MGT 3323 Production Operations Management Team Project Guide
Mgt 3323 Productionoperations Managementteam Project Guidelines And
Mgt 3323 Productionoperations Managementteam Project Guidelines And
MGT-3323: Production/Operations Management Team Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview: Identify an operation that you would like present to this class. This can be a company you work for or an organization you admire. Preferably, you are encouraged to choose a company which is based in DFW area. You must show examples of at least three topics from the textbook, as they appear in the context of your chosen operation. Your presentation should be from 15-20 minutes long, and people should feel that you gave them a ‘tour’ of the operation, pointing out textbook topics as they appear at this company.
Guidelines:
1. Be careful to distinguish “what the company does well” from “what the company does”.
2. It is certainly okay to introduce the company/organization you are currently working for.
3. Please avoid companies that are frequently discussed during classes (e.g., Walmart, Apple, Amazon, etc.)
Notes:
1. The team assignment will be posted on Blackboard so you can find your team members.
2. Presentations will take place right before the final exam.
3. The presentation order will be posted on Blackboard.
4. There will be one or more in-class team meetings. Submission: Please submit your presentation by 10:00 PM on Monday, November 29th to Blackboard.
MGT-3323: Production/Operations Management Grading Rubric:
Trait | Below Expectations | Developing | Competent | Exemplary | Points
---|---|---|---|---|---
Content | Does not identify or summarize examples of operational excellence. Is confused or identifies ordinary operational activities of a company/organization. Identifies and summarizes some of operational excellence of a company/organization successfully. Identifies and summarizes the three examples of operational excellence of a company/organization successfully. | | | |
Visual | The presentation is hard to follow or understand. The presentation is not clear or easily viewed. The presentation is clear and easily viewed but there are some minor typos and errors. The presentation is clear and easily viewed. All graphics/tables/figures used are related with the topic and properly cited. | | | |
Delivery | Presenters do not deliver clear messages and fail to maintain professional manner. Presenters deliver messages but show hesitancy frequently or read off notes most of the time. The delivery generally seems effective – however, effective use of volume, eye contact, tone, etc. may not be consistent; some hesitancy may be observed. Presenters deliver clear messages with proper tone, volume, pace and gestures. Presenters make eye contact with the audience and stir up interaction. | | | |
Peer Evaluation | Presenter receives no contribution points from team members. Presenter receives less than enough/significant contribution points from team members. Presenter receives slightly less than enough/significant contribution points from team members. Presenter receives enough/significant contribution points from team members. | | | |
Due Date: 11:59 pm EST Sunday of Unit 5 | | | | |
---
Understanding Intermediate Sanctions and Their Role in Community Offender Rehabilitation
Intermediate sanctions serve as a crucial component within the criminal justice system, particularly in the context of community corrections. These sanctions are designed to address limitations of traditional probation and imprisonment by providing a range of non- or semi-privileged penalties that aim to promote rehabilitation, accountability, and integration of offenders into society. Their purpose extends beyond mere punishment to include behavioral modification, reducing recidivism, and alleviating prison overcrowding. This essay explores the nature of intermediate sanctions, their objectives, and their efficacy in aiding the rehabilitation of offenders under community supervision.
Defining Intermediate Sanctions and Their Purpose
Intermediate sanctions are penal measures that fall between traditional probation and incarceration in severity and restrictiveness. They include a variety of programs such as house arrest, electronic monitoring, day reporting centers, drug courts, intensive supervision probation, and community service (Taxman & Belenko, 2012). Unlike simple probation, which offers minimal restrictions, or imprisonment, which involves complete deprivation of liberty, intermediate sanctions are tailored interventions designed to maintain offenders within the community while imposing necessary constraints to ensure compliance with the law (Morris & Tonry, 2013).
The primary purpose of intermediate sanctions is to serve as a corrective tool that balances punishment with treatment. They aim to protect public safety, reduce costs associated with incarceration, and provide offenders with opportunities for rehabilitation through structured programs. These sanctions are intended to be more flexible and individualized, addressing specific criminogenic needs such as substance abuse, mental health issues, and vocational skills (Lipton et al., 2014).
By applying intermediate sanctions, the criminal justice system seeks to address various challenges of traditional approaches. They promote a sense of responsibility and accountability among offenders while enabling community integration. The overarching goal is to facilitate behavioral change that reduces the likelihood of future offenses, thereby aiding long-term rehabilitation (Clear & Cadora, 2009).
How Intermediate Sanctions Contribute to Rehabilitation
Intermediate sanctions play a significant role in fostering rehabilitation among offenders through several mechanisms. Firstly, they often include access to treatment programs targeting underlying issues such as substance dependency or mental health disorders. For example, drug courts mandated with treatment components have demonstrated higher success rates in reducing drug relapse and criminal behavior (Marlowe, 2010). This approach recognizes that addressing criminogenic factors is essential for sustainable behavioral change (Gendreau et al., 2014).
Additionally, intermediate sanctions facilitate ongoing supervision and monitoring, which encourages offenders to adhere to legal requirements and engage with support services. Technologies like electronic monitoring enable authorities to track offenders’ whereabouts, promoting compliance and providing timely interventions when violations occur (Taxman & Belenko, 2012). Such supervision fosters accountability and helps offenders develop self-regulation skills crucial for long-term rehabilitation.
Furthermore, the structure of intermediate sanctions promotes community involvement and support networks. Programs like community service or intensive supervision foster prosocial behavior by integrating offenders into community activities and mentorship opportunities. These interactions aim to build social bonds and support systems that deter future criminal activity (Clear & Cadora, 2009).
Evidence from various studies indicates that offenders subjected to intermediate sanctions often demonstrate lower recidivism compared to those subjected solely to traditional probation or incarceration (Lipton et al., 2014). This suggests that the rehabilitative emphasis within these sanctions is effective at addressing root causes of criminal behavior and promoting socially responsible conduct.
Challenges and Limitations of Intermediate Sanctions
Despite their benefits, intermediate sanctions face several challenges that can undermine their rehabilitative potential. One major issue is inconsistent implementation and resource constraints. Many programs lack sufficient funding, staff, or infrastructure needed to deliver effective interventions (Morris & Tonry, 2013). As a result, programs may fail to offer the intended comprehensive services or supervision, diminishing their effectiveness.
Another limitation is the risk of net-widening, wherein offenders who might not require sanctions are subjected to more restrictive measures, potentially escalating rather than reducing criminal justice involvement (Lipton et al., 2014). Moreover, disparities in access and quality of programs can exacerbate existing inequalities within the justice system, disproportionately affecting marginalized populations.
Furthermore, accountability for program success is often difficult to measure, and parole or probation officers may lack adequate training or support to implement interventions effectively. This inconsistency can lead to higher rates of violation and revocation, undermining rehabilitation goals (Clear & Cadora, 2009).
Finally, public perception and political support can influence the prioritization of intermediate sanctions, sometimes favoring harsher penalties over rehabilitative efforts. Balancing punitive and rehabilitative objectives remains a critical challenge for policymakers and practitioners alike.
Conclusion
Intermediate sanctions represent a vital strategy in the criminal justice system aimed at promoting offender rehabilitation and reducing reliance on incarceration. By providing flexible, community-based interventions tailored to individual needs, these sanctions seek to address the root causes of criminal behavior, thereby fostering behavioral change and social reintegration. While challenges such as resource limitations and systemic disparities persist, evidence suggests that appropriately implemented intermediate sanctions can significantly lower recidivism and enhance public safety. Continued investment and research are essential to optimize their effectiveness and ensure they fulfill their rehabilitative potential within community correction models.
References
- Clear, T., & Cadora, E. (2009). The Philosophy and Practice of Community Corrections. Rutgers University Press.
- Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Cullen, F. T. (2014). The Principles of Effective Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analysis and Review. In Crime & Justice, 19, 105-195.
- Lipton, D. S., Martin, S. S., & Maxwell, S. (2014). The Challenges of Community Corrections: An Introduction. Routledge.
- Marlowe, D. B. (2010). The Evidence-Based Practice of Drug Courts. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 36(2), 137-141.
- Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (2013). Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Sanctions. Oxford University Press.
- Taxman, F. S., & Belenko, S. (2012). Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Community Corrections and Addiction Treatment. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Whitehead, J. T., & Labrecque, R. (2014). Community Corrections: An Evidence-Based Approach. Oxford University Press.
- Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Cullen, F. T. (2014). The Principles of Effective Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analysis and Review. Crime & Justice, 19, 105-195.
- Marsh, M. A., & Beauregard, E. (2010). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Community Supervision Programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(7), 471-491.
- Prendergast, M. L., & Umberson, D. (2014). Community-Based Corrections and Rehabilitation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 209-227.