Maintenance Management Strategy

 

 

Module Code: MP4704

Maintenance Management Strategy

 

 

Assessment: March 2018

 

 

 

 

You should attempt to answer all the questions.

 

Text should be in Microsoft Word or Pdf

 

 

 

 

The assessment will take place on 28^th March 2018.

9:00 to 16:00

 

Electronic submission of the presentation 25^th March 2018 before 16:00

 

 

 

 

Introduction

The Presentation is an opportunity for you to present selected aspects of the technical content of the course. Assessment is focused on the presentation style and content, and contributes 40% to the module mark You are expected to address the Learning Outcomes shown.

Learning outcomes met in this assessment

4. Demonstrate the ability to follow the key steps which must be taken to implement the recommendations arising from Reliability Centered Maintenance, Total Productive Maintenance and Business Centered Maintenance strategies.
5. Evaluate the impact of Maintenance strategies and their impact on reliability and organisation’s strategies

 

You are required to make a 20 minutes presentation, with the aid of communication aids, followed by up to 5 minutes of questions and responses.

Reflect on the technical elements of the course, and critically review the course material.

This assignment will allow to link business strategy with maintenance strategies (go beyond the course material). Reference concepts and texts using the Harvard reference system.

 

In this assignment would will try to respond to the following question.

 

Question As consultant, you have attended a conference on maintenance management strategy. You will choose one of the proposed case study. You will propose a strategy for the company and support your choice with evidence.

 

Assignment

Presentation: Make a twenty minutes presentation responding to the question above. Five minutes will be allowed at the end for questions and answers.

 

 

Assessment

The Presentation will be assessed using the criteria attached.

 

Submission

The Presentation has been schedule on 28^th March 2018 between 9:00 and 17:00. Attendance is required for this assessed element of the project module. You will be expected to submit your presentation electronically before 25^th March 2018 16:00 through e-Learn.

If you are ill at this time, please submit evidence to the school through extenuating circumstance or extension process as applicable.

 

Penalties[1],3 applied to late submission are:

G6.2 Authorisation of the late submission of work requires written permission. The Head of School with responsibility for the module, or appropriate academic staff nominated by the Head of School, will be authorised to give permission for one extension period of between 1 and 10 working days where evidence of circumstances has been accepted and where submission within this timescale would be reasonable taking into account those circumstances.

G6.3 The University operates a universal penalty scale for unauthorised late submission of any form of assessed work. Students who submit work within 5 working days after the published submission date without an authorised extension will obtain a maximum mark of 40% for that element of assessment.

G6.4 All work submitted later than 5 days after the published submission date will be awarded a mark of 0%. Unauthorised late submission at resubmission will automatically be awarded a mark of 0%.

G6.5 Where the nature of the circumstances is such that regulation G6.2 cannot be applied, students may submit a case for consideration in accordance with the procedure for Extenuating Circumstance.

Penalties applied to plagiarism (Unfair Means to Enhance Performance[2]) are:

G10.1 The University regards any use of unfair means in an attempt to enhance performance or to influence the standard of award obtained as a serious academic and disciplinary offence.

G10.2 Unfair means includes all forms of cheating, plagiarism and collusion. Students are required to sign a declaration indicating that individual work submitted for assessment is their own. (see also A2.5)

G10.3 All instances or allegations of the use of unfair means will be investigated under the procedure detailed in Appendix 9 which forms part of the Academic Regulations.

G10.4 No Assessment Board will come to a decision on a candidate’s result where an instance or allegation of the use of unfair means has not been resolved under the procedures in Appendix 9.

Source: Academic Regulations Appendix 10: Unfair Means To Enhance Performance

 

MP4704: Maintenance Management strategy

Assignment number 2

Student name:

Student ID number:

Grade	Overall remark	Subject Relevance	Organisation Presentation organisation	Presentation and Oral Quality Body Language	Quality of the slides	Presentation linkage	Presentation style	Timing
80-100%	Outstanding and indistinguishable from the best professional presentations. Worthy of presentation at an international conference or professional gathering.
70-80%	An excellent presentation.	Totally relevant to the specified subject.	Exceptionally well organised both at the top level and at the level of the individual slides. There are titles to all of the slides which correspond to the table of contents.	Exceptionally clear and very easy to follow. Exceptionally good speaking quality. Speaker is always looking at the public	Exceptional overhead transparencies and usage.	Excellent linkage between the speech channel and the material on the overhead transparency.	Very interesting and enthusiastic.	Perfect timing.
60-70%	A very good presentation.	Very relevant addressing the specified subject.	Very well organised at the top level and nearly all the slides are well organised.. There are titles to all of the slides which correspond to the table of contents.	Very clear and easy to follow. Very good speaking. Speaker look mainly at the public	Very good overhead transparencies and usage.	Very good linkage between the speech channel and the material on the overhead transparency.	Very interesting and enthusiastic.	Very good timing.
50-60%	A good presentation.	The presentation is mostly relevant to the specified subject.	It is well organised with a clear table of contents and a good introduction. There are titles to nearly all of the slides which nearly always correspond to the table of contents	The titles stand out well on the slides, and one always knows what the speaker is talking about. Speaker would use notes from time to time but would mainly have eye contact with the public.		There is mostly a clear relation between the speech channel and the slide being shown.	Fairly interesting and some enthusiasm.	Good timing.
40-50%	A fair to poor presentation.	Much of the material is not relevant to the specified subject.	It is fairly well organised with a table of contents and a fair introduction. There are titles to most of the slides which mostly correspond to the table of contents.	The titles stand out fairly well on the slides, and one mostly knows what the speaker is talking about Speaker rely heavily on notes	One or two of the slides contain material that cannot be read.	There is a fairly clear relation between the speech channel and the slide being shown.	Fairly interesting but little enthusiasm.	Fair timing.
30-40%	A poor presentation. Two common errors are: 1) reading large amounts of text verbatim from the slide, and 2) speaking at great length with little corresponding material on the slide.	Too much of the material is not directly relevant to the specified subject.	There is little clear organisation to the presentation. There is no table of contents, or if there is it is gone through much too fast. There is no clear relation between the table of contents and the titles of the slides. Many slides do not have titles.	It is not always clear where one is in the presentation.. Speaker do not make eye contact with the public and read from notes	Some of the slides contain material that cannot be read.	There is a poor relation between the speech channel and the slide being shown	Not very interesting and no enthusiasm.	Poor timing; typically less than five minutes. Too few overhead transparencies.
20-30%	An attempt has been made to do the assignment, but it is of very poor quality. Typically no overhead transparencies, and speaking for less than five minutes.
0-20%	An exceptionally poor attempt at the assignment.

 

MP4704 – Presentations: assessment criteria

These criteria are used to assess assignment oral presentations.

Class	%	Criteria
Distinction	100	Presentation does an excellent job of communicating a very substantial body of engineering information. The presenter held the audience’s attention, showed command of the relevant concepts and facts, spoke authoritatively and without obvious notes, showed evidence of substantial background reading* (where appropriate), provided a consistently analytical*, critical* and/or synthetic* treatment of the information (where relevant), gave excellent answers to questions, and showed fluency in the use of any teaching aids (PowerPoint, demonstrations, handouts, etc).  Any visual aids were conference-level.
	95
	90
	85	Presentation does an excellent job of communicating a very substantial body of engineering information.  It meets all of the criteria for a mark of 68, as well as meeting most but not all of the criteria for a mark of 90+.
	80
	76	Presentation does an excellent job of communicating a very substantial body of engineering information.  It meets all the criteria for a mark of 68 as well as meeting one or a few of the qualities of a 90+ presentation.
	72
Merit	68	Presentation very effectively communicates a significant body of engineering information, being a logically-structured exposition enabling the audience to appreciate the significance of the material presented. Presentations in this range would generally be expected to show the following characteristics: appropriate background reading*, good critical*, analytical* or synthetic* treatment of the information, no evidence of significant errors of understanding during the talk or in answers to questions, used resources well, spoke without detailed notes, little or no hesitation, and kept more or less to time.
	65
	62
Pass	58	Presentation successfully communicates a significant body of engineering information. It is a mostly accurate account of most of the expected relevant material, showing evidence of some background reading* and adequate preparation, but is marred by confused sections, poor use of resources, overrun, omissions, errors, hesitation, irrelevance (e.g. slides that do not add value), over-reliance on non-primary sources, or by reading from notes.
	55
	52
Fail	48	Presentation achieves only limited communication of engineering information, containing major errors or omissions. Presenter delivers a mainly accurate account of at least a third of the expected relevant material, showing a generally weak understanding and evidence of little background reading* or preparation.
	45
	42
	38	Presentation fails to communicate any significant engineering information. Presenter demonstrates understanding of less than a third of the expected relevant material (either through errors, through lack of preparation, or by omission).
	35
	30
	25	Presentation fails to communicate engineering information and is on balance misleading.  It shows understanding of less than a quarter of the expected relevant material, but is so inaccurate and/or irrelevant that it succeeds only in misinforming and confusing the audience.
	20
	15	Presentation includes very little that is correct and relevant.
	10
	5
	0	Presentation not given.

Footnotes: Background reading – Final-year students should generally look to supplement this from journal articles or other peer-reviewed publications.  Analytical = breaking a concept down into its parts and examining their inter-relationships, e.g. comparing and contrasting two models.  Critical = judging a hypothesis or conclusion by examining the validity of the evidence presented for it, e.g. evaluating two competing models.  Synthetic = integrating concepts from several sources. e.g. discussing relevant background reading, or combining material across several lectures or courses into a coherent or original whole.

 

 

 

MP4704 – Assignment 3 – Presentations: feedback

Student:			Presentation date:
Marker 1:			Marker 2:
Complete, communicating much engineering information disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree (Main omissions given below)	Accurate, no significant errors disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree (Main errors given below)		Well-structured, relevant, kept to time disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree		Authoritative & engaging; no hesitation or overreliance on notes disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree
Well-researched, appropriately referenced and well-prepared disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree	Analytical & critical   disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree		Used any teaching aids/visual aids well disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree		Answered questions well, showing good knowledge of background and detail disagree □ □ □ □ □ agree
Good points
What, if anything, was misunderstood, presented incorrectly or omitted?
Other suggestions for improvement
First mark &  marker’s initials		Second mark &  marker’s initials		Agreed mark:
Explanation of agreed mark

 

[1] Source: Academic Regulations Section G6: Assessment (page 25)

[2] http://ift.tt/2pz4Rfp

• • Assignment status: Resolved by our Writing Team
  • Source@PrimeWritersBay.com

GET THIS PAPER COMPLETED FOR YOU FROM THE WRITING EXPERTS  CLICK HERE TO ORDER 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS AT PrimeWritersBay.com

• • • • NO PLAGIARISM