Team Simulation Report Assignment

Team Simulation Report Assignment

Team Simulation Report Assignment Guide
BACKGROUND:
For this assignment you have been given the responsibility of setting up and managing an airline company through an online simulation system. This assignment will assess your understanding of operational processes and requires you to reflect back on your experiences.
For this assignment students will have to work in teams of 3-4 students. On-campus students are advised to form teams within their respective seminar classes while off-campus students are advised to team up with other off-campus students via CloudDeakin. Each team must select a “team leader” who will communicate on behalf of the team, implement the decisions on the online simulation system (in consultation with all team members) and submit the final report on CloudDeakin. Please be advised that team members are collectively responsible for all decisions/actions of the team leader. So make sure that the selected “team leader” of your team is acting responsibly!
Every “team leader” has to submit his/her team’s details – a team name (which can be the name you decide to give to your airline company), along with the full names, Deakin ID numbers and best contact email address of each team member. We must receive these details by email to sukanto@deakin.edu.au AND ron.beckett@deakin.edu.au by 5PM AEST on Friday 7th August. Any students who have not got themselves into a team for Assignment 2 by Friday 7th August will be randomly assigned to a team by your lecturer and you will HAVE TO accept the lecturer’s decision!
The online simulation system is offered by a third-party provider (www.interpretive.com) who is paid for the service by Deakin – so you do not have to pay anything to use their system. Each student will receive an email set to YOUR DEAKIN E-MAIL ADDRESS by the third-party provider after 31st July with detailed instructions on how to register with, access and use the online simulation system. You are advised to get into your groups to carefully peruse all instructions and proceed accordingly. You can contact the third-party provider directly (after you have been registered) to request any technical assistance with using the online system (note that your lecturer/unit chair cannot offer any technical support with using the online simulation system as it is not a Deakin University-owned system).

TASK:
Write a 3000-word report addressing the following points:
1. How did you set up the company – this is not about the simulation process itself but an analysis of the sorts of things that you needed to consider; team structure, skill fit, operational understanding etc.
2. Critically reflect on the operational aspects you employed in your initial set up, and then as you continued to completion.
3. Explain what worked well and what did not work well in terms of your company’s operations.
4. With hindsight what have you learnt about operations from the simulation and working from experience, what recommendations would you make if you had to do it all again (with specific emphasis to operational practice).
ASSIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS:
Due date: Online submission via CloudDeakin end of Week 11 by 11.59pm on 4th October 2015.
Assessment marks: This assignment is worth 50 marks, which is 50% of your final grade.
Word limit: 3000 words maximum (excluding References).
References: Academic and non-academic sources:
You must reference a minimum of six (6) academic/scholarly sources in order to support your answer. These can include academic journal articles or chapters from academic books (including your textbook). Academic journals can be found by conducting a search of the Deakin Library academic databases.
Citations and references: all ideas from reading sources must be correctly cited and referenced using the Deakin author-date (Harvard) system. This also includes data and downloads from the simulation.
Formatting:
– Font: Size 12 Times New Roman, Calibri or Arial
– Line spacing: 1.5, no indentation, but one extra line spacing between paragraphs
– Margins of 2.54 cm
– Headings and sub-headings
– Alphanumeric or decimal outline/numbering system up to three levels for sections
– Page numbers: Roman numbering and Arabic numbering used appropriately
– Header and/or footer: student name, ID number, unit code and assessment task name
Structure:
This is an academic report and must therefore adopt an analytical and critical perspective. You need to demonstrate a sound grasp of the literature on operations management, and draw from a wide range of theoretical frameworks and concepts to inform and underpin your analysis.
– Cover Page
– Title Page (including full names and Deakin student IDs of all team members)
– Table of Contents
– List of Illustrations
– Executive Summary
– Background
– Introduction
– Body
– Conclusion
– Recommendations
– References
– Appendices
ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Designated “team leaders” are required to submit the final report on behalf of their team (in MS Word) online in a designated area within CloudDeakin. The report MUST contain the full names and Deakin Student IDs of ALL team members along with a declaration that every team member is happy with every other member’s contribution. This declaration has to be signed off on by ALL members and a scanned image of the signed declaration inserted at the end of the report (after references & appendix sections).
2. Students MUST ensure the following:
a. The paper is typed, with 1.5 line spacing
b. Page numbers are included
c. We operate absolute deadlines, which means that if you miss the submission date and time your work will NOT be assessed. We do not operate a 10% per day reduction, so please do make careful note of this.
3. No extensions will be granted for without the approval of the Unit Chair. If you believe you have circumstances beyond your control that make you eligible to apply for an extension, you must apply directly to the Unit Chair, via e-mail and before the due date for assignment submission. Supporting documentation must be provided.
ASSIGNMENT RESULTS:
Your results and assessor’s comments will normally become available to you within 15 business days of the due date (unless an extension has been granted). The papers are assessed using a rubric and marks can be accessed via CloudDeakin. A notification will be posted when the marks are available.
Please note that before results are returned to students, the unit team will moderate the marking process to ensure that the same marking standards are applied to all students within the unit. We do our utmost to ensure complete equity in the results, but should you wish to have your mark reviewed then you are able to do so via the Faculty upon completion of the unit. We do not undertake in-trimester reviews. When making the request for the Faculty will not accept a review based on statements like “I think I deserve more marks“ or ”I disagree with the mark”. Please note that receiving a disappointing mark is NOT sufficient grounds to request a review.
Writing and referencing skills:
In this assignment students have the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of operations management through a practical and realistic review of organizational practice in relation to the taught theory.
Researching, writing and referencing are valuable management skills. Effective writing is an essential skill for good managers because written documents provide busy executives with accurate information and appropriately informed viewpoints from reliable sources.
Students are also expected to be constructively critical and analytical when writing about what they have read. This ensures that the conclusions drawn are not biased, and that presented report has objectively reviewed the issues under consideration.
Please note that all ideas within your essay which have been obtained from your sources, will need to be cited and referenced using the Deakin author-date (Harvard) system.
It is highly recommended that you obtain and use the following booklet published by the Deakin Division of Student Life and provided free of charge to first year students at Orientation:
Gaspar, M & Shepherd, M 2009, Guide to assignment writing and referencing, 4th edn, Geelong, Deakin University.
3
The following Deakin weblinks also provide relevant and helpful explanations and examples:
• Division of Student Life: ‘Referencing using the author-date (Harvard) system’: http://www.deakin.edu.au/current-students/assets/resources/study-support/study-skills/assign-ref.pdf
• Division of Student Life ‘How to Reference Your Writing’: http://www.deakin.edu.au/current-students/study-support/study-skills/handouts/refer-plag.php.
• Division of Student Life: Resources: Reading and Writing’ including different writing styles: http://www.deakin.edu.au/current-students/study-support/study-skills/handouts/writing.php
Plagiarism and other forms of cheating:
Assignments may be checked for plagiarism (via Turnitin) and disciplinary procedures will be initiated if any student’s work is found to include plagiarism (i.e., penalties will be imposed relative to the degree of infringement. Please see Plagiarism and Collusion Policy, and Academic Misconduct Policy on the Portal under Forms).
Plagiarism is the copying of another person’s ideas or expressions without appropriate acknowledgment and presenting these ideas or forms of expression as your own. It includes not only written works such as books or journals but data or images that may be presented in tables, diagrams, designs, plans, photographs, film, music, formulae, web sites and computer programs. Plagiarism also includes the use of (or passing off) the work of lecturers or other students as your own.
Plagiarism is a form of cheating that Deakin University regards as an extremely serious academic offence. The penalties associated with plagiarism are severe and extend from cancelling all marks for the specific assessment item or for the entire unit through to exclusion from your course.
It is important to realise, however, that it is certainly not cheating to use the work of others in your essay. On the contrary – a well-constructed essay should normally refer to and build on the work of others for positioning, supporting and strengthening your work and advancing knowledge. Plagiarism occurs when due recognition and acknowledgement of the work of others is not provided. Therefore, whenever you are using another person’s research or ideas (whether by direct quotation or by paraphrasing) you must appropriately cite the source. If you are ever in doubt about the most appropriate form of referencing, you should consult your lecturer or the Academic Skills Advisor.
Talking about your assignment with other students is acceptable and encouraged. However, jointly writing up the assignment, or using the same written words from your discussion, is a form of cheating because we are not able to identify whose idea the information is. Unauthorised collaboration involves working with others with the intention of deceiving examiners about who actually completed the work. If there has been any collaboration in preparing individual assessment items, this must be disclosed (clearly stated that it is a joint effort). In the case of group project work, lecturers provide guidelines on what level of collaboration is appropriate and how the work of each participant in the project is to be presented. If you have any doubt about what constitutes authorised and unauthorised collaboration you should consult your lecturer or the Academic Skills Advisor.
Plagiarism occurs when a student presents the work of another person as the student’s own work, or includes the ideas of others as quotations, summaries or paraphrases, without acknowledgement as to its authorship.
Collusion occurs when a student obtains the agreement of another person for a fraudulent purpose with the intent of obtaining an advantage in submitting an assignment or other work. 4
MMM201 Individual Report Assignment: GRADE FORM
Baseline Performance indicators
Exceeds Standard
Meets Standard
Yet to Achieve Minimum Standard
Performance levels
Performance
criteria
(70%+)
(50-69%)
(0-49%)
Grades
HD
D
C
P
N
Purpose and Objective: The purpose of the report is clearly identified, and the objectives made clear.
The purpose and objective of the report is made clear, and the report addresses (all of) the objective(s) in a focused and logical manner.
The purpose and objective of the report is made clear, and the report addresses approximately 70% of the objective(s) in a focused and logical manner.
The purpose and objective of the report is made clear, and the report addresses approximately 60% of the objective(s), but occasionally loses focus
The purpose and objective of the report is made clear, and the report addresses approximately 50% of the objective(s), and occasionally loses focus
The report does not clearly address the objective(s)
Conclusions and Recommendations: Flow logically from the discussion, and indicate improvements and implications for management.
Conclusions are relevant and accurately portray the key results of the report.
Recommendations are specific with action- oriented suggestions,
Conclusions are relevant and portray the key results of the report. Minor errors are present, but not distracting.
Recommendations are specific with action- oriented suggestions, oriented to the problem provided, and
Conclusions are mostly relevant and portray the results of the report. Some errors are present. Recommendations are reasonably specific action-
Conclusions are not always relevant and partially portray the results of the report. Errors are present. Recommendations
Conclusions/Recommendations do not clearly flow from the report, and/or miss key findings. They are not well organised, and are not presented in a clear, itemised format, with
oriented to the problem provided, and organised in a relevant and consistent manner. Conclusions/recommendations logically flow within the document in a manner which is evident to the reader. They are presented in a clear, itemised format, with an excellent level of detail that makes it easy for the reader to understand
organised in a relevant manner. Conclusions/recommendations logically flow within the document in a manner which is evident to the reader. They are presented in a clear, itemised format, and there is a good level of detail which guides the reader
oriented suggestions, with some relevance to the report. Conclusions/Recommendations may logically flow within the document but the logic within the document may occasionally lose focus. They are presented in a listed format, with a moderate level of detail to guide the reader.
are not always specific, and are not consistently action-oriented or relevant to the report.
Conclusions/Recommendations flow within the document but the logic is not always clear. They are presented in a listed format, with a basic level of information to guide the reader.
parallel grammatical structure.
Discussion: Key points are identified and discussed in a logical sequence.
Discussion is clearly oriented to the purpose. It is organised in a considered, reflective, thoughtful and relevant manner, and leads the reader logically from the findings to the recommendations/con
Discussion is oriented to the purpose. It is organised in a relevant manner, and leads the reader logically from the findings to the recommendations/conclusions. The justification for conclusions/ recommendations is generally clear. If supported by appendices, these are integrated into the discussion.
Discussion is mostly oriented to the purpose. It is organised but perhaps not to the best effect. The discussion provides reasonable justification and explanation leading to
Discussion is mostly oriented to the purpose in basic terms, and there are clear gaps in the presentation of information. The discussion, while organised, lacks a consistent
Discussion is poorly organised and leaves the reader wondering how the conclusions and recommendations were made. Discussion may be supported by appendices but the integration is not clear.
clusions. In other words, the justification for conclusions/ recommendations is clear. If supported by appendices, these are effectively integrated into the discussion.
conclusions/recommendations, but this is not always clear to the reader. If supported by appendices, these are integrated into the discussion, though not as effectively as they might be. Material placed in appendices is mostly appropriate.
structure. The discussion provides limited justification and explanation leading to the conclusions/recommendations, and this is not always clear to the reader. If supported by appendices, these are not integrated into the discussion. Material placed in appendices is not always appropriate.
Formal Structure and presentation … a covering letter, title page, executive summary, table of contents, etc. Also refers to the “look” of the report – professionally presented.
All required elements of the business report (as identified in the assignment and/or handbook) are present and completed to an exceptional standard. The document is presented in a very professional-manner, using informative headings and figures/tables where appropriate.
All required elements of the business report (as identified in the assignment and/or handbook) are present and completed to a very good standard. The document is presented in a professional-manner, using mostly informative headings and figures/tables where appropriate.
All required elements of the business report (as identified in the presentation) are present and completed to a satisfactory standard. Attention to the presentation is given, but may not be well executed.
All required elements of the business report (as identified in the presentation) are present and completed to a basic standard. Attention to the presentation is given, but may not be well executed.
Key elements of the business report are not provided and/or presented with errors evident. Overall presentation of the document is not to a professional standard.
Clarity and conciseness: Focuses on the report, succinct, appropriate complexity.
Argument effectively and efficiently conveyed; highly focused on the report; easily understood.
Argument effectively conveyed; focused on the report; easily understood.
Argument reasonably clear; occasionally misses the point but does address the report; not over- elaborate or over-complicated.
Argument is clear in rudimentary terms; Does miss the point at times but does address the report; very basic in its structure
Main point and/or argument confused/unclear. Irrelevant information, no transition between ideas. Unclear conclusion.
Technical writing skills: Spelling, grammar, punctuation and formatting.
No spelling errors, correct punctuation, grammatically correct, complete sentences.
Very few spelling errors, mostly correct punctuation, grammatically correct, complete sentences
Occasional lapses in spelling, punctuation, grammar, but not enough to seriously distract the reader.
Lapses in spelling, punctuation, grammar, which do distract the reader.
Numerous spelling errors, non-existent or incorrect punctuation, and/or severe errors in grammar that interfere with understanding.
Vocabulary: Originality, breadth, appropriateness, variety.
Highly appropriate, well chosen, precise and varied vocabulary. Consistently uses correct word choice and discipline-specific terminology.
Appropriate, precise and varied vocabulary. Uses correct word choice and discipline-specific terminology.
Generally appropriate vocabulary; not overly repetitive. Generally uses correct word choice and discipline-specific terminology.
Basic vocabulary; not overly repetitive. Occasionally uses correct word choice and discipline-specific terminology.
Excessively limited or inappropriate or repetitive vocabulary. Misuses discipline-specific terminology.
Referencing: Using Harvard Referencing.
All sources acknowledged with full reference details using Harvard Referencing correctly.
All sources acknowledged with full reference details using Harvard Referencing. A small number of errors in using the Harvard Referencing protocols that are not distracting
Most of the sources are acknowledged with reference details, but there are a number of inaccuracies in using the Harvard Referencing protocols, which occasionally distract the reader
Sources acknowledged with bare reference details. Inaccuracies present in using the Harvard Referencing protocols, which distract the reader
Sources not acknowledged.
Overall Score
HD
40 <= Mark <=50
D
35 <= Mark < 40
C
30 <= Mark < 35
P
25 <= Mark < 30
N
0 <= Mark < 25

find the cost of your paper