Quality management, Literature Review help

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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,

course 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

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 logical

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.