2500 link

MIDTERM

ASSESSMENT

Task 1.3: Creating a Culture of Quality

Assessment type: Written assignment

Description: After reading the document, please answer to the following question and justify with a critical thinking approach

https://hbr.org/2014/04/creating-a-culture-of-quality

Forum

Fail

0-59%

Borderline fail 60-69%

Fair

70-79%

Good 80-89%

Exceptional 90-100%

Posts reflect limited or

inaccurate understanding of content, with frequent errors in terminology and minimal use of relevant concepts. Connections to course material or peers’ posts are weak, unclear, or entirely absent, and contributions do not advance the discussion. Collaboration is minimal, with little or no meaningful engagement with others’ posts, often

limited to brief agreement or irrelevant comments. Posts are inconsistently on time or frequently late, limiting their contribution to the forum. Professional conventions are often disregarded, with tone or language that lacks respect, clarity, or adherence to online communication standards.

Posts reflect basic understanding, with partial or vague use of key concepts and limited examples. Connections to course material and peers’ contributions are minimal and may lack depth or clarity.

Limited engagement with others, mostly agreeing without adding new

perspectives. Posts are generally on time, though often near the deadline, limiting peer interaction. Shows inconsistent observance of conventions, with occasional issues in tone, grammar, or respect.

Posts show adequate understanding of content, using relevant concepts but with some inaccuracies or lack of detail.

Connections to course material and peers’ posts are evident, though they may not consistently deepen the discussion. Engages with peers, typically through agreement or limited elaboration. Posts are timely overall, though not always early enough to drive extended engagement. Follows conventions generally, with a respectful tone and occasional minor lapses in clarity.

Posts reflect solid content knowledge, with appropriate use of concepts and terminology across most posts. Ideas connect well to course topics and

demonstrate relevance to professional practice. Contributions engage with others’ posts, often adding details or posing thoughtful questions. Posts are timely and submitted within deadlines, encouraging participation. Mostly follows conventions, with respectful, clear, and polite

communication. Minor issues in grammar or style may appear.

Posts show sophisticated content understanding, demonstrated through thorough use of relevant concepts and terminology across most posts. Ideas connect clearly to course material and professional practice, with insightful examples and critical engagement.

Consistently engages with peers, prompting new ideas or extending discussions. All posts are timely, fostering an active, ongoing conversation. Adheres to online conventions, showing respect, positivity, and polished language in all interactions.

Written

assignment

Presentation

Exam

Fail

0-59%

Borderline fail 60-69%

Fair

70-79%

Good 80-89%

Exceptional 90-100%

Purpose &

Understanding

Very poor coverage of central purpose, goals, research questions or arguments with little relevant information evident. Virtually no

Minimal understanding of purpose of the study; factual errors evident. Gaps in knowledge and

superficial

Reasonable understanding and clearly identifies the purpose, goals, research questions or argument.

A sound grasp of, and clearly identifies, the purpose, goals, research questions or argument. Some wider study beyond the

Effectively describes and explains the central purpose, arguments, research questions, or goals of the project;

evidence of understanding or focus.

understanding. A few lines of relevant material.

Reflect partial achievement of learning outcomes.

classroom content shown.

explanation is focused, detailed and compelling. Recognition of alternative forms of evidence beyond that supplied in the classroom.

Content

Content is unclear, inaccurate and/or incomplete. Brief and irrelevant. Descriptive. Only personal views offered. Unsubstanti ated and does not support the purpose, argument or goals of the project. Reader gains no insight through the content of the project.

Limited content that does not really support the purpose of the report. Very poor coverage. Displays only rudimentary knowledge of the content area. Reader gains few if any insights.

Presents some information that adequately supports the central purpose, arguments, goals, or research questions of the project. Although parts missing, it demonstrates a level

of partially proficient knowledge of the content area. Reader gains some insights.

Presents clear and appropriate information that adequately supports the central purpose, arguments, goals or research questions of the project. Demonstrates satisfactory knowledge of the content area. Reader gains proficient insights.

Presents balanced, significant and valid information that clearly and convincingly supports the central purpose, arguments, research questions or goals of the project.

Demonstrates indepth and specialised knowledge of the content area. The reader gains important insights.

Organization

Information/content is not logically organized or presented. Topics/paragraphs are frequently disjointed and fail to make sense together. Reader cannot identify a line of reasoning and loses interest.

Information/content is not, at times, logically organized or presented. Topics/paragraphs are frequently disjointed which makes the content hard to follow. The reader finds it hard to understand the flow of the report.

Information/conte nt is presented in a reasonable sequence. Topic/p aragraph transition is unclear in places with linkages for the most part. Reader can generally understand and follow the line of reasoning, although work needed to be proficiently organized.

Information/content is presented in a clear and understandable sequence. Topic/paragraph transition is good with clear linkages between sections and arguments. Reader can understand and follow the line of reasoning.

Information/content is presented in a logical, interesting and effective sequence. Topics and arguments flow smoothly and coherently from one to another and are clearly linked. Reader can easily follow the line of reasoning and enjoyed reading the report.

Style & Tone

Writing is poor, unclear and unengaging, and the reader finds it difficult to read and maintain interest. Tone is not professional or suitable for an academic research project. A reorganization and rewrite is needed.

Writing is unengaging and reader finds it difficult to maintain interest. Tone is not consistently professional or suitable for an academic research project. Work needed on academic writing style.

Writing is usually engaging and keeps the reader’s attention. Tone is generally appropriate for an academic research project, although a clearer and more professional style and tone is needed.

Writing style and tone is generally good and sustains interest throughout. Tone is professional and appropriate for an academic research project.

Writing is compelling and sustains interest throughout. Tone is consistently professional and appropriate for an academic research project.

Use of

References

5%

Little or no evidence of reference sources in the report. Content not supported and based on unsubstantiated views.

Most references are from sources that are not peer- reviewed or professional, and have uncertain reliability. Few if any appropriate citations are provided. Reader doubts the

Professionally legitimate references are generally used. Fair citations are presented in most cases. Some of the information/content/ evidence comes from sources that are reliable, but more academic sources

Professionally and academically legitimate references are used. Clear and accurate citations are presented in most cases. The majority of the

information/content /evidence comes

Presents compelling evidence from professionally and academically legitimate sources. Attribution is clear and accurate. References are 75% from primarily peerreviewed

professional journals

validity of much of the material.

needed to be convincing.

from sources that are reliable.

or other approved sources.

Formatting

Research project exhibits no formatting, or frequent and significant

errors in

Harvard formatting.

There are too many errors in the Harvard formatting to be acceptable as a partially proficient piece.

Harvard formatting is employed in the research project with minor errors. A review and rework of format and style of referencing in text and in the bibliography is needed.

Harvard formatting is used accurately and consistently throughout the research project, although some issues are apparent as the reader is unable to find sources.

Harvard formatting is used accurately and

consistently throughout the research project. Accurate hyperlinks are included where required, making it easy for readers to review sources.

Written

Communication

Skills

The written project exhibits multiple errors in grammar, sentence structure and/or spelling. Inadequate writing

skills (e.g.,

weaknesses in language facility and mechanics) hinder readability and contribute to an ineffective research project.

The written project

exhibits errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. The written project comes across as untidy and not properly checked for mistakes. Errors

present in written communication make readability frustrating.

Written research project displays good word choice, language conventions and mechanics with a few minor errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure and/or punctuation. Errors do not represent a major distraction or obscure meaning.

Readability of the project is good due to the clarity of language used. Grammar, spelling and punctuation is without error. Spelling and grammar thoroughly checked.

Readability of the project is enhanced by facility in language use/word choice. Excellent mechanics and syntactic variety. Uses language conventions

effectively (e.g., spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, paragraphing, grammar, etc.).

Oral

Communication

Skills

Oral presentation cannot be understood because there is no logical sequencing of research information. Presenter uses superfluous graphics or no graphics; graphics do not support or relate to the information presented. Presenter reads most or all of the project notes with little or no eye contact. Presenter mumbles,

incorrectly pronounces terms and/or speaks too quietly. Oral presentation rambles, is unclear and cannot be followed by the audience. Presenter is unprofessional,

lacks confidence, is uncomfortable and cannot answer basic questions.

Research information is presented in a sequence that at times is difficult to follow. Graphics support and are related to the content of the project, but presenter reads from slides and does not talk around the topic. Presenter tries to maintains eye contact with the audience but reads from notes too much. Presenter uses good voice dynamics and clearly enunciates terms, however they are uncomfortable for the most part and finds it hard answering questions. Overall, the oral presentation is delivered in a borderline manner and needs more practice and preparation to reach required standards of delivery.

Research information is presented in a sequence that the audience can follow. Graphics support and are related to the content of the project. Presenter maintains eye contact with the audience with a few minor exceptions; presenter reads from notes on a few occasions. Presenter uses good voice dynamics and clearly enunciates terms. Presenter is comfortable for the most part and adequately answers questions. Overall, the oral presentation is delivered in a satisfactory manner and meets expectations with

respect to oral communication skills.

Research information is presented in a sequence that the audience can follow. Graphics support and are related to the content of the project. Presenter maintains eye contact with the audience with a few minor exceptions, seldom returning to notes. Presenter uses good voice dynamics and clearly enunciates terms. Presenter is comfortable and answers questions well. Overall, the oral presentation is delivered in a good manner and meets expectations with

respect to oral communication skills.

Research information is presented in a logical, interesting and effective sequence, which the audience can easily follow. Oral presentation uses effective graphics to explain and reinforce the information presented. Presenter maintains eye contact with audience and does not read from notes. Presenter speaks in a clear voice and uses correct, precise pronunciation of terms. Oral presentation is thorough, clear, compelling, informative and professionally delivered. Presenter is professional, confident and comfortable, and answers questions effectively.

Visual/Aesthetic Design

Visual design is chaotic and lacks coherence. Little to

Visual elements are disorganized and inconsistent, making

Visual elements are somewhat organized but lack consistency

Visual elements are organized and visually appealing,

Outstanding use of visuals that are professional,

no consideration has been given to layout, typography, or color schemes, resulting in an unprofessional and

ineffective presentation.

it difficult to follow the content. Basic effort is evident, but poor layout, illegible text, or clashing colors detract from readability and understanding.

or coherence. Design choices (e.g., fonts, colors) occasionally distract from content but are usable.

with most design choices enhancing understanding and engagement. Some minor improvements needed for a professional finish.

cohesive, and engaging. Design choices (e.g., color, layout, typography) greatly enhance the message and are exceptionally polished.

Analytical /

Critical Thinking

Skills

Research problem, concept or idea is not

clearly articulated, or its component elements are not identified or described. Research information is poorly organized, categorized and/or not examined; research information is often inaccurate or incomplete. Presents little if any analysis or interpretation; inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories to the analysis. Presents few solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are often not well supported, are inaccurate and/or inconsistent, and are presented in a vague or rudimentary manner.

Research problem, concept or idea is not clearly articulated at times and confusing. Research

information is badly organized, categorized, and/or only superficially examined; research information is often incomplete. Presents limited analysis or interpretation; inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories to the analysis. Presents some solutions or conclusions but they are often not well supported, or logical.

Adequately identifies and describes (or sketches out) the research problem, concept or idea and its components. Gathers and examines

information relating to the research problem, concept or idea; presents and appraises research information with some minor inconsistencies, irrelevancies or omissions. Generally applies appropriate research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories although with inaccuracies. Outlines solutions or conclusions that are somewhat logical and consistent with the analysis and evidence; identifies and/or lists solutions or conclusions although not always clearly.

Formulates a clear description of the research problem, concept or idea, and specifies major elements to be examined. Selects information appropriate to addressing the research problem, concept or idea; accurately and appropriately analyses and interprets relevant research information. Effectively applies appropriate research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories in developing and justifying multiple solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are coherent, well supported and complete.

Effectively formulates a clear description of the research problem, concept or idea, and specifies major elements to be examined. Selects and prioritizes information appropriate to addressing the research problem, concept, or idea; accurately and appropriately analyzes and interprets relevant research information. Precisely and effectively applies appropriate research methods, employs advanced skills to conduct research. Uses techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories in developing and justifying multiple solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are insightful, coherent, well supported, logically consistent and complete. Displays a mastery of complex and specialized areas.

Integration

Skills

Shows little ability to employ theory and practice across the functional areas of business in the assessment of issues relating to the research problem, concept, or idea. Does not recognize or correctly identify cross-functional organizational issues relevant to the research problem, concept or idea. Does not adequately evaluate the

Shows some ability to employ theory and practice across the functional areas of business in the assessment of issues relating to the research problem, concept or idea. Recognizes organizational issues relevant to the research problem, concept or idea but does not show understanding. Does not adequately evaluate the research

Exhibits application of principles, theories and practices across the functional areas of business to the analysis of the research problem, concept or idea. With some exceptions, outlines and describes (or sketches out) some cross- functional organizational issues that are relevant to the research problem, concept or

Demonstrates an

ability to integrate and apply principles, theories and practices across the functional areas of business to the analysis of the research problem, concept or

idea. Identifies, examines and

critically evaluates important cross- functional

organizational issues associated with the research problem,

Demonstrates welldeveloped ability to integrate and apply principles, theories and practices across the functional areas of business to the analysis of the research problem, concept or idea. Effectively identifies, examines and

critically evaluates important crossfunctional

organizational issues associated with the research problem,

research problem, concept or idea in light of relevant principles, theories and practices across the business functional areas. Few if any solutions,

recommendations

for action, or conclusions are presented, and/or they are not appropriately justified or supported.

problem, concept or idea in light of relevant principles, theories and practices across the business functional areas. Some solutions offered but difficult to understand.

Recommendations

for action, or conclusions are presented, but they are often not well supported, or logical.

idea. Adequately identifies and describes (or summarizes)

solutions,

recommendations

for action, or conclusions that are, for the most part, appropriate, but which need to be more aligned with principles and concepts in the functional areas of business.

concept or idea. Clearly justifies solutions,

recommendations

for action, or conclusions based on analytics and an insightful synthesis of cross-disciplinary principles and concepts in the functional areas of business.

concept, or idea. Clearly and effectively justifies solutions,

recommendations

for action, or conclusions based on strong analytics and an insightful synthesis of crossdisciplinary principles and concepts in the functional areas of business. Can link thinking across disciplines and contexts.