Organisational Best Practice
Subject Title : Organisational Best Practice
Subject Code : MGMT6014
Assessment : Benchmarking Exercise
context:
context:
Benchmarking
is the process by which organisations measure themselves against their
competitors. There are different types and forms of benchmarking, different
purposes, different measures and different outcomes. This assessment asks you
to demonstrate your understanding of benchmarking by providing a benchmarking
analysis of an organisation of your choice against its competitors or lead
competitor in the field (depending on the form of benchmarking you choose to
undertake).
Instructions:
Select
an organisation and undertake a benchmarking exercise to conclude as to the
positioning of the organisation against its competitors in its industry. Your
report should outline the following elements:
1. Criteria and
justification for selection of benchmarks.
2. The benchmark
measures themselves and interpretation of the results.
3. Recommendations
for action stemming from the benchmarking data.
Output/deliverables and parameters of
the assessment:
You
should submit a report for the attention of the CEO/Managing Director of the
organisation of your choice, which should be no more than 12 pages in length,
including references and appendices, and should include a minimum of 4
benchmark measures in the discussion.
Marking Criteria
•
Selection of appropriate benchmarks,
measures and data for the organisation and its strategic goals and competitor
positioning.
•
Appropriate
analysis of benchmarking data supporting the conclusions being drawn.
•
Critical
reasoning skills, including ethical and moral consideration.
•
Presentation of the report including
referencing and use of appendices, and use of academic conventions.
•
Effective communication of the benefits
of benchmarking to the organisation through the presentation of recommendations
for future action.
Learning Outcomes
•
Examine the role of best practice and
its relationship to organisational competitiveness and develop an effective
plan for benchmarking best practice which can practically be applied to an
organisation.
•
Evaluate organisational performance against
best practice benchmarks and apply these benchmarks to establish organisational
improvements.
•
Critically analyse the role of
qualitative and quantitative tools which support the improvement of key processes
in an organisation.
•
Critically evaluate organisational
culture, team structures and the effective management of human resources and
how these can contribute to the achievement of organisational best practices.
Learning Rubrics
Assessment
|
Fail (Unacceptable)
|
Pass
|
Credit
|
Distinction
|
High Distinction
|
|||||
Attributes
|
(Functional)
|
(Proficient)
|
(Advanced)
|
(Exceptional)
|
||||||
Grade
Description
|
Evidence of unsatisfactory
|
Evidence
of
|
Evidence of a good
|
Evidence of a high
|
Evidence of an
|
|||||
(Grading Scheme)
|
achievement of one
or more of the
|
satisfactory
|
level of
|
level
of
|
exceptional level of
|
|||||
learning objectives
of the course,
|
achievement
of
|
understanding,
|
achievement of
|
achievement of
|
||||||
insufficient understanding of the
|
course
learning
|
knowledge
and skill
|
the learning
|
learning
objectives
|
||||||
course content and/or unsatisfactory
|
objectives, the
|
development
in
|
objectives of
the
|
across
the entire
|
||||||
level of skill development.
|
development of
|
relation
to the
|
course
|
content
of the
|
||||||
relevant skills to a
|
content
of the course
|
demonstrated
in
|
course
|
|||||||
competent level, and
|
or
work of a superior
|
such areas as
|
demonstrated
in
|
|||||||
adequate
|
quality
on the
|
interpretation
|
such
areas as
|
|||||||
interpretation and
|
majority
of the
|
and critical
|
interpretation
and
|
|||||||
critical analysis
skills.
|
learning
objectives of
|
analysis,
logical
|
critical
analysis,
|
|||||||
the course.
|
argument,
use of
|
logical argument,
|
||||||||
Demonstration
of a
|
methodology
and
|
creativity,
originality,
|
||||||||
high
level of
|
communication
|
use
of methodology
|
||||||||
interpretation
and
|
skills.
|
and
communication
|
||||||||
critical
analysis skills.
|
skills.
|
|||||||||
Selection of
|
Does not meet minimum
standard
|
Meets minimum
|
Moves beyond
|
Exceeds minimum
|
Exceeds minimum
|
|||||
appropriate
|
standard
|
minimum standard
|
standard
|
standard and
|
||||||
benchmarks,
|
Demonstrates no awareness of
|
exhibits high levels
|
||||||||
measures
and data
|
context and/or purpose of the
|
Demonstrates limited
|
Demonstrates
|
Demonstrates an
|
of independence
|
|||||
for
the organisation
|
assignment.
|
awareness of context
|
consistent awareness
|
advanced and
|
||||||
and
its strategic
|
and/or purpose of the
|
of context and/or
|
integrated
|
Consistently
|
||||||
goals
and
|
assignment
|
purpose of the
|
understanding of
|
demonstrates a
|
||||||
competitor
|
assignment.
|
context and/or
|
systematic and
|
|||||||
positioning.
|
purpose of the
|
critical
|
||||||||
assignment.
|
understanding of
|
|||||||||
25%
|
context and purpose
|
|||||||||
of the assignment.
|
||||||||||
Makes assertions that
are not
|
the assignment.
|
issue(s) or scope of
|
accurately takes
|
imaginatively,
|
|
justified.
|
the assignment.
|
into account the
|
accurately taking
|
||
Justifies any
|
Others’ points of view
|
complexities of
|
into account the
|
||
Difficulty in formulating own opinion
|
conclusions reached
|
are acknowledged.
|
the issue(s) and
|
complexities of the
|
|
and lack of recognition of ethical
|
with arguments not
|
scope of the
|
issue(s) and scope of
|
||
principles and competing interests.
|
merely assertion.
|
Justifies any
|
assignment.
|
the assignment.
|
|
conclusions reached
|
Limits of position are
|
||||
Does not clearly demonstrate moral-
|
Difficulty in justifying
|
with well-formed
|
Justifies any
|
acknowledged.
|
|
ethical
reasoning.
|
conclusions based on
|
arguments not merely
|
conclusions
|
||
moral-ethical
|
assertion.
|
reached with
|
Justifies any
|
||
principles but
|
well-developed
|
conclusions reached
|
|||
recognises different
|
Conclusions are
|
arguments.
|
with sophisticated
|
||
Viewpoints.
|
justified based on
|
Formulates and
|
arguments.
|
||
moral-ethical
|
|||||
principles.
|
justifies
|
Uses ethical
|
|||
conclusions based
|
principles to identify
|
||||
on moral-ethical
|
competing interests
|
||||
principles.
|
and views.
|
||||
Can recognise the
|
Sophisticated
|
||||
competing
|
understanding of the
|
||||
interests in
|
ethical and moral
|
||||
arguments and
|
positions.
|
||||
identify ethical
|
|||||
issues embodied
|
Well-articulated
|
||||
in them.
|
viewpoint based on
|
||||
moral-ethical
|
|||||
reasoning.
|
|||||
Presentation of the
|
Poorly written with
errors in spelling,
|
Is written
according to
|
Is well-written and
|
Is very well-
|
Expertly written and
|
report
including
|
grammar.
|
academic genre (e.g.
|
adheres to the
|
written and
|
adheres to the
|
referencing
and use
|
with introduction,
|
academic genre (e.g.
|
adheres to the
|
academic genre.
|
|
of
appendices, and
|
Demonstrates inconsistent use of
|
conclusion or
|
with introduction,
|
Academic
genre.
|
good quality, credible
and relevant
|
summary) and has
|
conclusion or
|
Demonstrates expert
|
||
conventions.
|
research sources to support and
|
accurate spelling,
|
summary).
|
Consistently
|
use of high-quality,
|
develop ideas.
|
grammar, sentence
|
demonstrates
|
credible and relevant
|
||
and paragraph
|
Demonstrates
|
expert use of
|
research sources to
|
||
10%
|
There are mistakes in using the APA
|
construction.
|
consistent use of high
|
good quality,
|
support and develop
|
style.
|
quality, credible and
|
credible and
|
arguments and
|
||
Demonstrates
|
relevant research
|
relevant research
|
position statements.
|
||
consistent use of
|
sources to support
|
sources to
|
Shows extensive
|
||
credible and relevant
|
and develop ideas.
|
support and
|
evidence of reading
|
||
research sources to
|
develop
|
beyond the key
|
|||
support and develop
|
There are no mistakes
|
appropriate
|
reading
|
||
ideas, but these are
|
in using the APA style.
|
arguments and
|
|||
not always explicit or
|
statements.
|
There are no
|
|||
well developed.
|
Shows evidence
|
mistakes in using the
|
|||
of reading beyond
|
APA Style.
|
||||
There are no mistakes
|
the key reading
|
||||
in using the APA style.
|
There are no
|
||||
mistakes in using
|
|||||
the APA style.
|
|||||
Effective
|
Difficult to understand
for audience,
|
Information,
|
Information,
|
Information,
|
Expertly presented;
|
communication
of
|
no logical/clear structure, poor flow
|
arguments and
|
arguments and
|
arguments and
|
the presentation is
|
the
benefits of
|
of ideas, argument lacks supporting
|
evidence are
|
evidence are well
|
evidence are very
|
logical, persuasive,
|
benchmarking
to the
|
evidence.
|
presented in a way
|
presented, mostly
|
well presented,
|
and well supported
|
organisation
through
|
that is not always
|
clear flow of ideas
|
the presentation
|
by evidence,
|
|
the
presentation of
|
No effort is made to keep audience
|
clear and logical.
|
and arguments.
|
is logical, clear
|
demonstrating a
|
recommendations
|
engaged, audience cannot follow the
|
and well
|
clear flow of ideas
|
||
for
future action.
|
line of reasoning.
|
Attempts are made to
|
The audience is
|
supported by
|
and arguments.
|
keep the audience
|
mostly engaged, line
|
evidence.
|
|||
20%
|
Little use of
presentation aids, or the
|
engaged, but not
|
of reasoning is easy to
|
Engages and sustains
|
|
presentation aids and material used
|
always successful.
|
follow.
|
Engages the
|
audience’s interest
|
|
are irrelevant.
|
Line of reasoning is
|
audience,
|
in the topic,
|
Comments
Post a Comment