A SSESSMENT 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 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Friday of Module 6.2 (week 12) For intensive class:
By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Friday of Module 6.2 (week 6)
Weighting 40%
Total Marks 40 marks
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 long-term 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:
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.
It is recommended that you identify and critically analyse 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 Written Report should include the following sections and sub-sections.
Cover Page (Subject Name & Code, Assessment No., Student Name and Surname, Student Number, Lecturer, Year and Trimester)
Executive Summary Table of Contents
1. Introduction/Background
2. Main Discussion
2.1. Identification and analysis of the System Archetypes that may impede performance
2.2. Analysis of the current State Value Stream Map of the emergency department based on System Archetypes
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
6. Appendices (Appendix A, Appendix B, …)
Submission Instructions:
This Written Report is to be written according to academic writing guidelines and must be submitted in compliance with the following;
1. You should make significant references to the subject material and substantial wider reading. A minimum five (5) academic (books & peer-reviewed journal articles) & two (2) other sources (newspaper article, trade publications, websites, etc.) must be used. These should be referenced in the APA style, both in-text and in a reference list. References to ‘Wikipedia’ or similar unsubstantiated sources will not be accepted.
2. The assignment is to include in-text citations and a reference list following the latest APA referencing style. The APA referencing guide can be located in the Academic Writing Guide at http://library.think.edu.au/ld.php?content_id=1882254
3. Submit Written Report (with references) 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.
Students should use the brief to guide what to include in the assessment and the following rubric to inform the standard required.
Learning Rubric: MGT603 Systems Thinking Assessment 3 Written Report
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Unacceptable) Pass (Functional) Credit (Proficient) Distinction (Advanced) High Distinction (Exceptional)
Understanding of research principles and methods applicable to MBA The focus for the research question(s) or basis for the project is unclear. The focus for the research question(s) or basis for project is adequately clear. The focus for the research question(s) or basis for project is clear. The focus for the research question(s) or basis for project is very clear. The focus for the research question(s) or basis for project is exceptionally clear.
Percentage for this criterion
20% The rationale for the research methodology is inappropriate
for the research question/project. The rationale for the research methodology is appropriate for the research question/project. The rationale for the research methodology is stated and appropriate for the research question/project. The rationale for the research methodology is compared with alternatives and the chosen method is appropriate for the research question/project. 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 and their applications to operations 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. Lack of understanding and application of value stream 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 on systems principles and tools such as system dynamic, system 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 of systems principles 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 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
management
practices
Percentage for this criterion
30% mapping to operations management decision making archetypes, causal loop diagrams. Lack of clear understanding and application of value stream mapping to operations management decision making and tools such as system dynamic, system archetypes, causal loop diagrams. Demonstrates understanding and application of value stream mapping 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 materials and extended reading.
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
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 multi- media.
Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge
Percentage for this criterion
25% Limited synthesis and analysis.
Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis. Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application.
Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of
recommendations
linked to analysis/synthesis. Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and
justified
recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. 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.
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 high-quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop statements. Shows evidence of wide scope for sourcing evidence.