Theories Of Organizational Design Healthcare Presentation Help

Theories Of Organizational Design Healthcare Presentation Help

In a 8-slide presentation, your team will address the following:

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW

Evaluate theories of organizational design.
Describe at least three of the most important contributions to organizational theory. (4 slides)
Explain how those contributions influence organizational structure and summarize the most relevant learnings for the Shapiro Cardiovascular Center. (4 slides)
Note: The presentation should be 8 slides, not including the title and reference slides. Include presenter notes (no more than 1/2 page per slide) and use tables and/or diagrams where appropriate. Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least three additional scholarly sources.
EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR
Describe and explain organizational theory and organizational structure.
Points:

Points Range: 36 (28.8%) – 40 (32%)

The description of the most important contribution to organizational theory shows depth, breadth, and clarity in critical thinking when applying them to organizational structure and the Shapiro Cardiovascular Center. The description of the unique aspects of organizational structures and design of physical space shows depth, breadth, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 32 (25.6%) – 35 (28%)

The description of the most important contributions to organizational theory is fully addressed when applying them to organizational structure and the Shapiro Cardiovascular Center. The description of the unique aspects of organizational structures and design of physical space are fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 28 (22.4%) – 31 (24.8%)

The description of the most important contributions to organizational theory lacks depth, breadth, and clarity in critical thinking when applying them to organizational structure and the Shapiro Cardiovascular Center. The description of the unique aspects of organizational structures and design of physical space lacks depth, breadth, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 27 (21.6%)

The description of the most important contribution to organizational theory is missing (zero points) or is poorly addressed when applying them to organizational structure and the Shapiro Cardiovascular Center. The description of the unique aspects of organizational structures and design of physical space is missing (zero points) or is poorly addressed.

Feedback:

Effectiveness and challenges in health care management.
Points:

Points Range: 45 (36%) – 50 (40%)

The analysis of the effectiveness of the organization and recommendations of best practices shows depth, breadth, and clarity in critical thinking. The application of organizational theory to identify challenges in aligning strategy and organizational culture shows depth, breadth, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 40 (32%) – 44 (35.2%)

The analysis the effectiveness of the organization and recommendations of best practices are fully addressed. The application of organizational theory to identify challenges in aligning strategy and organizational culture are fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 35 (28%) – 39 (31.2%)

The analysis of the effectiveness of the organization and recommendations of best practices lacks depth, breadth, and clarity in critical thinking. The application of organizational theory to identify challenges in aligning strategy and organizational culture lacks depth, breadth, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (27.2%)

The analysis of the effectiveness of the organization and recommendations of best practices is missing (zero points) or is poorly addressed. The application of organizational theory to identify challenges in aligning strategy and organizational is missing (zero points) or is poorly addressed.

Feedback:

Team Participation
Points:

Points Range: 10 (8%) – 10 (8%)

Adherence to the Team Charter was well documented. Participation in the team Discussion Thread showed a depth of contribution to the team effort. Team Evaluation was completed and submitted on time.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 9 (7.2%) – 9 (7.2%)

Adherence to the Team Charter was fully addressed. Participation in the team Discussion thread showed full participation to the team effort. Team Evaluation was completed and submitted on time.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 8 (6.4%) – 8 (6.4%)

Adherence to the Team Charter was not fully addressed. Participation in the team Discussion Thread showed only minimal contribution to the team effort. Team Evaluation was only partially completed not submitted on time.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 7 (5.6%)

Adherence to the Team Charter was poorly addressed. Participation in the team Discussion Thread showed poor contribution to the team effort. Team Evaluation was not completed.

Feedback:

Writing
Points:

Points Range: 22 (17.6%) – 25 (20%)

The presentation is well organized, uses a tone that is appropriate to the audience, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style. The presentation is supported by the Learning Resources and more than three additional scholarly sources. The presentation is 20–25 slides plus a title and a reference page. Images and design elements are used purposefully, and they effectively support audience engagement and understanding of key concepts. Presenter Notes are no more than ½ page per slide and provide complementary and/or supplementary material for the presenter that shows critical thinking of the topic.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 20 (16%) – 21 (16.8%)

The presentation is mostly consistent with graduate level writing style that is appropriate to the audience and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The presentation is supported by the Learning Resources and at least three additional scholarly sources. The presentation is 20-25 slides plus a title and a reference page. Images and layout generally support audience understanding of key concepts. Presenter Notes are no more than ½ page per slide and provide complementary and/or supplementary material for the presenter fully addresses the topic.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 17 (13.6%) – 19 (15.2%)

The presentation is somewhat consistent with graduate level writing style that is appropriate to the audience and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The presentation is supported by the Learning Resources and less than three additional scholarly sources. The presentation is not 20-25 slides plus a title and a reference page. Images or layout provide limited support for audience understanding of key concepts. Presenter Notes are no more than ½ page per slide and provide complementary and/or supplementary material for the presenter does not fully address the topic.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 16 (12.8%)

The presentation is well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, style, and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting. The presentation is not supported by the Learning Resources or additional scholarly sources. The presentation is not 20-25 slides plus a title and a reference page. Images and layout are inappropriate, hard to read, and/or impede audience understanding of key concepts. Presenter Notes are no more than ½ page per slide and provide complementary and/or supplementary material for the presenter poorly address the topic.