Discussion: Quality management

Discussion: Quality management ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: Quality management Using the initial work in the Annotated Bibliography that was due in Week 2, complete a literature review on the quality management topic chosen for the major project. Discussion: Quality management You must address at least eight scholarly resources in this section. How: approach this section as a mini “book report” on each of the reference sources that significantly informed your analysis and proposed solutions. Give the reader an encapsulated review of what information you found most relevant to your research. You may have found conflicting opinions/theories related to your topic area. Identify and discuss contrasting viewpoints and/or describe in detail significant agreement among your sources. Your literature review should be separate and distinct from your analysis section; it is a summation of your research. The goal should be a paragraph containing a minimum of three to five sentences per review. Discussion: Quality management Topic Selection Continue working with the problem statement presented in Week 1 (e.g., select a specific organization of interest to you and identify a problem at the firm related to quality management). Think of yourself as an organizational consultant, and assume that a key manager has requested a thorough analysis and recommended course of action to resolve an actual quality problem that will make a difference to the future performance of the organization. Identify which of course Terminal Course Objective(s) (TCO) are related to the problem you identify. Research Sources All papers must have a minimum of eight scholarly sources cited within the text of the paper, and identified in the references section. Additional research sources can be attached in a bibliography. Discussion: Quality management Review the following document for instructions on how to access and use EBSCOhost for your research: EBSCOhost. Paper Format All papers should be double-spaced, using an 11- or 12-point font. The length of the paper is to be between 10 and 15 pages, not counting cover page, table of contents and appendices. The first page should include the title of the work, student name, course number, date, and professor name. Follow APA style for general format and citations (see APA Guidelines tutorial in the Syllabus). Paper sections must adhere to the guidelines in the rubric, and each section must be labeled using titles and subtitles. Language should be clear, concise, and precise. The tone should be professional, consistent, and not filled with jargon. Rules of academic writing suggest avoiding contractions, using third person voice, avoiding idioms and colloquialisms, and controlling the use of passive voice. Grammar and syntax (sentence structure) must be correct. Discussion: Quality management The report must be free of misspellings and typos. Tables and Figures (as applicable) All figures and tables must be referred to in your text before they appear on the page. Figures and tables should appear on the same page as, or the page after, the text that refers to them. All figures and tables need captions. Captions go below figures and above tables. Quotations and Citations Quotations and citations are crucial components of a research paper and must be present. Failure to properly cite research sources and borrowed ideas is plagiarism. Refer to APA style guide for assistance with properly citing quoted and/or borrowed materials and ideas. Turnitin is used on all reports and projects. A report can be obtained for your review prior to submitting your final work. Make sure that you are in compliance with the University’s 20/80 rule. Grading Rubric Discussion: Quality management Criteria Failed to Meet Minimum Standards 0-59% (0 – 59 pts.) Barely Meets Minimum Standards 60+% (60 – 69 pts.) Meets Minimum Standards 70+% (70 – 79 pts.) Good 80+% – B (80 – 89 pts.) Superior 90+% – A (90 – 100 pts.) Title Page (5 pts.) Page not provided or only one element is provided. (0 – 2.99pts.) Includes at least two of the six elements requested. (3 – 3.45 pts.) Includes at least three of the six elements requested. TOC. (3.46 – 3.95 pts.) Includes at least four of the six elements requested. (4 – 4.45 pts.) A title is given to the literature review. Includes the student’s name, Discussion: Quality managementcourse number and title, instructor, and date. (4.46 – 5 pts.) Introduction (10 pts.) Introduction is not apparent. (0 – 5.95 pts.) Introduction is vague, incomplete, or lacks a focus. (6 – 6.99 pts.) Introduction reflects barely adequate information to acquaint reader to the problem context. (7 – 8.99 pts.) Contains some focus and provides sufficient detail to set the stage for the analysis but may contain extraneous information or thesis statement Discussion: Quality management is not evident to the reader (8 – 8.89 pts.) Introduction has a sharp, distinct focus; complete information and a clear thesis statement. (9 – 10 pts.) Structure and Development (5 pts.) Absence of titles and subtitles, poor organization, clarity, and logicalDiscussion: Quality management order. It is written without academic rigor. (0 – 2.99pts.) Student misuses Titles and Subtitles. Student carries out a poor plan of organization, with limited clarity or logical order, and narrative is misaligned with the rules of academic writing. Ideas are not connected, or the use of transitions is poor. (3 – 3.45 pts.) Student uses Titles and Subtitles with limitations. Student carries out some plan of organization, with ideas presented that can lack clarity or logical order, or narrative is misaligned with the rules of academic writing. Some ideas are not connected, or the use of transitions is limited. (3.46 – 3.95 pts.) Student uses Titles and Subtitles to divide topics and subtopics with minor errors or deviations. Student carries out an understandable plan of organization, with ideas presented mostly in a clear and logical order and consistent with the rules of academic writing. Most ideas are connected with the effective use of transitions. (4 – 4.45 pts.) Discussion: Quality management Student properly uses Titles and Subtitles to divide topics and subtopics. Student carries out a superior plan of organization, with ideas arranged in an exceptionally clear and logical order consistent with the rules of academic writing. All ideas are clearly connected and sentences and paragraphs are woven together smoothly with effective use of transitions. (4.46 – 5 pts.) Literature Review (50 pts.) Absent or poor discussion of topics of from the perspective of the problem of the project, theory, and academic literature. (0 – 29.99 pts.) Discussion: Quality management An insufficient discussion of topics, research and theory; a poor link between the problem and academic literature. Discussions do not compare and contrast theories and findings (30 – 34.99 pts.) Discusses topics but cannot align them with research and theory at all times, and it presents with a limited relationship between the problem of the major project and non-academic literature. Discussions have limited comparing and contrasting of theories and findings. (35 – 39.99 pts. ) Discusses topics and align them with research and theory sometimes, establishing a relationship between the problem of the major project and contemporary literature that could be non-scientific. Discussions occasionally include a comparing and contrasting of theories and findings. (40 – 44.99 pts.) Discussion: Quality management Discusses topics from the perspective of research and theory, establishing a direct relationship between the problem of the major project and the scientific literature. Discussions include comparing and contrasting of theories and findings with originality and insight. (45 – 50 pts.) Summary (10 pts) Summary is not apparent. (0 – 5.95 pts.) Summary is vague, incomplete, or lacks a focus. (6 – 6.99 pts.) Summary condenses with limitation the ideas, theories, and alignments with the problem discussed in the literature review with originality, or introduces new topics of discussion. (7 – 8.99 pts.) Summary condenses most of the ideas, theories, and alignments with the problem discussed in the literature review, and without introducing new topics of discussion. (8 – 8.89 pts.) Summary is a high-level condensation of the ideas, theories, and alignments with the problem discussed in the literature review with originality, and without introducing new topics of discussion. (9 – 10 pts.) References and APA (10 Points) Information is not supported by use of in-text citations or references. (0 – 5.95 pts.) Information is supported by insufficient use of references, without in-text citations. Format may be inconsistent. (6 – 6.99 pts.) Information is supported by the use of references and in-text citations, but with major deviations from APA style. (7 – 8.99 pts.) Information is supported by the appropriate use of research. Includes in-text citations and references with minor deviations from APA style. (8 – 8.89 pts.) When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate use of research. In-text citations and references are free of deviations from APA style. (9 – 10 pts.) Writing and Style (10 pts.) Little evidence of a controlling idea. Fails to respond to the situation or explore the issues. The writer’s voice presents inadequate control of language. Excessive grammatical and mechanical errors block meaning. (0 – 5.95 pts.) Organization is flawed, and details are lacking or unrelated to a central idea. The writer’s voice is indistinct, and the paper may rely on poor and colloquial language. Frequent mechanical errors seriously interfere with meaning. (6 – 6.99 pts.) The plan of organization is undermined by omission of ideas and details and illogical or simplistic reasoning. The writer’s voice is weakly developed, and use of language may be vague, imprecise, or colloquial. Mechanical errors sometimes interfere with meaning. (7 – 8.99 pts.) Summaries are generally well organized with most details that directly support major points. The professional voice of the writer emerges but with some inconsistencies, come command of language and stylistic variety and active voice. Mechanical errors do not significantly interfere with meaning. (8 – 8.89 pts.) Summaries are logically organized with concrete details that directly support major points. The professional voice of the writer emerges through a superior command of language and stylistic variety and active voice. Essentially free from mechanical errors. (9 – 10 pts.) NOTE: Points will be deducted for grammar, syntax, and/or punctuation errors. Failure to cite sources properly or using incorrect protocol when citing sources and listing references is cause for point reduction. Failure to cite sources will result in submission for academic integrity review. sam_l_problem_statement_quality_management_2_for_literature_review.doc sam__l_week__2__ann Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

RECOMMENDED: Healthcare Quality Management Discussion