\nProcess Improvement Project
\nFor this assignment select either your own organization or an organization about which you know enough to review the supply chain processes and identify a process that can be improved in your sphere of influence.
\nPhase I: Improvement Opportunity
\nWrite 500-750 words on improvement opportunity in your sphere of influence. Address each of the following sections:
\nQuality Tool Analysis
\nIdentify your problem statement and complete a root-cause analysis. Identify which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem. Explain the quantitative and qualitative tools you used and provide a summary of how you arrived at your problem.
\nStakeholder Analysis
\nComplete the interactive “Stakeholder Analysis: Winning Support for Your Projects,” located on the Mind Tools website. In Step 2, select the ?Interactive Screen App? hyperlink. Provide a Power\/Interest Grid of your completed chart (using either a picture format or a handwritten document). In addition, provide a summary that includes considerations for all stakeholders. These considerations will form your communication plan in Part II.
\nPrepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
\nThis assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.<\/p>\n
Rubic
\nBenchmark – Process Improvement Project: Phase I
\n \t1
\nUnsatisfactory
\n0.00%\t2
\nLess than Satisfactory
\n74.00%\t3
\nSatisfactory
\n79.00%\t4
\nGood
\n87.00%\t5
\nExcellent
\n100.00%
\n70.0 %Content\t
\n40.0 %Quality Tool Analysis\tA quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant.\tA quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem makes weak connections with several gaps in presentation. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem makes weak connections with several gaps in presentation. Supporting sources are present and that show limited understanding of the content.\tA quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem makes connections at a cursory level and contains minimal gaps. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem is at a cursory level and makes connections containing minimal gaps. Supporting sources are present and show some understanding of the content.\tA quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem is clear and integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem is clear and integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. Supporting sources are present that illustrate the understanding of the content.\tA quality tool analysis that includes a problem statement, root-cause analysis, and explanation of which quality tools you used to identify and vet the problem is thorough and well integrated and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. An explanation of quantitative and qualitative tools you used and a summary of how you arrived at the problem is thorough and well integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. Supporting sources are present that illustrate a deep understanding of the content.\t
\n30.0 %Stakeholder Analysis\tA stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary of all considerations for all stakeholders is absent, inappropriate, or irrelevant.\tA stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary of all considerations for all stakeholders makes weak connections with several gaps in presentation. Supporting sources are present and that show limited understanding of the content.\tA stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary of all considerations for all stakeholders makes connections at a cursory level and contains minimal gaps. Supporting sources are present and show some understanding of the content.\tA stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary that of all considerations for all stakeholders is clear and integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. Supporting sources are present that illustrate the understanding of the content.\tA stakeholder analysis that includes a power interest grid and a summary of all considerations for all stakeholders is thorough and well integrated, and makes meaningful connections with no gaps. Supporting sources are present that illustrate a deep understanding of the content.\t
\n20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness\t
\n7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose\tPaper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.\tThesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.\tThesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.\tThesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.\tThesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.\t
\n20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness\t
\n8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction\tStatement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.\tSufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.\tArgument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.\tArgument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.\tClear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.\t
\n20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness\t
\n5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)\tSurface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.\tFrequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.\tSome mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.\tProse is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.\tWriter is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.\t
\n10.0 %Documentation\t
\n10.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)\tSources are not documented.\tDocumentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.\tSources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.\tSources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.\tSources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.\t
\n100 %Total Weightage\t \t<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Process Improvement Project For this assignment select either your own organization or an organization about which you know enough to review the supply chain processes and identify a process that can be improved in your sphere of influence. Phase I: Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4977\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}