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 7C002 Question 8: High performance work practices
(Solution) 5HR03 (AC2.4) Explain the merits of different types of recognition schemes offered by organisations
(Solution) 5OS04 Question 2 (AC 1.2) benefits to your company of employing people in an international context following the takeover
(Solution) Ethical values; impact on work as people professional
(Solution) CIPS Commercial Management in Procurement and Supply Assessment
(Solution) CIPS Emirates Transport Company Advanced Practitioner Corporate Award APCM
- Transport Company (ET) power distribution and risk of supplier and organisation.
- By evaluating the ET company, a general contract has been selected which is used in sourcing different products and services in the organisation.
- Through an analysis of the contract, the power distribution and risk of ET and their suppliers has been established. Through the use of statistics and desk research, appropriate findings have been obtained.
- Also, the Supplier Preferencing Matrix, Porter’s 5 Forces and Turnkey Models and SWOT analysis have been used. The findings indicate that the risks and power are significantly distributed amongst the different stakeholders.