Thesis
Defense Schedule, all are welcome to attend.
Students should be well prepared for their oral defense of 30-45 minutes for Bachelor's thesis, and 45-60 minutes for Master's thesis, in which they will make the presentation on their summary of research and main conclusions. Each student is encouraged to use visual aids such as the data projector or overhead projector during the presentation. Students should present in English and are advised not to exceed ten (10) for BA thesis and fiften (15) for MBA thesis, power point slides.Students may save their ppt presentation in their memory sticks and connect to the laptop and data projector in the defense room.
The thesis defense is set as following:
· Presentation: 10-15 min for BA thesis; 15-20 min for MBA thesis
· The thesis committee questions the students: 15-20 min for BA thesis; 20-25 min for MBA thesis
· Public discussion (optional)
· The thesis committee withdraws for consultation and will establish the final grade of the Bachelor’s thesis: 5-10 min
Thesis defense timetable at LR 109 on 26.05.2009 (Tuesday)
Thesis Examination Committee Members:
Vaiva Grushniene (Chairman), Leon Miller, Jukka Vihersaari
| Time | Students | Thesis Title | Level |
1 | 09:00-09:30 | Anastasija Aksjonova | Features of Conducting Business Negotiations with Americans | BA |
2 | 09:45-10:15 | Henna Huttunen | Retail Market in Finland- A Promising Opportunity for a Foreign Clothing Company | BA |
| 10:30-10:45 | Break | | |
3 | 10:45-11:15 | Anastassia Jasneva | The Roles of Cultural Awareness in International Business | BA |
4 | 11:30-12:00 | Marina Kochneva | A Healthier Future for the Food Industry | BA |
| 12:15-12.45 | Lunch break | | |
5 | 12:45-13:15 | Tommi Yläjoki | The Impact of the Recession on Small and Medium Enterprises and Survival Strategies for Them | BA |
6 | 13:30-14:00 | Aleksi Kuusijärvi | Empirical and Theoretical Views on Total Quality Management | BA |
7 | 14:15-14:45 | Lassi Lehmusvuori | Customer Loyalty Programs Support Of Relationship Marketing In the Banking Industry | BA |
| 15:00-15:15 | Break | | |
8 | 15:15-15:45 | Darja Mišcenko | Latvian Small and Medium Enterprises' Marketing Budget Cuts During the Economic Recession | BA |
9 | 16:00-16:30 | Inna Soika | Indirect Brand Marketing Using Internet Video Approach | BA |
Thesis defense timetable at LR 110 on 26.05.2009 (Tuesday)
Thesis Examination Committee Members:
Artur Sisask (Chairman), Robert Pefferly, Lauri Luiker
| Time | Students | Thesis Title | Level |
1 | 09:00-09:30 | Martins Meisans | Brand Positioning As a Way of Improving Marketing Strategy for SIA Natalie | BA |
2 | 09:45-10:15 | Tõnu Tammiste | The Apartment Market in Tallinn – Continuing to Decline or Ready to Grow? | BA |
| 10:30-10:45 | Break | | |
3 | 10:45-11:15 | Jekaterina Savtšenko | Harmonizing and Simplifying Company Law Requirements in European Union: Cross-Border Mergers of Limited Liability Companies | BA |
4 | 11:30-12:00 | Laura Suominen | The Impact of Company Brand Building - Before and After the Global Financial Crisis | BA |
| 12:15-12.45 | Lunch break | | |
5 | 12:45-13:15 | Joonas Häkkinen | Bonds for the Risk-averse Investor in Finland | BA |
6 | 13:30-14:00 | Jari Kinnunen | The Benefits of Exchange-traded Funds for Private Investors | BA |
| 14:15-14:30 | Break | | |
| 7 | 14:30-15:00 | Arturs Treimanis | An Analysis of the Global, European and Latvian Insurance Sectors and its Contribution to the Economic Market | BA |
8 | 15:15-15:45 | Matti Vimpeli | Viability of Finnair and Scandinavian Airlines Merging | BA |
Thesis defense timetable at LR 108 on 26.05.2009 (Tuesday)
Thesis Examination Committee Members:
Stein Skjorshammer (Chairman), James O’Neil, Rita Ilisson
| Time | Students | Thesis Title | Level |
1 | 09:00-09:30 | Marcis Kaksis | The Necessity for Lipton to Change its Brand Values During the Financial Depression in Latvia | BA |
2 | 09:45-10:15 | Juhana Salenius | Wood-aluminum Window Business in Estonia - Future and Trends | BA |
| 10:30-10:45 | Break | | |
3 | 10:45-11:15 | Linda Isiksoy | Research and Development as Part of a Collaborative Organization | BA |
4 | 11:30-12:00 | Antti Suorsa | Brand image – How it is created | BA |
| 12:15-12.45 | Lunch break | | |
5 | 12:45-13:15 | Andrey Allas | Corporate Seizures, Hostile Acquisitions, and Corporate Defence Techniques in Russia | BA |
6 | 13:30-14:15 | Ilja Stožarov | The Development of Outdoor Advertisement in Estonia | MBA |
| 14:30-14:45 | Break | | |
7 | 14:45-15:30 | Jekaterina Dunaeva | Corporate Debt in the Russian Federation | MBA |
8 | 15:45-16:30 | Ilja Kitajevs | Currency Options: Trading and Hedging Applications | MBA |
9 | 16:45-17:30 | Ieva Longa | Motivation as a Tool to Develop a Superior Quality Customer Support System | MBA |
Thesis defense timetable at LR 109 on 28.05.2009 (Thursday)
Thesis Examination Committee Members:
John Sullivan (Chairman), Robert Pefferly, Leon Miller
| Time | Students | Thesis Title | Level |
1 | 09:00-09:30 | Zane Auslande | How an Increase in the Value Added Tax Will Influence Latvia's Economy? | BA |
2 | 09:45-10:15 | Tuomas Syväniemi | An analysis of the Estonian Commercial Real Estate Market and the future Outlook | BA |
| 10:30-10:45 | Break | | |
3 | 10:45-11:15 | Tapani Viitala | The Marketing Mix for the Finnish Ski Resort Tornikeskus | BA |
4 | 11:30-12:00 | Julia Kostjunina | Pension Systems in Modern Society: Problems and Solutions | BA |
| 12:15-12.45 | Lunch break | | |
5 | 12:45-13:15 | Deniss Kuzins | Development of TNK Oil Brand in the Latvian Market | BA |
6 | 13:30-14:00 | Ksenija Utkina | Specifics of Business Promotion in Times of Economic Crisis | BA |
| 14:15-14:30 | Break | | |
7 | 14:30-15:00 | Mihkel Karu | Product Development On the Facebook Platform | BA |
Thesis defense timetable at LR 110 on 28.05.2009 (Thursday)
Thesis Examination Committee Members:
Vaiva Grushniene (Chairman), Iiro Tainio, Jukka Vihersaari
| Time | Students | Thesis Title | Level |
1 | 10:45-11:15 | Olga Vodopjanova | The End of Gutenberg’s Era: A Grim Future for Paper Magazines and Newspapers | BA |
2 | 11:30-12:00 | Artem Koval | Use of New Technologies Leads to Greater Consumer Interaction, Which Causes Increased Sales | BA |
3 | 12:15-12:45 | Nikita Larin | How does Synergy Affect Employee Satisfaction | BA |
| 13:00-14:30 | Lunch break | | |
4 | 14:45-15:15 | Krista Konsin | Capitalizing Resources in an Organizational Change | BA |
5 | 15:30-16:00 | Gatis Licitis | Reducing Cost of Production in the Plastic Pipe Industry | BA |
| 6 | 16:15-16:45 | Maarja Stanciute | Branding and Marketing of Goods in Maxima Eesti OÜ | BA |
| 7 | 17:00-17:30 | Juha Otto Äikää | Retro Design as a Brand Revitalization Strategy | BA |
Thesis defense timetable at LR 108 on 28.05.2009 (Thursday)
Thesis Examination Committee Members:
Stein Skjorshammer (Chairman), James O’Neil, Artur Sisask
| Time | Students | Thesis Title | Level |
1 | 09:00-09:30 | Ott Neeme | Increasing Business Effectiveness Through a Motivation Tool | BA |
2 | 09:45-10:15 | Jurate Janaviciute | Mergers and Acquisitions in the Baltic States 2000-2007 | BA |
| 10:30-10:45 | Break | | |
3 | 10:45-11:30 | Heidi Tikkanen | Gold Cosmetics Market in Finland | MBA |
4 | 11:45-12:30 | Mirka Karoliina Kauttu | Cultural Difference and Attitudes to Change – A Case Study of Students’ Attitudes Towards Organizational Change at International University Audentes | MBA |
| 13:00-13:30 | Lunch break | | |
5 | 13:30-14:15 | Jaroslav Lõssenko | Private Banking Strategic Investment Possibility in Second Life’s Virtual Reality Economy | MBA |
6 | 14:30-15:15 | Jakov Ravikovitš | Brand Building of Luxury Goods in the Fashion Industry | MBA |
| 15:30-15:45 | Break | | |
7 | 15:45-16:30 | Gerli Vaher | A Product Marketing Strategy for an Alternative Diet: Eating Right for Your Blood Type – A Case Study for Estonian Market | MBA |
8 | 16:45-17:30 | Arseni Lõhmus | Financial Assets and Their Value | MBA |
In order to register for Bachelor or Master's Thesis students must fill up the Thesis Registration Form and submit it to the Office of Business School during Jan.2-Feb. 9, 2009. There is no need to register for Bachelor or Master's Thesis in the Office of Student Services.
| Feb. 9 (Registration Closed) | Thesis Registration Form to be submitted to the Office of Business School (room 321) |
| Apr. 20 (closed) | Last version of the Title in both English and Estonian translation to be submitted via email to Siyi Ma. The titles must be approved by the advisors beforehand. The student is responsible for the correct academic translation. |
| Apr. 27 (closed) | Last day to request an Incomplete (IC): A student may apply for incomplete ONLY if he/she has completed more than 50% of the thesis. Please submit the form to the School of Business. According to Rector's Decree no 1-7/88, "Students, who have outstanding debt, including the students who have not adhered to the payment schedule, are not allowed...to request for the grade "Incomplete."
|
| May 1 (closed) | Final draft to the primary advisor, so that the advisor will have time to read and fill up the Thesis Evaluation Form pdf. doc. . |
| May 4 (closed) | Thesis final copies and completed Evaluation Form to be submitted: - TWO copies for Bachelor students and THREE copies for Master students: at least one copy should be hard-bound.
- Thesis Evaluation Form pdf. doc. completed and signed by thesis advisor(s).
|
| May 26, May 28 | Oral thesis defense. According to Rector's Decree no 1-7/88, "Students, who have outstanding debt, including the students who have not adhered to the payment schedule, are not allowed...to defend a thesis."
|
Select potential thesis subjects and choose your thesis advisors from the faculty memebers.
Get familiar with the Bachelor's Thesis Assessment Diagram and Master's Thesis Assessment Diagram.
Download the IUA Bachelor's Thesis Guideline 2009 pdf. and Bachelor Thesis Title page sample pdf. doc.
Download the IUA Master's Thesis Guideline 2009 pdf. and Master's thesis title page sample pdf. doc.
Useful information from the Internet
[go up]
Bachelor’s Thesis Assessment Diagram
The six columns in this diagram represent the criteria of assessment in the Bachelor’s thesis. Each row corresponds to a level of achievement. The combined dimension forms the basis for the final Bachelor thesis grade and represents the joint opinion / judgment of the Thesis Examination Committee. The diagram is meant to enhance the transparency concerning the Bachelor’s thesis assessment by IUA business school faculty and students.
Bachelor’s Thesis Assessment Diagram |
Identify a research question and research design | Literature review and conceptual framework | Collect and analyze research data | Define, validate and evaluate solutions / models, interpret findings sensitively as a basis for making recommendations | Write a persuasive, well structured Bachelor thesis | Bachelor thesis presentation and oral defense of candidate |
Excellent – 5 | | | | | |
Well-balanced and distinctive composition of research question, research design and methods | Literature review is itself a significant contribution. Significant additions to the theoretical / conceptual understanding of the subject | Data is analyzed systematically; relevant data is identified; effects arising from the choice of methods are recognized and commented upon | Sophisticated interpretation of the material. The conclusions are firmly based on the research findings | Thesis is well-structured, written with persuasive style and strong arguments | Clear and concise presentation in defending the research in its setup, methodology and execution. |
Very Good – 4 | | | | | |
Clear and specific research question, research design and methods | Literature review is well described / evaluated from new or distinct perspective. Attempt, maybe not wholly successful, is made to theorize beyond current state of literature | Use appropriate methods for gathering and analyzing research material; show a good understanding of methodological issues | Sophisticated interpretation of research findings; conclusions are based on research findings, but with minor deviations | Thesis is written in clear and coherent style, and adequately argued | Manage to defend or justify choices, methods and conclusion; able to communicate effectively in academic matters |
Good – 3 | | | | | |
Well-defined research question, sensible research design and clear plans for conducting research | Literature is cogently evaluated using positions already available. Conceptual framework is developed or existing one adapted in the context of evaluated literature | Findings from data are related to aspects of the appropriate methodology; show a general understanding of methodological issues | Use techniques for interpretation in a mechanical way. Conclusions generally based on the research findings | Expressed well or technically correct (but not both). Clear structure, and sufficiently argued | Answer questions but not always confident and well-prepared |
Satisfactory – 2 | | | | | |
Explicit ideas but there are some doubts about relation between question, design and methods | Sufficient description of appropriate field(s) and some general criticisms made, but no close evaluation of concepts. Concepts clearly defined and appropriate, set in the context of literature | Methods for gathering and analyzing research are used competently | Findings are presented thoroughly. Conclusions reflects the research findings | Adequate expression but with several mistakes. Argumentation is sometimes replaced by assumption or opinionated statements | Taking effort in answering questions, sometimes looses focus and tendency to enter into trivial matters |
Sufficient – 1 | | | | | |
Identified interesting topic but general research question, while design and methods are vague | Inadequate or limited description of literature, no criticism or evaluation. Definition and use of theoretical concepts are confused and no attempt made to theoretical synthesis or evaluation | Methods for gathering data and analyzing research materials are confusing and unsystematically used | Occasional insight takes the place of interpretation and conclusions have a tenuous link with findings | Sentences often do not make sense, with excessive use of bulleting points; lack of logic arguments | Showing some efforts to answer questions but often miss the main points and wander about irrelevant issues |
Fail – 0 | | | | | |
Research focus, purpose and method are unclear | Author appears to have read little and understood less than necessary. No conceptual or theoretical discussion of any value | No primary research of any value | Not providing evidence knowing what the outcome is about | Scrappy presentation, illogical structure, no argument or silly ones | Giving ambiguous answers and showing clear lack of systematic, abstract thinking |
[go up]
Master (MBA) Thesis Assessment Diagram
The six columns in this diagram represent the criteria of assessment in the Master’s thesis. Each row corresponds to a level of achievement. The combined dimension forms the basis for the final Master’s thesis grade and represents the joint opinion / judgment of the Master thesis examination committee. The diagram is meant to enhance the transparency concerning the Master’s thesis assessment by IUA business school faculty and students.
Master (MBA) Thesis Assessment Diagram |
Identify a research question and research design | Literature Review and conceptual framework | Collect and analyze research data | Define, validate and evaluate solutions / models, interpret findings sensitively as a basis for making recommendations | Write a persuasive, well structured Master thesis | Master thesis presentation and oral defense of candidate |
Excellent – 5 | | | | | |
Well-balanced and distinctive composition of research question, research design and method | Literature review is itself a significant contribution. Significant additions to the theoretical / conceptual understanding of the subject | Contribution to development and methods of collecting and analyzing research material and/or methodological debate | Sophisticated interpretation of the material. The conclusions are based on the finings but transcend them. | Work of art written with style and with strong arguments | Superior mastery and power in defending the research in its setup, methodology and execution. |
Very Good – 4 | | | | | |
Clear and specific research question, research design and method | Literature well described / evaluated from new or complex perspective. Attempt, maybe not wholly successful, made to theorize beyond current sate of literature | Modify and develops research methods reflecting methodological understanding | Sophisticated interpretation of findings and conclusions are firmly based but show a creative spark | Clear, persuasive, and well-structured; well written with no grammatical, syntactic, spelling or typographical errors that reflects careful proofreading | Manage to defend or justify choices, methods and conclusions; able to communicate effectively in academic matters |
Good – 3 | | | | | |
Well-defined research question, sensible research design and clear plans for conducting research | Literature is cogently evaluated using positions already available in literature. Conceptual framework is developed or existing one adapted in context of evaluated literature | Use adequate methods for gathering and analyzing research material and show an understanding of methodological issues | Use techniques for interpretation in a mechanical way. Conclusions based well on findings. | Expressed well or technically correct (but not both); clear- structured and adequately argued | Answer questions but not always confident and well-prepared |
Satisfactory – 2 | | | | | |
Explicit ideas but there are some doubts about relation between question, design and methods | Good description of appropriate field(s) and some general criticisms made, but no close evaluation of concepts. Concepts clearly defined and appropriate, set in the context of literature | Methods for gathering and analyzing research are used competently | Findings are treated as straightforward and unproblematic. Conclusions have some connection with the findings | Adequate expression but several mistakes. Argumentation sometimes replaced by assumption or assertion | Taking effort in answering questions, sometimes looses focus and tendency to enter into irrelevant issues |
Sufficient – 1 | | | | | |
Identified interesting topic but broad research question, while design and methods are vague | Inadequate or limited description of literature, and / or no criticism or evaluation. Definition and use of theoretical concepts is confused and no attempt made to theoretical synthesis or evaluation | Methods for gathering data and analyzing research materials are confusing and unsystematically used | Occasional insight takes the place of interpretation and conclusions have a tenuous link with findings | Sentences often do not make sense, with excessive use of bulleting points; lack of logic arguments | Occasionally showing effort giving precise answers but often wanders into feeble excuses, showing lack of abstract argumentation |
Fail - 0 | | | | | |
Research focus, purpose and method are unclear | Author appears to have read little and understood less than necessary. No conceptual or theoretical discussion of any value | No primary research of any value | Not providing evidence knowing what the outcome is about | Scrappy presentation, illogical structure, no argument or silly ones | Giving ambiguous answers and showing clear lack of systematic, abstract thinking |
