BUMGT5980 – Assessment Task 3 Title: Solution Application – individual essay Due date: Week 5 Word limit: 2000 words excluding reference list and appendices Weighting/Value: 30% Presentation requirements: In this assignment you are expected to follow the problem solving stages (start with course Topics 1-3) to identify a specific problem, generate and evaluate solutions and devise an implementation plan. You should take some time to identify a problem suitable for this assignment. This may have been, say, a past problem you’ve encountered at work, a situation reported in the media or a case study based on a fictitious scenario. Your task is to address this problem in a new way by application of tools and methods starting with those enunciated by Wood et al. (2009). Four more (at minimum) academic references should be cited in the report. Specific tasks or report elements: 1. Problem background 2. Problem definition 3. Solution generation 4. Solution evaluation 5. Implementation and action plan Suggested marking weights and possible feedback comments* Criteria Suggested Mark Possible choice of feedback comments General Criteria 12 Structure – appropriate, professional and accessible 1 • Very poorly structured and confusing to read. • Structure is adequate, but you could use more subheadings to improve clarity. • Very well structured with the clarity required of a professional report Process – reasoned, coherent and consistent 4 • It is not at all clear what process you are following for problem solving. • Description of problem solving process and rationale is adequate, but could benefit from more information and/or consistency in application. • Description of problem solving process is adequate, but you have failed to justify your choice based on the nature of the problem • Good description of problem solving process and rationale, with good level of detail. • Very good description of problem solving process and rationale, with very good level of detail. • Excellent description of problem solving process and rationale, with excellent level of detail. Solution – original, compelling, and justified 2 • Description of solution and justification lacks the detail and substance to make a convincing argument that it would help solve the problem. • Description of is adequate, but have failed to justify your choice based. • Description of solution and justification is adequate, but could benefit from more detail on the features of the problem. • Good description of solution and justification of choice, with good level of detail. • Very good description of solution and justification of choice, with very good level of detail. • Excellent description of solution and justification of choice, with excellent level of detail. Application of appropriate tools and techniques 4 • The choice and application of tools and techniques is poorly and inappropriately applied at the different stages of the problem solving process. • The choice and application of tools and techniques has not been consistently applied to the appropriate stages of the problem solving process. • The application of tools and techniques is adequate, but could benefit from more detail when applying the tools. • Good application of the tools and techniques. • Very good application of the tools and techniques. • Excellent application of the tools and techniques. Professional presentation including references 1 • Presentation is of a very poor standard, with many spelling and grammatical mistakes, and an inadequate/or missing reference list. • Presentation is adequate, but referencing is poor/missing. • Presentation is adequate with occasional spelling/grammatical mistakes. • Good presentation and referencing. • Very good presentation and referencing. • Excellent presentation and referencing. Specific criteria 18 Problem identification – validity and clarity 4 • Very poor identification of the problem, with little or no use of appropriate tools and techniques. • Poor identification of the problem, with inconsistent use of appropriate tools and techniques. • Adequate identification of the problem and use of appropriate tools and techniques. • Good identification of the problem and use of appropriate tools and techniques. • Very good identification of the problem and use of appropriate tools and techniques. • Excellent identification of the problem and use of appropriate tools and techniques. Solution generation – creativity and scope 4 • Idea generation has been poorly thought out and has very little evidence of creativity or a new way of solving the problem. • Idea generation has only addressed a limited part of the problem, but it has not addressed the scope of the problem. • Idea generation displays some divergent thinking but would benefit from more detail. • Interesting idea generation with good use of tools. • Very interesting idea generation with very good use of tools. • Excellent idea generation with excellent use of tools. Solution evaluation – logical and practical 4 • Solution evaluation is poorly formulated, lacks detail and/or does not use any of the available tools. • Solution evaluation has not used logical approaches to appraise the ideas and choose the “best” for implementation. • Solution evaluation has not considered practical issues to appraise the ideas and choose the “best” for implementation. • Good solution evaluation with good use of appropriate tools. • Very good solution evaluation with very good use of appropriate tools. • Excellent solution evaluation with excellent use of appropriate tools. Implementation – relevant issues considered 3 • Very poor level of detail and use of implementation tools. • Adequate level of detail and use of implementation tools. • Good level of detail and use of implementation tools. • Very good level of detail and use of implementation tools. • Excellent level of detail and use of implementation tools. Action Plan – consistent, rational and succinct 3 • Action plan does not identify the major steps that should be follows to implement the change. • Action plan does not include a timeline to indicate the timing of the major steps for implementation. • Action plan is not consistent in the nature and level of detail. • Action plan has tool much detail and is confusing. • Action plan is good, being clear and concise. • Action plan is excellent, being clear, concise and well thought out.. Andrew Finegan, 2015