Engineering judgement requires much more than an ability to carry out specific calculations. It often requires the ability to evaluate multiple competing pieces of information: e.g. different analyses, site reports, prior studies, colleague opinions, design requirements, stakeholder interests, latest research and many other sources. This assignment focuses on the textual aspect of critical analysis, which is the ability to judge the quality of content of written material, but it is highly aligned with the general concept of “critical thinking” which is applicable in an even broader setting (e.g. committee meetings, informal debates with colleagues, project meetings, stakeholder meetings, etc).
For this task you will be required to review contrasting information and opinions related to management and leadership in the response to the COVI19 pandemic. Multiple sources might be used (web material, articles, journal papers) but the focus should be on understanding the content of arguments presented by others (so multiple sources allow for comparison/contrast where relevant). The ability to engage with a breadth of topical content will assist you to build a habit of independent life-long learning and individually pursue professional development.
Although there are a wide variety of comments that proffer opinions, not all of them are constructive or insightful. Your job is to provide reasoned analysis. You are allowed to frame the document with your editorial assertions, but you should back it up with reference to other voices, evidence and reasoned arguments to make your case.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this assessment task are to: Establish reasoned judgements relating to leadership and management of the COVID19 pandemic· identify source material relevant to support your arguments· critically evaluate the argument(s) of the source text(s)· write a 3-page review which synthesises your analysis·
THE TASK
– THE CORONOLYMPICS You are required to critique the performance of the covid19 response effort for leaders / managers / agencies / individuals - of your choosing. You are required to award 4 out of the following 8 categories:
1. The gold medal - best practice leadership
2. The silver medal - excellent leadership, but performance not flawless
3. The bronze medal - good effort, worthy mention, room for improvement
4. The wooden spoon - poor leadership, not up to expected standards M. Leonard April 2020
5. The Bradbury - leadership that got it right ... but let's be honest, it was mostly luck
6. The unsung hero - not the highest profile leadership, but truly inspirational
7. The disappointment - the highest of hopes evaporated under pressure
8. The scandal - irresponsible, double-standards, or unethical practice
The examples you choose may be international, national, or local examples. They could be individuals, or collective agencies. Some categories are positive, some are negative, but either way it will be your job to back up your assertions with reference to sources. You will need to provide an informed judgement - not just opinion - and provide analysis of specifics to backup your argument.
Critical Analysis Review Paper:
The critical analysis should: Briefly introduce and conclude the overall theme
· Provide an analysis which assesses aspects of leadership and management
· Minimum 1 full page, maximum 3 full pages (A4, single spaced, 11 point font)
· Use headings: Introduction, Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Summary References,
· Your example headings should also indicate which category is being awarded, e.g. “Example 1 – The wooden spoon”, “Example 2 – The gold medal” Be written in concise and coherent language, free of errors
· Reference any material from sources used. Use the Vancouver referencing style. References donot form part of the 3 pages.
They should be consistently formatted.
SUBMISSIONS
The submission is made electronically through MyUni.