ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title MGT603: Systems Thinking
Assessment Written Report
Individual/Group Individual
Length Up to 2000 words
Learning Outcomes c) Analyse, select and apply systems modelling tools in integrating, optimising and enhancing business processes within contemporary organisations
d) Synthesise technological and non-technological solutions to business problems that promote integration and that optimise whole-of-enterprise operations
Submission By 11:55 pm (AEDT/AEST Time) Sunday of Module 6.1 (Week 11) For intensive class:
By 11:55 pm (AEDT/AEST Time) Sunday of Module 6.1 (Week 5)
Weighting 40%
Total Marks 40 Marks
Assessment Task and Context
There are two approaches towards improving systems, short-term approaches that normally addresses the symptoms and rarely help understand and address the cause of the problem, and longterm approaches, which allow managers to address the real cause(s) of the problem. In this assessment, students will try to solve a practical problem by using Systems Thinking tools called System Archetypes combined with value stream mapping.
Instructions
MGT603 Assessment 3 is about uncovering the complexities in operations management generally, identifying key themes, intended and unintended consequences and proposing a holistic solution to the problem using a Systems Thinking lens. The following scenario study provides you with a brief overview of a hypothetical problem. Be aware that the scenario provided may not cover every detail that you will need to address in the Written Report, in which case, you will need to conduct additional research, including further research on how emergency departments function in any hospital.
Scenario Overview
Consider yourself as part of a team responsible for managing the operations of an emergency department of a public hospital. The emergency department has received feedback from patients suggesting that the patient wait times need to be improved. The value stream map of the current operations is shown in the attached diagram.
The Value Stream Map is can be Found via the Assessment Link.
“You have been tasked with improving patient turnaround time by reducing the current time to half”. To complete the task you are required to “identify the various System Archetypes that affect the operations of the hospital and the emergency department itself” and based on the archetypes, develop a future State Value Stream Map of the emergency department.
You will require to identify and critically analyse the intended and unintended consequences, recommending holistic solutions that will optimise the operations of the emergency department without compromising the performance of other functions of the hospital.
Suggested format:
Your MGT603 written report should include all the following sections and sub-sections. Please make sure to number all sections and sub-sections.
Assignment Cover Sheet (Individual)
(Found via the following link: https://www.torrens.edu.au/policies-forms)
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
1. Introduction/Background
2. Main Discussion
2.1. Analysis of the current state Value Stream Map of the emergency department based on system archetypes
2.2. Identification and analysis of the system archetypes that may impede performance
2.3. Recommended new State Value Stream Map with desired reduction in patient turnaround time
2.4. Discussion on Intended and unintended consequences of the modified system
3. Conclusion
4. Recommendations 5. References
Students require to make significant references to the subject material and substantial wider reading. A minimum of five (5) academic-related (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles, books chapters, university resources, conference papers) and a minimum of two (2) other references (e.g. newspaper articles, industry reports, and etc.) are required in this assessment. References to ‘Wikipedia’ or similar unsubstantiated sources will not be accepted.
Students should use the assessment brief to guide what to include in the assessment and use the provided case study to help demonstrate understanding of the topic.
Ensure that your MGT603 Assessment 3 is original and does not self-plagiarise any previous content written for other assessments.
The submission must be in WORD document format and must contain a “signed” assessment cover sheet.
Referencing
It is essential that students use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing here in the Academic Writing Guide found via the Academic Skills website.
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately referenced and academically written according to the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online. Students also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.
Submission Instructions
Please submit the MGT603 Assessment 3 via the Assessment link in the main navigation menu in MGT603 Systems thinking on the Student Portal. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via Grade Centre in the Student Portal. Feedback can be viewed in “My Grades”.
Assessment Rubric: MGT603 Systems Thinking Assessment 3 Written Report
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard)
0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Understanding of research principles and methods
applicable to
MBA
Percentage for
this criterion =
20%
The focus for the research question(s) or basis for the project is unclear.
The rational for the research methodology is inappropriate for the research question/project. The focus for the research question(s) or basis for project is adequately clear.
The rationale for the research methodology is appropriate for the research question/project. The focus for the research question(s) or basis for project is clear.
The rationale for the research methodology is stated and appropriate for the research question/project. The focus for the research question(s) or basis for project is very clear.
The rationale for the research methodology is compared with alternatives and the chosen method is appropriate for the research question/project. The focus for the research question(s) or basis for project is exceptionally clear.
The rationale for the research methodology is critically compared and evaluated against alternatives and the chosen method is appropriate for the research question/project.
Knowledge and understanding (technical and theoretical knowledge).
Understands theoretical models and concepts and tools and techniques of systems thinking Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge.
Key components of the assignment are not addressed.
No discussion on systems principles and tools such as system dynamic, system archetypes, causal loop diagrams. 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 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 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.
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.
and their applications to operations management practices.
Percentage for
this criterion =
30% Lack of understanding and application of value stream mapping to operations management decision making.
research/course materials on systems principles and tools such as system dynamic, system archetypes, casual loop diagrams. Lack of clear understanding and application of value stream mapping to operations management decision making. and apply relevant concepts of systems principles and tools such as system dynamic, system archetypes, causal loop diagrams. Demonstrates understanding and application of value stream mapping.
Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts of systems principles and tools such as system dynamic, system archetypes, causal loop diagrams. Demonstrates good understanding and application of value stream mapping. Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further Learning of systems principles and tools such as system dynamic, system archetypes, causal loop diagrams. Demonstrates excellent understanding and
application of value stream mapping
Effective Written
Communication This criterion has a 15 percent chance of being met. The argument is difficult to follow for the audience since it lacks a logical and obvious framework, as well as a lack of supporting evidence.
The audience is unable to follow the chain of argument. Oftentimes the way in which information, arguments, and facts are presented is not straightforward and rational.
It is frequently difficult to follow a line of argument. The information, arguments, and proof are clearly presented, and the majority of the ideas and arguments flow smoothly.
The chain of reasoning is straightforward. Everything about the presentation is excellent: the facts are presented in an organized manner that is easy to follow and is backed up with compelling evidence.
Demonstrates sensitivity to cultural differences. The presentation is well-crafted; it is logical, convincing, and well-supported by evidence, exhibiting a coherent flow of ideas and arguments throughout the presentation.
Demonstrates high degrees of cultural sensitivity and engages and maintains the audience’s attention in the subject matter Graphics and multimedia are used effectively in presentations to enhance their effectiveness.
Analysis and application, as well as the synthesis of fresh information
There is a lack of synthesis and analysis.
Limited sapplication/recommenda Exemplification of new knowledge by demonstration of analysis and synthesis.
Well-developed analysis and synthesis, as well as the implementation of suggestions Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge. By way of example, a strong application
Percentage for this criterion = 25% tions based on the results of an investigation Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. linked to analysis/synthesis. developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases. Correct citation of key resources and evidence
Percentage for this criterion = 10% Demonstrates inconsistent use of 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 statements. Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing evidence. Demonstrates use of highquality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop statements. Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing evidence.
Percentage for this criterion =
15% Difficult to understand for audience, 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 presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence.
Demonstrates cultural sensitivity. Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multimedia.
Analysis and application with synthesis of new
knowledge
Limited synthesis and analysis.
Limited
application/recommenda Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application.
Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Strong application by way of
Percentage for this criterion =
25% tions based upon analysis. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. linked to analysis/synthesis. developed models and
justified
recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations
are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.
Correct citation of key resources
and evidence
Percentage for
this criterion =
10% Demonstrates inconsistent use of 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 statements. Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing evidence. Demonstrates use of highquality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop statements. Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing evidence.
The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment
SLO a) Critically evaluate the paradigms of Systems Thinking conceptualisation and its application to contemporary business issues
SLO b) Create a visual depiction of a multi-dimensional complex situation that represents differing views
SLO c) Analyse, select and apply systems modelling tools in integrating, optimising and enhancing business processes within contemporary organisations
SLO d) Synthesise technological and non-technological solutions to business problems that promote integration and that optimise whole-ofenterprise operations

Published by

Essays

View all posts