Human ressources management

ASSESSMENT 1C (30%): Answer ALL three (3) questions Submission Deadline - Sunday 31/10/2021 23:59 CEST

MINI-CASE: The EEA Water Department

A number of years ago, the European Environmental Agency (EEA) created The Subsidy Management

Program (SMP) within the Water Department. The main functions of the program are to review requests for

government financial support for community projects and engineering design reports. Also, they need to

perform operation and maintenance inspections of waste-water treatment facilities. Paul Wagner, head of

the SMP, supervised four engineers, one technician, and one secretary. Three of the engineers were quite

new to the agency within the last four months. The senior engineer, Winona Burrell, had approximately three

years' experience in the SMP.

Winona Burrell’s experience meant that Paul Wagner assigned her the areas with the most complicated

projects within the department. The other three engineers were assigned areas with less complex projects

but worked closely with Burrell to learn all they could about the program from her over the next two months.

At the beginning of 2020, Paul Wagner decided the new engineers had enough experience to do more difficult

tasks; therefore, the SMP work could be shared on a more equal basis with each new engineer having

responsibility for two or three geographical areas. This arrangement seemed to work well as the whole Water

Department succeeded in reaching its objectives at the end of the first quarter. This was an excellent outcome

as the whole team of SMP engineers had only been fully together for about six months. However, at the

same time as these results appeared, Paul Wagner was offered a job with a consulting engineering company

and he decided to leave the EEA. He gave two months' notice to top management.

During those two months top management did not advertise for a new SMP head. However, on the Monday

of Wagner's final week, senior management of the EEA met with staff of the Water Department. They

announced that, until a permanent SMP head could be found, they had appointed a temporary head of the

SMP Samuel Kutzman, a senior engineer from another EEA department – the whole SMP team were very

surprised.

Q1. Describe and analyse in detail likely responsibilities and tasks of engineers in the mini-case. Use

theories and concepts studied during the course to suggest what might be present in the HR planning

process of this department that is causing the recent success of the MPS.

Q2. Paul Wagner left the EEA for a variety of reasons. Considering the context of today’s workplace, what

might these reasons have been? Evaluate in detail what aspects of his job content and job design might

have been improved to encourage him to stay longer with the SMP. Use concepts learned on the course,

your own research and the case context to develop your arguments.

Q3. After the appointment of Samuel Kutzman, a variety of pandemic measures needed to be introduced to

the SMP department. Discuss what impact these measures might have had on specific functions in the

human resource department of the EEA. Moreover, analyse to what extent you believe these measures

might have had some influence on his appointment rather than Winona Burrell.

COURSE CODE: BCO213 - COURSE NAME: HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Task brief & rubrics

TASK:

• This an INDVIDUAL task

• Respond to ALL three questions in written form; i.e. diagrams, images, tables etc. should NOT be included in the text or word count

• Each response in each part carries EQUAL WEIGHT i.e. 10%

• The case-study is fictional

• Include reference sources using the HARVARD protocol

• Submission to Turnitin

Formalities:

• TOTAL Wordcount 3 questions 750 – 1000 words (approx. 250-333 words per question)

• Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are EXCLUDED from the total wordcount.

• Font: Arial 12 pts.

• Line-spacing 1.5 - 2.0

• Text alignment: Justified.

• The in-text citations, reference list and/or the bibliography must be in HARVARD’S style.

Submission Deadline:

ASSESSMENT 1: Submission Deadline - Sunday 31/10/2021 23:59 CEST; Weight: This task is 30% of your total grade for this subject.

Assessment 1 has the following learning outcomes:

• Outcome 1: Understand the Human Resources function inside the enterprise, describe and analyze responsibilities and tasks.

• Outcome 2: Interpret job analysis and apply job design.

• Outcome 3: Understand different stages of human resources planning.

Rubrics

Exceptional 90-100 Good 80-89 Fair 70-79 Marginal fail 60-69

Knowledge & Understanding

(20%)

Student demonstrates excellent understanding of key concepts and uses vocabulary in an entirely appropriate manner.

Student demonstrates good understanding of the task and mentions some relevant concepts and demonstrates use of the relevant vocabulary.

Student understands the task and provides minimum theory and/or some use of vocabulary.

Student understands the task and attempts to answer the question but does not mention key concepts or uses minimum amount of relevant vocabulary.

Application (30%) Student applies fully relevant knowledge from the topics delivered in class.

Student applies mostly relevant knowledge from the topics delivered in class.

Student applies some relevant knowledge from the topics delivered in class. Misunderstanding may be evident.

Student applies little relevant knowledge from the topics delivered in class. Misunderstands are evident.

Critical Thinking (30%)

Student critically assesses in excellent ways, drawing outstanding conclusions from relevant authors.

Student critically assesses in good ways, drawing conclusions from relevant authors and references.

Student provides some insights but stays on the surface of the topic. References may not be relevant.

Student makes little or non- critical thinking insights, does not quote appropriate authors, and does not provide valid sources.

Communication (20%)

Student communicates their ideas extremely clearly and concisely, respecting word count, grammar and spellcheck

Student communicates their ideas clearly and concisely, respecting word count, grammar and spellcheck

Student communicates their ideas with some clarity and concision. It may be slightly over or under the wordcount limit. Some misspelling errors may be evident.

Student communicates their ideas in a somewhat unclear and unconcise way. Does not reach or does exceed wordcount excessively and misspelling errors are evident.