operation management . please place bid who have good knowledge in OM
user189
Assignment1Rubric.pdf
MPM792 Assessment Rubric for Assignment 1, T1 2019.
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 overview, but does
not describe what you have
done in the report adequately
(Range 2 . 5---2.9)
Good description of the
project you have
undertaken which
prepares 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)
Introduces some useful
concepts which you draw
on later in your report
(Range 4.0---5)
2. Score 0.7 2.0 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.5
3. Current
Operational
Issue
(Weight 10)
No Introduction or
very poor attempt.
(Range 0---2.9)
Does not describe the
operational or competitive
issue adequately
(Range 3 ---4.9)
Passable description, but brief
and does not contribute to the
arguments in the remainder of
the report
(Range 5 ---5.9)
Competent description
of the issues and its
causes from an
operational perspective
(Range 6 .0---6.9)
Very insightful
description of the
situation, leading
smoothly into the
problem analysis
(Range 7 ---7.9)
Introduces some useful
concepts which you utilise
later in your report
(Range 8---10)
3. Score 1.5 4 5.5 6.5 7.5 9
4. Benefits,
disadvantages
and alternatives
(Weight 25)
Demonstrates no
ability to clearly and
succinctly analyse
provided data and
answer the
question.
(Range 0---7.4)
Demonstrates a limited
ability to clearly and
succinctly analyse the
data and provide
relevant responses.
(Range 7 . 5 ---12.4)
Demonstrates a satisfactory
ability to construct a clear and
succinct argument based on a
complete analysis of the data
as instructed.
(Range 1 2 . 5 ---14.9)
Efficient and clear
assessment of the data
with some thoughtful
observations.
(Range 15.0---17.4)
Comprehensive analysis of the
data, very well presented with
some thoughtful observations
and references to the
literature.
(Range 17.5---19.9)
Goes beyond the basic
instructions and considers how
the current store development
approach and systems limit the
benefits that can be achieved to
set up the answer to the next
two questions
(Range 20.0---25.0)
4. Score 3.7 10 13.75 16.25
18.75 23
MPM792 Assessment Rubric for Assignment 1, T1 2019.
Criteria Unacceptable Requires Further
Development Satisfactory Good Very Good Exemplary
5. Best option recommendati on (Weight 25)
No evidence of use
of the previous
analysis and the
data to identify the
best option.
(Range 0 ---7.4)
Some analysis and
argument, but does not
draw a clear and
supported conclusion.
(Range 7.5---12.4)
Competent assessment of the
analysis results from the
previous answer and basic
comments regarding how this
could be achieved in practice.
(Range 12.5---14.9)
Tidy and well presented
assessment of the analysis
from the previous answer
and some good arguments
for your conclusions.
(Range 15.0---17.4)
Precise and well presented
assessment of the analysis from
the previous answer drawing a
clear conclusion on the basis of
the relative overall merit of
each of the alternatives.
Compares with similar
comparisons in the literature.
(Range 17.5---19.9)
Excellent assessment of the
analysis results, relating back
to the main operational issue,
other practicalities and the
limitations of the analysis in
the previous answer, including
considerations from the
literature. Includes comments
setting the scene for the
answer to the next question.
(Range 20---25)
5. Score 3.7 10 13.75 16.25
18.75 23
6. Further
recommende
d for a
different
process
(Weight 20)
Specific
recommendation(s)
fail to take into
account the
company objectives.
Recommendations
are weak.
(Range 0---5.9)
Specific
recommendation(s) take
into account the
objectives of growth,
efficiency and customer
needs, but points are not
consistently argued.
(Range 6---9.9)
Specific recommendation(s)
are well presented and
accurately take into account
the company objectives.
Other points of view are
sometimes acknowledged
and integrated where
appropriate.
(Range 10---11.9)
Specific
recommendation(s) are
expertly presented and
accurately take into
account the objectives.
Other points of view
from the literature are
often acknowledged and
integrated where
appropriate.
(Range 12.0---13.9)
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 14---15.9)
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 used to extend the
argument.
(Range 16---20)
6. Score 3 8 11 13 15 18
7. Measuring
success of
recommenda
tions
(Weight 5)
Cursory statement
(Range 0---1.4)
Provides a basic description of measurement of outcomes
(Range 1.5---2.4)
Introduced basic benchmarking and measurements (Range2. 5---2.9)
Formation of a base benchmarking performance plan
(Range 3.0---3.4)
Provision of a well considered benchmarking plan and suggested benchmarking data
(Range 3.5---3.9)
Providing a compelling benchmarking plan together with benchmarking data that should be utilised.
(Range 4---5)
7. Score
MPM792 Assessment Rubric for Assignment 1, T1 2019.
Criteria Unacceptable Requires Further Development
Satisfactory Good Very Good Exemplary
8. Summary
and
conclusion
(Weight 5)
Cursory statement
(Range 0---1.4)
Provide a brief description of the findings
(Range 1.5---2.4)
Introduced the principal findings, with appropriate priority and direction for action
(Range 2.5---2.9)
Connected the findings with the original problem to demonstrate why the recommendations were desirable
(Range30---3.4)
Provided a balanced and compelling argument for change based on the recommendations, and drawing attention to the key aspects of the findings
(Range 3.5---3.9)
Providing a compelling argument, drawing attention to the key aspects of the findings and making use of the literature to support the case.
(Range 4.0---5)
8. Score
. Score
0.7 2.0 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.5
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
