Weightage: 40%
Assignment due date: 11:59pm, Saturday, 23 April 2022 (Changed from 9 April 2022)
Length: 2,000 words (+/-10%) excluding references
Format: Double spacing, Times New Roman, size 12 font
Reference Style: Harvard (http://www1.rmit.edu.au/library/referencing-guides (Links to an external site.)
)
Learning objectives assessed:
|
CLO1
|
Understand what contemporary management issues and challenges are in modern organisations
|
|
CLO2
|
Apply relevant theories to critically examine contemporary management issues and formulate effective solutions to these issues
|
|
CLO3
|
Effectively communicate concepts and arguments learned in contemporary management in a logical, coherent and engaging manner
|
Assessment Declaration:
I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the assessment declaration (Links to an external site.)
.
Details:
Please read the case study and questions here: Assignment 3 - Case Study (40%).pdf
Download Assignment 3 - Case Study (40%).pdf
More Information on the Assignment:
Case studies are based on an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group or event to explore the causes of underlying principles. For this assignment, you are expected to make an individual submission. Nonetheless, you can discuss the issues explored in the case study in groups, but the assignment must be submitted individually and will be put through Turnitin.
A successful case study analyses a real-life situation where existing problems need to be solved. It should:
· Draw on the ideas and knowledge discussed in this coursework to the practical situation at hand in the case study;
· Identify the problems;
· Select the major problems in the case;
· Suggest solutions to these major problems;
· Recommend the best solution to be implemented;
· Detail how this solution should be implemented.
RMIT Learning Lab has more information on how you can read, analyse and respond to a case study: https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/node/1164 (Links to an external site.)
Relevant articles:
Inside the hellish workday of an Amazon warehouse employee: https://nypost.com/2019/07/13/inside-the-hellish-workday-of-an-amazon-warehouse-employee/
Ruthless Quotas at Amazon Are Maiming Employees: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/amazon-warehouse-reports-show-worker-injuries/602530/
Amazon employees who spoke out about climate change could be fired: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/3/21048047/amazon-employees-climate-change-communications-policy-job-risk
Please note that the deadline in the announcement is based on Sunday, 9 April 2022 by 11:59pm, Singapore time, regardless of what you see on the Canvas clock!
(Links to an external site.)
Please see the marking rubric below.
Rubric
Case Study Rubric
|
Case Study Rubric
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeClarify & respond:
Student grasps the purpose of the assignment and fulfils the assignment requirements, taking into account ethical, cultural, social issues associated with management and organisation.
|
|
5 to >4.0 Pts
Advanced (HD) and Self Developing
Student demonstrates creativity and independent thought in fulfilling the purpose of the assignment. Student demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the ethical, cultural, social, and team issues, and explores these in depth. Student ventures beyond the structured guidelines to identify new materials and ideas to fulfil the purpose of the assignment.
|
4 to >3.5 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Student demonstrates a refined understanding of the purpose of the assignment and demonstrates a sound understanding of ethical, cultural, social, and team issues, although does not venture beyond the structured guidelines and literal bounds of the assignment guidelines.
|
3.5 to >3.0 Pts
Competent (CR)
Student grasps the purpose of the assignment and responds to all of the assignment requirements. Student takes into account several ethical, cultural, social, and team issues, although within the structured guidelines and literal bounds of the assignment guidelines.
|
3 to >2.5 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Student demonstrates a limited understanding of the purpose of the assignment and responds to at least some of the assignment requirements. Evidence that the student has attempted to take into account ethical, cultural, social issues.
|
2.5 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
No evidence that the student grasps the purpose of the assignment. The student has not responded to the assignment requirements. No awareness demonstrated of ethical, cultural, social issues.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeFind & generate:
Student finds relevant information and generates data/ideas using appropriate methodologies of inquiry.
|
|
5 to >4.0 Pts
Advanced (HD) and Self Developing
Student engages with prescribed texts in a sophisticated fashion. A wide range of additional information is sourced both creatively and judiciously, demonstrating imagination and conceptual flair. Evidence of mastery of appropriate methodologies of inquiry.
|
4 to >3.5 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Student engages with prescribed texts in depth. A range of relevant, additional information sourced, demonstrating initiative, engagement, and curiosity, which is reflected in the quality of the assignment. Evidence of facility with appropriate methodologies of inquiry.
|
3.5 to >3.0 Pts
Competent (CR)
Student engages to a satisfactory depth with prescribed texts. A limited range of relevant, additional information sourced, demonstrating engagement and curiosity, and enhancing the quality of the assignment. Evidence of use of appropriate methodologies of inquiry.
|
3 to >2.5 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Student engages with prescribed texts only, and in a limited fashion. No identification of additional, relevant information, demonstrating limited engagement and curiosity, which limits the quality of the assignment. Little evidence of use of appropriate methodologies of inquiry.
|
2.5 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Insufficient engagement with prescribed texts. No identification of additional, relevant information, demonstrating an absence of curiosity and engagement, critically limiting the quality of the assignment. No evidence of use of appropriate methodologies of inquiry.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEvaluate & reflect:
Student critiques and determines the credibility of sources, information, data and ideas. Student makes their own research and analytic processes visible and correctly attributes their sources.
|
|
10 to >8.0 Pts
Advanced (HD) and Self Developing
Student demonstrates sophisticated critical evaluation of sources/information/data and ideas, including their own. Assignment displays sustained and rigorous interrogation of ideas and demonstrates considerable creativity by questioning orthodoxy. Student has attributed their sources using the Harvard referencing style with no errors, and displays awareness of the limitations of their own analytic processes and chosen sources.
|
8 to >7.0 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Student demonstrates considerable ability to critically evaluate sources/information/data and ideas, including their own. Assignment displays sustained interrogation of ideas and avoids face-value acceptance of ideas and description. Student has attributed their sources using the Harvard referencing style with few errors, and displays awareness of the limitations of their own analytic processes and chosen sources.
|
7 to >6.0 Pts
Competent (CR)
Student demonstrates ability to critically evaluate sources/information/data and ideas, including their own. The balance of the assignment displays a critical mindset, and avoids face-value acceptance of ideas and description. Student has attributed their sources using the Harvard referencing style, with occasional errors.
|
6 to >5.0 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Student demonstrates limited ability to critically evaluate the credibility of sources/information/data and ideas (both their own and third party ideas), but more often than not reports or describes ideas. Student has attributed their sources using the Harvard referencing style, but with frequent errors.
|
5 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Limited or no critical evaluation of the sources/information/data and ideas (both their own and third party ideas) deployed within their assignment. Student has not correctly attributed their sources using the Harvard referencing style.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeOrganise & manage:
Student organises and structures information & ideas to reveal patterns, themes, and insights.
|
|
5 to >4.0 Pts
Advanced (HD) and Self Developing
Student has independently developed a structure for their assignment that allows them to organise information and ideas elegantly and in a way that enhances the quality and impact of their specific argumentation.
|
4 to >3.5 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Student has experimented with the provided guidelines/structure in a way that suits their specific argumentation and enhances its quality and impact.
|
3.5 to >3.0 Pts
Competent (CR)
Student has organised their information and ideas in accordance with the structured guidelines and has logically unfolded their argumentation.
|
3 to >2.5 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Student has organised their information and ideas in accordance with the structured guidelines, but has not capitalised on the given structure to give shape and force to their argumentation.
|
2.5 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Student has not organised information and ideas in a logical fashion, even with the provision of an appropriate structure/guidelines, critically limiting the quality of their argumentation.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAnalyse & synthesise:
Student analyses information/data critically and synthesises knowledge to produce coherent and contextualised understandings of management and organisation issues.
|
|
10 to >8.0 Pts
Advanced (HD) and Self Developing
Student displays considerable conceptual flair. Sophisticated and novel insights made possible by highly advanced analysis and synthesis skills. Mastery of abstract concepts demonstrated. Contextualised and nuanced understanding of existing theory and practice concerning management and organisation.
|
8 to >7.0 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Student displays advanced analytical and synthesis capability. Ideas within the assignment are integrated and coherent, and allow the student to offer insights that build upon existing ideas. Advanced understanding of existing theory and practice concerning management and organisation.
|
7 to >6.0 Pts
Competent (CR)
Student displays sound analytical and synthesis skills. Assignment is coherent, fulfils the assignment requirements, and displays a sound understanding of existing theory and practice concerning management and organisation.
|
6 to >5.0 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Student displays limited analysis and synthesis of ideas, and only partially responds to the assignment requirements. Coherence of ideas is patchy and understanding of existing theory and practice concerning management and organisation is superficial.
|
5 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Student’s work is descriptive, rather than analytic, and does not synthesise ideas to respond to the assignment requirements. Assignment is incoherent and does not demonstrate an understanding of existing theory and practice concerning management and organisation.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCommunicate & apply:
Student applies their understanding to management and organisation and capably conveys an awareness of the implications of their analysis, heeding ethical, cultural, social issues.
|
|
5 to >4.0 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Student displays flair and skill with discipline-specific language. Expression is appropriate for an academic or professional audience and of a fluency and quality that aids clarity and force of argumentation. Multiple, nuanced implications of analysis are explicit, and demonstrate sophisticated awareness of ethical, cultural, social issues.
|
4 to >3.5 Pts
Advanced (HD) and Self Developing
Student regularly draws on discipline-specific language. Expression is appropriate for an academic or professional audience, and of a fluency and quality that supports argumentation. Implications of analysis are explicit, and demonstrate an advanced awareness of ethical, cultural, social issues.
|
3.5 to >3.0 Pts
Competent (CR)
Student occasionally deploys discipline-specific language. Expression is serviceable for an academic or professional audience, and of a quality that does not undermine argumentation, although lacking in fluency. Some implications of analysis are explicit, and some implications demonstrate an awareness of ethical, cultural, social issues.
|
3 to >2.5 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Student infrequently deploys discipline-specific language. Expression is limited, may not always meet the expectations of an academic or professional audience, and interferes with understanding argumentation. Attempt made to identify implications of analysis and to heed ethical, cultural, social issues.
|
2.5 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Poor quality of expression and absence of discipline-specific language critically hinders intelligibility of argumentation and is inappropriate for an academic or professional audience. None or few implications of analysis identified, and no or little heeding of ethical, cultural, social issues.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
Total points: 40
|
Zcutebb
A3.docx
