Assessment task 1: Abstract assignmentObjective(s):
Length: Total assignment length = 1,800 words.Each abstract: 300 words.Each experience: 150 words.(4 x 300) + (4 x 150) = 1,800 words.The word limit for each individual component must not be exceeded by more than10%. Accordingly, each abstract must be no more than 330 words followed by anexperience example of no more than 165 words. Words beyond this limit will not bemarked.Background:The structured and methodological basis of the engineering field gives many engineers a preferencefor fact-based analysis and clear, unambiguous answers. The world of human organisations does notfit this paradigm at all, being chaotic, opaque, and sometimes contradictory. “Management decisionmaking may be a stressful and puzzling experience for an engineer”, writes Parkin. As almost allengineers practice either within an organisation or at the head of an organisation, understandingthe messy human world of politics, guile, persuasion and motivation is critical to the professionalsuccess of any engineer. There is not much point in an engineer coming up with a brilliantengineering solution if he/she is unable to persuade his/her organisation to adopt it. Thisassignment requires some contemplation of the management setting and the impacts it may haveon decision making for engineers.Task:1. Abstract. (4 marks each) [4 marks x 4 abstracts]Write an abstract of 300 words for the four (4) nominated readings in the Reading Materialand Exercises book (RM&E). [The RM&E is available on the Modules tab of the JDM subjecton UTS Canvas.] The nominated readings for the current study session are listed below.Marks are awarded for the relevance and depth of insight expressed, and the linkage to thekey aspects of the Management Setting.1. Experience. (3 marks each) [3 marks x 4 abstracts]Under each of the four (4) abstracts, write a 150 word example of how each reading relatesto your work experience, or how they could relate to an imaginary work situation. Studentswho do not have any relevant work experience may base the “experience” components ontheir personal life experience. Marks are awarded for the relevance of the experience to theinsights articulated in the abstract, and the clarity of description of the experience.2. Report professionalism and communication. (2 marks)The report should be written as if meant for a professional audience and not just as anattempt to satisfy an academic course requirement. Marks are awarded for communicatingclearly, exhibiting attention to detail and presenting itself to a high standard, including:• Good document structure including:o Title page (student name/number, tutor name, tutorial number, title,submission date);o Report Heading;o Numbered headings for each section;o Reference list page;o Additional appendices (if needed).o Report should have numbered pages and good English expression (includingpunctuation and spelling). FEIT cover sheet should be included at the front ofthe submission.• Clarity and insight - suitable word count (not counting title page, headings, referencelist, etc.), deals properly with each topic without verbosity, shows a depth of analysis;• Appropriate use of quotes (where applicable).
To summarise you are to sumbit,
• reading 1 abstract + example; and• reading 2 abstract + example; and• reading 3 abstract + example; and• reading 4 abstract + example.A feature of the assignment is the requirement of strict compliance with the word limits, eachcomponent has a word count tolerance of plus 10%. See Length (above).Nominated readings are:1. Reading 1.2 Fischer, F. (1990), Chapter 11 (part), ‘Organizations as political systems’, inTechnology and the Politics of Expertise, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. (RM&E PAGE 17)2. Reading 4.2, Reason, J. (1990), ‘A general view of accident causation in complex systems’, inHuman Error, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (RM&E PAGE 135)3. Reading 6.1 Lindblom, C.E. (1959), ‘The science of “muddling through”’, PublicAdministration Review, 19, p 79-88. (RM&E PAGE 243)4. Reading 8.4 Parkin, J.V. (1994), ‘A power model of urban infrastructure decision-making',Geoforum, 25:2. (RM&E PAGE 415)