Group Assignment 2 (4,000 Words & Oral Presentation)

Rubric

MGMT90141 Assignment 2
MGMT90141 Assignment 2
Criteria Ratings Pts
Identification and description of the problem to be analysed

3 to >2.0 pts

Very Good to Outstanding
Very good-excellent company background is provided. Business optimisation problem is clearly identified and justified. Company’s requirements / evaluation criteria have been considered to a competent-excellent requirement.

2 to >1.5 pts

Good to Very Good
Good-very good company background is provided. Description of the business optimisation problem and/or justification of selection is/are not entirely clear and can be further improved.

1.5 to >1.0 pts

Satisfactory
Company background is provided to a satisfactory standard. Average description of company’s requirements or evaluation criteria.

1 to >0.5 pts

Basic
Optimisation problem is unclear. Basic justification of selection and identification of the company’s requirements or evaluation criteria.

0.5 to >0 pts

Unsatisfactory / Undeveloped
Problem does not exist. Justification of selection and /or identification of the company’s requirements or evaluation criteria is/are missing.
3 pts
Summary of literature review

2 to >1.5 pts

Very Good to Outstanding
Excellent/thorough research conducted with summary of relevant findings.

1.5 to >1.0 pts

Good to Very Good
Good-very good use of solid and reliable research and findings.

1 to >0.5 pts

Satisfactory
Less clear analysis. Findings are satisfactory and are not all relevant.

0.5 to >0.0 pts

Basic
Basic research is conducted. Research is not integrated. Lack of findings.

0 pts

Unsatisfactory / Undeveloped
Inaccurate or undeveloped review of literature. Selected research is either not relevant or poorly conducted.
2 pts
Description and application of the mathematical modelling approach to analyse and solve the problem

16 to >13.5 pts

Very Good to Outstanding
Very good-outstanding description of the formulation of the problem. Mathematical model is set up in Excel spreadsheet in a logical, clear way and Solver is used to analyse and achieve a solution. Results are interpreted and sensitivity analysis is executed to a high standard.

13.5 to >11.0 pts

Good to Very Good
Optimisation problem is formulated to a good-very good standard. Mathematical modelling approach is described clearly and there is evidence of good-very good application of the Excel Solver to optimize the mathematical model. Sensitivity analysis is executed to a high standard.

11 to >9.0 pts

Satisfactory
Description and application of the mathematical modelling approach to analyse and solve the problem is satisfactory. Parts of the description and/or application are unclear and can be further improved.

9 to >7.5 pts

Basic
Minor parts of the modelling approach are incorrect. A basic application of the mathematical modelling approach is demonstrated. Linkage to the optimisation problem is unclear.

7.5 to >0 pts

Unsatisfactory / Undeveloped
Inaccurate application of the mathematical modelling.
16 pts
Suggestions for courses of action to the company, and critical evaluation of the mathematical modelling approach

7 to >5.5 pts

Very Good to Outstanding
Suggestions for courses of action to the selected company are relevant and the implications for business are clearly explained. The mathematical modelling approach.is analysed and evaluated to a very good-outstanding standard.

5.5 to >4.5 pts

Good to Very Good
Suggestions for courses of action are mostly relevant and the implications for business are somewhat explained. The mathematical modelling approach.is analysed and evaluated to a good-very good standard.

4.5 to >3.5 pts

Satisfactory
Suggestions for courses of action lack relevance and/or impractical. Linkage to company’s requirements or evaluation criteria has not been thoroughly considered.

3.5 to >2.5 pts

Basic
More relevant suggestions for courses of action need to be provided. Evaluation of the modelling approach is basic.

2.5 to >0 pts

Unsatisfactory / Undeveloped
Suggestions of courses of action are missing and/or completely irrelevant. Very weak evaluation of the modelling approach.
7 pts
Structure and Presentation. Use of appropriate language, spelling, grammar, punctuation

2 to >1.5 pts

Very Good to Outstanding
Excellent, accurate, clear and concise written expression, grammar and spelling. Excellent structure. Accurate citations and referencing.

1.5 to >1.0 pts

Good to Very Good
Good to very good written expression. Appropriate use of spelling, grammar and punctuation. Paragraph structures are mostly correct and can be further improved.

1 to >0.5 pts

Satisfactory
Less clear written expression, grammar and spelling demonstrated. Paragraph structure requires improvement.

0.5 to >0.0 pts

Basic
Basic level of written expression. Requires additional support to enhance written expression, grammar and spelling. Paragraph structures require reworking.

0 pts

Unsatisfactory / Undeveloped
Unsatisfactory or undeveloped expression, poor grammar/spelling. Requires additional support for improvement. Paragraph structure is incorrect or very poor.
2 pts
Oral Presentation

5 to >4.0 pts

Very Good to Outstanding
Presentation contains completely accurate information. Introduction is clear; identification and description of the problem to be analysed is laid out well, and establishes a framework for the rest of the presentation. Very good to excellent discussion of the mathematical modelling approach to analyse and solve the problem. There is a clear conclusion summarising the presentation providing suggestions for courses of action to the company, and critical evaluation of the mathematical modelling approach. Presentation is coherent, with clear introduction, transitions, language use, and conclusion. Presentation is polished. Visual aids are well prepared, informative, effective, and not distracting.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good to Very Good
Presentation contains mostly accurate information and appropriate amount of material is prepared. Good to very good discussion of the mathematical modelling approach to analyse and solve the problem. There is evidence of critical evaluation of the mathematical modelling approach, and good to very good suggestions for courses of action to the company. Presentation is coherent and group members show good knowledge of the content, are fluent in the delivery and maintain an effective pace. Visual aids are well prepared and effective.

3 to >2.0 pts

Satisfactory
Presentation contains satisfactory information. Explanations are not quite as complete or helpful but there is an indication of interaction among dimensions; draw some conclusions and make some inferences. Presentation is coherent and polished for most parts. Visual aids are adequate and mostly informative.

2 to >1.0 pts

Basic
Background information is provided but unclear. There is very little insight into how the problem has been optimised and the mathematical modelling approach is not critically evaluated. Presentation is mostly coherent and visual aids are appropriate.

1 to >0 pts

Unsatisfactory / Undeveloped
Insufficient background information. Content is lacking – There is no/lack of critical evaluation of the modelling approach. The mathematical modelling approach to solve the problem is not properly discussed. Presentation lacks coherence and is not polished. Visual aids do not support the oral presentation and are distracting.
5 pts
Total Points: 35