OPM6090 · Module 6 · Deeply Embedding Technology and Practices for Continuous Innovation
30%
Exercises weight
70%
Performance task weight
masters
Degree level
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Correctly applies BSC across all four perspectives (Financial, Customer, Internal Process, Learning & Growth) with OEE and operational KPIs leading the Financial Perspective (not cost accounting figures); classifies at least four of seven TPS waste types present in the scenario with specific evidence; technology portfolio evaluation references at least three of the five platforms with named performance data.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
BSC analysis covers three of four perspectives adequately with appropriate KPIs; three TPS waste types classified with evidence; technology portfolio covers two platforms with scenario-grounded evidence.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
BSC present but Financial Perspective framed around cost reduction rather than operational ROI (OEE, throughput, lead time); fewer than three TPS wastes classified; technology portfolio assessment is generic without specific platform evidence.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
BSC framework absent or applied to fewer than two perspectives; TPS waste analysis absent or classification is incorrect; technology portfolio not evaluated with scenario data.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Implementation roadmap is dependency-aware — each phase logically follows from the prior and the dependency is explained; roadmap phases are explicitly connected to the BSC diagnosis; AI readiness judgment correctly identifies labeled historical data as the key prerequisite constraint for predictive maintenance viability.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Roadmap is sequenced and mostly dependency-aware; BSC-to-roadmap connection is present but one phase lacks an explicit justification for its position in the sequence; AI readiness judgment is correct but the labeled data reasoning is incomplete.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Roadmap phases are listed in an order that is plausible but sequencing logic is not explained; connection to BSC diagnosis is asserted without demonstrating which finding drives which phase; AI question response is partially correct (identifies AI as relevant but does not identify the specific prerequisite).
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No dependency-aware sequencing; roadmap is a generic list of interventions not connected to the BSC diagnosis; AI readiness judgment is absent or incorrect.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Identifies a non-obvious root cause or second-order effect — e.g., explains why eliminating a specific TPS waste type will unlock performance gains across multiple BSC perspectives, or why sequencing Phase 1 before Phase 2 reduces risk rather than just enabling capability; frames the roadmap as a prioritized consulting recommendation rather than an implementation checklist.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Roadmap shows prioritization logic beyond the obvious; recommendation is consulting-appropriate but relies on scenario prompts for most of its framing.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Roadmap reads as a summary of the MCQ steps rather than an independent analytical recommendation; no explanation of why the chosen sequence is preferable to alternatives.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No independent recommendation; response is a list of steps without analytical synthesis or prioritization rationale.
Canvas import
Canvas does not support direct rubric CSV import. Use this view to manually create the rubric in Canvas, or download the JSON above for programmatic creation via the Canvas API.