Week three: Assignment two
See pg. 226: “Understanding the Design of Your Company”. Given the current structure of your chosen org., decide whether a redesign (organizational structure change) would help your organization compete more effectively, or reach its mission and values more successfully. Think about reporting relationships and how departments need to work together to achieve results. Your org chart that you retrieved helps you to see the current structure. Now, you must consider what the functions and vision are for the organization and if its structure should change to achieve results. Apply the tenets learned and the grounds and warrants’ principles discussed in the introduction of the course (critical thinking) to defend your position.
Your paper must include the following:
· Describe the current structure of your chosen organization and identify if a redesign (organizational structure change) would be more effective to reach its mission and values more successfully.
· Analyze and compare the current structure with the potential redesigned structure and decide whether or not a redesign or changes would improve results. The analysis should Include information from reporting relationships, how departments function, what department interfaces need to be and what reporting relationships should be.
· Apply the tenets learned and the grounds and warrants’ principles, that support critical thinking to defend your position.
Use at least five scholarly references, excluding the text to support your stance. APA format is a must. Paper should be 4-5 pgs. Make sure you include your organizational chart in an Appendix of your paper. It does not count towards the page count.
TOTAL POINTS=40
BOOK INFO:
https://bookshelf.textbooks.com/reader/books/9781119034377/pageid/90
USER NAME:
[email protected]
PASSWORD: I WILL SEND IN A MESSAGE
Associated PLOs
· #2 Effectively communicate in all forms of expression to relate facts, simplify complexity, customize, and create persuasive arguments for the target audience to improve organizational function and/or to transform organizational vision for all stakeholders.
· #5 Evaluate political, economic, social, technological, workforce, legal, ethical and regulatory factors that impact systems, organizations, communities and individuals at multiple levels along the health care continuum.
· #7 Demonstrate leadership excellence through abilities and behaviors, which include establishing a vision and inspiring and supporting others to work towards that shared vision and related goals.
· #8 Evaluate alternative organizing structures and use organization structure to design performance improvement strategies.
Corresponding Competencies:
· HS1: Apply management theories, approaches, and core functions to routine operations and to current and emerging issues in the health care environment.
· IE2: Translate the results of complex analyses into information that illustrates potential problems and opportunities in a persuasive, meaningful way.
· HS4: Make specific changes in the system or in own work methods to improve performance through evidence-based information and statistical metrics; pursue improvements to make systems work better, faster, at lower cost, more efficiently, and/or more reliably.
· C1: Demonstrate formal and informal communication using traditional and contemporary modalities to convey messages that are clear and cogent for the target audience, which includes all forms of expression and technology that may be employed to reach the audience.
|
|
Excellent
|
Developed
|
Needs Improvement
|
Significantly Underdeveloped
|
Non-Performance
|
|
Describe the current structure of your chosen organization and identify if a redesign will improve performance.
Applies the tenets learned and the grounds and warrants’ principles, that support critical thinking to defend the position.
PLOs 2, 5, 8; HS1, HS4, IE2, C1
|
Describes the functions of either a new or the existing structure and comprehensively analyzes and decides whether a redesign will improve performance or if the current structure achieves results. Defends position with application of theory and how improvements will be achieved. Thoroughly applies the tenets learned and the grounds and warrants’ principles, that support critical thinking to defend the position. The position is fully supported.
|
Describes the current structure of your chosen organization and identifies if a potential redesign or the current design is desirable to achieve results. The description is missing minor details. The analysis is supported with application of theory but is slightly unclear.
Applies the tenets learned and the grounds and warrants’ principles, that support critical thinking to defend the position. The position is supported but is missing minor details.
|
Partially analyzes the current structure with the potential for a redesigned structure and decides whether a redesign (or not) will achieve the needed. results. The analysis is somewhat supported with pertinent information and/or is unclear. Minimally applies the tenets learned and the grounds and warrants’ principles, that support critical thinking to defend the position. The position is somewhat supported and/or is missing many details.
|
Attempts to analyze and compare the current structure with a potential redesigned structure and decides which structure will achieve the needed. results. The analysis is not supported with pertinent information and is significantly unclear.
Attempts to apply the tenets learned and the grounds and warrants’ principles, that support critical thinking to defend the position. The position is unsupported and is missing significant details.
|
The analysis does not address the needed requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 Points
|
15-13 Points
|
13-10 Points
|
10-6 Points
|
6-1 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
Communication: Organization, comprehension and grammar
PLO2;
IE2, C1.
|
The paper is easily understood with logical flow. It is well-organized with application of principles to discuss pros and cons. Sentence structure and grammar is without errors.
|
Paper is easily understood with minor clarity issues and minimal grammar errors. The pros and cons applying principles slightly underdeveloped.
|
Paper is readable but analysis is weak, and grammar is incorrect in several sentences. The application of culture and principles to guide pros and cons is underdeveloped.
|
Most of the paper is unclear and without a thoughtful analysis. Pros and cons of the structure are not discussed consistently using principles or in some cases not at all. Grammar errors are throughout the paper. Paper coherence is substantially lacking.
|
The coherence, analysis and grammar does not address the needed requirements.
|
|
10 Points
|
10-8 Points
|
8-6 Points
|
6-4 Points
|
4-1 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
Relevance: Consistent reference to Org. Chart.
The org chart is referred to in the discussion and organized to target functionality of depts and hierarchy so that the audience can follow the rationale stated.
PLO 7; C1
|
The org chart is consistently referred to and functionality of depts are described with the rationale for the organization and hierarchy.
|
The org chart and the functionality of departments with their respective hierarchies are discussed with minor discrepancies or voids in rationale.
|
The org chart is discussed but not consistently to address departments functionality and hierarchy. Audience has difficulty following rationale.
|
Significant voids and discrepancies in the org chart and department functionality with the respective hierarchy. Audience unable to follow the rationale.
|
The discussion and its targets do not meet the assignment requirements.
|
|
7 Points
|
7-6 Points
|
6-5 Points
|
5-3 Points
|
3-1 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
Evidence-based: Scholarly ref use with APA guidelines
HS1
|
Paper uses at least five scholarly peer-reviewed references excluding the textbook with citations and a reference list using APA format. The textbook is not included in the five.
|
Paper uses at least five scholarly references excluding the text but has minor errors in APA format.
|
May not use the full five references and/or scholarly references are not used, but dot coms or dot orgs. Multiple errors in APA format noted.
|
Few scholarly references are used, and multiple citations are incorrect including reference list format. Significant errors are noted, and references are not applicable.
|
Scholarly reference use does not meet the assignment requirements.
|
|
5 Points
|
5-4 Points
|
4-3 Points
|
3-2 Points
|
2-1 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
Format and scope: Page length and proper placement of Org Chart
The paper is at least 4 to 5 pages long excluding the ref list and Appendix. The org chart is included in the Appendix and not within the text.
C1
|
Paper length is 4-5 pages excluding ref list and Appendix. Org chart is in an Appendix and not in the text.
|
Page length is 3.5 pages excluding ref list and Appendix. Org chart is in the Appendix.
|
Page length is 3.0 pages excluding ref list and Appendix. Org chart is in the Appendix.
|
Page length is 1.5 to 2 pages and/or the org chart may not be in the Appendix. Significant non-compliance with requirements.
|
Page length is unacceptable to meet the assignment’s requirements and does not meet the format requirements for Appendix and reference list.
|
|
5 Points
|
5-4 Points
|
4-3 Points
|
3-2 Points
|
2-1 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL=40
|
|
|
|
Page 1 | 1
dream86
WeekthreeAssignmentandRubricOrgstructureInstructionsHM.docx
