MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx XXXXXXXXXXPage 1
of 8
ASSESSMENT 2 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title MGT600 Management, People and Teams
Assessment Case Study
Individual/Group Group
Length Up to 3000 words
Learning Outcomes a) Critically assess the key principles and theories
underlying strategic people management and explain
how their application enhances organisational and
individual performance.
) Critically evaluate the effectiveness of different
approaches and the relationships between effective
people management and organisational performance.
c) Demonstrate effective communication and practical
problem-solving skills to effectively manage people in a
ange of organisational contexts
d) Critically reflect on the roles and functions that
managers perform in the context of the challenges and
isks they have to address in the changing environment.
Submission By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Friday Module 4.2 (week 8)
Weighting 40%
Total Marks 40 marks
Context:
Though challenging, group assignments are designed to reflect the reality of the workplace.
In this instance, people coming together to contribute knowledge, experience and skills to
produce a desired outcome.
This assessment encourages students to develop their knowledge in relation to the key topics
of attracting, developing and retaining employees, teamwork, performance management,
team development and change management.
Students will be allocated into groups by the learning facilitator. The group will work
together to analyse the given company and provide recommendations to improve on
attracting, developing and retaining employees, teamwork, performance management and
team development.
MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx XXXXXXXXXXPage 2
of 8
Instructions:
Your group is from a well-regarded consultancy firm and has been engaged by your client,
ComSyst Technologies (CST) to provide advice on addressing a variety of challenges.
CST is a multi-national communications software and systems developer serving the defence
and emergency services industries. CST has offices in Australia, New Zealand, the United
States, Philippines, India and South Korea.
CST has recently lost three major tenders to competitors and their market share has
declined substantially in the last two years. This has been attributed to some significant
people related issues including poor employee performance, low employee engagement, a
decline in staff retention and resignations of some key specialists. Technological
advancements elsewhere have highlighted a gap in CST’s technical skills and capabilities.
Your
ief from the client is to prepare a report with recommendations to achieve the
following objectives over the next two years:
1. Ensure CST is well positioned for the future by attracting and retaining the best
talent possible
2. Create a team based high performance culture
3. Build employee capability and performance
To address these objectives your consulting team will need to draw on content from
modules two, three and four. Some consideration may need to be given to other module
content if deemed relevant. It is also expected that groups conduct research beyond the
esources provided on the subject site
For each of the objectives mentioned above, you must include at least one real world
example / case study from the literature of how other organisations have successfully
achieved the same or similar.
Your group must prepare a business style report for the Chief Executive and Board of
ComSyst Technologies. Whilst the format may vary, it must include the following:
Cover page
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Introduction
Background
Main Discussion
Recommendations
Conclusion
Appendices
MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx XXXXXXXXXXPage 3
of 8
You may make any necessary assumptions; however, any significant assumptions should be
detailed in your report.
Groups will be assessed against the learning ru
ic below.
Teamwork and group participation will constitute 20% of the mark for the assignment for
each member of the group.
Group participation will be determined as follows:
Each participant in the team will evaluate the other member’s contribution using a
participation score matrix (see Appendix 1 Team Participation Score Matrix)
Each participant is to assess their peers according to the Peer Evaluation Grading
Scheme (see Appendix 2)
Each participant is also required to complete a self-review using the score
ate found
in the Team Participation Score matrix.
The score matrix will be individually submitted to the Facilitator at the same time as
the group (collective) report submission.
The Facilitator will take into consideration the average “team participation score” for
each member to determine the weighted ‘Teamwork’ criterion rows in the final
marking ru
ic for this assessment (see below).
All peer evaluations are confidential and individual rankings will not be released to
other members of the group.
Failure to submit a self-review and peer review co
ectly, or at all, will result is zero
grading for this assessment criteria.
Groups should refer to the marking ru
ic to ensure all the assessment criteria are
addressed.
Referencing:
You must recognise all sources of information; including images that you can include in your
work. Reference your work according to the APA 6th edition guidelines. Please see more
information on referencing here http:
li
ary.laureate.net.au
esearch_skills
eferencing
Submission Instructions:
o Each group is to submit one final Case Study submission into Assessment 2
submission link in the Assessment section found in the main navigation menu of the
subject Blackboard site. A ru
ic will be attached to the assessment.
o Each student is to submit a completed team participation score matrix document in
Assessment 2 review submission link.
http:
li
ary.laureate.net.au
esearch_skills
eferencing
MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx XXXXXXXXXXPage 4
of 8
The Assessment 2 Case Study assignment and individual Team Participation Score
documents are to be submitted at the same time for the facilitator to finalise grading for
this assessment. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the
LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Appendix 1:
Team Participation Score Matrix
a) Individually, each team member will assign a “teamwork” score (from 1-5) for other
members of the team/group using a participation score matrix attached to the
marking ru
ic.
) You will need to assign yourself a participation score.
c) The score matrix will be individually submitted to the Facilitator at the same time as
the group (collective) report submission.
d) The Facilitator will use the average “teamwork” score for each member in
considering the weighted teamwork or group participation contribution to their final
mark.
Grading Matrix
Member Name/ID Maximum Teamwork
Mark (%)
Average Participation
Score XXXXXXXXXX
1
20
2
20
3
20
4
20
5
20
MGT600_Assessment 2_Case Study.docx XXXXXXXXXXPage 5
of 8
Appendix 2:
Peer Evaluation Grading Scheme
Rating Description
5 Builds team’s identity and commitment
Leads team
Evaluates teams’ outcomes
Implements strategies for enhancing team effectiveness
4 Understands group dynamics and team roles
Facilitates team development
Renegotiates responsibilities, tasks and schedules to meet needed change
3 Contributes to small group discussions to reach agreement on issues
Works together with others towards shared goals
Renegotiates responsibilities to meet needed change
2 Participates effectively in teams
Identifies team and individual goals, tasks, responsibilities and schedules
Contributes to group processes
Supports the team
1 Does not participate effectively in a team environment
Places individual goals ahead of the group responsibility
Hinders the group process and upsets the schedule
MGT600_Assessment 2_ Case Study Page 6 of 8
Learning Ru
ic: Assessment 2 Case Study
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