operation management .

Assignment2Rubric.docx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >operation management .

Criteria	Unacceptable	Requires Further Development	Satisfactory	Good	Very Good	Exemplary
1. Executive Summary (Weight 5)	No Exec Summary or very poor attempt. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐1.4)	Does not summarise the main points in the report. (Range 1.5-‐-‐-‐2.4)	Some attempt at summarising the main points, but misses important information or contains unimportant information. (Range 2.5-‐-‐-‐2.9)	Good summary of the main findings, with only a little extra or missing information. (Range 3.0-‐-‐-‐3.4)	Clearly summaries the important results in the report. (Range 3.5-‐-‐-‐3.9)	Excellent summary of key findings and recommendation(s). Clearly presented with concise and fluent wording. (Range 4.0-‐-‐-‐5)
1. Score	0.7	2.0	2.7	3.2	3.7	4.5
2. Introduction (Weight 5)	No Introduction or very poor attempt. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐1.4)	Does not introduce the situation adequately (Range 1.5-‐-‐-‐2.4)	Passable description but does not set the scene adequately for the next section (Range 2.5-‐-‐-‐2.9)	Good description of the conditions which prepare the reader for the analysis following (Range 3.0-‐-‐-‐3.4)	Very insightful description leading smoothly into the problem analysis (Range 3.5-‐-‐-‐3.9)	Use of industry literature to set the broader industry level scene as well (Range 4.0-‐-‐-‐5)
2. Score	0.7	2.0	2.7	3.2	3.7	4.5
3. Problem analysis (Weight 20)	Demonstrates no ability to clearly and succinctly define the operations challenge or identify relevant contextual factors. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐5.9)	Demonstrates a limited ability to clearly and succinctly define the selected operations challenge, including identifying relevant contextual factors. (Range 6-‐-‐-‐9.9)	Demonstrates a satisfactory ability to construct a clear and succinct statement about the operations challenge with some evidence of relevant contextual factors and reference to relevant literature. (Range 10-‐-‐-‐11.9)	Demonstrates a good ability to independently define a clear and succinct problem(s) with evidence of relevant contextual factors and reference to relevant literature. (Range 12.0-‐-‐-‐13.9)	Demonstrates a very good ability to independently and expertly define a clear and succinct problem(s) with evidence of relevant contextual factors and well-‐integrated literature references. (Range 14-‐-‐-‐15.9)	Demonstrates an exceedingly high ability to expertly construct a clear, succinct and insightful statement about a problem(s) with evidence of all relevant contextual factors and numerous well-‐integrated literature and references. (Range 16.0-‐-‐-‐20.0)
3. Score	3	7.5	11	13	15	18
4. Current Performance Analysis (Weight 20)	No evidence of comparative benchmarks. No logical examination of the operations requirements to solve the challenge. (Range 0 -‐-‐-‐5.09)	Examination of feasible benchmarks is partially lacking. Incomplete consideration of appropriate operational requirements and techniques to solve the challenge. (Range 6-‐-‐-‐9.9)	Some consideration of benchmarks. Reasonable discussion of operational requirements, but misses some points in the discussion and fails to fully examine the range of options. (Range 10-‐-‐-‐11.9)	Good consideration of comparative benchmarks. Provides suitable evaluations of operational requirements/ techniques and clear discussion of the potential for improvement. (Range 12.0-‐-‐-‐13.9)	Very good evaluation of comparative benchmarks. Comprehensive evaluation of operational requirements/ techniques and clear identification of the types of changes that are required. (Range 14-‐-‐-‐15.9)	Excellent evaluation of comparative benchmarks. Evaluation of operational requirements/techniques contains an authoritative, expert, insightful explanation. Logically and clearly leads onto the selection and justification of the recommended solution section to follow. (Range 16-‐-‐-‐20)
4. Score	3	7.5	11	13	15	18

MPM792 Assessment Rubric for Assignment 2, T1 2019.

Criteria	Unacceptable	Requires Further Development	Satisfactory	Good	Very Good	Exemplary
5. Recommended solution (Weight 30)	Specific recommendation(s) fail to take into account the complexities of the issues. Other options are not considered. Recommendations are weak. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐8.9)	Specific recommendation(s) take into account a very limited view of the complexities of an issue. Other points of view are not consistently acknowledged. (Range 9-‐-‐-‐14.9)	Specific recommendation(s) are expertly presented and accurately take into account the complexities of issues. Other points of view are sometimes acknowledged and integrated where appropriate. (Range 15-‐-‐-‐17.9)	Specific recommendation(s) are expertly presented and accurately take into account the complexities of issues. Other points of view are often acknowledged and integrated where appropriate. (Range 18.0-‐-‐-‐20.9)	Specific recommendation(s) are presented expertly, authoritatively and imaginatively, accurately taking into account the complexities of the issue. Limits of position are acknowledged. Other points of view are synthesised within position. (Range 21-‐-‐-‐23.9)	Specific recommendation(s) are presented expertly, authoritatively and highly imaginatively, accurately taking into account the complexities of the issue. Limits of position are acknowledged. Other points of view are expertly synthesised within position. (Range 24-‐-‐-‐30)
5. Score	4.5	12	16.5	19.5	22.5	27
6. Summary and conclusion (Weight 10)	Cursory statement (Range 0-‐-‐-‐2.9)	Provide a brief description of the findings (Range 3.0-‐-‐-‐4.9)	Introduced the principal findings, with appropriate priority and direction for action (Range 5.0-‐-‐-‐5.9)	Connected the findings with the original problem to demonstrate why the recommendations were desirable (Range 6.0-‐-‐-‐6.9)	Provided a balanced and compelling argument for change based on the recommendations, and drawing attention to the key aspects of the findings (Range 7.0-‐-‐-‐7.9)	Providing a compelling argument, drawing attention to the key aspects of the findings and making use of the literature to support the case. (Range 8.0-‐-‐-‐10)
6. Score	1.5	4	5.5	6.5	7.5	9
7. References (Weight 10)	Fails to use literature or presents information from inappropriate sources representing very limited points of view or approaches. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐3.9)	Often presents complex information from inappropriate sources representing limited points of view or approaches. Does not synthesise information and/or demonstrate an advanced, integrated understanding in any area. (Range 3-‐-‐-‐4.9)	Presents information from relevant sources representing various points of view or approaches, and consolidates and synthesizes information. (Range 5-‐-‐-‐5.9)	Presents complex information from relevant sources representing various points of view or approaches, and does a good job of consolidating and synthesising information. (Range 6-‐-‐-‐6.9)	Synthesises information and knowledge from a range of relevant sources representing various points of view, approaches or cultural contexts, and does a very good job of consolidating and synthesising information. (Range 7-‐-‐-‐7.9)	Synthesises complex information and knowledge from a broad range of relevant sources representing various points of view, approaches or cultural contexts, and does an excellent job of consolidating and synthesising information. (Range 8-‐-‐-‐10)
7. Score	1.5	4.0	5.5	6.5	7.5	10

Criteria	Unacceptable	Requires Further Development	Satisfactory	Good	Very Good	Exemplary
Overall Score	0-‐-‐29	30-‐-‐49	50-‐-‐59	60-‐-‐69	70-‐-‐79	80—100
Grade	N	N	P	C	D	HD
	Fail	Failed marginally	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction