Complex Managerial Problem-
Assessment Brief:
TASK: 4. Problem Definition
SEMESTER: 1, 2021
DUE DATE: Friday Week 4, at 23:59pm
SIZE LIMIT: 500 words
SUBMISSION: Via Turnitin on Wattle
COLLABORATION: Nil. This individual submission must be entirely your own work.
WEIGHT: 5%
LEARNING OUTCOMES: 2
PURPOSE: Unambiguous definition of a selected problem is the key first step in managing
it; this task is the first in a 4-step refinement of a business problem and will
assist the student to develop their skills in Asking questions and defining
problems and their parameters.
DESCRIPTION: Select a complex managerial problem and then prepare a report describing it.
RETURN OF FEEDBACK: Up to 10 working days after submission, excluding semester breaks
REQUIREMENTS:
1. Preparation – Select a significant and complex managerial problem that is of interest to you, in an
organisation in which you currently work or have worked for in the past. Ideally the report will provide some
useful insights and recommendations to your organization; consider talking to your supervisor and/or
Human Resources director to identify a complex practical issue or problem. Students who have no access to
an organisation should use the supplied case study.
2. Obtain approval, if required – This topic will form the basis of 3 other Reports that contribute to the
assessment for this course, so it is important that the topic be appropriate. If you are not using the case
study then approval of your topic by your lecturer or tutor is required before the end of Week 2.
3. Prepare a report – The report describes the problem, its background and context, justifies study of the
problem, and identifies questions to assist the study.
MGMT7250
ONLINE
2
STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS:
There is no set structure for this Report, but the following content is to be covered and the structure you
select should meet the purpose of communicating with senior management.
ITEM COVERAGE WEIGHTING
Problem statement Define the problem
Provide brief background and context for the problem
30%
Justification Provide reasons to support your assertions that this is a problem
Consider alternative interpretations of the background and context
Provide evidence for these assertions; provide at least one of the four forms
of evidence used in Evidence-based Management.
Present a PICOC table (not included in word-count)
30%
Exploration of the
problem
Identify questions to focus exploration of the problem through stakeholder
evidence
Identify questions to focus exploration of the problem through scientific
evidence
20%
Exploration of
possible solutions
Identify questions to focus exploration of possible solutions through
stakeholder evidence
Identify questions to focus exploration of possible solutions through
scientific evidence
20%
References A reference list of all materials cited is required –
Note: When presenting evidence:
Consider graphical presentation of quantitative data.
Consider selection of quotations from qualitative data
Consider tabular presentation of qualitative or quantitative data
References from scientific literature situate the problem in a broader context.
The relative weightings of the items of coverage gives you guidance on their relative importance for
assessment, and therefore how to focus your effort. You can use this to help plan your work by using the
weightings to allocate your time and the approximate number of words to each item. Proper referencing is a
Submission Requirement (see separate section for details) and therefore has no weighting in this table, but
not meeting that requirement will impact your assessment.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS & ACADEMIC STANDARDS:
See the detailed Assessment Submission Standards advised in the Getting Started block on the Wattle page.
The Class Summary also includes guidance on ANU’s expectations for academic standards and integrity.
Your submission should also meet the following requirements:
FILE FORMAT: Submit a single file containing the entire submission in DOCX format.
FILE NAME: Name your submission in accordance with the following format:
MGMT7250-u#######-PDR , where ####### is your own ANU ID
MARKING:
The Marking Criteria in this Brief will be used to assess submitted work against the Learning Outcomes.
MARKING CRITERIA – BUSINESS REPORT
3
STRUCTURE & COHERENCE ANALYSIS CONTEXTUAL AWARENESS
WEIGHT 40% 40% 20%
GRADE
HD Submission is appropriate in form and content for its purpose,
communicating with its audience, and addressing the needs of that
audience.
Submission is narrated coherently and unfolds logically, credibly, and
convincingly.
Submission is professionally written with no grammatical, spelling or
other errors; all figures and tables captioned and referred to in text.
Submission is succinct, and condensed and clarified by tables,
graphs, or diagrams, or other supplementary material.
Referencing and citation standards are met.
Submission is clearly structured around relevant course
concepts to address the purpose of the report.
Models drawn from course concepts and conclusions drawn
from them are integrated into the discussion.
Analysis is supported by relevant evidence and academic
literature.
Submission proposes reliable complementary evidence to
address weaknesses or gaps in the evidence and/or analysis.
Conclusions or recommendations flow logically from the
evidence and analysis.
Submission identifies and considers social and ethical
implications of the case, and proposes options to resolve them.
Submission recognises the stakeholders in the case and roles
that they could have in the future.
Submission identifies the broader context of the case (eg:
technological standards; international trade agreements;
consumer law; industry regulation) and addresses these
constraints.
D Submission is appropriate in form and content for its purpose and for
communicating with its audience.
Submission is narrated coherently and unfolds logically and credibly.
Submission is professionally written with no grammatical, spelling or
other errors; all figures and tables captioned and referred to in text.
Submission is condensed and clarified by tables, graphs, or
diagrams, or other supplementary material.
Referencing and citation standards are met.
Submission is structured around relevant course concepts to
address the purpose of the report.
Models drawn from course concepts and conclusions drawn
from them are integrated into the discussion.
Analysis is supported by relevant evidence and academic
literature.
Submission identifies weaknesses or gaps in the evidence
and/or analysis.
Conclusions or recommendations flow from the evidence and
analysis.
Submission identifies and considers social and ethical
implications of the case, and suggests a way of addressing
them.
Submission recognises the stakeholders in the case.
Submission identifies the broader context of the case (eg:
technological standards; international trade agreements;
consumer law; industry regulation) and addresses these
constraints.
C Submission is appropriate in form and content for its purpose.
Submission is clearly written with no grammatical, spelling or other
presentation errors; all figures and tables captioned and referred to in
text.
Referencing and citation standards are met.
Submission addresses the purpose of the report.
Models drawn from course concepts and conclusions drawn
from them are integrated into the discussion.
Analysis is supported by relevant evidence.
Conclusions or recommendations flow from the evidence and
analysis.
Submission identifies some of the broad social, ethical,
organisational, or industry context of the case and addresses
them.
P Submission is appropriate in form and content for its purpose.
Submission has few grammatical, spelling or other presentation
errors; all figures and tables captioned and referred to in text.
Referencing and citation standards are generally met.
Submission addresses the purpose of the report.
Submission applies one or more relevant concepts drawn from
the course materials.
Analysis is supported by some relevant evidence.
Submission identifies one or more aspect of the broad social,
ethical, organisational, or industry context of the case.
F Short, irrelevant, or confusing submission, with ambiguous or
redundant elements.
Submission does not demonstrate professional writing standards;
includes spelling or grammatical errors; figures and tables are not
captioned or referred to in text.
Referencing and citation standards are inadequate.
Unclear submission that is difficult to read and understand.
Submission does not identify or apply key concepts.
Submission does not provide adequate academic literature or
other evidence to underpin the discussion.
Submission does not identify the broad social, ethical,
organisational, or industry context of the case.
