Online Help on ISYS 40161 Quality Function Development

Hire PhD Qualified tutors at Affordable Price

ISYS 40161 Business Operations and Reliability Management Assessment 2

MODULE CODE	ISYS 40161
MODULE TITLE	Business Operations and Reliability Management
MODULE LEADER	Dr. David Funchall
TUTOR(S)	Dr. David Funchall
COMPONENT	2 of 2 Assessments - Assessment 2
COMPONENT TITLE	Quality Function Development (QFD): Construct a HOQ for the chosen process/system/service. Clearly describe each part of the HOQ with respect to your process/system/service.
LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSED	Learning outcomes describe what you should know and be able to do by the end of the module. Knowledge and understanding. After studying this module, you should be able to: M1. Perform and interpret a Quality Function Deployment House of Quality analysis. Select and apply the appropriate Quality Improvement tools to design quality into a product, service or process. M2. Critically appraise the effectiveness of a chosen approach. M3. Perform a Fault Tree Analysis identifying Management issues with design and production M4. Demonstrate a critical understanding of the nature of the data quality and why the asset it is difficult manage. Skills, qualities and attributes. After studying this module, you should be able to: M5. Develop a business model for a specific application. M6. Analyse a business in its operating context.
CONTRIBUTION TO ELEMENT	50% of the total course work mark
DATE SET	Start of Year \| 10 January 2022
DATE and TIME OF SUBMISSIION	29 April 2022 at 23h00 (11pm)
METHOD OF SUBMISSION	Dropbox on NOW Systems.
DATE OF FEEDBACK	13 May 2022
METHOD OF FEEDBACK	NOW Dropbox and/or via Email [Personalised].

NOTE:

Work handed in up to five working days late will be given a maximum Grade of Low Third whilst work that arrives more than five working days will be given a mark of zero.

Work will only be accepted beyond the five working day deadline if satisfactory evidence, for example, an NEC is provided. Any issues requiring NEC:

https://ntu.ac.uk/current_students/resources/student_handbook/appeals/index.html

The University views plagiarism and collusion as serious academic irregularities and there are a number of different penalties which may be applied to such offences.

The Student Handbook has a section on Academic Irregularities, which outlines the penalties and states that plagiarism includes:

'The incorporation of material (including text, graph, diagrams, videos etc.) derived from the work (published or unpublished) of another, by unacknowledged quotation, paraphrased imitation or other device in any work submitted for progression towards or for the completion of an award, which in any way suggests that it is the student's own original work. Such work may include printed material in textbooks, journals and material accessible electronically for example from web pages.' Whereas collusion includes:

“Unauthorised and unacknowledged copying or use of material prepared by another person for use in submitted work. This may be with or without their consent or agreement to the copying or use of their work.” If copied with the agreement of the other candidate both parties are considered guilty of Academic Irregularity.

Penalties for Academic irregularities range from capped marks and zero marks to dismissal from the course and termination of studies.

To help you avoid plagiarism and collusion, you are permitted to submit your work once to a separate drop box entitled “Draft report” to view both the matching score and look at what areas are affected. It is then down to you to make any changes needed.

Turnitin cannot say if something has been plagiarised or not. Instead it highlights matches between your text and other Turnitin content. There is no Good or Bad score, it depends on the piece of work. If you find your text matching there may be a problem, see the examples below:

The reference section is highlighted. This may mean you have referenced correctly and this has been matched with other well referenced documents online.
A table containing class data is highlighted. This is acceptable as long as any text accompanying the table is not similar picked up as identical
Paragraphs of text in the introduction or conclusion sections are highlighted. This may mean they have been copied exactly from another source. Even if this source is referenced this is bad practice, see advice below
A sentence, or part of a sentence is highlighted. Sometimes there are few ways to write a sentence, especially straightforward ones. As long as this does not occur throughout a paragraph this may be acceptable. There will be occasions where a few words within a sentence produce a match. This is acceptable but ensure that this not a common occurrence or a patchwork of copied statements from different sources.

Overall, when you look at the work, put yourself in the place of the marker. Is a lot of the work highlighted so it does not really look like the author’s work? If so, then you need to work on it some more.

For help, do not contact the setter of the work, but use these links (Plagiarism Support and Turnitin Support) to book time with staff and students to help with

1. ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS

Assignment 2:

(50% of module mark). Quality Function Development (QFD)

The coursework should be no more than 5000 words, excluding appendices, table of contents, table of figures and tables and reference table.

(not including the House of Quality (HOQ descriptors). There should be no appendices. You may use any other Quality tools that may aid you in this assessment.

Requirement:

You are required to:

Describe a process/system/service of your choice.
Brainstorm and describe the 'What’s' and 'How’s' (14-20 of each). If you are omitting any of these from your HOQ, then explain why.
Construct a HOQ for this process/system/service. Clearly describe each part of the HOQ with respect to your process/system/service. For any part(s) of the HOQ which cannot be done because of lack of information, confidentiality, etc., complete the part(s) with simulated information and describe how data would be collected to complete the missing part(s).
Detail outcomes, recommendations and conclusions based on your HOQ.

2. Assessment Criteria

single descriptive grade (e.g. mid distinction, low commendation etc.) will be given, based on the marking criteria of this document.
If references (other than the required reading for the seminar task) are included in your work, you should cite references appropriately in your work.
Information on NTU’s requirements for referencing, and guidance on how to avoid plagiarism are at the Libraries & Learning Resources webpage at this link http://www.ntu.ac.uk/llr/developing_skills/referencing_plagiarism/index.html.
Library staff at both Clifton and City campuses can also help you.

Marking criteria:

Prepare a report describing the catastrophic failure of the system structured by:

Describe a process/system/service of your choice. (10%)
Brainstorm and describe the 'What’s' and 'How’s' (14-20 of each). If you are omitting any of these from your HOQ, then explain why. (20%)
Construct a HOQ for this process/system/service. Describe each part of the HOQ with respect to your process/system/service. For any part(s) of the HOQ which cannot be done because of lack of information, confidentiality, etc., complete the part(s) with simulated information and describe how data would be collected to complete the missing part(s). (40%)
Detail outcomes, recommendations and conclusions based on your HOQ. (30%)

Total is 100% but will be capped to 50% of the overall CWK2

3. FEEDBACK OPPORTUNITIES

Formative (Whilst you’re working on the coursework)

You will be given the opportunity to receive informal verbal feedback from your tutor regarding your coursework development during the seminar sessions.

Please note that the module leader does not proof-read reports before they are handed in for the feedback.

Summative (After you’ve submitted the coursework)

You will receive specific feedback regarding your coursework submission together with your awarded mark when it is returned to you.
Please note clearly that feedback provided with your coursework is only for developmental purposes so that you can improve for the next assessment or subject-related module.

4. RESOURCES THAT MAY BE USEFUL

Referencing styles please use the Harvard Convention (Harvard APA 6^th Edition)
Remember to use Outlook or physical calendars to block out time between lectures, seminars, tutorials and to work on this coursework and for submission deadline date

5. MODERATION

The Moderation Process

All assessments are subject to a two-stage moderation process.

Firstly, any details related to the assessment (e.g., clarity of information and the assessment criteria) are considered by an independent person (usually a member of the module team).
Secondly, the grades awarded are considered by the module team to check for consistency and fairness across the cohort for the piece of work submitted.