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) CIPS PIN NUPCO Formal Commercial Negotiation Plan
- For the current integrated modules assignment, a formal negotiation plan has been developed appropriate for the Procurement and Supply Management (PS&M) focusing on organisation operations.
- In this assessment, the National Unified Procurement Company (NUPCO) a leader in Saudi Arabia procurement, logistics and supply chain management for pharmaceutical, medical devices and supplies for government hospitals in Saudi Arabia (KSA).
- Further, the Ultrasound Machines procurement category has been identified in this report. By successfully reflecting on the content from driving value through procurement and supply, managing expenditures, developing contracts, sourcing essentials, negotiation in procurement and supply, relevant insights of the negotiation plan has been provided. Further, in this integrative assessment, the various tools applied include STEEPLE, Porter’s 5 Forces, SWOT analysis and Mendelow Matrix Stakeholders have been used to develop a successful negotiation strategy.
- The importance of this has been informed by the fact that NUPCO being a procurement organisation prioritise on attaining cost spending efficiencies and improvement of the healthcare services providers to government hospitals.
- This is with the skills, concessions, alternatives in the negotiation prioritised identified in this integrative assessment.
(Solution) CIPS Assessment 1 PDV- Managing Expenditures with Suppliers
- In this assessment, by selecting a category of spend, the importance to organisation stakeholders has been provided.
- The organisation of focus is Royal Commission for AlUla (RCU). Also, by carrying out brief market analysis, an explanation of the extent in which procurement function offer value for money outcomes has been produced.
- The selected category of spend in RCU is the Information Technology (IT) and cybersecurity. In particular, the IT infrastructure and equipment sub-category of spend has been prioritised for evaluation.
- In order to achieve this assessment objectives, appropriate purchasing models have been selected for application.
- These included Mendelow Matrix Analysis, Porter’s 5 Forces, STEEPLE, SWOT analysis and more.