Case study with ppt slides
Page | 4 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Assessment 3: Case Study Analysis and Presentation Due date: Week 11 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 2,500 words Weighting: 35% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-3, ULO-4 Assessment Details: This assignment requires student to analyse a given case study pertaining to organizational Project Program and Portfolio Management (P3M) and to write response to the questions to demonstrate their critically understanding of the scenario. The Case Study is available at Assessment 3_Case Study Analysis_LorryMerr Corporation (SBM1105o, T220) to download. Student is also required to present his/her strategic recommendation in a separate presentation session. Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 35% of the total unit mark and consist of two parts: Written and Presentation. Rubrics for written part (Report: Maximum marks possible is 67): Marking Criteria Not satisfactory (0-49%) of the criterion mark Satisfactory (50-64%) of the criterion mark Good (65-74%) of the criterion mark Very Good (75-84%) of the criterion mark Excellent (85-100%) of the criterion mark Case Study Analysis (60 %) The response pertaining to case study questions are missing or unclear or inaccurate and/or irrelevant. The response pertaining to case study questions are generally evident but are vague, incomplete and/or have some inaccuracies. The response pertaining to case study questions are answered and summarized accurately for most parts but some Informations are irrelevant and/or inaccurate The response pertaining to case study questions are well answered and summarized with minimal irrelevant or inaccurate information; arguments are supported by reference. The response pertaining to case study questions are very well answered supported by good summary; goes beyond expectation to support argument from extra readings which are well referenced. Strategy for P3M implementation is also discussed. Clarity of expression (20 %) The writing is poor with no logical flow and many grammatical errors. The writing is satisfactory exhibiting majority of grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with some spelling or typing errors. The writing is fluent and coherent with good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with minor spelling or typing error. The writing is fluent and coherent with very good presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no spelling or typing error. The writing is fluent and coherent with excellent presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no minor spelling or typing error. Academic writing and referencing (20%) Demonstration of a limited sense of purpose or theme and insufficient The writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues. The presentation and referencing mostly conforms to The writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the The writing perceives a sense of the wider context of the ides. Page | 5 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: understanding g of the topic. Information is limited, unclear and the depth is not adequately developed. The idea is a simple restatement of the topic. The presentation and referencing show insufficient application of the appropriate Harvard style guide and presentation guideline. The reader is left with questions. It requires further information to clarify main arguments. The presentation and referencing show some application of the appropriate Harvard style guide and presentation guideline the appropriate Harvard style guide and presentation guideline argument who is left in no doubt of the purpose. The presentation and referencing conform to the appropriate Harvard style guide presentation guideline The presentation and referencing are appropriate and consistent with the Harvard style guide and presentation guideline. Rubrics for presentation part (Oral presentation: Maximum marks possible is 33): Marking Criteria Not satisfactory (0-49%) of the criterion mark Satisfactory (50-64%) of the criterion mark Good (65-74%) of the criterion mark Very Good (75-84%) of the criterion mark Excellent (85-100%) of the criterion mark Criteria 1 (20% marks): Visual Appeal There are too many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. The slides were difficult to read, and slides contained information copied onto them from another source. No visual appeal. There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information was contained on many slides. Minimal effort made to make slides appealing. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on more than three or more slides. Presentation has good visual appeal. There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on two or more slides. Presentation has significant visual appeal. There are no errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Presentation is visually appealing/engaging Criteria 2 (40% marks): Topic knowledge/content Presenter didn’t understand topic. The presentation was a brief summary of the case study; many questions were left unanswered; majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out. Presenter showed understanding of some parts of topic; only some questions are accurately answered; no strategic recommendation was provided. Presenter showed understanding of topic and presented a good summary of the case study; most of the questions are answered and a simple strategic recommendation was presented. Presenter showed very good understanding of topic and case study was well summarised with almost all-important information covered; A good discussion on strategic recommendation was presented. Presenter showed an extensive knowledge of topic by answering all questions pertaining to the case study; a very well- argued strategic recommendation was presented; presentation was comprehensive and included all relevant information. Criteria 3 (20% marks): Presentation Skills Inappropriate/disinter ested body language; presentation is not engaging; presenter spoke too quickly or too slowly making it difficult to understand. Presentation was superficially not so engaging; tone and clarity of speech was of satisfactory level. Presentation was engaging; tone and clarity of speech was good with appropriate body language. Presentation was very engaging; tone, pitch and clarity of speech was very good; presented in a professional manner. Presentation was excellent and very engaging; tone, pitch and clarity of speech was excellent; presented in a very professional manner with good body language and appropriate attire and look. Page | 6 Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 55 Regent Street, Chippendale, Sydney 2008: 02-9318 8111 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D Approved: Criteria 4 (20% marks): Preparedness Unbalanced presentation or Evident lack of preparation/rehearsal Dependence on slides. Simple presentation; dependence on slides for most of the time; preparedness was satisfactory. Demonstration of good preparedness; dependent on slide is minimal; some concepts were explained beyond what was written in slide. Very well prepared and rehearsed presentation; dependence in slide in explaining concepts is very minimal. Extremely prepared and rehearsed presentation; no dependence in slide in explain concepts. Page 1 of 6 Adopted from: Case Studies in Project, Program and Organizational Project Management. John Wiley & Sons) LorryMer Corporation LorryMer Corporation was a leader in a specialized motor vehicle industry in North America. In the early 2000s its sales began to suffer substantially due to the recession in the U.S. economy. As a result, the company was forced to change its primary strategic objectives to focus on cost efficiency. It needed to cut operating costs to improve the company ’ s competitive position. LorryMer specializes in the design, development, and manufacture of a complete line of technologically advanced motor vehicles. The company has been in business for more than six decades, and now operates seven major vehicle manufacturing plants and one parts manufacturing plant in North America. With more than 14,000 employees, its mission is to provide the highest standard of technological innovation and premium quality to its customers. LorryMer remains committed to the highest degree of innovation and quality, and is dedicated to meeting its customers ’ needs. Saul McBarney, LorryMer ’s information technology (IT) program management officer, has been with the company for 25 years. Saul is proud of the company’s history, strategy, and background. “ We are unique in terms of listening to the customers. We find out what customers’ business needs are first, and then develop products for them that meet their needs. ” However, 2001 was a painful year for LorryMer. As a result of economic hardship in the motor vehicle industry, the company ’ s sales and profits dropped, and its losses exceeded $ 1 billion.