Journal List for research

Journal List for research

The following relevant journals may be helpful in your research for this assignment.

Academy of Management Journal

Advances in Developing Human Resources

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

Australian Journal of Adult Learning

Australian Journal of Management

Human Resource Development International

Human Resource Development Quarterly

Human Resource Development Review

Human Resource Management

International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management

International Journal of Human Resources Management

International Journal of Training and Development

Work, Employment and Society

Subject: People and Capability (MGMT90176_2022_SM2)

Masters by course work.

Assignment 1 :

Word count: 1500 words which includes the body of the paper.(Excludes any in-text references, cover sheet, and reference list.)

Due date: Friday 9 September 2022, at 8:00pm Melbourne time

Details and Instructions Below:

CASE STUDY

By upskilling employees and innovating with analytics, Tata Steels plant in Kalinganagar, India, achieved performance gains that earned it recognition as a leading digital facility by the World Economic Forum.

Article:How a steel plant in India tapped the value of data and won global acclaim . See attachment send to you ( I have attached the article for your review in case you cant open on the link above)

CHALLENGE

The approach of Tata Steel (working with McKinsey company) achieved 'global acclaim' according to the article. That would suggest to readers that the training and approach worked and they (Tata Steel and McKinsey) achieved positive outcomes.

The challenge for you, as students of our subject, is to determine whether the training provided waseffectiveaccording to Salas et al. (2012)?

INSTRUCTIONS

Your task is to evaluate theeffectivenessof Tata Steel's training / building of their analytics capabilities. You should do this using the Salas et al (2012) framework and concepts from this subject (Topics 1 7).

The key focus is to use what you are learning in this subject to explain HOW and WHY theanalytics capability trainingwas / was noteffectivefor Tata Steel.

What research can you point to in support of your analysis? Your discussion should not be general to all companies, rather it should be specific to evaluating the specifics of this analytics training approach in Tata Steel.

Justify your analysis using relevant HR concepts examined in the subject. Draw upon course materials, readings covered, or further reading undertaken.

Note: The training approach lasted over a period, with several phases. You are focussing on the effectiveness of their overall approach. I would suggest drawing out a timeline of their approach so you can see clearly what they did and when they did it.

Important: Evaluating their approach involves 1) understanding the components of the Salas et al framework and 2) drawing out important case information as evidence of effectiveness (or lack of it). You want to avoid simply restating the case (that is a descriptive approach, rather than analytical) and will result in lower marks.

Referencing requirements:

Aminimum of 8relevant references fromquality and timelysources should be cited. These sources must be from years between 2013 - 2022.

Fiveof those eight references must be peer-reviewed academic journals or articles. These peer-reviewed must be from years between 2013 - 2022.

Youmustuse the Salas et al (2012) reading as one of the five academic references. This is the only academic article that should be before 2013.

Citations must beoriginalsourced, please do not cite Kris / Lecture #.

MARKING : (follow the making rubric to ensure the assignment meets the guidelines to help you earn high marks)

The Individual Assignment will be marked to the followingRUBRIC (see attachment I have send for your review )

Conceptual understanding (60%) -Whatis written: content of response (ideas, theory), critical engagement, interpretation & analysis

Structure, Organisation & Writing (20%) -Howtask is presented & completed; genre or task type; logic, flow, intra-text links; quality of writing

Research & Referencing (20%) -Referencing conventions in use of external sources & citation; depth & breadth of research; use of sources

Criteria Excellent (H1) 8-10 High standard (H2A / H2B) 7 7.5 Sound work (H3) 6.5 Satisfactory work (Pass) 5-6 Unsatisfactory (Fail) 0-4 **

Conceptual understanding

(60%)

What is written: content of response (ideas, theory), critical engagement, interpretation & analysis Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context, audience & aim

Presents in depth understanding of & engagement with perspectives, theories & applications presented by the case

Offers a highly systematic critical engagement, interpretation & analysis of ideas, & concepts

Content is highly appropriate, relevant, on task & achieves aim of each element of the task Demonstrates understanding of context, audience & aim, but parts could have been more focused or specific

Presents understanding of perspectives, theories & applications presented by the case; minor gaps may be evident &/or links could have been more explicit

Offers critical engagement, interpretation & analysis of ideas, & concepts, though may have offered more with parts being more descriptive than analytical

Content is appropriate & relevant, may diverge from task occasionally Demonstrates some understanding of context, audience & aim, but needed to be more focused

Presents some understanding of perspectives, theories & applications presented by the case, though gaps are evident or links needed to be more explicit

Offers some critical engagement, interpretation & analysis of ideas & concepts, though this could have been more evident; parts may be overly descriptive

Content is generally appropriate & relevant, but may diverge from task Demonstrates limited understanding of the context, audience or aim

Presents a degree of understanding of perspectives, theories & applications presented by the case, though significant gaps are evident & links needed to be more explicit

Attempts critical engagement, interpretation & analysis of ideas & concepts but this is limited; tends to rely on description

Content could have been more appropriate, relevant or on task, or is lacking in parts Demonstrates minimal understanding or consideration of context, audience or aim

Attempts at presenting understanding of perspectives, theories & applications presented by the case not successful; or links between areas not clear

Critical engagement, interpretation & analysis of ideas, & concepts not in evidence, not successful, or relies on description

Content is inappropriate, irrelevant & diverges from task

Structure, Organisation & Writing

(20%)

How task is presented & completed; genre or task type; logic, flow, intra-text links; quality of writing Completes all required aspects of task

Presents ideas in consistently coherent (logical) & cohesive (linked) manner

Organises & sequences response appropriate to genre (e.g. clear paragraphing; use of headings or sections where appropriate; any extra-text elements, e.g. figures, are relevant, formatted appropriately & referred to)

Presents ideas concisely & succinctly

Message is clear; language errors rare, minor & non-distracting* Completes required aspects of task, though some parts could have been more detailed or balanced

Presents ideas in mostly coherent & cohesive manner with minor inconsistencies or gaps evident

Organised appropriate to genre; minor errors or gaps may be evident, or could have been completed more thoroughly

Ideas concise & succinct for the most part

Message is mostly clear; language errors minimal, infrequent & almost always non-distracting Completes required aspects of task, though some parts needed to be more developed (e.g. underlength or lack detail) or balanced

Presents ideas in coherent & cohesive manner, occasional inconsistencies evident in logic & links between sections

Organised mostly appropriate to genre, though some inconsistencies, errors or gaps may be evident (e.g. short conclusion)

Ideas generally concise & succinct, though there is a sense that parts are verbose

Overall, message is clear, though language errors evident & at times distracting Completes most required aspects of task, though some inconsistencies, errors or gaps are evident (e.g. missing elements)

Ideas mostly presented in coherent & cohesive manner; at times logic or sectional links lacking in clarity

Organised approximate to genre, though inconsistencies, errors or gaps are evident (e.g. missing or incorrect elements) & affect overall quality of response

Ideas needed to be more concise or succinct; sections may be overly long in parts

Overall, the message is clear, however, language errors are distracting Task not completed or displays major gaps in required elements

Ideas not presented with coherence or cohesion; logic not evident or hard to follow; links between sections not clear

Organised somewhat according to genre; though errors or gaps are evident (e.g. missing sections, lack of expected elements) & effect quality of writing or engagement with message

Conciseness or succinctness of ideas not evident; contains irrelevant material

Overall, message is not evident or clear, errors distract significantly

Criteria Excellent (H1) 8-10 High standard (H2A / H2B) 7 7.5 Sound work (H3) 6.5 Satisfactory work (Pass) 5-6 Unsatisfactory (Fail) 0-4

Research & Referencing

(20%)

Referencing conventions in use of external sources & citation; depth & breadth of research; use of sources Systematic research evident, uses expected/required literature with high currency

Relevant evidence collected from range of sources

Systematically integrates & engages with source information, synthesised with own thoughts

Applies referencing conventions accurately; errors, if any, minor & infrequent Evidence of research, uses expected/ required literature with currency

Evidence collected from range of mostly relevant sources, though may over-rely on some

Integrates & engages with most sources; synthesis with own ideas evident though may rely at times on external ideas;

Applies referencing conventions mostly appropriately & accurately Evidence of research, though may not include some expected/required references, may lack currency

Sources needed to be more diverse, relevant or may be overly reliant on some sources

Offers integration & reference to sources though could have been more evident; attempts to synthesise with own ideas though may rely on external ideas

Applies referencing conventions mostly appropriately & accurately; inaccuracies at times distracting Evidence of research; uses some expected / required literature though gaps evident in source currency

Limited evidence from a narrow range of sources, mostly appropriate to the task, though texts lacking relevancy may have been used

Attempts integration & reference to sources though needed to be more evident; attempts to synthesise with own ideas though tends to rely more on external ideas

Applies referencing conventions; inaccuracies frequent & distracting Very limited evidence of research; major gaps evident or expected/required works not used or have low currency

Relies on narrow range of sources; some irrelevant

May not attempt integration & synthesis or attempts not successful

May attempt to apply referencing conventions but not successfully

Required number of references may not be evidenced**

Notes:

Allocation of a grade: where a range is possible is at the markers discretion as to how well the response fulfils the requirements of the cell as outlined by the descriptors. Unsatisfactory grades may be allocated as follows: 4 borderline work, some adjustments may have resulted in a pass; 3 issues in 1-2 areas of any unsatisfactory criterion; 2 issues in a range of facets of any unsatisfactory criterion; 1 major structural / content issues / concerns with work in an unsatisfactory criterion; 0 major structural / content issues; evidence of inappropriate practice, e.g. plagiarism, collusion

Word count & Late assignments: refer to Faculty policy for guidance on marking of under- or over-length papers or late papers

Referencing/citation: notes on use of a citation system are made in reference to the preferred system of the program.

* distracting errors are those which impede the flow of reading or deviate the reader from the message by their nature or frequency

**Refer to agreed penalties for responses which do not evidence the minimum number of required references, e.g. any number less than required may incur a % penalty to the overall grade. If minimum number is not reached, but sources are integrated and used effectively, the maximum awarded grade is 5.