MGT610 Organisational Best practice Assignment 1 Part B
| ASSESSMENT 2 BRIEF | |
| Subject Code and Title | MGT610 Organisational Best Practice |
| Assessment | Case Study Analysis; Part B |
| Individual/Group | Individual |
| Length | 2500 words |
| Learning Outcomes | These assessments address the following Subject Learning Outcomes: Critically analyze the role that best practice play in organizational competitivenessEvaluate organizational performance against best practice benchmarks and apply these benchmarks to establish organizational improvements |
| Submission | Due by 11:55 pm AEST/AEDT Friday of Module 4.2 (Week 8). |
| Weighting | 40% |
| Total Marks | 40 marks |
Context
Once an opportunity for business improvement has been identified, solutions must be developed and assessed with a view of their holistic effects on the business’s long-term sustainability. This “future-proofing” assessment asks you to build on your understanding of benchmarking by developing scenarios related to the opportunity for business improvement identified in Case Study Analysis; Part A. Your analysis should specify a range of potential outcomes and specify metrics and processes by which the enterprise’s executive can track progress and/or measure the impact of changes.
These scenarios are intended to inform decisions made by executive management about the future direction of the organization. As such, you should write a report for executive management that recommends a particular course of action and the benchmarks by which its progress and success can be measured.
Instructions
For the organization for which you completed Assessment 1, Case Study Analysis; Part A you now need to present at least three (3) alternative futures that could occur for this organization over a period of up to five (5) years in response to changes to the business environment. Choose your preferred one (1) of these futures and identify key benchmarks and milestones you would use to ensure your organization is maximizing the benefits from the opportunity that this scenario presents.
Output/deliverables and parameters of the assessment:
You should submit a report for the attention of the CEO/Managing Director of the organization you chose in Assessment 1, Case Study Analysis; Part A which should be no more than 12 pages in length including references and appendices, and should include a minimum of four (4) benchmark measures in the discussion. The report should clearly identify a preferred scenario that may emerge from the effect of several environmental factors on the organization with respect to the business improvement opportunity identified. The report should recommend a set of at least four (4) benchmarks with milestones that can be used to assess the organization’s long-term business sustainability and progress towards this scenario.
Whilst the format may vary for your report, below is suggested format for you to follow:
- Cover page
- Executive Summary [approximately 400 words]
- A concise summary of the main report in bullet points
- Introduction (approx. 300 words)
- Outline the opportunity identified in the enterprise’s operation.
- Main Discussion / Weakness [1000- 1500 words]
- What environmental factors may affect the opportunity identified?
- Propose at least three scenarios likely to emerge from these possible effects.
- Which scenario is preferred for the organization’s long-term sustainability?
- What benchmarks and milestones can be used to assess the organization’s progress towards this preferred scenario?
- Recommendations / Conclusion [300 words]
- Why is this analysis significant?
- What steps should be taken from here?
- Appendices where applicable
Your case study will be assessed based on the Rubric below and is limited to a word count of 2500 words excluding the cover page.
Referencing:
You must recognize all sources of information; including images that you include in your work. Reference your work according to the APA 6th edition guidelines. Please see more information on referencing here http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing
Submission Instructions
Submit your report in the Assessment 2 Case Study Analysis; Part B submission link in the Assessment section found in the main navigation menu of the subject Blackboard site. A rubric will be attached to the assessment. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Please note the following additional information
- You should adhere to the correct use of academic writing, presentation, and grammar.
- It is important to check your similarity in Turnitin. All sentences highlighted must be either paraphrased in your own words or put in quotes and referenced accordingly. You should be
aiming for as low a similarity score as you can. Similarity highlighted in a contents page, reference list, or appendices is nothing to be concerned about.
- It is important to adopt the appropriate use of the APA 6th edition style when citing and referencing research. Please comply with all academic standards of legibility, referencing, and bibliographical details (including reference list).
- You are advised to include a minimum of five (5) academic references which should be textbooks or academic journals. Appropriate websites may be used in addition to these.
- The attached learning rubric guides the marker when awarding marks for your essay. You should review your paper in line with this, to ensure there is nothing you have missed.
Assessment Rubric: MGT610 Assessment 1 Case Study Analysis; Part B
| Assessment Attributes | Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49% | Pass (Functional) 50-64% | Credit (Proficient) 65-74% | Distinction (Advanced) 75 -84% | High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% |
| Applied knowledge of business analysis in creating future scenarios. 25% | Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge Key components of the assignment are not all addressed. | Adequate Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline. Key components of the assignment are all addressed. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. | Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Explores the limits & strengths of current knowledge Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. | Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s. Discriminates between an assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Evaluates the limits & strengths of current knowledge. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. | Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s. Systematically and critically discriminates between the assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Extends the limits & strengths of current knowledge. Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning. |
| Application with the synthesis of new | Limited synthesis and analysis. | Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new | Well-developed analysis and synthesis with | Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and | Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, |
| knowledge in developing benchmarks for future performance. 25% | Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis. | knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. | application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. | synthesis with the application of pretested models and/or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. | synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases. |
| Evaluation of strategic position and strategic options in selecting preferred outcomes. 25% | Specific positions and options fail to take into account complexities or positions and options are unsupported. | Presents and succinctly discusses relevant and supported strategic positions and options. | Presents and succinctly discusses relevant and supported strategic positions and options and includes limitations. | Presents and succinctly discusses relevant and supported strategic positions and options and includes limitations and implications. | Presents and succinctly discusses relevant and supported strategic positions and options, includes limitations and implications, and offers alternatives. |
| Effective Communication 25% | Difficult to understand for the audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, the argument lacks supporting evidence. The audience cannot follow the line of reasoning. | Information, arguments, and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. The line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. | Information, arguments, and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. The line of reasoning is easy to follow. | Information, arguments, and evidence are very well presented; the presentation is logical, clear, and well supported by evidence. Demonstrates cultural sensitivity. | Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments. Engages and sustains the audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high |