MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY
sk2323
guidlinesforassignment3submission.pptxAssignment 3
Role of Operations Manager of a software consultancy firm
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.
You 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.
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 make decisions by collecting data and transforming it into information that leads to decisions;.
On one level of abstraction this pattern applies to most operations – the detail changes. Measures of performance still matter.
On one level of abstraction whether the company is party hire or stage equipment hire or tools hire is not a lot of difference
| 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 | 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. |
| 2. Utilise theories/tools/ideas to understand the case | 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 |
| 3. Development of clear recommendations on the OM for the case | 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. |
| 4.Presentation & referencing | 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. |
| Criteria for Action plan | expected level of content |
| Criteria for reflection | expected level of content |
| 1. Depth of Reflection | Response demonstrates an in- depth reflection on, and personalization 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. |
| 2. Required components | 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. |
| 3. Development of clear conclusions as to how to improve process | 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. |
| 4.Presentation & referencing | 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. |
Some guidelines: 1.Action plan file/document should be named as : action plan-(group leader’s name).doc 2.Name all the group members name in the cover page. Second page should be the table of content 3..Reflection should be named as reflection-(your name).doc 4.Peer review should attached to the last page of the reflection. Format is the same as the earlier assignments. 5. Total word count of Action plan +reflection should be 3500 words
Structure of the action plan
| I. Identify 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; II. A reasoned selection of theories and tools that help them to think about the case they are addressing. Some student mentioned the chapters and the relevance theorem that they applies. Then the full marks were given if not part of the marks were given III. The logical selection of tools, techniques, standards and controls that reflects a consideration of a variety of situations. The flow of the information should be flown correctly IV. Ability to collaborate to create an action plan that responds to the changes in the business environment Hope you will improve your assignment writing based on the review comments given in your assignments. |
| Name of the leader of the group: | |||
| your scores | Member1 name | Member2 name | |
| Student # | |||
| Criteria | |||
| Quality of Output (5 marks) | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Timeliness of work produced5 marks) | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Attendance and/or participation in group processes:5 marks) | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Willingness to share, to assist others: (5 marks) | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Total of peer mark evaluation(30) | 20 /20=(100%) | 18/20=(90%) | 18/20=(90%) |
| Action plan (15) | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| reflectipon (15) | 10 | 8 | 12 |
| Total marks of your assignment (30) | 22 | 20 | 24 |
| allocated % (30) | 100 | 90 | 90 |
| Final marks | 73.33333333 | 60 | 72 |
Sample of peer review mark and final grading calculation
