Reference no: EM132002449

Assignment : Case 3 was meant to have been loaded - how many have it? If not use

This is a service based case - the level of complexity is it is a service entity providing support to a business selling a service - access to hire equipment. So tell students to think in terms of service provision.

Students are acting as OM to the software consultancy firm - they have to operate the analysis of support software and hardware provided to the hire company. To understand that they need to think what services do the customers of the hire company want.

If company A support company B who provides support to companies C and individuals D; then A has to understand C and D to understand B.

On one level of abstraction this pattern applies to most operations - the detail changes. Measures of performance still matter. It would be easy to look at dialysis and the tight QA criteria - every OM has QA standards to meet which need to be thought through.

With reflections the question pointed to the first thing to do is think about how to reflect. Push them in that direction.

Some points to discuss:

•Just what job is L'chaim doing?

It is easy to focus on the hardware/software mix but that does not illuminate the relationship.

The consultants are setting up processes to assist managers in Severen make decisions by collecting data and transforming it into information that leads to decisions; subtle difference yes, but profound in terms of what questions to ask and how they are answered.

•On one level of abstraction whether the company is party hire or stage equipment hire or tools hire is not a lot of difference BUT saying all are the same is dangerous - what makes Severen - the unique elements must be addressed.

Task

This is the last case you are completing. The task is the same, the criteria are the same. The first case was a relatively stable situation, the 2nd was an unstable circumstance and the this a a rather tenuous working relationship. Consultantscosntantly work with different sets of people pursuing different ends even though it has a common element using technology.

There is a totally different set of arrangements in this case:

different clients;

different staff;

different goals; and

different tools used.

Again you will have looked at more ideas in your text.

Again there are 3 submissions:

1. The group report (Action Plan);

2. Individual reflections on the process of thinking through OM; abd

3. Peer moderation.

Moderated peer weighting process

A moderated peer weighting will be applied to each person's mark in the group report. This is done to take account of issues that arise in groups from time to time, where some members may not put in the work that is needed to meet the group task.

For example, if, on average, the peers in Tom's group give him a weighting of 4 lots of 5 (20), then the mark awarded to Tom for this assessment will be 100% (20/20) of the mark that I award to the group.

Each group member will be asked to give a grade (1-5) to their perceptions of the contribution made by each member of the group. This will be a confidential process. The perceived weighting will be based on the following criteria:

• Quality of output

• Timeliness of work produced

• Attendance and/or participation in group processes

• Willingness to share, to assist others.

Action Plan:

As per the previous assessments this is the group presentation.

Based on this material you will be expected to construct an Action Plan as a group. The Action Plan should reflect the questions you have discussed in your tutorial groups, a consideration of a variety of situations that could arise that would affect the action plan, and your group's independent research on the topic.

Your action plan will achieve the following:

I. Identifying a coherent set of questions that need to be addressed in order to understand the situation as well as think through what actions needed in order to achieve the desired operations and defend that selection - make sure it is a coherent set of questions;

II. A reasoned selection of theories and tools that help you think about the case you are addressing (you will select from ALL the tools studied to date);

III. An understanding of where information that assists you deal with the case comes from and look for information that challenges what you have assumed;

IV. The logical selection of tools, techniques, standards and controls that reflects a consideration of a variety of situations;

V. How it considers every aspect of the case study: situation faced, who, how, what, where, when - this is a dynamic situation so 'things' are dynamic;

VI. Your ability to collaborate to create an action plan that responds to the changes in the emergency environment;

VII. The way your action plan reflects the inquiry process completed in your groups.

You can use tools such as mind mapping to organise the questions into a organised set. Questions do not operate in isolation rather each informs others in a certain order.

Reflection:

This will follow the same process as outlined for assignment #1. You will write an individual reflection, explaining the thought process behind the action plan. The following models an approach to thinking through reflection.

Each of these elements can be reflected on:

1. Reflections on the thinking process - the role of the questions, the manner they were, how they were answered and what information was used;

2. The theories/tools chosen and how they improved the thinking (using those studied to date);

3. The manner of operations of your tutorial group;

4. Specific questions as to the process;

5. Coping with the dynamic nature of an emergency; and

6. Changes proposed to improve the process.

An issue that is not transparent is once a question is defined one limits thinking within that particular area. Having manufactured a range of chemical products including material used in manufacture of soft drinks such a situation could be defined as "a system to defined chemical inputs to achieve a predicted chemical product" yet an alternative could be "a system to create chemicals to improve flavour and sensation elements to improve carbonated beverages. Each leads to different behaviour - can you identify the implicit system definition that guided your inquiry.

1. What system definition did you assume in your inquiry?;

2. What alternative definition might apply?; and

3. What changes if the alternative was used?

Remember there is an additional element to sonsider -

reflect on the process of reflection -

how can it be done better?

You will be expected to undertake independent research in order to write the reflection, and to use correct academic referencing.