FORM 32: COLLEGE ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET
Quality Manual Version 5.1. 2014-15
Student(s) Name and ID:
Course Code and Title:Quality Management Tools / BUS 4543
Assessment Weight and Title: Group Oral Presentation, 20%
Date: May 25th 2015
Policy on Maximum Scores:
Assessments done in time are worth’s 100%. If you have a make-up exam, you may be capped at 65% of the value of the scores if you have not presented a valid excuse to your teacher.
Name of the Course Teacher: Carmen Gutierrez
Name of the Course Moderator:
This Assessment and the related Marking Scheme have been pre-moderated and approved by the Course Team Leader/Academic Coordinator of the Business Department according to the following criteria
• The learning outcomes are covered as indicated in the assessment strategy.
• The questions are clearly constructed and at an appropriate academic level.
• The possible marks for each question are clearly stated.
• The amount of time for the exam is properly allocated.
• The level of English language is clear and suitable for the course.
• The marking scheme is clear and detailed
Student’s Score (%):
Warning to Students!
You must not talk to anybody during the exam. If you have any question, raise your hand and wait for the Faculty to come. You must not look at any other Student’s work, or you must not communicate with anybody in any way. Trying to get the answers form any external source using any form of technology is considered to be a serious offence, and academic dishonesty.
Mobile phones, PDAs, and similar devices are not allowed to be taken to the examination room. Should they still be with you, you need to switch them off and place them on the Faculty desk now! If you do not do it, it will be considered cheating. Later it will be your responsibility to collect your own phone and leave the room quietly. If you need rulers, erasers etc. please ask them from the Faculty.
By not obeying these rules Student commits plagiarism, and faces the possibility of immediate dismissal from ADMC and from all other colleges of HCT according to the Academic Honesty Policy of HCT.
Declaration of the Student
At the moment of submission you confirm that this assessment is your original work, you were not cheating, and you were at good health when working on this assessment.
BUS 4543 Quality Management Tools
Coursework – Oral Presentation: 20%
Group Presentation on an organization adopting quality management tools and techniques with critiques and suggestions for further improvements (Outcomes: 2,3,4)
The Task:2500 words without references , FOLLOW THE HIGLITED A CATEGORY IN THE RUBRIC
Choose an industry (Food processing) and an organization (Nestlé) to analyse the quality management process and tools being used by the organization
a) Industry background (Food processing industry in details)
b) Organization background (Nestlé background (sector, type, size activates))
c) Introduction on the presentation objective
1) the objective of doing the project
d) ExplainQuality management process analysis using a process map or work flow
1) Explain the quality management process analysis
2) Draw the workflow of quality management process for Nestlé
3) Explain why you choose this flow(importance)
4) explain the work flow in details
5) List and explain the challenges of Nestlé workflow)
e) Show evidences of quality tools being used in the organization and analyse them
1) choose 3 quality management toolsused in Nestlé(control charts or FMEA or cause effect diagram , work flow maps etc.)
2) the importance of these tools
3) Explain (how these tools are used in Nestlé ?)
4) Examples of using the tools in Nestlé
f) Recommend new action plan, and tools for quality improvement
1) recommendations for the challenges mentioned in question D part 5 and explain
2) recommend new action plan for Nestlé with explanation (include group members, management, employee commitment)
3) benefits of this action plan to employees, leadership, and management)
g) References related to the topic and it should be 15 resources
EVIDENCE F P C B A Mark Awarded
F (0-5.9) P (6 – 6.4) C (6.5 – 7.4) B (7.5 – 8.4) A (8.5 – 10)
Details of the chosen organisation including sector, type, size activities.
10 Marks
Not really addressed. Limited details shown. No additional research shown. No references or incorrect referencing. A very basic description of the organisation. Very little additional research shown. Needs more details
A simple description of the organisation is provided. Some additional research shown and sources are referenced The organisation is described but one or two areas missing Evidence of additional research evident. Strategy, mission, objectives and goals given The organisation is fully described. All areas are full and descriptive and show evidence of extensive in depth additional research completed..
F (0-11.8) P(12 – 12.8) C (13 – 14.8) B (15– 16.8) A (17 – 20)
Identification of the chosen work flow or process of quality management and its challenge with explanations for the choice.
20 Marks Not really addressed. Limited details shown. No additional research shown. No references or incorrect referencing. Chosen workflow or QM process and challenge stated but very basic with not much detail. Very little additional research shown. Chosen workflow or QM process and challenge is stated with simple explanation but it could be more detailed. Some additional research shown and sources are referenced Chosen workflow or QM process and challenge is presented clearly. One or two areas could be more detailed. Evidence of additional research shown. Correctly referenced where necessary. Chosen workflow or QM process or challenge is very clear. Explanations for choice are full and descriptive. There is evidence of extensive in depth additional research completed.
F (0 – 14.75) P (15 – 16) C (16.25 – 18.5) B (18.75 – 21) A (21.25 – 25)
Analysis of existing workflow and quality management tools being used by the organisation
25 Marks Not really addressed. Limited details shown. No additional research shown. Mentioning no tools Some attempt has been made to analyze and list the tools without much theoretical background or research . mentioning at least one QM tool Chosen tools is explained in a very simple manner without much details like control charts or FMEA , work flow maps etc or any of the methods done in the organisation . Mentioning two QM tools relevant for the challenge or the process to improve QM. Chosen issue in the quality process and the tools (control charts or FMEA, work flow maps etc. ) mentioned are relevant and analysed well . Mentioning as well as explaining clearly why using two of the tools in a better way can improve the quality management process and how Analysis of tools (control charts or FMEA or cause effect diagram , work flow maps etc.) are done with very clear and coherent explanation which is descriptive. Very detailed description of the three tools and how it can be used for the organisation effectively and why and how it should be used. With at least two relevant reasons.
F (0 – 14.75) P (15 – 16) C (16.25 – 18.5) B (18.75 – 21) A (21.25 – 25)
A detailed critique and suggestions of improvement
25 Marks Not really addressed. Limited details shown. Avery critique showing existing tools being used and no farther change recommended and there is no explanation of reasons . Stakeholders are not mentioned anywhere in the recommendation. Plan is very simple with very little detail. It is not always possible to see the deadlines or allocation of tasks to group members. Several areas not addressed. Needs more depth to show understanding of the concepts. No mentioning of the teams and stakeholders involvement A basic suggestion and critique provided. Not much detail. Some attempt made to develop an improvement plan and allocate work to team members. small omissions.
Details of stakeholder commitment absent A reasonable plan provided but one or two areas could be more detailed. There are deadlines for most tasks and tasks have been allocated to team members.
Rationale for change is mentioned. Leadership and employee as well as stakeholder commitment not mentioned A detailed plan provided. All areas are full and descriptive and deadlines are realistic. Where applicable it is clear to see how the work will be shared between group members. clearly mentioning the rationale for the change and leadership and employee commitment required
F (0-11.8) P(12 – 12.8) C (13 – 14.8) B (15– 16.8) A (17 – 20)
Writing Quality
All sections covering the entire report, from the cover page till the reference list page.
20 marks Writing is very confusing, and hard to follow. More than 5 counts of inappropriate diction used. Less than 10 credible sources (research efforts). More than 5 errors in referencing / in-text citations (APA Style Format). Constant grammatical / diction errors causing content confusion throughout the report. Writing is quite confusing, sometimes hard to follow. Some inappropriate diction used. Less than 15 credible sources (research efforts). At least 5 errors in referencing / in-text citations (Harvard Style Format). Much grammatical / diction errors causing content confusion. Writing is clear, but sentences may lack variety. Diction is appropriate. Number of credible sources of references is below 15 (research efforts). At least 3 errors in referencing / in-text citations (Harvard Style Format). Some grammatical / diction errors. Writing is clear and sentences have varied structure. Diction is appropriate and consistent. Meet the minimum number of credible sources required (at least 15 – research efforts), with less than 3 referencing / in-text citations (Harvard Style Format). Minimal grammatical / diction errors. Writing is smooth, skilful and coherent. Sentences are strong and expressive with varied structure. Diction is consistent and words well chosen. Exceeded the minimum number of credible sources required (at least 15 – research efforts), with no referencing / in-text citation errors (Harvard Style Format). No grammatical / diction errors.
Student Name/ID/Section Total Final Grade / 100 %
Assessor: Date:
For a custom paper on the above topic, place your order now!
What We Offer:
• On-time delivery guarantee
• PhD-level writers
• Automatic plagiarism check
• 100% money-back guarantee
• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality
• High Quality custom-written paper
