Operations Management and Decision-Making Models Discussion Forums

$6.00

Submission 1 Brisbane – Woolsworth

Overall the presentation is comprehensive and detailed, although the key terms have not been defined or explained. However, the terms are well applied to the context of the company, but it would have been better if the terms were defined and explained first before application.   It has given detailed information that is well supported by evidence, which include examples from the company. This can be improved by using evidence from other sources and referencing them. The authors make credible conclusions based on the analysis of the facts presented.  The organization and the associated industry is explained to some extent but not to the required details. Important detail about the industry has not been discussed. The operational strengths of the company have been discussed in greater details and the weaknesses are also explained to some extent. The presentation would have been stronger if the authors explained the operational weaknesses in greater details. From the presentation of the Woolworth strategy, I have learned the need to adapt strategy to the market environment because this is what has helped Woolworth overcome the dynamic retail industry.

Category:

Description

Assessment Information
Subject Code:
Subject Name:
Assessment Title:
Weighting:
Total Marks:
Due Date:

MBA503
Operations Management and Decision-Making Models
Assessment 3 – Individual Commentary on Nominated Presentations
15%
100
Monday of Week 12 – 23.55 AEST

.
Assessment Description
Submission: Online discussion forum
Length: 200-300 words per post
Late submission possible: No
Assessment brief
Individual students will participate in the development of an on-line discussion forum where they will
provide their reflection and evaluation of the content of two (2) of the other groups’
presentations. The presentations for evaluation will be selected by the lecturer and posted in the
discussion forums. The quality of the content of each posting will be assessed so each student will be
marked on his or her contribution to the forum. Evaluation criteria to be considered in your posting:
A. Content
 Were key terms explained?
 Was the importance of the information clarified?
 Were claims supported with evidence?
 Were any conclusions drawn or important implications indicated?
 Were the organisation and its associated industry accurately portrayed?
 Were the operational strengths and weaknesses accurately identified?
 What did you learn from the presentation that helped your understanding of operations
management and decision-making?
B. Organisation and technical detail of presentation
 Was a plan of the presentation obvious?
 Were the slides (visuals) clear and precise?
 Was there a neat layout improved by good background and use of colour?
 Were there any spelling or grammar errors?
 Did the presentation have particular impact for you?
C. Quality of your postings
 Evidence of critical thinking and analysis
 Timeliness of posting – not left until the last moment to post or respond

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further
reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86
098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.
Criteria F (Fail)
0%-49%

P (Pass)
50%-64%

CR (Credit)
65%-74%

D (Distinction)
75% – 84%

HD (High Distinction)
85%-100%

Mark

Assessment Content (MBA503 Assessment 3) OUT OF 100 MARKS
A. Content
•Were key terms explained?
•Was the importance of the
information clarified?
•Were claims supported with
evidence?
•Were any conclusions drawn
or important implications
indicated?
•Were the organisation and its
associated industry accurately
portrayed?
•Were the operational
strengths and weaknesses
accurately identified?
•What did you learn from the
presentation that helped your
understanding of operations

management and decision-
making?

Postings are generally off the
topic or are brief/single word
responses. Adds poorly or
does not add to
discussions. Contradicts
others without basis or
evidence. Vague or uses
assertions. Little or no use
of referencing or
information to support
views

Responds to questions and
contributes to the discussion.
Indicates basic
understanding of the
presentation content. Some
justification of opinions
expressed.

Responds to questions
and contributes to the
discussion. Indicates
competent
understanding of the
presentation content.
Expanding on postings
from colleagues.
Contributes well to flow
of discussions. Some
analysis and reference
to materials.

Very good responses to
questions and contributes to
the discussion. Indicates
good understanding of the
presentation content.
Expanding on postings from
colleagues. Contributes well
to flow of discussions.
Shows good insight into the
topic. Very good analysis of
and reference to material
presented to support
position.

Clearly articulated responses to
questions involving argument
and discussion. Adds to
knowledge and understanding of
topic. Interprets and answers
questions and acknowledges
responses from colleagues,
promoting engagement in
discussion amongst colleagues
and fully advancing discussions.
All comments fully supported
/50

B.Organisation and technical
detail of presentation
•Was a plan of the presentation
obvious?
•Were the slides (visuals) clear
and precise?
•Was there a neat layout
improved by good background
and use of colour?
•Were there any spelling and
grammar errors?
•Did the presentation have
particular impact for you?

Poor or very basic
commentary on the
organisation and the
technical aspects of the
presentation. No effort to
identify the good or weak
sections of the
presentation. No
suggestions for
improvement.

Basic commentary on the
organisation and the
technical aspects of the
presentation. No specific
identification of strong or
weak elements in the
presentation. No
suggestions for
improvement made.

Good commentary on the
organisation and the technical
aspects of the presentation.
Highlights strong and weak
aspects of the presentation
without suggestions for
improvement.

Very good commentary on the
organisation and the technical
aspects of the presentation.
Identifies the strong and weak
aspects of the presentation and
makes constructive criticism when
necessary.

Excellent commentary on the
organisation and the technical
aspects of the presentation.
Identifies the strong and weak
aspects of the presentation and
makes constructive criticism when
necessary.

/30

C.Quality of your postings
•Evidence of critical thinking and
analysis
•Timeliness of posting – not left
until the last moment to post or
respond

Makes incomplete or no
postings within time
frames. Posts no
response to question
and/or no response to
colleagues for each
assessment. Few or no
postings comply with word
limits

Posts one (1) response
to questions and one (1)
response to most
colleagues’ postings for
each assessment, within
time frames. Each
posting is a minimum of
200 words and a
maximum 300 words.

Posts more than one (1)
response to questions and at
least one (1) response to
colleagues’ postings for each
assessment, within time
frames. Each posting is a
minimum of 200 words and a
maximum 300 words

Posts more than one (1) response
to questions and at least one (1)
response to colleagues’ postings
for each assessment, within time
frames. Each posting is a
minimum of 200 words and a
maximum 300 words. Initiates a
dialogue on the topic.

Posts more than one (1) response
to questions and at least one (1)
response to colleagues’ postings
for each assessment, within time
frames. Each posting is a minimum
of 200 words and a maximum 300
words. Initiates a dialogue on the
topic and prompts contributions
from other students.

/20

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further
reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86
098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.
Assessment Marking Rubric