1. You have been asked by the FixIt! Consulting Team leader to address three questions in the Final Report.

Assessment 2b: Case Business Report (40%)

Articulate key insights and provide recommendations to the UNSW Business School Career Accelerator team on what it needs to do to address the low Excel Certification completion problem. You have been asked by the FixIt! Consulting Team leader to address three questions in the Final Report. You are required to use different problem-solving toolboxes to address these three questions.

 

1.       FixIt! ‘Ethics toolbox’

This section of the report is approximately 600 words (guide only, not a word limit).

Recall that the FixIt! Consulting Team is concerned with the problem of low ECT participation and the ethical issues it presents. Apply the 7-step ethical decision-making framework from Week 3 to one of the following ethical dilemmas:

• Making the Excel Certification Test (ECT) a 20% component of the course grade, so the maximum mark students can receive without completing the ECT is 80% (i.e. this would replace the non- invigilated Assessments 1a and 1b).
• Providing additional financial incentives (e.g. financial incentives like a $50 gift card) for students who pass the Excel Certification Test (ECT).

For the ethical dilemma you are writing up, apply the 7-step ethics decision-making framework (week 3) to formulate a position on the ethical issue selected. You should follow all 7 steps in the ethical decision-making framework.

Your position on the ethical issue is step 7 in the framework; the other steps enable you to provide evidence for that focus. The FixIt! Consulting Team Leader wants you to be explicit about the rigorous FixIt! Process, therefore, explicitly refer to each step in the ethical decision-making framework (e.g. put ‘Step 2’ to refer to the information you are drawing from Step 2 about ‘assumptions and world views’).

 

2.      FixIt! ‘Information toolbox’

This section of the report is approximately 700 words (guide only, not a word limit).

• The Project Team Leader wants to see how you structure your arguments. Provide a situation-observation-resolution story summary (see Week 10 Lecture), and choose the appropriate visual representation (i.e. either a grouping structure graph or an argument structure graph, see Week 10 Lecture) to present your argument structure (e.g. show how you organise your arguments and the report storyline on what is the issue, what are your findings, and your recommendations on how to fix it).

When constructing your grouping or argument structure graph, you need to consolidate all relevant evidence, including your logic tree analysis in the Briefing Pack (Assessment 2a of this Case), the literature identified in the Briefing Pack (Assessment 2a), statistical information from your analysis in the Briefing Pack (Assessment 2a) and this report (i.e., Assessment 2b of this Case), and the ethical dilemma in this report (i.e., Assessment 2b).

 

• Follow your argument structure, put forward your recommendations as to what the UNSW Business School Career Accelerator team should do to address the low Excel Certification completion Justify the recommendation. Then put forward actionable next steps for the Career Accelerator team (e.g. what exactly the Career Accelerator team needs to do?)
• Ensure the recommendation and action steps utilise persuasive yet still factually accurate communication. This includes ensuring appropriate presentation of results, and persuasive language.
• Assumptions and limitations also need to be explicitly identified, including any issues about statistical & decision-making biases in your analysis (week 4 and 8-10); any reliability and validity concerns (Week 10); and alerting the FixIt! Consulting Team Leader of any ethical issues (Week 3) that may arise if your recommendations are adopted by the UNSW Business School Career Accelerator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria	2a %	Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction
1. Statistical problem-solving. Application of the statistical toolkit	40%	Does not apply statistical problem-solving tools to the Case, or application is inaccurate.	Applies statistical problem- solving tools to the Case appropriately but may include minor errors or omissions.	Accurately applies statistical problem- solving tools to the Case.	Accurately and insightfully applies statistical problem- solving tools to the Case.	Accurately and insightfully applies statistical problem-solving tools to the Case highlighting novel insights with extension material from the course.
2. Ethical decision- making Application of ethical decision-making rubric to the factual details of your chosen dilemma, including quality of analysis with those facts.	25%	Multiple errors or limited articulation of how ethical decision-making rubric is applied to the factual details of the dilemma. Poor analysis, missing/gaps in evidence.	Some articulation/ application of how ethical decision-making rubric is applied to the factual details of the dilemma. Some analysis and reflection but patchy evidence.	Accurate and clear articulation of how the ethical decision-making rubric is applied to the factual details of the dilemma. Clear analysis and reflection, with some evidence.	Accurate and comprehensive articulation of how the ethical decision- making rubric is applied to the factual details of the dilemma. Consistent and detailed analysis, deep reflection supported by sound evidence.	Insightful and detailed application of how the ethical decision- making rubric is applied to the factual details of the dilemma. Insightful and detailed analysis and reflection with extensive evidence.
3. Information problem-solving Application of the information toolkit into well-structured arguments	35%	Does not apply information problem- solving tools to the Case, or application is inaccurate. Unclear writing style, which distracts from arguments.	Applies information problem-solving tools to the Case appropriately but may include minor errors or omissions. Generally, clear writing style so main arguments articulated.	Accurately applies information problem- solving tools to the Case. Generally, expresses complex ideas into well-reasoned arguments.	Accurately and insightfully applies information problem-solving tools to the Case. Consistently and skillfully represents complex ideas into well- reasoned arguments.	Accurately and insightfully applies information problem-solving tools to the Case demonstrating breadth and depth of analysis. Consistently and eloquently represents complex ideas into well-reasoned arguments.