Project 2 (Presentation) ||Just in Time (JIT) supply management
| Instructions | |
| You are the vice president of support services for a mid-sized integrated health network. The system CEO recently attended a conference that extolled the virtues of Just in Time (JIT) supply management. You just read an article in today’s industry news feed about spot shortages of medical supplies (look for an actual piece). The CEO wants a deskside (i.e. short verbal) briefing on system supply policy. How to develop a deskside briefing. Develop a 5-15 slide presentation describing the advantages and risks of JIT. Due 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time, Tuesday, of Week 7.Tips for developing successful PowerPoint presentations | |
| Due Date | |
Rubric Name: Grading Rubric
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.Criteria90-100%80-89%70-79%0-69%Criterion ScoreUnderstanding of Issue 20%20 points
The work demonstrates clear understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.17.8 points
The work demonstrates significant understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.15.8 points
The work demonstrates minimal understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.5 points
The work demonstrates little or no understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance./ 20Clarity of Presentation (Logic, References) 25%25 points
The work demonstrates sound and compelling logic in incorporating relevant research in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency (i.e. more than one source), and (3) currency.
The document is well organized, straightforward, easy to understand, and leads the reader to an informed conclusion.22.25 points
The work demonstrates adequate logic in incorporating relevant research in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency (i.e. more than one source), and (3) currency.
The document is generally well organized, straightforward and somewhat easy to understand, but includes extraneous information or questionable findings as it leads the reader to a conclusion.19.75 points
The work demonstrates questionable logic, relies on literature that is dated or somewhat irrelevant in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency, or (3) currency.
The document is somewhat disjointed, not easy to understand, and the conclusion is difficult to discern.0 points
The work employs faulty logic, relying on research that is (1) not applicable, (2) too limited to support the analysis, or (3) not current.
The document is poorly organized, difficult to understand, or fails to reach a cogent conclusion./ 25Comprehensiveness of Analysis 35%35 points
The work demonstrates clear, insightful critical thinking, incorporating relevant research in identifying the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications of the topic.
The work considers both readily identifiable factors and more obscure matters, explore risks and benefits, and examines multiple aspects that can or may influence the topic being examined.31.15 points
The work demonstrates a general understanding based on relevant research in identifying the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications of the topic.
The work considers readily identifiable factors, but omits researching more obscure matters, focus more on benefits than associated risks, and examines the main aspects that can or may influence the topic being examined.27.65 points
The work offers superficial analysis, relying on generalized research addressing the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications of the topic.
The work considers only readily identifiable factors, focuses mostly on benefits versus risks, and examines only the prominent factors that influence the topic being examined.5 points
The work demonstrates marginal or no understanding of the topic or the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications thereof.
The work provides minimal or no evidence to support observations, rely on surface level information or commercial claims, or bases conclusions on limited information./ 35Quality of Writing (Grammar, Format) 15%15 points
The sentence structure is complete, with correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, and varied diction and word choice.
The assignment length is correct. Correct APA formatting is employed.13.35 points
The sentence structure has minor errors (fragments, run-ons), with correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, but limited diction and word choice.
The assignment length is correct. It has some APA formatting errors.11.85 points
The sentence structure has several errors in sentence fluency, with multiple fragments, run-ons, and poor spelling, punctuation, or word choice.
The assignment length is inadequate. It includes several APA errors.1 point
The sentence structure has serious and persistent errors in sentence fluency, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, or word choice.
The assignment length is inadequate. It includes multiple APA errors./ 15Intrinsic Qualities (Innovation, Insight) 5%5 points
The analysis exhibits exceptional inquisitiveness in exploring deeper truths and complex underlying factors, with the goal of developing innovative and insightful solutions.4.45 points
The analysis applies inquisitiveness in exploring deeper truths and complex underlying factors, seeking somewhat creative answers.3.95 points
The analysis examines issues within an acceptable or routine framework. The conclusions are sound and well considered, but do not generate a novel means of addressing the topic or developing a solution.0 points
The analysis accepts things at face value, fails to explore viable alternatives, or does not propose advanced approaches to the topic being examined.
