Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Seminar Presentation 26 November 11.

05 Quality Management 32 minutes Grading Criteria Jake Mallen, Matt Haigh, Joe Stojic, Mathew Lazarus OVERALL GRADE: 61%

th

80% & Above

Application & Understanding (60% weighting) Students provide an outstanding response that addresses the vast majority of the issues/standards alluded to within the assessment criteria. Outstanding application to question, showing clear evidence of an ability to critically relate theory to practice, sometimes at an abstract level. Outstanding use of related and current examples to illuminate arguments. Extensive and fully utilised bibliography/references. Where there are discernible differences in the levels of understanding, measured against the criteria, students may receive individual grades. In all other instances a group grade will be awarded. ]-

Structure (20% weighting) Students provide an outstanding response that addresses the vast majority of the issues/standards alluded to within the assessment criteria. Demonstrates excellent structure with clear exposition of content and logical progression between the constituent components of the presentation

Professionalism (20% weighting) Students provide an outstanding response that addresses the vast majority of the issues/standards alluded to within the assessment criteria. Demonstrates an outstanding approach to the presentation. Adopts a professional demeanour which is well suited to the audience. Outstanding use is made of supporting material. Audience involvement is actively encouraged through a variety of inventive and interesting methods that enhance learning. The presentation runs to time +/5 minutes. Where there are discernible differences in the levels of understanding and/or attendance, measured against the criteria, students may receive individual grades. In all other instances a group grade will be awarded. OVERALL THIS WAS (VERY) GOOD 63% (12.6)

OVERALL, THIS WAS (VERY) GOOD 60% (36)

OVERALL, THIS WAS VERY GOOD 63% (12.6)

Identify question and learning outcomes picking out all relevant parts of the assessment criteria 11.07 apple video viz Iphone 5 Jonny Ives video (2 mins) could have done more with this. Similar to Ford Motor Company video viz Japanese gearboxes. Then does do a little more around this need to relate this to design, branding and customer needs viz premier/quality product and pricing. Q QA = responsibility of management and a checking process around this what about staffing? Pride in work etc. Resaonable response to this question, but does show some gaps in knowledge around interpretations of stakeholder responsibilities within QC vs QA vs TQM approaches.

7 key features slides and QA vs TQM slide (Deming?) Good slide on different methods of assessing quality Q: again need source? Source is on the commentary tends to be descriptive with some critical analysis that would benefit from being developed further and related to wider systems approach alluded to in the question. 11.21-11.28 activity 1: Fitness First, Virgin and Fitness 4 Less Asks, what scheme would you go for? 2 of these orgs per group. Good engagement could have worked them a bit more good feedback from audience. 4 minutes of feedback with 1/2/3 biscuits awarded. Last bit looking at other areas related to this topic basic motivation theories simplistically applied needs better linking back to Quality e.g. training and /or development relative to QC/QA & TQM. Asks the question again at the end and gets feedback from audience. Useful Q&A at the end that begins to pull all the threads togethers. Overall demonstrates a clear understanding of the central issues with useful structure and very good audience engagement.