Q This case study is unique from all the others as you get the opportunity to learn more about operations management from a friend, family member or co-worker. By conducting an interview, you will benefit from the experience of others in the spirit of benchmarking. Benchmarking can be advantageous by learning the positive, inspirational or good aspects of an external entity but the process can also provide great insights by learning what not to do or what didn’t work as well as intended. Find a friend, co-worker, acquaintance or family member who works in operations or operations management for a manufacturing or service company. Start asking questions to get their perspective on Operations at their organization and take some notes. • What relationship is the interviewee to you? • Who do they work for? What role? How long? (note: you can elect to keep this confidential if you like) • What is the primary good or service offered at their company? • What attracted them to this role? • What does Operations mean or do at their company? • What do they like about their current job? • What would they change or improve about their current job? • Are there any significant challenges for Operations currently or in the near future? Why? • Do they feel Operations is an important part of the firm’s ability to create value for customers? Why or why not? • What advice would they have for someone considering a career in Operations? Don't feel like you have to limit yourself to the questions above. Have some fun and learn along the way! Rubric Case Study Rubric Case Study Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of Chapter Concepts to Case Study Example 10 to >7.0 pts Excellent Supports CS diagnosis and opinions with strong relevant arguments and well documented evidence; presents a balanced and holistic critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective. CS response shows evidence of knowledge and understanding of assigned reading and interactive exercises. Provides quality and quantity of relevant concepts applied to the specifics of the CS. Includes analytics, research, observation, ideas and recommendations, potential solutions and sensitivity analysis. Goes beyond the basic answers to the prompts and demonstrates thoroughness of responses by incorporating numerous chapter concepts. 7 to >5.0 pts Average Supports diagnosis, suggestions and opinions with limited reasoning and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided or incomplete argument; demonstrates modest engagement of chapter concepts to the ideas presented. Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between identified issues/problems and concepts studied in readings, interactive exercises and/or lectures; demonstrates some command of the analytical tools studied; supplements case study with limited research. Answers to the prompts are basic and routine. 5 to >0 pts Poor CS response is light in content with little or no action suggested and/or inappropriate solutions proposed to the issues in the case study. Lacks suitable connection between the issues identified and the concepts studied in the readings and interactive elements; supplements case study, if at all, with incomplete research, documentation and citation of resources. Does not adequately answer all the CS prompts. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent - Relevance, analytical thought and expression of ideas/points 5 to >3.0 pts Excellent Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the main issues/problems/opportunities in the case study. Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all identified issues/problems; includes all necessary supporting materials and/or calculations. 3 to >2.0 pts Sufficiently Average Identifies and demonstrates an average understanding of most of the issues/problems/opportunities. Presents a moderate analysis of most of the issues identified within the CS; May lack appropriate elaboration to express ideas/points. May be missing some support materials and/or necessary calculations. 2 to >0 pts Poor Identifies and demonstrates at or below minimum acceptable understanding of the issues/problems/opportunities within the CS. Lacks analytical fortitude, or responses are irrelevant Presents a superficial or incomplete analysis of the identified issues; omits supporting materials and/or necessary calculations. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism - Writing mechanics and formatting quality of written submittal 5 to >4.0 pts Impeccable - few to zero errors Demonstrates clarity, content flow and correctness; formatting is appropriate and writing is free of grammar and spelling errors. 4 to >2.0 pts Presentable Occasional grammar or spelling errors, however document offers a clear presentation of ideas; may lack organization or proper formatting. 2 to >0 pts Poorly presented - numerous errors Writing style is unfocused, difficult to follow, rambling, or contains serious/numerous errors; poorly organized or does not follow specified guidelines. 5 pts Total Points: 20 PreviousNext