SRI LANKA ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY

No.
1

NCQP 21012 MODEL MARKING SCHEME FOR CASE STUDY PRESENTATION BY QUALITY CIRCLES ITEM SUB ITEM PERFORMANCE MEASURE
Initial Introduction 1.1 Start up Well prepared flawless start up Fairly good start up Fumbled start up Disorganised start up

MARK GUIDE
5 3 1 0

MARKS GIVEN

Project selection and definition

2.1 Process

Based on multipledata based criteria and evaluation of alternative isssues by team concensus with data and prioritised Brief evaluation more on concensus Jumped to selection

3 1 7 5 0 5 3 0 5 3 1 0 12 9 4 0 10 7 4 2 0

2.2 Relevance

Very relevant to organisation goals Somewhat relevant No clear evidence of relevance

2.3 Controllability

Fully within Circle control Somewhat within circle control Not within circle control

2.4 Definition

Project is clearly defined Somewhat defined Hazy definition Inadequately defined

Analysis

3.1 Collection and use of data

Data well collected and used Some data collected and used Insufficient data collected No data collected

3.2 Use of tools

Appropriate tools used and used correctly Tools used including unnecessary tools Tools used but not correctly Tools not appropriate Poor use of tools

3.3 Root Cause Indentification

Root causes well identified Causes identified but not in depth Some causes identified Poor identification of root causes or insufficient

10 7 4 0 5 3 3 0 6 4 2 6 5 1 5 3 1 7 4 0 5 3 2 0 7 5 0 12 8 5

3.4 Connection between analysis and identification and definition of root causes

Well connected with analysis and precise Connected with analysis but poorly defined Defined well but connection with analysis poor Poor connection and definition

Generation of solution

4.1 Generating alternatives

Alternatives generated based on anaylsis Alternatives with poor connection to analysis Alternatives unconnected to anaysis

4.2 Selection of solution

Clear justification of solution Somewhat good justification of solution Poor justification of solution

4.3 Clarity of solution

Very clearly explained Somewhat clearly explained Poorly explained

4.4 Implementation Plan

Well defined implementation plan Barely acceptable implementation Plan Poor or no implementation plan

Implementation

5.1 Co-ordination/Team Work

Well co-ordinated with good team work Barely acceptable co-ordination /team work Insufficient co-ordination/team work No co-ordination

5.2 Timeliness

Solution implemented on schedule Solution delayed but reasons acceptable Solution delayed without accpetable reasons

Evaluation of solution

6.1 Data collection

Appropriate data collected for a sufficient period Appropriate data collected but insufficient period Moderate data /moderate period

Poor data 6.2 Analysis and justification of success Well justified success Moderately justified success Poorly justified success 7 Results 7.1 Tangible results Substantial results relative to operation Useful results Marginally useful results No useful results 7.2 Intangible results Well documented significant intangible results Useful intangible results Mrginally useful intangible results No useful intangible results 8 Standardisation 8.1 Standardisation Evidence of standardisation of solution Moderate evidence of standardisation Standarsisation planned but not yet done No standardisation done nor thought of 9 Presentation 9.1 Documemtion to judges Very clear and well organised Moderately clear and organised Poor documentation No documentation 9.2 Visual Aids Clear and explicit Moderate clear Poorly prepared Insufficient 9.3 Time Management Completed presentation on time Stopped on time without completing presntation Hurriedly finished on time Exceeded time 9.4 Delivery Effective delivery and kept audience interest Somewhat effective delivery

2 5 3 1 10 7 4 0 10 7 3 0 8 6 4 0 10 7 2 0 10 7 4 0 6 4 2 minus 1 per2 seconds 6 4

Some parts inaudible or not explined Poor delivery Very poor delivery and showed lack of preparation 9.5 Team work Good team work and distribution of roles Moderately good team work Poor team work Bad or no team work 9.6 Q&A of judges Answered well Answered hazily Answere inadequately Not answered 10 Overall Impression 10.1 Overall Impression Excellent Good Fair Poor

2 1 0 6 4 2 0 9 6 3 0 8 5 3 1

TOTAL