Division of Labour Rubric for division of labour used group members strengths and weaknesses in way that enhances

s team performance strong and clear reasoning given for assignments A description of how the work was divided and assigned, and why Team Component: Policies, Rules, and Objectives - completed as a group To ensure it is clear, fair, and understood by each member To collect an input from everyone Division of Labour - Homond Homond is sociable, and he has known most of the members He is able to identify strengths and weaknesses of the members He can assign tasks according to each members strength and weakness Homond is forgetful, so tasks like the chronology and minutes is not assigned to him Team Functioning/ Strengths and Weaknesses - Michael Michael leads the group discussions He highlight the issues and key points that allow the group to stay on track He can best describe our team functioning as well as our strengths and weaknesses One Problem Encountered Kevin Kevin pays attention to details He manages to address problems that the group overlook He is the most suitable for describing one major problem of our group Lesson Learned Bret Bret has strong analytical skills Bret identifies the reasons that cause problems in our group He can propose approaches or methods that should not be employed in solving a case in the future Chronology and Minutes Adam Adam is organized and he take notes at all our meetings He has all the records and information that is needed to complete the Chronology and Minutes. Adam takes advance courses and he has met few of our group members, so he is not assigned Division of Labour. Case Component Purpose of report (identification of issues and our solution) Description: completed as a group during our first meeting To ensure everyone agrees on issues To provide a shared basis for further discussions Factors taken into account (Decision Criteria) Michael

Michael is able to identify the top priorities of the case He recognizes the what is important to both the individuals and organization in the case Michael is not very good at CVP, so Michael is not assigned the Justification of recommendation, where CVP is crucial to justify our decision. Alternatives Bret With Brets strong analytical skills, he can find the root cause of the issues and devise corresponding solutions that address to them. Bret is careless, so he is not likely to cover all the details that are required to justify our recommendations in key points. Key Points (Justification of recommendations) Kevin Because Kevin pays attention to details, he can present our solutions with detailed justifications Kevin is good at CVP, so he is assigned the justification of recommendations, where CVP is necessary to justify our decisions Kevin is not familiar with implementation because he was only assigned the alternatives and the key points in his previous group case. Implementation - Adam Because Adam is organized, he can determine the necessary implementations needed to bring all our alternatives in effect Contingencies Homond Homond demonstrated strong ability to propose realistic and practical contingency plans from last terms group case.