About the 2500-word assignment on "Business Problem Solving."
It needs to be completed strictly according to the requirements outlined in the attachment "Assignment requirements and grading rubric."
Once I accept the bid, I will upload the textbook, and completion of the assignment will require reading the textbook content.
Additionally, I will provide a PowerPoint presentation outlining the approach to be followed for this assignment.
If the requirements are not met, I will require unlimited revisions until the specifications are satisfied. If you cannot accept these conditions, please do not bid.
Business Problem Solving Project Proposal
|
Section |
Learning sources |
|
1. The business client and their business problem (10%, 250 words): · A brief summary and history of your client, including decision-maker who has commissioned this project. · A short description of the situation that prevails for your client at the outset of problem solving (i.e., the state of affairs that are problematic). · Provide clear evidence of the business problem, ideally quantifying the problem and illustrating it graphically. · A set of observations or complications around the situation that creates the tension or dynamic that captures the problem (i.e., what changed or what went wrong that created the problem). · In the form of an objective (e.g., To reduce Coca-Cola’s plastic waste by 50% by 2026 without sacrificing profit margin), define a specific, measurable and actionable problem. |
Topic 1.2 Topic 1.3 Conn & McLean (2019) Chapter 1 Conn & McLean (2019) Chapter 2 |
|
2. Problem structure and components logic tree (20%, 500 words): · Use an initial logic tree (i.e., factor/lever/component) to break the problem into component parts or issues (e.g., causes of the problem) to illustrate and define the basic structure of the problem. · This should be evidence-based, using a combination of credible industry and academic literature, evidence and theory, covering the problem generally (based upon the academic literature) and the problem in the context of your client (based upon the industry literature). · Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the logic tree. · It is expected that this logic tree will have three layers – branches should expand at each layer. |
Topic 2.1 Conn & McLean (2019) Chapter 3 |
|
3. Solution drivers and hypothesised solutions logic tree (30%, 750 words): · Using the basic problem structure logic tree as a guide to locate further industry and academic literature, evidence and theory, produce a more complete logic tree (i.e., deductive logic, hypothesis or hybrid of the two) of: a. solution drivers, which help us to see potential pathways to solve the problem, b. concluding with your hypothesised solutions as the leaves of your logic tree. · Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the logic tree. · It is expected that this logic tree will have four layers – branches should expand at each layer, although not necessarily for the fourth layer of hypothesised solutions. |
Topic 2.1 Conn & McLean (2019) Chapter 3 |
|
4. Prioritisation of hypothesised solutions (20%, 500 words): · Using the prioritisation matrix, consider all of the hypothesised solutions from the leaves of your second logic tree to prioritise those that have the biggest impact on solving the problem and which you can most affect to find the critical path to solving your problem. · Prune the tree to remove the ‘leaves’ that are not on the critical path to solving the problem, establishing the hypothesised solutions that will be taken forward to be workplanned. · Provide a fully-referenced commentary of the prioritisation matrix. |
Topic 2.2 Conn & McLean (2019) Chapter 3 |
|
5. Workplan (15%, 375 words): · Starting from the prioritised hypothesised solutions established in the previous step, propose a workplan for how you will test your hypothesised solutions and inform their implementation via data collection and analyses, so to be able to reach a conclusion on the solution to the problem. · For each prioritised hypothesised solution identify the following columns in a chunky workplan: a. a research question that will guide data collection and analysis to test each hypothesised solution and inform their implementation, b. the data required and how you will access or collect it, c. the data analysis techniques you will use, d. timing of this work and e. the anticipated analysis end product (e.g., a graph). · Using a Gantt chart, produce a lean project plan covering key activities and fixed milestones of your proposed project over a three month period of work. |
Topic 2.3 Topic 3.1 Topic 3.2 Conn & McLean (2019) Chapter 4 Conn & McLean (2019) Chapter 5 Conn & McLean (2019) Chapter 6 |
|
6. One-day answer (5%, 125 words) · Conclude your problem-solving project proposal with a one-day answer to convey what understandings are emerging, what unknowns still stand between you and the problem resolution and your best guess at a resolution. |
Topic 2.3 Conn & McLean (2019) Chapter 4 |
Word limit: 2,500 words
Grading Rubric
In the following table you will see what is expected of you in order to achieve a certain grade.
10
|
The business client and their business problem (10%) |
Problem structure and components logic tree (20%) |
Solution drivers and hypothesised solutions logic tree (30%) |
Prioritisation of hypothesised solutions (20%) |
Workplan (15%) |
One-day answer (5%) |
|
|
Distinction (70% plus) |
A highly specific, measurable and actionable problem presented as an objective, which is fully evidenced. Succinct description of a complicated problem background. |
Highly logical disaggregation of problem into components or issues, which provides excellent insight to the problem that was not available prior to disaggregation. Disaggregation that is connected to and fully informed by both industry and academic literature. |
Highly logically building upon the basic problem structure logic tree, a fully-evidenced and referenced more complete logic tree that substantially advances thinking on the problem towards drivers of the problem solution, identifying highly clear and practical pathways to solve the problem. |
Exceptional analysis of hypothesis solutions to objectively determine which will have the biggest impact on the problem and which can be actively managed. Highly logical pruning of ‘leaves’ of your final logic tree to establish a critical part to solving the problem. |
Highly clear links between hypothesised solutions, research questions, fact gathering and critical analysis. Highly clear procedure by which you will rigorously access data. Highly clear procedure by which you will rigorously analyse data. Highly appropriate selection of analysis tools to answer research questions. A highly detailed and feasible timetable. |
A highly insightful one-day answer that convey what understandings are emerging, what unknowns still stand between you and the problem resolution and your best guess at a resolution. |
|
Merit (60%-69%) |
A specific, measurable and actionable problem presented as an objective, which is fully evidenced. Succinct description of a complicated problem background. |
Logical disaggregation of problem into components or issues, which provides good insight to the problem that was not available prior to disaggregation. Disaggregation that is partly connected to and informed by both industry and academic literature. |
Logically building upon the basic problem structure logic tree, a fully-evidenced and referenced more complete logic tree that substantially advances thinking on the problem towards drivers of the problem solution, identifying clear and practical pathways to solve the problem. |
Very good analysis of hypothesised solutions to objectively determine which will have the biggest impact on the problem and which can be actively managed. Logical pruning of ‘leaves’ of your final logic tree to establish a critical part to solving the problem. |
Clear links between hypothesised solutions, research questions, fact gathering and critical analysis. Clear procedure by which you will rigorously access data. Clear procedure by which you will rigorously analyse data. Appropriate selection of analysis tools to answer research questions. A detailed and feasible timetable. |
An insightful one-day answer that convey what understandings are emerging, what unknowns still stand between you and the problem resolution and your best guess at a resolution. |
|
Pass (50%-59%) |
A somewhat unclear problem presented as an objective, but not fully evidenced. Description of a complicated problem background. |
Disaggregation of problem into components or issues, which provide some insight to the problem that was not available prior to disaggregation. Disaggregation that attempts to both industry and academic literature. |
Logically building upon the basic problem structure logic tree, a fully-evidenced and referenced more complete logic tree that somewhat advances thinking on the problem towards drivers of the problem solution, identifying pathways to solve the problem. |
Analysis of hypothesised solutions to determine which will have the biggest impact on the problem and which can be actively managed, but with some errors. Pruning of ‘leaves’ of your final logic tree to establish a critical part to solving the problem, but with some errors. |
Somewhat unclear links between hypothesised solutions, research questions, fact gathering and critical analysis. Somewhat unclear procedure by which you will rigorously access data. Somewhat unclear procedure by which you will rigorously analyse data. Not selecting the most appropriate analysis tools to answer research questions. A feasible timetable. |
A one-day answer that convey what understandings are emerging, what unknowns still stand between you and the problem resolution and your best guess at a resolution. |
|
Fail (49% and below) |
A unclear problem presented as an objective, not evidenced. Description of a problem background. |
Disaggregation of problem into components or issues, but which provides no additional insight to the problem beyond what was available prior to disaggregation. Use of irrelevant industry and academic literature that do not drive problem solving. |
Attempt to build upon the basic problem structure logic tree, an evidenced and referenced more complete logic tree but which does not meaningfully advance thinking on the problem towards drivers of the problem solution, establishing only unclear pathways to solve the problem. |
Flawed analysis of hypothesised solutions which fails to determine which will have the biggest impact on the problem and which can be actively managed. Flawed pruning of ‘leaves’ of your final logic tree, failing to establish a critical path to solving the problem. |
Unclear links between hypothesised solutions, research questions, fact gathering and critical analysis. Unclear procedure by which you will rigorously access data. Somewhat unclear procedure by which you will rigorously analyse data. Flawed selection of analysis tools that do not robustly answer research questions. An unrealistic timetable. |
A highly insightful one-day answer that is limited in conveying what understandings are emerging, what unknowns still stand between you and the problem resolution and your best guess at a resolution. |
|
Assessment Criteria |
Tasks |
1 Marker |
2 Marker |
|
Required content |
|||
|
1. The business client and their business problem (10 marks, 250 words) |
· Summary and history of client · Situation for client at outset of problem solving · Business problem and set of observations/complications around the situation · Objective (in the form of a specific, measurable and actionable problem) |
||
|
2. Problem structure and components logic tree (20 marks, 500 words) |
· Initial logic tree (i.e., three layer factor/lever/component tree) · Fully-referenced commentary of logic tree |
||
|
3. Solution drivers and hypothesised solutions logic tree (30 matrks, 750 words) |
· A more complete logic tree (i.e., four-layer deductive logic, hypothesis or hybrid of the two) of a. solution drivers b. hypothesised solutions · Fully-referenced commentary of logic tree |
||
|
4. Prioritisation of hypothesised solutions (20 marks, 500 words) |
· Full 2×2 prioritisation matrix · Fully-referenced commentary of the prioritisation matrix |
||
|
5. Workplan (15 marks, 375 words) |
· Full workplan for testing hypothesised solutions · Gantt chart |
||
|
6. One-day answer (5 marks, 125 words) |
· Complete one-day answer |
||
|
Total marks |
