MGT603 Systems Thinking Assessment Help
|
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:
- Appraise your ability to academically research and evaluate paradigms of Systems Thinking conceptualisation and apply to contemporary business issues.
- You are expected to utilise the literature provided in Modules 1 to 3.1 in your analysis and discussion, and are required to apply critical thinking, presenting multi-sided findings.
- Successful completion of this assessment will help you to further understand Systems Thinking in a practical context. It will also help you to maintain currency in the increasingly changing industry.
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:
List of Case Organisations
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.
- Atlassian
- Grill’d3.
- Event Cinemas
- T2 tea
- Strandbags
- Please review the MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A) list of case organisations (found in the Assessment 1 – Part A Proposal Individual & Part B Critique Individual page on MGT603 Blackboard).
- From the MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A) list of case organisations, only choose ONE
(1) case organisation for MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A).
- Read and research widely on the selected case organisation and find out how “COVID19 Pandemic” has created a significant issue/challenge/problem for your selected case organisation in 2021 and how “Systems Thinking Approach” can assist in making optimal decisions.
- You are then required to prepare and post in the Assessment 1 Discussion Forum at least ONE (1) original post identifying intended or unintended consequences on various stakeholders of your chosen organisation and then recommend/propose alternative policies/procedures using Systems Thinking approach to help overcome the problem.
Key points to consider in your MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A):
- Your proposal should be “holistic”.
- You must include references to “Systems Thinking Literature”. Please make sure to use at least 3 academic-related references (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers) and at least 2 other references (e.g. newspaper, magazines, websites, etc.). It is essential to use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. For more information, please check http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing
- Make sure to consider using Systems Thinking tools such as Rich Picture and CATWOE in your MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A).
- Make sure to number all sections and sub-sections within your assessment (e.g.
1, 1.1, etc.).
- All inserted Figures and Tables within the assessment require being labelled and numbered appropriately (e.g. Figure 1: Rich Picture …., Table 1: CATWOE Analysis ….). They all require being initially stated/introduced and then discussed in-detail and in-depth. Please make sure to provide the source/reference for the information expressed via the Figures and Tables.
- Make sure to provide a brief rational of why it is important to use Systems Thinking and relevant tools and techniques to solve the identified organisational problem to minimize adverse consequences.
- Please make sure to write in the “third person” (e.g. The author, The writer, etc.).
- Please ensure your original posts are submitted in the MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A) Discussion Forum by the end of Module 2.2 (Friday of Week 4).
MGT603 Systems Thinking Assessment Answers by assignmenthelp.net plagiarism-free at affordable prices
MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part B):
Task Instructions:
- Each student is required to critique an original post (Part A) of two (2) peers.
- Each Critique should be maximum of 250 words. Overall your Assessment 1 (Part B) should be maximum of 500 words.
- Your Critique should include commentary on:
- Whether the original post is holistic. Please identify missing components, if any, and provide constructive feedback.
- Have all plausible consequences been identified?
- Have Systems Thinking tools been used and used properly? Please provide a critique of these tools and their use in solving the identified problem.
- Please make sure to highlight the authors of the chosen posts.
- Please ensure to submit Assessment 1 (Part B) in the related Discussion Forum Thread, by the end ofModule 3.1 (Friday of Week 5)
- It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research where necessary and required. Please see more information on referencing here http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing
Key points to consider in your MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part B):
- This assessment is designed to create robust discussion around Systems Thinking with your peers. Please feel free to post more than what is specified to broaden your understanding and appreciation of the topic.
- While presenting your views, you are required to support claims either with the relevant experience or with the published literature (e.g. Journal articles, book chapters, relevant website links, news article, magazines).
- The views could be supporting comments and feedback, or they may be a contradiction, but you need to provide appropriate justification as specified above.
- If referring to published literature to support stated views, you are required to cite the reference(s) and list the reference(s) at the end of your response in the “References” section. If you can provide appropriate articles to support an opinion, it will be valued considerably.
- Along with actively participating in the discussions, it is equally important to provide responses, which are relevant and add value to the discussion. The quality of response will be considered as one of the most important criteria for evaluating students in MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part B).
MGT03 Assessment 1 (Part A) and (Part B) Submission Instructions:
- Submit MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part A) via the MGT603 Assessment 1 Part A - Discussion Forum link in the Assessment section found in the main navigation menu of the subject Blackboard site.
- Submit MGT603 Assessment 1 (Part B) via the MGT603 Assessment 1 Part B Discussion Forum link in the Assessment section found in the main navigation menu of the subject Blackboard site.
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. |
