BUSS 6000 The University of Sydney Team Work and Team leadership Questions This is report of the business class. Students are required to play the game Gov

BUSS 6000 The University of Sydney Team Work and Team leadership Questions This is report of the business class. Students are required to play the game Goverture in class to simulate running a company, and then write a report based on the simulation.The whole report have two parts. You only need to write the second part —team and personal reflection about 1000 words (include 100 words reference). The writing guide is one of the documents. Please read the guide carefully. In the second part, you will choose two of the four questions to write (on page 10 of the guide). You can choose questions 1, 3, and 4. And please be sure to meet the requirements on page 9 of the guide. The specific background introduction, team and personal experience are in the following documents, please complete the report based on this information after reading. In this report, please be sure to use the 3 references I provided. You have to use 2-3 other references. You also need to read the ppt about this part of the course and use it in writing. Both references and ppt are in the following file. This isMaster-level writing, with a strong focus on Critical thinking. I also uploaded an example, please at least reach the level of the example. The scoring standard is also in the file, Please do your best to reach the highest score. This is a business class, in which we will use Goventure to simulate running a company. This is a
game that simulates operating a company. You can google Goventure specific information. A
class is divided into 7 groups, so there will be 7 companies. The industry is consulting. There are
7 companies in the entire industry. There will be a total of three regional markets (Sydney,
Auckland, Shanghai), initially in the default market Sydney. There will be four rounds of
simulation. Finally, students will be asked to write this personal report using simulation. This
report is divided into two parts, one part is strategy analysis, and the other part is team and
individual reflection.
The process and information of team and individual reflection
: There are four people in our team, three men and one woman. The team is randomly assigned
by the professor. Due to the influence of the virus, this course has become a full online teaching,
and the team discussion is also using the mobile phone app to communicate. In the team
discussion, I organize the discussion to coordinate everyone’s time. Because it seems that other
members of the group are not very concerned about this matter, and they may have other things
to do. So in this case, I sacrifice the most, because I don’t want serious conflicts in the group. I
belong to the collator in parker ’s team style framework. I am not a team leader. Our team did
not elect a leader. It may be the reason for this lack of leadership. When we discuss, the
efficiency is low, and it takes more time to discuss, and there is a male team member A who does
not often participate in the discussion. Team member A’s major is Business analysis. One of our
team members B studied quantitative finance, so he performed many calculations in the
simulation. I study finance. Finance is not very useful in this simulation, but I will put forward
important opinions on the group strategy, and the initial strategy of the group is proposed by me,
and I will ensure that the group is on the right track. The major of female team member C is big
data, and she will also put forward many opinions for our group. Sometimes the team members
will have different opinions, but we can all be resolved through communication. This is the
general direction, you can expand other content yourself.
BUSS6000
Semester 1 2020
Simulation Report Writing Guide
The University of Sydney
Page 1
Mostly a Guide!
Note:
This writing guide contains important information and advice on how you
should write up your experience. There are some mandatory elements (ie
questions to be addressed) but it is otherwise a guide only and its structural
suggestions are not mandatory.
Students may structure and present their reports however they believe best
accomplishes the purpose and the assessment criteria in the marking rubric.
The University of Sydney
Page 2
Purpose
Purpose:
The purpose of the Simulation is:
•
To provide a practical learning experience in dealing with the complexities of running a business from
a general managers perspective. It is designed to equip students who have studied specific areas of
business like big data, accounting, finance or marketing with an understanding of how these functions
relate to broader organisational activities and decisions. It also provides a setting for students to apply
their learnings on leadership, influencing, decision-making, and team dynamics and development.
The purpose of the Simulation Report is:
•
To reflect on your actual simulation experience – from your perspective. It must include both a critical
analysis of the strategic context and company performance outcomes, and an assessment of the group
effectiveness, including your individual contribution to the team and your learnings about what makes
for effective teamwork.
The University of Sydney
Page 3
Assessment Criteria
The Assessment Criteria:
1. Business Knowledge (15%) : Demonstrate an ability to identify, select and use course-related business
knowledge to analyse the decisions and outcomes of the simulation,
2. Critical Thinking (15%) : Apply critical thinking to business practice, using materials from unit
workshops, lectures and readings,
3. Problem Solving (15%) : Solve complex problems through appropriate forms of business analysis,
4. Communication (15%) : Demonstrate effective communications in the form of professional writing skills,
5. Provide evidence of consideration of:
a) Group effectiveness (20%), and
b) Individual learnings (20%)
Note: Be careful with the framing questions that you choose to make sure that you effectively
address all the above criteria.
The University of Sydney
Page 4
Assessment Criteria Breakdown
–
–
–
–
Description
Isolated observations
Generalised arguments
Statements / Listing
Naïve justification
–
–
–
–
–
Business Knowledge
Implications explored – ‘so what?’
Explicit links between arguments
Specific + evidenced insights
Integration of data/theory for support
Tailored to the specific situation/question
Critical Thinking
– Positives and negatives explored
– Explores limitations of 1) insights 2) own
arguments 3) frameworks
– Discusses ramifications or consequences
– Critiquing strategy, decisions or arguments,
rather than observing or justifying
– Considers priorities or importance
The University of Sydney
Problem Solving
–
Highlights key problems
–
Explores hidden problems or unintended consequences
–
Suggests and explores solutions
–
Evaluates validity or practicality of solutions against each
other
–
Leverages past problems, examples or lessons
–
Explores and assesses future problems
Communication
–
Key messages + theme
–
Clear written expression
–
Thorough + appropriate referencing
–
Paragraphed ideas + logical flow
–
Paragraphs with topic sentence, examples, reasoning and
summary
–
Guiding introduction and impactful + thoughtful
conclusion
–
Meta-level business implications/lessons/approach
Page 5
Structure
Part 1 – Strategic Analysis (~900 words)
A strategic analysis, framed around two (2) of the questions below
Part 2 – Team & Personal Reflection (~900 words)
A personal reflection on your group effectiveness and individual learnings, framed around two (2) of the
questions below
References (~200 words)
Reference list – using the APA 6th edition
This writing guide contains important information and advice on how you should write up your experience. There
are some mandatory elements (ie questions to be addressed) but it is otherwise a guide only and its structural
suggestions are not mandatory.
The word count distribution above is a guide as well – only the overall word count is enforceable.
The University of Sydney
Page 6
Part 1 – Strategic Analysis (1/2)
Word count: Approximately 900 words
Explore the key strategic issues that your
company encountered along the simulation
journey. Frame your response around two (2)
questions, chosen from the options on next
slide.
Make sure that you use relevant strategyrelated concepts in your analysis, including the
related readings, ie:
Topic 1: Tools for Success
Topic 2: Strategy Development
Topic 3: Strategy Execution
The University of Sydney
Page 7
Part 1 – Strategic Analysis (2/2)
Your Strategic Analysis MUST be framed around two (2) of the below critical questions:
Question 1 – Positioning
How effective was your company’s strategic positioning? What could have been improved?
Question 2 – Execution
How well did you execute your strategy over the 4 rounds? What would you do differently if you
had your time again?
Question 3 – Business Model
Critique your business model and analyse how effectively your company created and captured
value.
Question 4 – Future
If the simulation continued for another 4 rounds, what key future challenges are you likely to face
and what might you do to ensure success?
Note: Please make it clear to the marker which two questions you choose.
The University of Sydney
Page 8
Part 2 – Team & Personal Reflection (1/2)
Word count: Approximately 900 words
This section MUST address two (2) themes (broadly equally), using two (2) of the framing questions:
a) Group Effectiveness: How well the team managed the process and outcomes, and
b) Individual Learning: How well you personally contributed to, and learnt from the simulation
experience.
This section is typically more personal and thus normally written in the first person. Given the online challenges
we have faced this semester, some of this context is expected to form part of your reflective writing in Part 2.
See the marking rubric for a breakdown of the criteria (and %’s) which relate to each of the above themes.
Make sure that you use related course concepts & readings to inform your reflection, using two (2) of the
framing questions (slide 10):
•
•
•
Topic 1: Tools for Success
Topic 4: Teamwork Capabilities
Topic 5: Leadership Capabilities
The University of Sydney
Page 9
Part 2 – Team & Personal Reflection (2/2)
Your Strategic Analysis MUST be framed around two (2) of the below critical questions:
Question 1 – Team Development
Explore your team’s development journey throughout the simulation. Discuss how you personally
experienced and dealt with the challenge(s) along the way.
Question 2 – Team Dysfunction
Teams typically deal with some aspects of team dysfunction (Lencioni, 2002). What were some
of these for you, and how did you build trust and enhance performance?
Question 3 – Team Diversity
How important is diversity to the success of your team? Consider your own perspective as well as
your teammates to frame your response.
Question 4 – Leadership
Use leadership concepts from Lecture 5 and/or Derue et al. (2011) to explore the impact of
leadership upon the team’s effectiveness and discuss possible improvements.
Note: Please make it clear to the marker which 2 questions you choose.
The University of Sydney
Page 10
Remember that reflective writing …
Is…
Is Not……..
•
Your response to experiences, opinions, events, and/or new
information
•
Just conveying information, theory or argument
•
Your response to thoughts and feelings (yours and others)
•
Pure description, though there may be descriptive elements
•
A way of thinking to explore your learning from activity
(learning-by-doing)
•
Straightforward decision or judgement (e.g. about whether
something is right or wrong, good or bad)
•
An opportunity to gain self-knowledge
•
•
A way to achieve clarity & to better understand what you
are actually learning
Simple problem-solving (ie we want to know what actually
happened between a current and future states – how did
you get from A to B)
•
A chance to develop and reinforce your analytical writing
skills
•
A summary of the course notes
•
A way of making meaning out of what you study
•
A standard university academic essay (this is businessfocussed report)
•
A chance to leverage past learnings in order to shape
future opportunities and experiences
•
A day-to-day log of what happened in your team
The University of Sydney
Page 11
The 5Rs framework
Reporting
what happened,
what was the
situation or issue
Responding
your observations,
feelings, and
questions about
the incident
Relating
prior knowledge and
expertise about
yourself and how you
react to situations, but
also what you have
learned previously
Reasoning
your explanation
of the situation
Reconstructing
draw your
conclusions and
key learnings for
the future
(Bain et. al, 2002)
The University of Sydney
Page 12
Formatting
Formatting:
Your SID number should appear on the top right corner in each page of your report (DO NOT
put your name or Unikey as this is anonymous marking).
The 2000 word limit includes all words in the reference list. Words in ALL pictures, graphs,
tables, charts, appendices etc are included in the overall word count. There is a +10% word
count leeway regarding penalties, so the word count is only penalised above 2200 words.
Submitting either a PDF or a Word document is equally acceptable. You may wish to convert
to PDF for submission as Turnitin’s software sometimes displays formatting incorrectly from a
Word document.
The University of Sydney
Page 13
References
Approximately 10 references (~200 words)
Important: All academic material must be appropriately referenced using the APA 6th Standard for your referencing style:
http://libguides.library.usyd.edu.au/c.php?g=508212&p=3476096
BUSS6000 frameworks from the lectures and readings MUST be used in the first instance and referenced appropriately. Frameworks
from outside the course may be used, but only where a student has explicitly justified a shortcoming, limitation or gap in core course
frameworks.
Thorough and regular referencing adds academic weight to your arguments. Statements not backed up by data and/or appropriate
business theory/frameworks carry less weight and will be assigned fewer marks. Referencing adds rigour, integrity and believability
to your arguments – doing this as often as possible will enhance your paper by demonstrating your business knowledge with credible
sources.
The referencing penalty is 1% for each missing or incorrect reference up to a maximum penalty of 5%.
Indicate the author, year and page number wherever possible as specified in the APA standard so your reader can investigate the
veracity of your arguments if necessary.
Plagiarism is a serious offense. Academic Honesty principles apply to this assessments, so students must ensure that sources are
appropriately credited for ideas and that peer-to-peer misconduct is avoided (including, but not limited to, copying other’s reports).
The University of Sydney
Page 14
References (GoVentureCEO)
–
GoVentureCEO is not a usual academic reference and is not covered clearly by the APA 6th Standard,
students are encouraged to be as clear as consistent as possible when referencing the simulation.
–
A Reference List entry like the following will suffice, and only one Reference List entry for all simulation data
is needed: GoVenture. (2019). Retrieved from https://goventureceo.com
–
The in-text reference for sim data could simply be (GoVenture, 2019), however, you may wish to refer to
different months of reports specifically such as (GoVenture, January) or to a specific report (Product
Competitiveness, February).
–
As there are 6 months in the simulation, students can refer to Month 1 as January, through to Month 6 as June,
and write their report based in the ‘6th month’ as June 2019 to assist with the professional use of language.
–
When creating graphs/tables/charts from the simulation or altering data, you should also make use of the
‘adapted from’ feature, eg: Figure 1: Company revenue and profit (Adapted from GoVenture January –
August Performance Report)
–
Regular academic references like textbooks, journal articles, lecture/workshop material, have a much clearer
process and should follow the APA 6th Standard strictly to avoid penalties.
The University of Sydney
Page 15
Due Date & Time
11:59pm Friday 17th April (Week 6)
via Turnitin in Canvas
The University of Sydney
Page 16
BUSS6000 Simulation Report Marking Rubric
Demonstrate
ability to identify,
select and
analyse business
knowledge.
Fail: 0-49%
Pass: 50-64%
Credit: 65-74%
Distinction: 75-84%
High Distinction: 85-100%
Insufficient attempt to identify, select & analyse using
appropriate business knowledge. Analysis is absent,
missing or severely limited to description. Reference to
relevant or appropriate scholarly literature is absent or
incomplete.
Demonstrates a basic ability to identify, select &
analyse using business knowledge. A description is
present but may be incomplete, lacking appropriate
detail, or contain little analytic insight. Consideration of
relevant or appropriate literature is limited.
Demonstrates a sound ability to identify, select &
analyse using business knowledge. Support for the
analysis is adequately reinforced with reference to
data and/or observations from the simulation.
Includes reference to relevant literature.
A superior level of identifying, selecting & analysing using
business knowledge. A rich and clear analysis is present. Critical
and selective integration of literature, and data and/or
observations from the simulation. Demonstrates critical insight
and independent thought.
Demonstrates an outstanding ability to identify, select & analyse using business
knowledge. Sophisticated analysis that balances breadth and depth across
critically selective and thoughtfully integrated literature. Creative and critical
engagement with literature and simulation data and observations. Work
demonstrates exceptional creativity, originality and critical insight.
Insufficient attempt to critically examine competitive
strategy and simulation performance. Insufficient
awareness of assumptions. Assertions made without
appropriate consideration. Viewpoints of experts are
taken as fact, without question, or are not considered
at all. Contextual factors not considered in relation to
the position being taken. Fails to adequately identify
conclusions, implications, and consequences, or
conclusions are simplistic summaries or absolute
without nuance.
Demonstrates a basic ability to describe competitive
strategy and simulation performance. Shows an
emerging awareness of present assumptions
(sometimes labels assertions as assumptions).
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without
question. Begins to identify some contextual factors
when presenting a position. A position is stated but is
simplistic and obvious. Conclusions are inconsistently
tied to some of the information discussed or the
related outcomes are oversimplified.
Demonstrates a sound ability to analyse competitive
strategy and simulation performance. An awareness
of assumptions and questions some of these.
Viewpoints of experts are incorporated with some
questioning. Identifies several relevant contextual
factors when presenting a position. Specific position
acknowledges different sides of an issue. Conclusions
are logically tied to information and related
outcomes/consequences are identified clearly.
Demonstrates a superior ability to analyse competitive strategy
and simulation performance. Identifies own and others’
assumptions. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning
and limitations acknowledged within position. Several relevant
contexts analysed when presenting a position. Carefully considers
assumptions and the relevant evidence. Qualifies own assertions.
Consequences are considered, integrated and ambiguities
acknowledged. Specific position considers the complexities of an
issue. Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information,
including opposing viewpoints.
Demonstrates an outstanding ability to analyse competitive strategy and
simulation performance. Thoroughly analyses own and others’ assumptions.
Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly, limitations overcome and/or
synthesised within position taken. Carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts
when presenting a position. Qualifies own assertions. Consequences are
considered, integrated and well developed. Ambiguities are thoughtfully
considered. Specific position is imaginative and thoroughly considers the
complexities of issues. Limits of position are acknowledged. Conclusions and
consequences are logical and reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability
to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.
An insufficient attempt at demonstrating appropriate
problem-solving skills and business analysis.
Description of appropriate target issues absent,
missing, or severely limited. Target issues not clearly
connected to the contextual description. Little or no
definition or scope to target issues identified. Little or
no rationale or logical progress…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment