Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Photolite Company Case Study Assignment
After more than two months of effort, Ron Ward, the wage and salary adminis-trator for Photolite Corporation, was ready to present his findings on the most equitable means of evaluating personnel who are required to perform in a project management organizational structure. Jesse Jaimeson, the director of personnel, was eagerly awaiting the results.
Ron Ward: “Well, Jesse, after two months of research and analysis, we’ve come to some reasonable possibilities. My staff looked at the nine basic perfor-mance appraisal techniques. They are (1) essay appraisal, (2) graphic rating scale,
field review, (4) forced choice rating, (5) critical incident appraisal, (6) man-agement by objectives, (7) the work-standards approach, (8) ranking methods, and (9) assessment centers.
(Exhibit I contains a brief description of each technique.)
Exhibit I. Basic appraisal techniques
Essay Appraisal
This technique asks raters to write a short statement covering a particular em-ployee’s strengths, weaknesses, areas for improvement, potential, and so on.
(continued)
517
518 Project Management Case Studies
(continued)
This method is often used in the selection of employees when written recom-mendations are solicited from former employers, teachers, or supervisors. The major problem with this type of appraisal is the extreme variability in length and content, which makes comparisons difficult.
Graphic Rating Scale
A typical graphic rating scale assesses a person on the quality and quantity of his or her work and on a variety of other factors that vary with the specific job. Usually included are personal traits such as flexibility, cooperation, level of self-motivation, and organizational ability. The graphic rating scale results in more consistent and quantifiable data, though it does not provide the depth of the essay appraisal.
Field Review
As a check on reliability of the standards used among raters, a systematic review process may be utilized. A member of the personnel or central administrative staff meets with small groups of raters from each supervisory unit to go over rat-ings for each employee to identify areas of dispute and to arrive at an agreement on the standards to be utilized. This group judgment technique tends to be more fair and valid than individual ratings, but is considerably more time-consuming.
Forced-Choice Rating
There are many variations of this method, but the most common version asks raters to choose from among groups of statements those that best fit the person being evaluated and those that least fit. The statements are then weighted and scored in much the same way psychological tests are scored. The theory behind this type of appraisal is that since the rater does not know what the scoring weight of each statement is, he or she cannot play favorites.
Critical Incident Appraisal
Supervisors are asked to keep a record on each employee and to record actual in-cidents of positive and negative behavior. While this method is beneficial in that it deals with actual behavior rather than abstractions, it is time-consuming for the supervisor, and the standards of recording are set by the supervisor.
Management by Objectives
In this approach, employees are asked to set, or help set, their own performance goals. This approach has considerable merit in its involvement of the individual
Photolite Corporation (C) 519
in setting the standards by which he or she will be judged and the emphasis on results rather than on abstract personality characteristics.
Work-Standards Approach
Instead of asking each employee to set his or her own performance standards, many organizations set measured daily work standards. The work-standards technique establishes work and staffing targets aimed at increasing productiv-ity. When realistically used and when standards are fair and visible, it can be an effective type of performance appraisal. The most serious problem is that of comparability. With different standards for different people, it is difficult to make comparisons for the purposes of promotion.
Ranking Methods
For purposes of comparing people in different units, the best approach appears to be a ranking technique involving pooled judgment. The two most effective ranking methods include alternation-ranking and paired-comparison ranking. Essentially, supervisors are asked to rank who is “most valuable.”
Assessment Centers
Assessment centers are coming into use more for the prediction and assessment of future potential. Typically, individuals from different areas are brought to-gether to spend two or three days working on individual and group assignments. The pooled judgment of observers leads to an order-of-merit ranking of partici-pants. The greatest drawback to this system is that it is very time-consuming and costly.
“We tried to look at each technique objectively. Unfortunately, many of my people are not familiar with project management and, therefore, had some dif-ficulties. We had no so-called standards of performance against which we could evaluate each technique. We therefore listed the advantages and disadvantages that each technique would have if utilized in a project management structure.
Jesse Jaimeson: “I’m not sure of what value your results are in this case because they might not directly apply to our project management organization.”
Ward: “In order to select the technique most applicable to a project manage-ment structure, I met with several functional and project managers as to the estab-lishment of a selection criteria. The functional managers felt that conflicts were predominant in a project organization, and that these conflicts could be used as a comparison. I therefore decided to compare each of the appraisal techniques to
520 Project Management Case Studies
Table I Rating evaluation techniques against types of conflictRating Evaluation Technique
Graphic Forced- Critical Management Work
Type of Essay Rating Field Choice Incident by Standards Ranking Assessment
Conflict Appraisal Scale Review Review Appraisal Objectives Approach Medthods CenterConflict over ● ● ● ● ● ●
schedules
Conflict over ● ● ● ● ● ●
priorities
Conflict over ● ● ●
technical
issues
Conflict over ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
administration
Personality ● ● ● ●
conflict
Conflict over cost ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Note: Circles indicate areas of difficulty.
the most commonly mentioned conflicts that exist in project management organi-zational forms. The comparison is shown in Table I.
“Analysis of Table I shows the management by objectives (MBO) tech-nique to be the most applicable system. There are several factors supporting this conclusion.
“The essay appraisal technique appears in most performance appraisals and is characterized by a lack of standards. As a result, it tends to be subjective and inconsistent.
“The graphic rating scale technique is marked by checking boxes and does not have the flexibility required by the constantly changing dynamic structure required in project management.
“The field review system probably would account for the majority of perfor-mance appraisal problems. However, it is costly and provides for another manage-ment overlay as well as an additional cost and time factors.
“The forced-choice rating technique has the same problems as the essay technique with the added problem of being inflexible.
“Critical incident appraisal centers on the individual’s performance and does not take into account decisions made by one’s superiors or the problems beyond the individual’s control. Again, it is time-consuming.
“Management by objectives. allows all parties—the project manager, the func-tional manager, and the employee—to share and to participate in the appraisal. It epitomizes the systems approach since it allows for objectives modification
Photolite Corporation (C) 521
without undue or undeserved penalty to the employee. Finally, it uses objective data and downplays subjective data.
“The work-standards approach lends itself easily to technical projects. Though not usually recognized formally, it is probably the most common pro-ject management performance appraisal technique. However, it is not flexible and downplays the effect of personality conflicts with little employee input.
“The ranking method allows for little individual input. Most conflict possi-bilities are maximized with this technique.
“The assessment centers method cannot be used on site and is very costly. It is probably most applicable (if not the best technique) for selecting project man-agement human resources.
“In summary, MBO appears to be the best technique for performance appraisal in a project management organization.”
Jaimeson: “Your conclusions lead me to believe that the MBO appraisal tech-nique is applicable to all project management appraisal situations and should be recommended. However, I do have a few reservations. A key point is that the MBO approach does not eliminate, or even minimize, the problems inherent in project and matrix management organizations. MBO provides the technique through which human resources can be fairly appraised (and, of course, rewarded and punished). MBO has the weakness that it prohibits individual input and sys-tems that employ poorly trained appraisers and faulty follow-up techniques. Of course, such weaknesses would kill any performance appraisal system. The MBO technique most exemplifies the systems approach and, even with its inherent weaknesses, should be considered when the systems approach to management is being employed.”
Ward: “There is another major weakness that you have omitted. What about those situations where the employee has no say in setting the objectives? I’m sure we have project managers, as well as functional managers, who will do all of the objective-setting themselves.”
Jaimeson: “I’m sure this situation either exists now or will eventually exist. But that’s not what worries me. If we go to an MBO approach, how will it affect our current evaluation forms? We began this study to determine the best appraisal method for our organization. I’ve yet to see any kind of MBO evaluation form that can be used in a project management environment. This should be our next milestone.”
QUESTIONS
Do you agree with the results in Exhibit II? Why or why not? Defend your answers.
Are there any other techniques that may be better?
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!