MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY

Assignment 3:

Case 3 was meant to have been loaded – how many have it? If not use  https://youtu.be/R_pR3GYIVWA

 

This is a service based case – the level of complexity is it is a service entity providing support to a business selling a service – access to hire equipment. So tell students to think in terms of service provision.

 

Students are acting as OM to the software consultancy firm – they have to operate the analysis of support software and hardware provided to the hire company. To understand that they need to think what services do the customers of the hire company want. If company A support company B who provides support to companies C and individuals D; then A has to understand C and D to understand B.

On one level of abstraction this pattern applies to most operations – the detail changes. Measures of performance still matter. It would be easy to look at dialysis and the tight QA criteria – every OM has QA standards to meet which need to be thought through.

 

With reflections the question pointed to the first thing to do is think about how to reflect. Push them in that direction.

 

Some points to discuss:

 

Just what job is L’chaim doing? It is easy to focus on the hardware/software mix but that does not illuminate the relationship. The consultants are setting up processes to assist managers in Severen make decisions by collecting data and transforming it into information that leads to decisions; subtle difference yes, but profound in terms of what questions to ask and how they are answered.

On one level of abstraction whether the company is party hire or stage equipment hire or tools hire is not a lot of difference BUT  saying all are the same is dangerous – what makes Severen – the unique elements must be addressed.

Assessment item 3

Action Plan & Reflection: software consultancy

Value: 50%

Due date: 03-Jun-2018

Return date: 26-Jun-2018

Length: Maximum 3,500 words combined

Submission method options

Alternative submission method

Task

This is the last case you are completing. The task is the same, the criteria are the same. The first case was a relatively stable situation, the 2nd was an unstable circumstance and the this a a rather tenuous working relationship. Consultants cosntantly work with different sets of people pursuing different ends even though it has a common element using technology.

There is a totally different set of arrangements in this case:       different clients;      different staff;      different goals; and      different tools used.

Again you will have looked at more ideas in your text.

Again there are 3 submissions:

1. The group report (Action Plan);  2. Individual reflections on the process of thinking through OM; abd 3. Peer moderation.  

Moderated peer weighting process

A moderated peer weighting will be applied to each person’s mark in the group report. This is done to take account of issues that arise in groups from time to time, where some members may not put in the work that is needed to meet the group task. For example, if, on average, the peers in Tom’s group give him a weighting of 4 lots of 5 (20), then the mark awarded to Tom for this assessment will be 100% (20/20) of the mark that I award to the group.

Each group member will be asked to give a grade (1-5) to their perceptions of the contribution made by each member of the group. This will be a confidential process. The perceived weighting will be based on the following criteria: • Quality of output • Timeliness of work produced • Attendance and/or participation in group processes • Willingness to share, to assist others.

This will be applied to all 3 assignments. The form for this moderation process is available on the interact site; it will be submitted via TURNITIN.  

Action Plan:

As per the previous assessments this is the group presentation.

Based on this material you will be expected to construct an Action Plan as a group. The Action Plan should reflect the questions you have discussed in your tutorial groups, a consideration of a variety of situations that could arise that would affect the action plan, and your group’s independent research on the topic.

Your action plan will achieve the following:

I. Identifying a coherent set of questions that need to be addressed in order to understand the situation as well as think through what actions needed in order to achieve the desired operations and defend that selection - make sure it is a coherent set of questions; II. A reasoned selection of theories and tools that help you think about the case you are addressing (you will select from ALL the tools studied to date); III. An understanding of where information that assists you deal with the case comes from and look for information that challenges what you have assumed; IV. The logical selection of tools, techniques, standards and controls that reflects a consideration of a variety of situations; V. How it considers every aspect of the case study: situation faced, who, how, what, where, when - this is a dynamic situation so 'things' are dynamic; VI. Your ability to collaborate to create an action plan that responds to the changes in the emergency environment; VII. The way your action plan reflects the inquiry process completed in your groups.

You can use tools such as mind mapping to organise the questions into a organised set. Questions do not operate in isolation rather each informs others in a certain order.

 Reflection:

This will follow the same process as outlined for assignment #1. You will write an individual reflection, explaining the thought process behind the action plan. The following models an approach to thinking through reflection. 

Each of these elements can be reflected on:

1. Reflections on the thinking process – the role of the questions, the manner they were, how they were answered and what information was used; 2. The theories/tools chosen and how they improved the thinking (using those studied to date); 3. The manner of operations of your tutorial group; 4. Specific questions as to the process;  5. Coping with the dynamic nature of an emergency; and 6. Changes proposed to improve the process.

An issue that is not transparent is once a question is defined one limits thinking within that particular area. Having manufactured a range of chemical products including material used in manufacture of soft drinks such a situation could be defined as “a system to defined chemical inputs to achieve a predicted chemical product” yet an alternative could be “a system to create chemicals to improve flavour and sensation elements to improve carbonated beverages. Each leads to different behaviour – can you identify the implicit system definition that guided your inquiry.

1. What system definition did you assume in your inquiry?;  2. What alternative definition might apply?; and 3. What changes if the alternative was used?

Remember there is an additional element to sonsider -       reflect on the process of reflection -       how can it be done better?

You will be expected to undertake independent research in order to write the reflection, and to use correct academic referencing.

Rationale

Again, this is about how to think. Be professional, generate answers.

Upon completion of this assignment you will be able to:

1 analyse and critically appraise an organisation's operations (your frame of questions will have greater capacity to plan and analyse using them improved as well as be clearly ordered into logical arrangements); 2 be able to determine and apply appropriate tools and techniques in a variety of operations situations (your studies will have provided you with an extensive set of tools and theories to draw upon - as a result you will select and use those appropriate to the situation at a greater level of competence); 3 be able to collect, analyse and interpret operational data (you will draw on specific data dealing with operational matters to inform decision making and look beyond the immediately obvious); 4 be able to formulate and evaluate alternative approaches in operations management (you will be articulating different ways operational needs can be met alongside logical means of choosing between them); 5 be able to establish standards and develop controls applicable to various processes (having defined whether you know you are meeting the expectations and ways to take corrective actions); and 6 be able to respond to changes in the business environment by deploying the appropriate operation's strategy (you will recognise and begin to deal with volatility through developing thinking skills capable of dealing with such situations).  

 

Marking criteria

 

The same criteria used for assignment #1 apply to this assignment.  The change here is the range of theories/tools you are expected to consider; it is those studied to this stage of the subject.

 Crieria for group report

Criteria	HD (85% - 100%)	DI (75% - 84%)	CR (65% - 74%)	PS (50% - 64%)	FL (0- 49%)
1. Capacity to ask Einstein’s “proper questions” so as to investigate the situation so as to analyse and critically appraise an organisation's operations (6 marks)  [meets subject LO1, LO6]	Explain why the set of questions leads to insights in thinking through the OM implications of the case.  Questions organised in a logical framework showing inter- relationships.  Capacity to address the implications of the assumed position taken in posing the questions asked as well as alternative stances available. Understand both benefit and limitation of the questions.	Describe the set of questions developed to think through the OM implications of the case.  Questions logically arranged.  An awareness implications of the assumed position taken in posing the questions asked covering limitations as well as potential benefit.	Describe the set of questions developed to think through the OM implications of the case.  A degree of organisation of the questions. Some awareness of the limitations of the questions.	Describe the set of questions developed relating to the OM implications of the case. Questions listed.	Inadequate or poor set of questions. No organisation of questions. Lack understanding of alternative questions to ask.
2. Utilise theories/tools/ideas to understand the case  (3 marks)  [meets subject LO2, LO3]	Provides a sophisticated explanation of the choices of theories/ tools/ ideas/ concepts. Explain the limitations and implications of use of that technology to the process of inquiry. Explain the benefit and limitations of the technology to the organisation’s future. Identify alternative technologies to the process of inquiry.	Provides a description of the choices of theories/ tools/ ideas/ concepts. Explain the role of that technology to the process of inquiry. Describe the benefit/ limitations of the technology to the organisation’s future.	Provides a description of the choices of theories/ tools/ ideas/ concepts. Describe the theories/ tools/ ideas/ concepts. Describe the benefit of the technology to the organisation’s future.	Provides a description of the choices of theories/ tools/ ideas/ concepts. Describe the benefit of the theories/ tools/ ideas/ concepts.	List the choices of theories/ tools/ ideas/ concepts. Little identification of the benefit of the theories/ tools/ ideas/ concepts.
3. Development of clear recommendations on the OM for the case (3 marks) [meets subject LO3, LO4, LO5]	A sophisticated and logically organised explanation of the OM conclusions drawn. Identification of alternatives as well as a means to choose between them. Clear portrayal of areas of operations which pose risk/ benefit.	A clear and logical description of the OM conclusions drawn. Identification of potential alternatives. Some understanding of areas of operations which pose risk/benefit.	A clear and logical description of the OM conclusions drawn. Identification of potential alternatives. Some understanding of areas of operations which pose risk/ benefit.	A description of agreements/ disagreements with the ideas/ concepts presented that includes illustration from the field but lacking explanation of reasoning.	Lacks critical reflection in that only a description of limited scope or depth of what is agreed with or disagreed with in the ideas/ concepts and their application is provided.
4.Presentation & referencing (3 marks)	The argument is logically structured, the argument flows and wording is succinct. An economy of words is achieved with minimal material that contributes little to the argument. 3+ highly relevant refereed journal articles demonstrating insightful research on this topic. A polished and imaginative approach to the topic.	The argument is structured on the basis of logic as well as generates a transparent flow of ideas within the assignment. 2+ very relevant refereed journal articles presented in perfect APA style. Articles used to very good effect in the response.	The argument is structured on the basis of a logical flow of ideas and evidence gathered. 2 relevant refereed journal articles presented in APA style. Articles used to good effect in the response. Adequate organisation and coherence.	The argument is transparently structured against the task posed. References are appropriate for an assignment (in terms of relevance or academic standing). 2 relevant resources that are appropriate.	The argument lacks structure, logic and flow. References are either inappropriate for an assignment (in terms of relevance or academic standing) or not appropriately used. <2 relevant sources - many references that are inappropriate or misused will also generate a fail here.

Criteria for reflection

Criteria	HD (85% - 100%)	DI (75% - 84%)	CR (65% - 74%)	PS (50% - 64%)	FL (0- 49%)
1. Depth of Reflection (6 marks)  [meets subject LO1, LO6]	Response demonstrates an in- depth reflection on, and personalisation of, the process of inquiry given in the model above, theories, concepts, and/ or strategies presented in the course materials to date.  Viewpoints and interpretations are insightful and well supported.  Clear, detailed examples are provided, as applicable.	Response demonstrates a sound reflection on, and personalisation of, the process of inquiry given in the model above, theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the course materials to date.  Argument is well supported.  Examples are provided, as applicable.	Response demonstrates reflection on the theories, concepts, and/ or strategies presented in the course materials to date. Argument is well supported. Examples are provided, as applicable.	Response demonstrates reflection on the theories, concepts, and/ or strategies presented in the course materials to date.  Argument is partly supported. Examples are limited.	Response demonstrates limited reflection on the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the course materials to date.  Argument is not supported. Examples are missing.
2. Required components  (3 marks)  [meets subject LO2]	Response includes appropriate components and meets or exceeds all requirements indicated in the instructions.  Each component is addressed thoroughly.  Clear and logical linkages between the components.	Response includes appropriate components and meets requirements indicated in the instructions.  Each component is addressed.  Logic of choice of components to reflect on obvious.	Response includes some components and meets requirements indicated in the instructions. Components chosen to reflect on have no logic behind their choice.	Response includes some components and meets most requirements indicated in the instructions.	Response includes few components. Little logic behind choice of components to reflect on. Minimal logic behind reflection.
3. Development of clear conclusions as to how to improve process (3 marks)  [meets subject LO1, LO2, LO3]	Reflections and conclusions lead to clear improvements to the process of inquiry. Logic of the conclusions transparent. Capacity to act on the conclusions transparent and logical. Reasoning behind conclusions transparent.	Reflections and conclusions lead to improvements to the process of inquiry. Logic of the conclusions described not argued. Capacity to act on the conclusions is present. Reasoning behind conclusions not obvious.	Reflections and conclusions lead to improvements to the process of inquiry. Logic of the conclusions not presented. Capacity to act on the conclusions stated.	Reflections and conclusions lead to improvements to the process of inquiry. Conclusions stated not argued.	Few reflections or conclusions. Poor link to future improvements. Little logic or argumentation
4.Presentation & referencing (3 marks)	The argument is logically structured, the argument flows and wording is succinct.  An economy of words is achieved with minimal material that contributes little to the argument.  Appropriate highly relevant refereed journal articles demonstrating insightful research on this topic.  A polished and imaginative approach to the topic.	The argument is structured on the basis of logic as well as generates a transparent flow of ideas within the assignment.  Very relevant refereed journal articles presented in perfect APA style.  Articles used to very good effect in the response.	The argument is structured on the basis of a logical flow of ideas and evidence gathered.  Relevant refereed journal articles presented in APA style.  Articles used to good effect in the response. Adequate organisation and coherence.	The argument is transparently structured against the task posed.  References are appropriate for an assignment (in terms of relevance or academic standing).  Relevant resources that are appropriate.	The argument lacks structure, logic and flow. References are either inappropriate for an assignment (in terms of relevance or academic standing) or not appropriately used. Few relevant sources - many references that are inappropriate or misused will also generate a fail here.

 

Presentation

There are 2 presentations to make:

1. A group presentation - 1 copy for the group with everyone's name listed against it.        The format of the group presentation is negotiable - this subject is using flexible assessment.        I will look for logic, structure and evidence. Discuss this with me.

2. An individual submission covering your reflections - as part of this submission you will provide an assessment of your peers contribution to dealing with the case.      The format for this presentation will normally be an essay - it is possible to negotiate this.      Use the reflection model to help structure your response.

Requirements

You are required to use the APA 6th edition style of referencing and citation in all assignments - CSU's referencing tool can assist here https://apps.csu.edu.au/reftool/apa-6

I expect you to argue your case based on evidence. Why should anyone believe what you say unless you can defend your claims? There is where evidence is critical. APA referencing is merely a tool to help you point at the evidence.