Description
Solution
Table 1 Data
All department’s performance review judgements as a percentage:
Department | Quarter | Outstanding | Meets KPIs | Not Quite There | Underperforming |
Administration Department | 1 | 1 Absent (11-1=10)
2/10 x100= 20% |
1 Absent (11-1=10)
2/10 x100= 20% |
1 Absent (11-1=10)
3/10 x100= 30% |
1 Absent (11-1=10)
3/10 x100= 30% |
2 | 1 Absent (11-1=10)
1/10 x100= 10% |
1 Absent (11-1=10)
4/10 x100= 40% |
1 Absent (11-1=10)
4/10 x100= 40% |
1 Absent (11-1=10)
1/10 x100= 10% |
|
Sales Department | 1 | 100.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.OO% |
2 | 0.00% | 100.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
Logistics Department | 1 | 4/10 x100=
20% |
8/10 x100=
40.00% |
6/10 x100=
30.00% |
2/10 x100=
10.00% |
2 | 5/20-2 Absent x100=
27.78% |
9/20-2 Absent x100=
50.00% |
4/20-2 Absent x 100= 22.22% | 0.00% | |
Research & Development | 1 | 3/10 x100=
30.00% |
3/10 x100=
30.00% |
1/10 x100=
10.00% |
3/10 x100=
30.00% |
2 | 1 Absent =(10-1=9)
5/9 55.55 |
1 Absent =
3/9 33.33% |
1 Absent =
1/9 11.11% |
0.00% |
Bonus Payments Calculation for ‘Outstanding’ Employees
Each eligible employee in the administrative department had their bonus payments added together during the first quarter to determine their overall bonus payment. This was the entire bonus sum that was due for that particular division and time period.
Formulae for Bonus: Salary x 0.04
Department | Employee | Salary | Bonus | Quarter |
Administration | Saffron Finch | £24,000 | £960 | Q1 |
Robin Bird | £31,500 | £1,260 | Q1 | |
Logistics | Sally Rigbye | £23,750 | £950 | Q1 |
Julie Chisnall | £19,500 | £780 | Q1 | |
Rick Lovall | £19,500 | £780 | Q1 | |
Gill Jamieson | £19,500 | £780 | Q1 | |
Research & Dev. | Ethan Brar | £32,500 | £1,300 | Q1 |
Tasha Graham | £29,500 | £1,180 | Q1 | |
Jennifer Frost | £29,500 | £1,180 | Q1 | |
Administration | Saffron Finch | £24,000 | £960 | Q2 |
Logistics | Ruth Sixsmith | £23,750 | £950 | Q2 |
Wendy Boot | £23,750 | £950 | Q2 | |
Jean Livesey | £26,000 | £1,040 | Q2 | |
Julie Chisnall | £19,500 | £780 | Q2 | |
Gill Jamieson | £19,500 | £780 | Q2 | |
Research & Dev. | Ethan Brar | £32,500 | £1,300 | Q2 |
Harrison Briggs | £32,500 | £1,300 | Q2 | |
Tasha Graham | £29,500 | £1,180 | Q2 | |
Jennifer Frost | £29,500 | £1,180 | Q2 | |
Steve Owen | £29,500 | £1,180 | Q2 | |
Total | £9,170 | Q1 Total | ||
£11,600 | Q2 Total | |||
£20,770 | Overall Total |
Summary of Bonus Payments
Quarter | Total (£) |
Quarter 1 | £9,170 |
Quarter 2 | £11,600 |
Overall Total | £20,770 |
Bonus Information Analysis
The Administration and Logistics teams earned constant awards in both Q1 and Q2, demonstrating consistent performance across departments, according to the bonus data. Particularly in the second quarter, a larger number of employees in the Logistics and Research & Development divisions received incentives. Bonuses went up from £9,170 in Q1 to £11,600 in Q2, which could be attributed to more output or better performance reviews in the second quarter.
Please click the following icon to access this assessment in full
Related Papers
(Solution) CIPD Level 5 5C002 Briefing paper – part one
(Solution) CIPS ADNOC Sourcing Essentials PSE
- For the current report, the sourcing approaches identified and in-depth explained are informed by the ADNOC chemicals sourcing.
- In tandem with the different spend categories, different sourcing approaches for the spend have been applied with a supplier appraisal generated at the end.
- Through an in-depth analysis, sourcing strategies evaluating in areas of multiple, single, dual and sole. For procuring the chemicals, multiple sourcing is the best practice due to the procurement process characteristic.
- As evidenced from Kraljic analysis matrix, suppliers relations are noted with chemicals procurement being a leverage category.
- The Carter’s 10Cs model is applicable to pursue suppliers appraisal for chemicals sourcing supplier appraisal.
(Solution) New CIPS Corporate Award Advanced Practitioner (CAAP) Project proposal
- Improved engagement of different stakeholders in tendering process of contracts process
- Increased costs savings by reducing communication barriers and also reducing the number of employees working in tendering process
- An effective data management and recording for ensuring success in evaluation and use of the data for contracts tendering process metrics
- Effective management of issues in the contracts evaluation and recommend best strategies in their mitigation during tendering process
- To effectively pursue trend analysis to understand the history of evaluations and effectively use the data in managing tendering process