ASSESSMENT 1 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title MGT603: Systems Thinking
Assessment Part A: Proposal Individual (500 words)
Part B :Critique Individual (250 words)
Individual/Group Individual
Length Part A: One original post (500 words)
Part B: Critique (250 words per follow up post)
Learning Outcomes a) Critically evaluate the paradigms of Systems Thinking conceptualisation and its application to contemporary business issues
Submission Part A: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Friday of Module 2.2 (week 4)
Part B: By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Friday of Module 3.1 (week 5)
Weighting Part A: 20%
Part B: 20%
Total Marks Part A: 20 marks
Part B: 20 marks
Context:
Systems Thinking requires you 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 your 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 Assessment 1. For an acceptable result, you will complete Part A and Part B of the Assessment. Using the Assessment 1 Discussion Forum provided, students are required to
Part A: Proposal Individual (500 words) Instructions:
Identify a local or global organisation that is currently facing significant issues and critically analyse how a Systems Thinking approach can assist in making optimal decisions. For example:
• You are working as operations manager in a company of your choice. This company has been in business for almost 10 years and is now being confronted with many operational issues related to inventory management. Sometimes there is excess stock and other times shortage of the inventory that are hearting the bottom line performance of the company. In addition to that new competitors and demand from customers to deliver faster and cheaper require organization a different approach rather than just solving the inventory problems. Or
• You are working in XYZ bank in your home country that has been struggling with significant loss of customers to competitors. To overcome the problem, the bank has introduced an incentive system for its employees to bring in new customers.
Once you have chosen your organisation and connected issue 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 their chosen organisation and then recommend/propose alternative policies/procedures using Systems
Thinking approach to help overcome the problem. Key points to consider in your initial post:
• Your proposal should be holistic
• You must include reference to Systems Thinking literature
• Consider using Systems Thinking tools such as Rich Picture and CATWOE etc.
Students are also required to provide a brief rationale of why it is important to use Systems Thinking and relevant tools and techniques to solve the identified organisational problem to minimise adverse consequences.
Please ensure your original posts are in the discussion forum by the end of Module 2 (week 4)
Referencing:
It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing here http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing
Part B: Critique Individual (250 words) Instructions:
Each student is required to critique an original post (Part A) of two (2) peers.
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 on these tools and there use in solving the problem identified.
Please ensure your critique posts are in the discussion forum by the end of Module 3 (week 5)
Referencing:
It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing here
http://library.laureate.net.au/research_skills/referencing
Student must actively seek feedback and inputs from peers and facilitator. The individual student should organise discussion notes and upload it on the Blackboard accordingly.
Please note the following additional information
• 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. This includes journal articles, relevant website links, news article, magazines or text from related books.
• The views could be supporting comments 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 provide relevant reference (and citation) in the response. If you can provide appropriate articles to support 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 Assessment 1, Part B.
Submission Instructions:
Submit Part A) – Proposal, Individual (500 words) via the Assessment 1 Discussion Forum link in the Assessment section found in the main navigation menu of the subject Blackboard site.
Submit Part B) - Critique, Individual (250 words) via Assessment 1 Discussion Forum link in the Assessment section found in the main navigation menu of the subject Blackboard site.
The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS 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 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
with high level of
understanding
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/recommend ations based upon analysis.
No critique on the peers’ posts. Just summarised 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.
Demonstrates cultural sensitivity.
Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high
levels of cultural sensitivity
Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multi-media.
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 high-quality, 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