Thanks to Adr for reminding me about the online discussion started to today. For some reason I thought the first session was to take place tomorrow.
I have to say it was done in a funny way, using email with everyone posting replies to the question. Not the right way to do it, let alone effective way. From the beginning I hated it. It's not even forum tool. You will be lost half way through the discussion not knowing where it began and where it progresses to. Apparently there is proper tool for such a discussion, including voice feature available and we can use it for our third session on Wednesday. It puzzles me why this was not used today.
The topic discussed revolved around organisational performance and critique of balance scorecard (BSC). I had a few ideas in mind having seen BSC used in my organisation and had met with the person responsible in rolling it out and managing it this afternoon. The key question I posed was if the BSC was created based in cascaded objectives coming top down. The answer to this was Yes, indeed the case. Corporate sent a challenge letter to Sector, and Sector down to business. Based on this, KPIs were chosen to be the basis of the BSC covering four areas namely processes, finance, people, and ... I don't remember the fourth. The use of the BSC is no more than to provide a quick, simple way of monitoring mainly key operational areas. This can be used to be proactively anticipate and handle issues in projects or organisation.
Monday 29 March 2010
Thursday 25 March 2010
TMA03 Marks
Today I got back the marks for my fourth TMA - number 3. I knew it wasn't gonna be good, having rushed to complete it in the last minute. let me see .... fewhh!! Thank god. Not that bad.
Mr Tutor commented that I did not use enough the principle of Theory - Interpretation - Evaluation in question a on organisational performance. Precisely what went wrong. I wouldn't disagree a single bit. I mentioned very little of the theory, hence no interpretation of it. Evaluation was quite poor. In terms of collaboration, I got involved a lot in the TGF but did not make use of it so much in the answer. To be honest I got a lost in the forum --- the forum tool is to be blamed. Extremely poor functionality and miles from being user friendly.
Question 2 on financial ratio which I thought I was gonna do pretty good did not turn so ... darn it! The comment: "you probably needed to thin down what you offered, as the extent of what you contributed somewhat obscured the detail of what the anser needed - a case of too much, basically.". I went over board in my rationale of the ratios? Hard to believe. I've asked Mr Tutor to provide clarification.
Mr Tutor commented that I did not use enough the principle of Theory - Interpretation - Evaluation in question a on organisational performance. Precisely what went wrong. I wouldn't disagree a single bit. I mentioned very little of the theory, hence no interpretation of it. Evaluation was quite poor. In terms of collaboration, I got involved a lot in the TGF but did not make use of it so much in the answer. To be honest I got a lost in the forum --- the forum tool is to be blamed. Extremely poor functionality and miles from being user friendly.
Question 2 on financial ratio which I thought I was gonna do pretty good did not turn so ... darn it! The comment: "you probably needed to thin down what you offered, as the extent of what you contributed somewhat obscured the detail of what the anser needed - a case of too much, basically.". I went over board in my rationale of the ratios? Hard to believe. I've asked Mr Tutor to provide clarification.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)