under “study literature” and
consists of (open book) quizzes, which will be done as continuous assessment in class during the semester.

The project exam assesses your theoretical knowledge, research skills and application capabilities of the course
literature in reality. The project contains a team-assignment, and counts for 50% of the end grade. The assignment
involves a theory-based analysis and improvement plan of the service quality of an organization, and includes a
sales & account management plan. You will receive weekly coaching and feedback on the development of the
analysis and advise. The results of the research project are presented in a presentation (counting for 20%) and a
report (counting for 80%). The following elements are to be included in the project assignment:

1. General elements
1.1. The groups consist of (around) six participants.
1.2. The assignment focuses on the development of a new SAS-plan, for a company of your own choice.
1.3. The plan will be based on the analysis of the service quality of the company, with the help of
scientific theories models, such as the SERVQUAL (gap) model.
1.4. The plan involves a revised sales and account management strategy.
1.5. During the semester you will ask and receive coaching on the assignment by your lecturer.
1.6. The analysis and advice resulting from each assignment will be presented in two ways:
1.6.1. A presentation to the class (10 minutes, supported by maximum 6 slides).
1.6.2. A report in the form of a MS Word document (maximum 20 pages). The report includes an
executive summary, table of contents, conclusion, accurate reference list, appendices. The
report contains a theoretical foundation for the findings and APA referencing.

2. Specific elements:
2.1. A brief internal and external analysis of the company.
2.2. A full Services Marketing and Sales Analysis, built on research questions and an explicit methodology.
2.3. A revised Services Marketing and Sales Plan for the company, including:
2.3.1. An improved situation, based on Value Chain and GAP analyses
2.3.2. An improved customer relationship strategy by addressing the development of:
2.3.2.1. Account Management and/or sales strategies and structures
2.3.2.2. Recruitment and training
2.3.2.3. Measuring sales results and CRM
2.3.2.4. Incorporation of digital or other innovative elements to the service
2.3.2.5. New mixture of communication channels etc.
2.3.3. The planning and financial impact of the plans on the company:
2.3.3.1. Envisaged investments in (new and existing) employees
2.3.3.2. Envisaged investments in digital (or other) supporting facilities
2.3.3.3. Envisaged turnover development
2.3.3.4. Expected profit development
2.3.3.5. Timelines (in a GANTT chart) of milestones
2.4. Relationships of the new plans to basic ethical principles

2
The required assignment-elements in the report are based on the earlier mentioned learning goals of the course and
weight as follows:
Part of the report grade
• Lay-out and comprehensiveness 10%
• Research rigour (questions, APA, methodology) 10%
• Executive Summary & Strategic background 10%
• Services marketing 20%
• Sales & Account management 20%
• Innovative improvement plan and digital aspects 10%
• Finance & planning 10%
• Ethics 10%

➢ For an explanation and requirements of the assignment, see the SAS Project Assignment Guide.

The presentation will be graded according to the following weights:

Part of the presentation grade

• Delivery 20%
• Content 30%
• Structure 10%
• Use of visual aids 10%
• Response to questions 30%

Team and individual grading

Each team consists of (around) six persons. The team determines how the workload will be shared and how
the communication will be organised. Free riding will be taken into account via a peer-assessment and
determines the individual grade of each team member.
Your individual assignment-grade will be determined by 1. The lecturer, who grades the report and presentation,
and 2. the assessment of your individual performance, as perceived by your team members. The lecturer grades
the report (80%) and presentation (20%), as a full-team effort only. Your individual performance and contribution
in the team will be determined through peer-assessment (see format in appendix). The individual grade, as
determined by the peer assessment, cannot deviate more than 2.5 points from the lecturer’s grade. If the points in
the peer assessment are not to be shared equally within the team, the individual end-results for the assignment
should be discussed amongst the team members carefully and timely, in order to avoid surprises. Missing the
deadline for uploading the report or presentation slides leads to deduction of a full point from the lecturer’s
assignment grade. (For more details on the project assignment: see the (separate) guidelines on Brightspace.)
The theory grade is based on two individual quizzes and assesses your theoretical knowledge and
understanding of the course literature, on which research questions, methodology and analyses are based.
Each quiz contains 40 questions. Each question has four possible answers (a, b, c, d). A sufficient level is
scored with a 5.5 or higher. The caesura of each quiz is calculated by using the following method: (n*-ng)p +
ng, with n as the total number of questions (one point per question), g as the gambling chance (25%), p as the
required knowledge level (65%) and n* as the students’ highest score in the quiz. The minimum grade is a 1.0
and the maximum grade a 10.0. The final quiz-score will be calculated as the average of the combined results
of quiz 1 and 2.

In case of dispute or other questions regarding the grading (including peer assessment), you should consult the
lecturer immediately.

3
 Pass or fail

You pass the course with an individual final grade of 5.5 or higher. The end grade is determined by
calculating the average of the combined theory exams (50%) and assignment (50%).

The assessment system consists of marks from 1 (very bad) to 10 (outstanding). Grading point are to be seen as
follows:
10 Outstanding 5 Almost satisfactory
9 Very good 4 Unsatisfactory
8 Good 3 Very unsatisfactory
7 More than satisfactory 2 Poor
6 Satisfactory 1 Very poor

In case of plagiarism in the report, the report will be failed (not graded) and the entire team has to do an
assignment resit. Depending on the findings, the Exam Board will be notified (see Exam Regulations).

Resit (individual)

If the average grade obtained for this module is below 5.5 you must do a resit. Which resit(s) you should do
depends on which part(s) is/were insufficient, as illustrated in the table below.

Situation: Resit(s) involve the following Your average module grade The resit(s) will be
test(s): after resit will be calculated scheduled in:
using the following weights:
Average grade for the No resit required N.A. N.A.
whole module ≥ 5.5

Average grade for the You can choose to do: Same as regular During semester
whole module < 5.5
A full team assignment, based on The resit grade(s) replace(s)
a new company. the regular (earlier) grade(s).

AND/OR
One or two of the theory
exam(s).

Contact time
• Week 1-5, per week: 2 hours tutorial and continuous assessment. 1 hour coaching (instructions and feedback).
1,5 hours practical reading, 1 hour theory homework.
• Week 6-8, per week: 1 hour tutorial and continuous assessment. 2 hours coaching (instructions and feedback)
on assignments. 2 hours assignment homework.
• Week 8-12, per week: 3 hours coaching (feedback) on assignments. 3 hours assignment homework.

4
Study literature

Title Author(s) Publisher Year Edition ISBN

th
Services Marketing: Wilson, Zeithaml, Bitner & McGraw Hill 2021 4 13: 978-
Integrating Customer Focus Gremler 1526847805
Across the Firm
Selling and Sales Jobber, Lancaster & Le Pearson 2019 11th ISBN-
Management Meunier-FitzHugh 13: 9781292
078007
Professional context
Sales and CRM / relationship (services) marketing are integral components of any kind of nowadays companies
and thus integral part of the professional practice.

Associated courses
The module Sales, Account management and Services marketing (SAS) is part of the marketing major and relates to
strategic marketing, digital marketing, consumer branding and communication marketing. The results of the assignment of
this module can be used in the overarching (capstone) assignment of Marketing and Sales. Also courses on management &
organization, business research, culture, supply chain and finance are related to this course.

Learning track
Business Knowledge

5
Appendix 1: Assessment model(s)
1.1 SAS Project Presentation Assessment

Presentation Insufficient Sufficient Good

< 5,5 6–7 8 – 10

Structure and The structure of my The structure of my The structure of my presentation

software/ presentation (introduction, presentation (introduction, (introduction, body, conclusion)
visual aids 20% body, conclusion) is hardly body, conclusion) is is clear. The transitions between
recognizable. I insufficiently recognizable and I mark the the parts or the (sub)topics are
mark the transitions between transitions between the parts smooth.
the parts or the (sub)topics. or the (sub)topics.

My introduction does not I introduce the topic, the The way I introduce my topic,
sufficiently clarify the topic, design and the goal of my design and goal are well thought
the design and the goal of my presentation. of.
presentation.

The conclusion at the end of I end my presentation by My summary and/or conclusion

my presentation is missing or giving a summary and/or are not only factual but also vivid
is weak. conclusion. (explanation) or critical
(argument and consideration).

The (support) software and/or The (support) software The (support) software and/or
visual aids is/are unattractive and/or visual aids is/are visual aids add(s) to the
and inconsistent. adequately attractive and presentation in its’ attractiveness
consistent. and consistency.

The (support) software does The (support) software The (support) software enhances
not support the core message covers the core message and the core message and provides
and nor provides relevant provides relevant additional relevant additional information.
additional information. information.

Content 30% The key message in my My presentation has a clear My presentation has a clear key
presentation is lacking or is key message and sufficient message, sufficient depth and
unclear. My presentation has depth. thought.
insufficient depth and/or
thought.

I insufficiently clarify the goal The goal of my presentation During my presentation I am

of my presentation: (argue, is clear: (argue, consider, able to make clear that I am
consider, explain). explain). aware of what I am doing: (argue,
consider, explain)

6
 The main points of interest The main points of interest The main points of interest are
are not clear. are sufficiently presented. clearly articulated.

The presentation is not The presentation is The presentation clearly

consistent with the report consistent with the report demonstrates and enhances the
(where applicable). (where applicable) content of the report (where
applicable).

Verbal My presentation does not My presentation sounds I am fluent. My intonation is very

elements 10% sound fluent. My intonation fluent. My intonation, tempo, natural and I am clearly
sounds rehearsed. I am and understandability are understandable. My tempo is
insufficiently understandable. sufficient. tuned to the information density
My tempo is either too fast or of my presentation.
too slow.

My business English skills are My business English skills are My business English speaking
not sufficient. I do not finish sufficient. I use the skills are good. My vocabulary,
my sentences. I make appropriate vocabulary, grammar and sentences structure
grammatical mistakes. My grammar and sentence are rich and varied. I am good at
vocabulary choice does not structure. improvisational speaking.
match my goals.

Non-verbal I do not show enthusiasm nor I am enthusiastic and natural. I am enthusiastic, natural and
elements 10% a natural style. balanced. I ignite the audience.

I connect insufficiently with I connect sufficiently connect I connect with my audience with
my audience and cannot hold with my audience and can great ease and have them at the
their interest. hold their interest. edge of their seats.

My posture and body My posture and body I appear at ease and in

language is unnatural and language are natural and command. My natural body
does not match my message. match my message. language enhances my message.

I do not keep eye-contact I keep eye-contact with the I have natural eye-contact with
with the audience. audience. the audience which enhances my
presentation.

Q&A 30% My response to the questions My response to the questions My response to the question is
is hesitant and/or not to the is satisfactory very clear, illuminates the topic
point significantly and shows mastering
the subject

7
1.2 SAS Project Report structure and content assessment

Criteria Unsatisfactory Partially Proficient Proficient Exemplary Rating

(< 5.5) (5.5 < 6.5) (6.5 < 7.5) (≥ 7.5)

Structure and Often unclear and Not always clear or Usually clear, Consistently clear, 40%
Argumentation disorganized. The concise. Organization is concise, well concise, well organized.
report is confusing adequate, but weak. organized. Most of Points were easy to
and difficult to follow. Occasionally wandered the project was follow because of the
Conceptually and was sometimes easy to follow. organizations.
confused. Project is difficult to follow. Good command of Outstanding command of
poorly written and Generally competently expression and expression and logical
shows a serious written, although some logical argument. argument. Concise abut
inability to present a problems exist in logical Adequate precise presentation of
logical organization of presentation of content.
argumentation. arguments and text. content.
Superficial Imprecise presentation of
presentation of content.
content.

Project content Displayed a poor Displayed some Displayed a general Displayed an excellent 60%
grasp of the material. problems with the grasp of the material. grasp of the material.
Demonstrated a understanding of the Demonstrated good Demonstrated excellent
superficial mastery of material. Mastery of mastery of content, mastery of content,
content, application content, application application and application and
and implications. and implications OK. implications. Good implications. Excellent
Little depth of Adequate depth of research depth. research depth.
research research.

English* The assignment is written in clear, concise and correct Business English
Prerequisite

Layout &Style* According to the AMSIB guidelines described in the document ‘Reporting - Guidelines for writing
Prerequisite and styling business reports’

TOTAL 100%

* These criteria will not be graded, but if missing or incomplete, the assignment will be rejected. The use of proper business English (as
described in the AMSIB Reporting Guidelines) is required in all written work. In case of a ‘weak’ score on the business English and layout
criterion, the report will be directly graded with a ‘1 ’ without further taking into account the other grading criteria.

**Please assess the work of your colleagues. The feedback will be taken into consideration in assigning the grade for the project.

8
1.3 SAS Project Report academic research rigour assessment

Student should (jointly per team and individually) evaluate the following aspects of literature and project
content:

Structure Develop relevant research questions. What type of text is it? Is it a primary source or
secondary source? What are the different sections and how do they fit together?

Methodology Is the research quantitative or qualitative? Does the methodology have any
weaknesses? How does the design of the research address the hypothesis?

Evidence What sources are used: interviews, questionnaires, peer-reviewed journals,

government reports, journal papers, newspaper articles? What type of evidence is
provided: statistical, empirical? Rigorous and accurate referencing and reference list.
Beware of plagiarism: Not (APA) referring to used sources is assumed to be
plagiarism (see teaching and examination regulations IB Bachelor) and may lead to
immediate failure of the module, suspension or even expulsion.

Conclusions Does the data adequately support the conclusions? Are other interpretations
possible? What does the work contribute to the field and the company?

The research rigour will be graded within the structure and argumentation (see 1.1) as follows:

Criteria Unsatisfactory Partially Proficient Proficient Exemplary Rating

(< 5.5) (5.5 < 6.5) (6.5 < 7.5) (≥ 7.5)

Content Displayed a poor Displayed some Displayed a Displayed an 100%

grasp of the problems with the general grasp of excellent grasp of the
material. understanding of the material. material.
Demonstrated a the material. Demonstrated Demonstrated
superficial mastery mastery of good mastery of excellent mastery of
of content, content, content, content, application
application and application and application and and implications.
implications. Little implications OK. implications. Excellent analysis
depth of analysis. Adequate depth of Good analysis depth.
analysis. depth.

TOTAL 100%

9
Appendix 2. Peer Assessment on PEER ASSESSMENT
group/teamwork Class Give your fellow-group
Team members points, adding up to
Grading sheet: Nr. Participants 100 points
Student

Graded team participants (not yourself) Grade

First Name Last Name Total

Total (must add up to 100) :

Space for
explanation if
lower/higher
grading
(mandatory)
If you give a team member more or less
points than equally divided, you should
(briefly) motivate it.

Your individual grade for the project is determined by the points of the peer assessment. The points will be used to
calculate the percentage, to be multiplied by the team project grade (graded by the lecturer).

For example: The lecturer has graded the project a 7.0. If you are in a team of six people, and all members decided
to share the same amount of points equally amongst each other, each individual will also score a 7.0, because the
percentage of each member is 100%, (5 members x 20 points each = 100 points = 100%). However, if in the same
team of six people, five members decide to give one member only 15 points, while yet another member receives 25
points from all the other four members and the remaining four members all receive 100 points, the result will be
that four members score a 7.0 (each with 100 points), but one member (with 75 points) scores a 5.25 and the other
member (with 125 points) scores a 8.75.

Peer assessments:
o Can be included/uploaded as an appendix in the report, or sent to the lecturer separately
o If no peer assessment is sent in, equal distribution of points will be assumed
o Only properly and fully filled-in formats will be processed
o Make sure to discuss the distribution of points amongst your peers, before handing in the
joint peer assessments, in order to avoid (unpleasant) surprises.

10