Decision Analysis for Managers - Australia Assignments

Jinkalkumar Barevadiya –
26561020 – BUS9040M –
Decision Analysis for Managers
by JINKALKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR BAREVADIYA
Submission date: 25-Jan-2023 10:52AM (UTC+0000)
Submission ID: 196089904
File name: Jinkalkumar_Barevadiya_-_26561020_-_BUS9040M_-_Decision_Analysis_for_Managers.pdf
(1.34M)
Word count: 5838
Character count: 29726
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

6%
SIMILARITY INDEX
3%
INTERNET SOURCES
0%
PUBLICATIONS
6%
STUDENT PAPERS
1 5%
2 2%
Exclude quotes Off
Exclude bibliography On
Exclude assignment
template
On
Exclude matches < 2%
Jinkalkumar Barevadiya – 26561020 – BUS9040M – Decision
Analysis for Managers
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
Submitted to University of Lincoln
Student Paper
global.oup.com
Internet Source
FINAL GRADE
47/100
Jinkalkumar Barevadiya – 26561020 – BUS9040M – Decision
Analysis for Managers
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
Falls short of expectations, in that your report lack
understanding of the learning outcomes. Whilst
there is some general knowledge and basic
understanding of different parts of the
assignment, this does not reach the required level.
The work is poorly structured and muddled; at
times it is difficult to follow what you are trying to
say. Reorganisation of key sections and
improvements academic style would make this a
pass standard.
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
PAGE 4
PAGE 5
PAGE 6
PAGE 7
PAGE 8
PAGE 9
PAGE 10
PAGE 11
PAGE 12
PAGE 13
PAGE 14
PAGE 15
PAGE 16
PAGE 17
PAGE 18
PAGE 19
PAGE 20
PAGE 21
PAGE 22
PAGE 23
PAGE 24
PAGE 25
PAGE 26
PAGE 27
PAGE 28
PAGE 29
RUBRIC: BUS9040M AACSB RUBRIC-FINAL
AOL CC5 DATA
PROFICIENT
EXCEPTIONAL (8
PROFICIENT
DISTINCTION (7
PROFICIENT MERIT (60-
69%)
PROFICIENT PASS (50
-59%)
NOT YET PROFICIENT
(40-49
NOT PROFICIENT (LESS
THAN
AOL CC6 TECHN
PROFICIENT
EXCEPTIONAL (8
PROFICIENT
DISTINCTION (7
PROFICIENT MERIT (60-
69%)
PROFICIENT PASS (50
-59%)
NOT YET PROFICIENT
(40-49
Not Yet
Proficient (40-
49
Sophisticated and critical application and interpretation of data analytics to the
specific problem(s). Solutions are evidence based and accompanied by clear
caveats.
Sophisticated and critical application and interpretation of data analytics to the
specific problem(s). Solutions are evidence based and accompanied by clear
caveats.
Sophisticated and critical application and interpretation of data analytics to the
specific problem(s). Solutions are evidence based and accompanied by clear
caveats.
Appropriate analysis of complexity which provides a sufficiently robust evidence
base to support decision-making. Solutions reflect evidence and are
original/context specific.
Engagement with problem incomplete or overly simplistic. The decisions/solutions
not fully connected to data analysis or insufficiently evidenced based. Some errors
in interpretation. Proposed solutions lack originality
Application of data analytics limited or erroneous, complexity of problem
unrecognised with no analytically informed solutions.
Not Yet
Proficient (40-
49
Application of technology is sophisticated and critical; limits of technology are
understood in the context of the broader and specific considerations of
responsible decision-making .
Application of technology is sophisticated and critical; limits of technology are
understood in the context of the broader and specific considerations of
responsible decision-making .
Application of technology is sophisticated and critical; limits of technology are
understood in the context of the broader and specific considerations of
responsible decision-making .
Technologies and application appropriate to the context/task. The application
informs or has the potential to enhance decision-making. Decisions are informed
by consideration of responsibility to stakeholders.
Appropriate technologies selected but application does not extend sufficiently to
support reasoned and/or responsible decision-making
NOT PROFICIENT (LESS
THAN
REFERENCE TO
PROFICIENT
EXCEPTIONAL (8
PROFICIENT
DISTINCTION (7
PROFICIENT MERIT (60-
69%)
PROFICIENT PASS (50
-59%)
NOT YET PROFICIENT
(40-49
NOT PROFICIENT (LESS
THAN
SYNTHESIS/CRI
PROFICIENT
EXCEPTIONAL (8
PROFICIENT
DISTINCTION (7
PROFICIENT MERIT (60-
69%)
PROFICIENT PASS (50
-59%)
NOT YET PROFICIENT
(40-49
NOT PROFICIENT (LESS
THAN
Inappropriate technology selected or application limited. Not used to inform
responsible decision making.
Not Yet
Proficient (40-
49
Outstanding use of source material; recognition of different perspectives.
Developed & justified using own ideas based on a wide range of sources which
have been thoroughly analysed, applied & discussed.
Able to critically appraise the literature & theory gained from a variety of sources,
developing own ideas in the process.
Clear evidence & application of reading relevant to the subject; use of indicative
texts identified.
Hardly goes beyond the material tutor has provided; limited use of sources to
support a point.
Literature either not consulted or irrelevant to assignment set.
Not Yet
Proficient (40-
49
The work is exceptional, and the powers of criticality and synthesis go well beyond
the standards expected at this level.
The work demonstrates criticality and powers of syntheses. The argumentation is
logical and coherent. There are strong arguments of advocacy as well as discovery.
The work does synthesise to a large extent and critically evaluate key sources of
knowledge. This is robust but not fully developed. The argument is coherent and
evidenced, but with a stronger emphasis on discovery than advocacy.
The work tends to summarise quite extensively what is known about the topic
rather than integrating the various sources into a more coherent and logical
argument. The evidence base is sufficient but needed to be better deployed.
Argumentation is emergent rather than developed.
The work tends to present a summary of a somewhat constrained knowledge set.
There maybe some critical comments but these are not evaluative. Arguments are
underdeveloped.
The work is a summary of a limited knowledge base. There is a limited basis from
which to develop either synthesis or evaluation. No argumentation is evidenced
KNOWLEDGE AND
PROFICIENT
EXCEPTIONAL (8
PROFICIENT
DISTINCTION (7
PROFICIENT MERIT (60-
69%)
PROFICIENT PASS (50
-59%)
NOT YET PROFICIENT
(40-49
NOT PROFICIENT (LESS
THAN
CLARITY AND P
PROFICIENT
EXCEPTIONAL (8
PROFICIENT
DISTINCTION (7
PROFICIENT MERIT (60-
69%)
PROFICIENT PASS (50
-59%)
NOT YET PROFICIENT
(40-49
Not Yet
Proficient (40-
49
The work demonstrates exceptional knowledge and critical understanding such
that it goes well beyond the standards expected at this level.
The work demonstrates in-depth knowledge, expertise and critical understanding
of module. The work is authoritative and contains original insights
The work demonstrates a sound knowledge and developing level of expertise in
the field. There is evidence of some critical understanding of key areas of the
module, but this could be further developed. There are no significant gaps in the
knowledge base, but originality is limited.
The work demonstrates a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the
fundamentals of the topic or domain. The work tends to lack critical insight and
expertise is emergent rather than developed.
The level of knowledge and understanding is not quite at the level expected.
Expertise is limited and derivative rather than original.
There is evidence that some knowledge has been accumulated but this is very
limited and there are significant gaps and fundamental weaknesses or
misunderstandings
Not Yet
Proficient (40-
49
Language is clear and expressive. Always conveys meaning clearly, with no
grammatical or spelling errors.
Communicates ideas in a way that is clear and concise. Connects ideas in a way
that is organised and logical. Abstract concepts are explained accurately.
Explanation of concepts makes sense to an uninformed reader. Always conveys
meaning clearly, with no grammatical or spelling errors.
Communicates ideas in a way that is mostly clear and concise. Connects ideas in a
way that is mostly organised and logical. Abstract concepts are explained mostly
accurately. Mostly conveys meaning clearly, with few grammatical or spelling
errors.
Communicates ideas in a way that is sometimes unclear and wordy. Structures
ideas in a somewhat unconnected or disorganised manner. Abstract concepts are
sometimes presented inaccurately. Some attempt to demonstrate relevance but
this is sometimes unclear or underdeveloped. Sometimes conveys meaning
unclearly due to grammatical and/or spelling errors.
Communicates ideas in a way that is unclear and wordy. Structures ideas in a
haphazard manner. Logic is unclear. Concepts are either not discussed or are
presented inaccurately. Often conveys meaning unclearly due to many
NOT PROFICIENT (LESS
THAN
ENGAGEMENT WI
PROFICIENT
EXCEPTIONAL (8
PROFICIENT
DISTINCTION (7
PROFICIENT MERIT (60-
69%)
PROFICIENT PASS (50
-59%)
NOT YET PROFICIENT
(40-49
NOT PROFICIENT (LESS
THAN
grammatical and/or spelling errors.
Does not include enough content to communicate ideas. No coherent structure.
Logic is unclear. Typically conveys meaning unclearly due to many grammatical
and/or spelling errors.
Not Yet
Proficient (40-
49
Exceeds expectations with meaningful transformation of assignment parameters,
task and purpose. Indicates a profound comprehension of the problem
and context. Recommendations are described in an informative way
with a range of supportive evidence and convincing justification of practicality
concerning the case study.
Exceeds expectations with meaningful transformation of assignment parameters,
task and purpose. Demonstrates original insights; conclusions strongly
supported. Recommendations are described in an informative way
with some supportive evidence and convincing justification of practicality
concerning the case study. 
Meets expectations by following assignment parameters through fully addressing
task and purpose. Clear synthesis of recommendations
presented; conclusion is a logical extrapolation from the report findings. Recommendations /conclusions are described clearly with few supportive
evidence and with an attempt to justify practicality.
Partially meets expectations by somewhat following assignment parameters,
addressing task and purpose. Some synthesis of ideas based on
the key points found in the literature (“off the shelf”); states a general conclusion.
 Recommendations /conclusions are clear, fair and supported
with evidence.
Minimally meets expectations by following few assignment parameters. Partially
responds to the assessment task and purpose. Proposes vague or
indirect recommendations and illogical or unsupportable conclusion. Some recommendations /conclusions are clear and fair.
Does not meet expectations by not following assignment parameters. Does not
respond to the assessment task and purpose. No attempt to
problem solving. No recommendation/ conclusions was presented. Or Recommendations /conclusions are unclear and vague.