ASSESSMENT 1 BRIEF |
|
Subject Code and Title |
MGT603: Systems Thinking |
Assessment |
Part A: Proposal Individual (500 Words) Part B: Critique (500 Words) |
Individual/Group |
Individual |
Length |
Part A: One (1) Original Post (maximum 500 words) Part B: Two (2) Critiques, Each critique max. 250 words |
Learning Outcomes |
a) Critically evaluate the paradigms of Systems Thinking conceptualization and its application to contemporary business issues |
Weighting |
Part A: 20% Part B: 20% |
Total Marks |
Part A: 20 marks Part B: 20 marks |
Context:
Systems thinking requires us to take a holistic view of the world we live in and the organisations we work with. This assessment has been prescribed to appraise students’ ability to think holistically and generate discussion around recognising and understanding organisational operations using a Systems Thinking lens. The assessment will broaden students’ knowledge of and appreciation for using a different approach to look for and solve problems faced by managers in contemporary organisations.
This assessment has been designed to:
Guidelines: There are two (2) parts to MGT603 Assessment 1. For an acceptable result, you will need to complete both Part A and Part B of MGT603 Assessment 1.
MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A):
Task Instructions:
From the below list, please select only ONE case organisation for your Assessment 1 (Part A) and follow the provided instructions within theMGT603 Assessment Brief 1.
(1) case organisation for MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A).
Key points to consider in your MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A):
1, 1.1, etc.).
MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part B):
Task Instructions:
Key points to consider in your MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part B):
MGT03 Assessment 1 (Part A) and (Part B) Submission Instructions:
The Learning Facilitator will provide constructive feedback via the Grade Centre in the Student portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Learning Rubric: MGT603 Systems Thinking Assessment 1 Part A and 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% |
Knowledge and understanding (technical and theoretical knowledge) Understands theoretical models and concepts Percentage for this criterion 25% |
Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge Key components of the assignment are not addressed. Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are not addressed. Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are not identified. |
Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are addressed at very preliminary level. Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are used but at very superficial level. |
Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are addressed at appropriate level. Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are used with clarity. |
Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s. Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are addressed comprehensively. Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are used with high level of understanding. |
A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s. Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning. Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are addressed thoroughly. Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are used demonstrating mastery in the use of these tools. |
Context, Audience and Purpose Percentage for this criterion 25% |
Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. |
Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. |
Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. |
Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment. |
Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment. |
Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge Percentage for this criterion 25% |
Limited synthesis and analysis. Limited application/ Recommendations based upon analysis. No critique on the peers’ posts. Just summarized the peers’ posts. |
Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. Critiqued on the peers’ post however, there is lack of depth and insight. |
Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. Critiqued on the peers’ post with appropriate depth and insight. |
Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. Critiqued on the peers’ post comprehensively covering most of the missing aspect. |
Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, 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. Critiqued on the peers’ post comprehensively covering most of the missing aspects with creative insights. |
Effective Communication Percentage for this criterion 15% |
Difficult to understand, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. Audience cannot follow the line of reasoning. |
Information, arguments, and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. |
Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. Line of reasoning is easy to follow. |
Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the proposal and critique is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. |
Expertly presented; the proposal and critique is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments. |
Assessment Attributes |
Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49% |
Pass (Functional) 50-64% |
Credit (Proficient) 65-74% |
Distinction (Advanced) 75-84% |
High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% |
Correct citation of key resources and evidence Percentage for this criterion 10% |
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. |
Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. |
Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. |
Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within the organisation for sourcing evidence. |
Demonstrates use of highquality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence. |
Follow Us