KIAMS

PGDM (2011-2013) - Term-IV Attendance Sheet - Insurance Management

Faculty: Prof. KV Prasad Maximum marks - 50 Roll No. 1

50

Assignment - Marks secured

2 Total %

PG2011-002 PG2011-006 PG2011-007 PG2011-010 PG2011-015 PG2011-020 PG2011-024 PG2011-028 PG2011-046 PG2011-050 PG2011-053 PG2011-054 PG2011-060 PG2011-061 PG2011-077 PG2011-081 PG2011-083 PG2011-084 PG2011-089 PG2011-101 PG2011-102 PG2011-108 PG2011-109 PG2011-111 PG2011-114

Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr.

Abhishek Jha Amal Jose Anand Murarka Anish Wadhwa Anu Sudevan Aritra Pan Ayush Agarwal Bhavani Devi Kamran Faiz Kousik Guchhait Lakshay Kochhar Laxmi Gupta Nadeem Badar Navita Rakesh Gan Richa Ritesh Kothari Rohit Dhankhar Sakshi Vatsa Sneha Shashi Somani Punit Sunilkumar Swati Soni Tanuj Sharma Ujwal Dutta Vivek Goyal

25 13 23 20 20 25 21 21 15 20 14 19 23 17 19 14 20 14 19 19 20 16 15 17 19

25 15 16 16 11 22 20 21 13.5 18.9 14.4 21.6 22.5 13.5 15 20.7 19 14.4 17 24 20 15.3 15 19 25

50 28 39 36 31 47 41 42 29 39 29 41 45 31 34 35 39 28 36 43 40 32 30 36 44

100.00% 56.00% 78.00% 72.00% 62.00% 94.00% 82.00% 84.00% 57.60% 77.40% 57.60% 81.20% 90.00% 61.20% 68.00% 70.20% 78.00% 55.80% 72.00% 86.00% 80.00% 63.00% 60.00% 72.00% 88.00%

KIAMS
PGDM (2011-2013) - Term-IV Attendance Sheet - Insurance Management
Faculty: Prof. KV Prasad

Roll No.

Assignment

Marks

Delay

Net

PG2011-002 PG2011-006 PG2011-007 PG2011-010 PG2011-015 PG2011-020 PG2011-024 PG2011-028 PG2011-046 PG2011-050 PG2011-053 PG2011-054 PG2011-060 PG2011-061 PG2011-077 PG2011-081 PG2011-083 PG2011-084 PG2011-089 PG2011-101 PG2011-102 PG2011-108 PG2011-109 PG2011-111 PG2011-114

Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr.

Abhishek Jha Amal Jose Anand Murarka Anish Wadhwa Anu Sudevan Aritra Pan Ayush Agarwal Bhavani Devi Kamran Faiz Kousik Guchhait Lakshay Kochhar Laxmi Gupta (supposed) Nadeem Badar Navita Rakesh Gan Richa Ritesh Kothari Rohit Dhankhar Sakshi Vatsa Sneha Shashi Somani Punit Sunilkumar Swati Soni Tanuj Sharma Ujwal Dutta Vivek Goyal

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

25 13 23 20 20 25 21 21 17 22 16 19 25 19 19 16 20 15 19 19 20 18 15 17 19

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 0.9 0.9 1 0.9 1 0.9 1 1 1 0.9 1 1 1

25 13 23 20 20 25 21 21 15 20 14 19 23 17 19 14 20 14 19 19 20 16 15 17 19

Skill in Presentation Document Merging PPT Quality Content Qlty & Document 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 3 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 0 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3

Overall Presentati on 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

missed the subject completely Good effort. Identified the task, challenges, scope and cost (partly). Signs of appreciation of process challenges/ tasks. No PPT? Identified the issues. Constraint - lack of practical exposure. Able to think & apply. Good PPT. Slide 2,3, & 4 - better to be part of document. Good - Hinting (unknowingly) at 'group co investments/ diversion of funds'. Missed the subject partly. No need to focus on Govt data beyond introdn. Identify rural products - good. Good urban centers - retail urban products. Missed ' market mapp #4-Stock - not ins challenges listed. Opportunities; cost structure? Grossly inadequate to encourage VC to support. Insufficient grasp of que & subject. Good effort. Identified the task, challenges, scope. Also identified - (trained) resources issues - biggest challenge. Listed circular & data. Limited observation - bureaucratic approach. Could have expanded the inspection. Only rural ins? Centres? Focus not on product, but on establishing operations. This is a management ppt - need not know product features. Excellent thought process development. Conceptualized the challenge & related to a situation and developed options for 'conflict management' Started well. Origin of BPO traced and justified usage. But further not developed to meet the requirements of the que. Cost, need of infrastructure, products, challenges in Not much diff between docu & PPT. Developed thoughts well. Missed - infrastructure requirements, conflicts with uw philosophy, service challenge. Good customer to bank Both word & ppt same. Stated facts with a bland comment. Possibly -imagine a breach and briefly dwell on the same to make it more incisive. Begun well. Not elevated to next level of qlty. interesting beginning. Started properly, but failed to develop logically. No diff between docu & ppt. Good effort. PPT incomplete. Could have further expanded ppt based on thoughts in document. Focus on bancassurance, not on norms to set-up JV. Briefly identified challenges. Good beginning. Good effort. Audited the inv portfolio. Could have imagined a few cases of breach to comment more incisively. document begins well, but fails to reach the next stage of product/ pase of growth. Road map to begin, develop and expand could have been developed. interesting beginning. Started properly, but failed to develop logically. No diff between docu & ppt. No diff between word & ppt. begin well, but fails to develop to next level/ stage. No diff between word & ppt. developed thoughts on challenges.

ood urban centers - retail urban products. Missed ' market mapping' effort to define the market. Constraint - lack of practical exposure.

s of the que. Cost, need of infrastructure, products, challenges in technical skill, cts with uw philosophy, service challenge. Good customer to bank need not be a good risk.

KIAMS
PGDM (2011-2013) - Term-IV Attendance Sheet - Insurance Management
Faculty: Prof. KV Prasad

Roll No.

Assignment

Marks

Delay

Net

PG2011-002 PG2011-006 PG2011-007 PG2011-010 PG2011-015 PG2011-020 PG2011-024 PG2011-028 PG2011-046 PG2011-050 PG2011-053 PG2011-054 PG2011-060 PG2011-061 PG2011-077 PG2011-081 PG2011-083 PG2011-084 PG2011-089 PG2011-101 PG2011-102 PG2011-108 PG2011-109 PG2011-111 PG2011-114

Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr.

Abhishek Jha Amal Jose Anand Murarka Anish Wadhwa Anu Sudevan Aritra Pan Ayush Agarwal Bhavani Devi Kamran Faiz Kousik Guchhait Lakshay Kochhar Laxmi Gupta Nadeem Badar Navita Rakesh Gan Richa Ritesh Kothari Rohit Dhankhar Sakshi Vatsa Sneha Shashi Somani Punit Sunilkumar Swati Soni Tanuj Sharma Ujwal Dutta Vivek Goyal

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

25 15 16 16 11 22 20 21 15 21 16 24 25 15 15 23 19 16 17 24 20 17 15 19 25

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 0.9 1 0.9 1 1 1 0.9 1 1 1

25 15 16 16 11 22 20 21 13.5 18.9 14.4 21.6 22.5 13.5 15 20.7 19 14.4 17 24 20 15.3 15 19 25

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Presentati Document Skill in Overall on Quality Content Qlty Merging Presentati 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Document Excellent. PPT - crisp. 3 3 3 3 3 missed the subject completely 4 3 4 2 3 "Loss making' - assumption? Need to define hierarchy 4 4 4 0 4 Not corrected the title sheet. Impact value!! No PPT? G 2 2 3 2 2 Only banking Perspective, not ins. 5 4 4 5 4 Slide 2 & 3 - better part of docum. Hinted at problems 5 5 5 0 5 No PPT? Good aggressive posturing. Identified the cha 5 4 4 3 5 No change in content - word & ppt 3 2 4 3 3 Problem not understood. No need to define JV etc., Pr 4 4 4 5 4 Good effort. Proposed as RBI. You are Ins regulator. Ho 4 3 3 2 4 Problem 'on-hand'. Need to define JV? Action plan to t 5 5 4 5 5 Good aggressive posturing. Identified the challenges to 5 5 5 5 5 Excellent, although no PPT. logical/ well thought devel 3 3 4 2 3 PPT need not define actuary etc., Document can - but 4 3 3 2 3 Only banking Perspective, not ins. Protect policy holde 5 5 5 3 5 No ppt? Identified the issues. Logically developed the 4 4 4 3 4 No diff between docu & ppt. could have identified uniq 2 4 3 3 4 docu fairly good. PPT - incomplete. Missed developing 3 4 3 3 4 docu & ppt fairly good, but very brief. 5 5 5 4 5 Excellent, identified the 'problem' - unfair to ins pol ho 4 4 4 4 4 Good effort. Identified the problem and suggested opt 3 4 3 3 4 closure is not an option. Replace JV partner - yes serio 3 3 3 3 3 Good option. Indirectly mentioned the order of over-r 4 4 4 3 4 Begins well, also attempts to elevate to next level. But 5 5 5 5 5 Good & precise. Identified - unfiar to use ins pol-holde

ption? Need to define hierarchy in over-riding. Not fully understood the issue. But good effort in identifying the issues on the understandi sheet. Impact value!! No PPT? Good point - computer modelling.

t of docum. Hinted at problems. Missed - impact on int & ext stakeholders - employees, market, agents, regulators. Good effort in identif ive posturing. Identified the challenges to a large extent. Good. word & ppt od. No need to define JV etc., Problem is to seek solution - not define basics. as RBI. You are Ins regulator. How to protect ins pol-holder's fund? Need to save both ins co & bank. ed to define JV? Action plan to tackle the challenge on-hand. No diff between PPT & docu. ring. Identified the challenges to a large extent. Good. PPT. logical/ well thought development/ presentation of thoughts. ctuary etc., Document can - but avoidable. No diff between PPT & docu. Missed the requirement of que - both PPT & docu. ive, not ins. Protect policy holders funds? issues. Logically developed the problem & solution. Constraint - practical exper. & ppt. could have identified unique challenges faced by each of the (int & ext) stakeholders. incomplete. Missed developing the situation into 'conflict management' opportunity. , but very brief. e 'problem' - unfair to ins pol holders. But could have thought of a solution - issued bonds/ debentures. Like US govt bond issue to AIG. the problem and suggested options. n. Replace JV partner - yes serious option. Good in identifying one of the last options. But could have developed solution for various inten y mentioned the order of over-rule, by listing order of blame. mpts to elevate to next level. But unable due to lack of practical exper. Could have used the conclusion - 'hence justified to modify LIC's act fied - unfiar to use ins pol-holders' funds to bail out. Good option - loan.

ing the issues on the understanding task.

, regulators. Good effort in identifying issues. Constraint - lack of practical exper.

- both PPT & docu.

Like US govt bond issue to AIG.

veloped solution for various intensity levels of problem.

hence justified to modify LIC's acturial data'.

Assignment Evaluation Assignment

Parameters Understanding of the subject Originality of Report Ability to analyze the challenges Skill to apply theoretical knowledge to practical situation Quality of Presentation & References

#1 9 9 9 9 9 45

#2 9 9 9 9 9 45

Total 18 18 18 18 18 0 90

Ability to present PPT/ Paper - Professor's observation/ evaluation

If PPT - quality of PPT + interaction (*)

If paper - presentation of the document - concise / quality Total (*) - if joint PPT, the marks would be equally assigned

5 5
50

5 5
50

10 10 100

Overall Presentation Grading marks Grading O/S Excellent V Good Good Average

Max Marks
9 - 10 6-8 4-6 2-3 0-1

#1

#2

Total

Time Roll #

8.00 - 810 2 20 53 930 - 950 81 102

810 - 820 6 24 54

Assignment - 1 820 - 830 830 - 850 7 10 28 46 60 61

850 - 900 15 50 77

Time Roll #

940 - 950 950 - 1000 1000- 1010 1010 - 1020 83 84 89 101 108 109 111 114

Time Roll #

Assignment - 2 1130 - 1150 1150 - 1200 1200 - 1210 1210- 1220 1220 - 1230 15 10 7 6 2 50 46 28 24 20 200- 210 101 114 210 - 220 89 111 220 - 230 84 109 230 - 250 83 108 250 - 300 81 102

Time Roll #