MSIN0013 Critical Analytical Thinking 2023/24

Assessment (non-exam) Brief

Section B: Assessment Brief and Requirements

Details of the assessment brief. Generic assessment criteria are included in section E. Any additional criteria specific to this assessment are detailed in section F.

Read and follow all instructions in this official brief. It supersedes any other representations made verbally by instructors, TAs, or others. No other criteria will necessarily be applied to submission grading, including representations or submissions outside of the instructions or after the fact.

Your task is to design a High-Performance Team that would excel at consulting projects for solving wicked problems. Your design will take the form of a Report answering six challenge questions, which we will inform and practice in sequence during weekly seminars. Each question must be answered in essay form with logical arguments. The logic you provide should ONLY use and cite formal concepts taught in this module EXCEPT where instructed in the question. See section F for the rubric criteria that will be applied to assess your logical arguments.

Grading for this individual assessment consists of two components - individual submission, and participation - as follows:

• 80% of the grade will be determined by the rubric criteria (presented in Section F) applied to your report submission.

• 20% of the grade will be based on your participation, as follows: (i) participation tickets will be awarded by instructor/TAs during lectures and seminars for your timely engagement in and contributions to collaborative learning in class, (ii) maximum one unique ticket number per week must be submitted on the participation submission box for Coursework 1 on Moodle > Assessments, (iii) your participation grade component is the number of unique valid tickets submitted as a proportion of the available weeks (est. 8 weeks).

Individual Project Submission instructions

In approximately 500 words per question, write a logical argument essay to answer the following six questions, using and citing the most relevant taught course concepts. Do not include executive summary, abstract, contents, introduction, summary or any other content other than answering the following questions.

You MUST label each question precisely in your submission as follows:

Q1. Job Description

You need to hire two more people to join your high-performance team for consulting jobs solving wicked problems. Using a job site such as indeed.co.uk, research the job descriptions of relevant careers to identify three distinct skills that would be especially instrumental in the team. One skill you should assign to yourself in the team with the intention of becoming strong in this skill. You should pick two other skills in which you are weaker and hire two people that are stronger in those skills.

Write an essay answer that covers: (i) define, explain the logic, implications and logical assumptions for each of the three skills with citations for definition and logic, (ii) identify the skill that you will assign yourself and explain logically why stating implications and assumptions, (iii) identify the skill that you will assign to 2 new hires and explain logically why stating implications and assumptions. (Three short paragraphs suggested).

Q2. Design for Learning

You have a team of 100 people. Research and describe ONE researched method to help team members increase resilience. Write an essay paragraph answer to define the method, logically explain how and why it teaches resilience through the one learning style it most dominantly uses, stating implications and assumptions. Write two more paragraphs, one for each of the other learning styles. Explain how you would supplement the method to better address the other two learning styles. For each, logically explain how and why the supplement uses a learning style to teach resilience, stating implications and assumptions. For this question you will need to conduct and cite external research about a training approach to develop resilience. (Three short paragraphs suggested).

Q3. Root-Cause Analysis

Your team is faced with the “In-tray” problem from the seminar. Identify one root-cause that is different than the idea that any other students in your seminar group writes up (to avoid high similarity, discuss and agree with seminar group members who will write about which unique root-cause idea).

Write your own logical explanation essay that covers: Use critically reflexive questioning to draw and include a root-cause diagram that clearly illustrates your root-cause idea (templates available on Moodle or take photo from paper drawing). Use critically reflexive questioning to define in text the root cause, explain logically how the root problem could cause the issues reported in some of the memos, the implications if we solved your chosen root-cause, and the assumptions underlying your analysis. (One paragraph suggested).

Q4. Tough Decision

Your team is faced with the “In-tray” problem from the seminar. In your seminar group, identify one unique assumption per group member on which your Resource Choice decision was based. Each assumption should be highly relevant to whether or not your group Choice would be the optimal choice. Agree with group members who will write about each unique solution, so that no two people in your group submit the same assumption.

Write two paragraphs in total to cover the following:

• What was your uniquely identified assumption? Why in cause-effect logic terms would the assumption have a material effect on whether or not your group Choice would be the optimal choice? How could you test your assumption (one or two sentences)? What are the implications if the assumption was false?

•What is the most likely Counterfactual situation in which your assumption above would be false? Why would the Counterfactual situation effect the optimality of your Choice? How would your choice change if the Counterfactual situation was true? What would be the implication if your alternative Resource Choice was implemented and the counterfactual situation turned out to be true?

Q5. Team Governance

Describe in logical argument essay style (not bullets, table, or image) elements of a policy governing the team decision-making process that would enable all decision-makers to overcome 3 specific cognitive biases from taught content. For each, define and logically explain (using taught course concepts only) stating implications and assumptions. (Three short paragraphs suggested).

Section C: Module Learning Outcomes covered in this Assessment

This assessment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated module Learning Outcomes as highlighted below:

• Identify premises and conclusions

• Develop ideas in a natural order and identify what information is relevant and what is not

• Recognise the potential limitations of their own points of view and factor in the perceptions and perspectives of others

• Identify assumptions and draw conclusions from empirical evidence

• Critically evaluate arguments and identify alternatives

• Develop well-reasoned arguments and communicate those arguments effectively

Section D: Groupwork Instructions (where relevant/appropriate)

Specific requirements for groupwork are available here. If this section is blank, no specific requirements for groupwork are applicable to this assessment.

This assessment is graded at the individual level, but the teaching includes collaborative learning via your participation in seminar groups. While it is in your best interest to maximise collaborative learning, group performance will not limit your individual report performance. Do your own best work. Seminar groups can be formed and changed each session.

Section E: How your work is assessed

Within each section of this assessment you may be assessed on the following aspects, as applicable and appropriate to this assessment, and should thus consider these aspects when fulfilling the requirements of each section:

• The accuracy of any calculations required.

• The strengths and quality of your overall analysis and evaluation;

• Appropriate use of relevant theoretical models, concepts and frameworks;

• The rationale and evidence that you provide in support of your arguments;

• The credibility and viability of the evidenced conclusions/recommendations/plans of action you put forward;

• Structure and coherence of your considerations and reports;

• Appropriate and relevant use of, as and where relevant and appropriate, real world examples, academic materials and referenced sources. Any references should use either the Harvard OR Vancouver referencing system (see References, Citations and Avoiding Plagiarism)

• Academic judgement regarding the blend of scope, thrust and communication of ideas, contentions, evidence, knowledge, arguments, conclusions.

• Each assessment requirement(s) has allocated marks/weightings.

Student submissions are reviewed/scrutinised by an internal assessor and are available to an External Examiner for further review/scrutiny before consideration by the relevant Examination Board.

It is not uncommon for some students to feel that their submissions deserve higher marks (irrespective of whether they actually deserve higher marks). To help you assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of your submission please refer to SOM Assessment Criteria Guidelines, located on the Assessment tab of the SOM Student Information Centre Moodle site.

The above is an important link as it specifies the criteria for attaining the pass/fail bandings shown below:

At UG Levels 4, 5 and 6:

80% to 100%: Outstanding Pass - 1st; 70% to 79%: Excellent Pass - 1st; 60%-69%: Very Good Pass - 2.1; 50% to 59%: Good Pass - 2.2; 40% to 49%: Satisfactory Pass - 3rd; 20% to 39%: Insufficient to Pass - Fail; 0% to 19%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass - Fail.

At PG Level 7:

86% to 100%: Outstanding Pass - Distinction; 70% to 85%: Excellent Pass - Distinction; 60%-69%: Good Pass - Merit; 50% to 59%: Satisfactory - Pass; 40% to 49%: Insufficient to Pass - Fail; 0% to 39%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass - Fail.

You are strongly advised to review these criteria before you start your work and during your work, and before you submit.

You are strongly advised to not compare your mark with marks of other submissions from your student colleagues. Each submission has its own range of characteristics which differ from others in terms of breadth, scope, depth, insights, and subtleties and nuances. On the surface one submission may appear to be similar to another but invariably, digging beneath the surface reveals a range of differing characteristics.

Students who wish to request a review of a decision made by the Board of Examiners should refer to the UCL Academic Appeals Procedure, taking note of the acceptable grounds for such appeals.

Note that the purpose of this procedure is not to dispute academic judgement – it is to ensure correct application of UCL’s regulations and procedures. The appeals process is evidence-based and circumstances must be supported by independent evidence.

Section F: Additional information from module leader (as appropriate)

Grading for this individual assessment consists of two components - individual submission, and participation - as follows:

• 80% of the grade will be determined by the rubric criteria (presented in Section F) applied to your report submission.

• 20% of the grade will be based on your participation, as follows: (i) participation tickets will be awarded by instructor/TAs during lectures and seminars for your timely engagement in and contributions to collaborative learning in class, (ii) maximum one unique ticket number per week must be submitted on the participation submission box for Coursework 1 on Moodle > Assessments, (iii) your participation grade component is the number of unique valid tickets submitted as a proportion of the available weeks (est. 8 weeks).

RUBRIC GRADING CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSION (REPORT)

Be aware that graders will ONLY look for the answer within the structure specified herein. They will NOT go looking for answers in other sections or poorly structured paragraphs and documents. It is your obligation to submit a report that would be brief, credible and informative to a management reader.

1. Application of Formal Taught Concepts (e.g., Theories & dimensions)

The most relevant frameworks/theories from the module are explicitly applied in sufficient detail, and significantly less relevant detail is omitted. See coursework brief and related lecture notes to make an educated choice about the 'REQUIRED' and 'EXPECTED' theories/dimensions for this question. A strong answer clearly and correctly identifies and defines the theories/dimensions it uses, even if the question does not explicitly say so. 'Theory' can refer to any formal concept, framework or model.

2. Explanatory Logic

Cause-effect logic should be clearly explained for every claim in every paragraph. Like a hypothesis, explanatory logic identifies a specific variable (cause) and an action by which it produces an outcome (effect). Logic should come from theory or other formal concepts that are taught in this module, and NOT external theories unless specifically instructed to do so. The logic statement should be falsifiable (testable) with empirical data. It should use active verbs (e.g., "increases...because") rather than passive verbs (e.g., "is", "will be", "was"), which are vague.

3. Use of Evidence

Qualitative or quantitative 'data' is presented that proves each claim by showing that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the logic for the claim are true. Such data is meaningless as evidence if it is does not explicitly relate to a logic statement. It can also be meaningless if presented as raw data without context, where context can be communicated through comparison, proportion, or significance.

4. Implications

Interpret with judgement any conclusions, since acting on any conclusion will likely have different implications for different stakeholders. Multiple perspectives/ alternatives are explicitly compared, trade-offs well analysed, and recommendations explicitly attempt to balance trade-offs. Contingencies explicitly explain uncontrollable/ environmental conditions and how they affect the valence of alternative or chosen options.

5. Assumptions & Conditions

All argument conclusions are dependent on some assumptions, such as other variables not changing. Ideally, the author surfaces assumptions as limitations or conditions under which the argument would hold and conditions that, if changed, could alter the conclusion.

Be aware that assessments can be negatively impacted:

• by including irrelevant detail and by omitting relevant detail (you must demonstrate educated critical choices here)

• by errors of definition, logic or interpretations• by poor grammar and spelling mistakes (use apps to help you!)

• by using incorrect section labels

• by failing to read and comply with all instructions herein

• by poor document structure

In-class credit provisions for SORA students and/or students with extenuating circumstances (EC):

• If you are a confirmed SORA student and have difficulties participating in-class: Submit on the designated Moodle link a written answer to each of the questions listed for each day's scenario week question in the brief. Submissions are due on the original deadline (start of Term 3) and only answers that exceed the average level of quality will get participation credits. No submissions will be allowed after the deadline.

• After your ECs have been approved for absences in MSIN0013 scenario week, ensure you attend all scenario week days not covered by the EC. You will then need to submit a 5-minute (no more) video of you presenting your solution, and this will be graded based on both substance and verbal and non-verbal performance to determine the participation credits earned.