General:

The examination paper was overall an attempt to test the conceptual understanding of the candidates and included some ingredients to judge the communication ability and originality of writing skills of the students. Overall the performance was not up to the mark. Students had not prepared well. They probably thought that their writing skills would get them through, but they did not realize that it was important to go through their course, thouroughly.

Q.1

Most of the students failed to understand the exact requirements of the question. The question required to identify 3 aspects against every part – the audience, medium and reason for selecting the medium. The students mentioned one aspect or at the most two, it was very rare to see papers where students had identified all three aspects. Quite a few students had merely identified the medium as ‘oral’ or’ written’ communication, without mentioning the specific type such as letters, newspapers etc.

Q.2

A simple test of formal letter writing skill. Some scripts had format issues. Mostly students did not link the earlier gesture of the donating company as the introductory paragraph rather started with the information of tragedy and its intensity. Text needed to be more formal backed up by a better persuasive strategy to request for the additional funds.

Q.3

Was generally answered well. A good number of candidates, however, failed to identify the type of noise in the given situation. Many could not identify the sources of semantic and psychological noises.

Q.4

Out of the six types of sampling methods, random sampling was the one which 95% of the students had attempted. However, the explanation given was only a replication of the heading i.e ‘ a method in which sampling is done randomly’. Very few students actually gave the essential features and benefits of this type of sampling. Similarly, in case of other types, very few students explained the essential features.

Q.5

The question was answered well. Short reports were well written. Most of them followed good procedure and findings and were well organized.

Q.6

A simple question. Generally well answered. However, students generally misinterpreted the term ‘objectivity’ as the objective of the report rather than connecting with the opposite of ‘subjectivity’ and ‘impartiality’. Rest of the two terms were explained well.

Q.7

The students generally scored marks in this question through ancillary information like date, company’s name and headline, but their performance in drafting the subject matter of the public notice was poor. Very few of them were able to state the post-accident factual position and the steps which were taken by them to control the situation and to avoid its recurrence. Most of the students simply replicated the information given in the question without any value-addition. Also the main objective of publishing such a notice i.e. to pacify the general public was not addressed.

Q.8

Negotiation skills:

(a)

This was a very simple question the main qualities being knowledge, skills and attitude. Most students went into too many details of general nature instead of identifying and explaining the essential qualities required for effective negotiation which mainly include knowledge, skills, attitude and planning etc.

(b)

The main reasons for lack of co-ordination are poor communication, time pressures, different leadership styles and non-availability of integrated plan etc. 5% students gave the expected answers the rest did guess work and gave vague and off the point answers.

Q.9

Candidates were unable to describe Job analysis & Job enrichment as the key steps of Job design. Instead, they mostly mentioned the concepts of Job enlargement and Job rotation. The objectives of job design were however, well covered.

Q.10

This was an easy question. Approximately 35 – 40% of students gave the required information. Rest of copies were filled with irrelevant information focusing on service or products rather than giving the differences.

Q.11

Answers were generalized, but overall most candidates were able to describe the transition occurring in a maturing individual’s personality in the workplace.

Q.12

As far as the phenomena of Globalization and Information Technology was concerned, students had a fair idea, though in many of the answer the impact of these new trends on organizations in general and local business in particular was not clearly presented. Concept of TQM as a modern tool for continuous improvement was mentioned by only a few candidates. Most students related TQM with the delivery of quality goods and services, the bottom line of the TQM but failed to spell out the process very clearly.

As far as part (b) of this question is concerned, fair amount of understanding appeared to have been there with the students. Threats were more clearly identified but specific opportunity areas such as opportunity of becoming on off shore production hub and development of web-enabled services etc. were not usually identified.