RTM-1 (Wednesday Morning) — Project Evaluation & Learning Notes

This page publishes the RTM-1 results for the Wednesday Morning class. The goal is transparency and academic improvement: every student can view their score and learn from the most common issues found in the submitted projects.

Important Notes

Scores are assigned per group (all members in the same team receive the same score).
If a student’s name/NIM was not found in the submitted dataset, it is marked as T (To be confirmed) and will be updated once valid data is received.

RTM-1 Score List (Wednesday Morning)

No	NIM	Student Name	RTM-1 Score	Short Note (Title + Core Point)
1	64251872	FATHIR NUR RAMADHAN	83	Community Fund Management (Cahaya Desa) — Alternatives & SOP are clear; KPI exists, but targets/definitions are still too general.
2	64251884	RIZKYA RACHMALIANA	90	Electric Motorbikes for J&T Couriers — Strong cost data; phased implementation is clear; KPI & mitigation are very complete.
3	64251899	MUHAMMAD FAARI RAKA ADISEPUTRO	86	Gojek Service Performance Analysis — Response-time problem is clear; KPI is measurable; risks are still written at a broad/category level.
4	64251902	RIYADH AHMAD MUDZAKIR	88	Managerial Decision Case (Grab) — Strong problem narrative; alternatives & action plan are clear; KPI needs more consistent numeric targets.
5	64251910	ANASTASIA JEVIKA BEREK	88	Managerial Decision Case (Grab) — (group score) Complete structure; quantitative indicators still need sharpening.
6	64251912	CUT ZALIANTI	88	Managerial Decision Case (Grab) — Detailed explanation; analysis is fairly neat; KPI & controls should be tightened and targets made explicit.
7	64251928	SALWA NAFINGA	85	Zenius Education Issue — Rich context; relevant alternatives; KPI is acceptable; needs tighter focus (avoid going too broad).
8	64251953	DEWI AGUSTINE PRABOWO	86	Gojek Service Performance Analysis — (group score) Response-time KPI is clear; risks remain too general.
9	64251967	GENDIS AYU LARASATI	86	Gojek Service Performance Analysis — Simon’s flow is neat; SOP is directed; risk-to-mitigation needs more specificity.
10	64251985	SABILLAH FASQAL	89	Lazada Logistics & Supply Chain — Gibson 7-step flow is strong; KPI targets are clear; technical mitigation is fairly solid.
11	64252009	REZA ADHITYA PRATAMA PUTRA	89	Lazada Logistics & Supply Chain — Clear concise data; measurable alternatives; KPI controls are good.
12	64252037	ROBIATUL ADAWIYAH	89	Lazada Logistics & Supply Chain — (group score) Strong structure; phased implementation is clear.
13	64252048	ADINDA DWI NOVITA	87	Bukalapak Managerial Decision Issue — Strategy & KPI are fairly complete; needs more concise writing and sharper “core problem” focus.
14	64252057	SINDI MEYOLA BR SEMBIRING	87	Bukalapak Managerial Decision Issue — Comprehensive; many indicators; problem statement and supporting data must be more explicit.
15	64252081	KHANSA PRAYUDATI FATHINAH	92	Tokopedia Case (COVID-19 Era) — Very complete (context–data–alternatives–KPI–risk); academically strong; needs slight tightening.
16	64252084	RAHMAD RISKIANTO	90	Electric Motorbikes for J&T Couriers — (group score) KPI & mitigation are strong; phased decision is realistic.
17	64252099	YODI RAMADANI	T	T (To be confirmed) — Not found in the RTM-1 dataset submitted.
18	64252104	REGITA LESTARI	92	Tokopedia Case (COVID-19 Era) — (group score) Complete and measurable.
19	64252113	JUANITA RESTIAH ASTUTI	T	T (To be confirmed) — Not found in the RTM-1 dataset submitted.
20	64252117	NADIN JANIA NURHAYATI	85	Zenius Education Issue — (group score) Relevant alternatives; KPI is adequate; writing focus needs improvement.
21	64252131	FAISAL HILMI JAYALAKSANA	93	Shopee Technology Innovation — Most mature: phased action plan; strong KPI framework; relevant mitigation.
22	64252134	FEBBY AFRAWATI SAHIDU	93	Shopee Technology Innovation — (group score) Highly comprehensive and well-structured.
23	64252147	SYALWAWIBOWO	93	Shopee Technology Innovation — Strongest structure; detailed indicators and controls.
24	64252148	DESWITA AISYAH	90	Electric Motorbikes for J&T Couriers — (group score) Implementation & KPI are complete.
25	64252155	ANISA PUTRI NUR INDAH SARI	83	Community Fund Management (Cahaya Desa) — Structure exists; KPI is still generic; needs concise evidence to become more “data-based.”
26	64252156	HAMALIN HABIB HASIBUAN	87	Bukalapak Managerial Decision Issue — (group score) Comprehensive; needs sharper data support and a clearer core problem.
27	64252161	INSANUL HAKIM	92	Tokopedia Case (COVID-19 Era) — (group score) Complete; KPI is measurable.
28	64252163	ANGGIT SETIAWAN	82	Anti-Bullying Participation (Campus) — Structure & SOP are clear; evidence is still limited; KPI targets must be stated numerically.
29	64252167	RASHIKA ZAKIA ZAHRA	82	Anti-Bullying Participation (Campus) — Strong idea; needs stronger evidence and clearer KPI targets.
30	64252168	NAYSILLA AZZAHRA	80	Increasing Interest in High School Scouting — Has data (80→45 active); KPI exists but targets/formulas are inconsistent and need clarity.
31	64252173	NAYLA FITRI ZASKIA	80	Increasing Interest in High School Scouting — (group score) Relevant alternatives; controls remain too general.
32	64252184	BALQIS FITRIAH ALAWIYAH	T	T (To be confirmed) — Not found in the RTM-1 dataset submitted.
33	64252193	NATHANAEL VIGGO PAIRUNAN	80	Increasing Interest in High School Scouting — (group score) Structure exists; KPI and targets still need maturation.

General Evaluation (Based on RTM-1 Submissions)

Overall, most projects already showed a clear decision-making logic and relevant real-world topics. The main differences between mid and high scores came from four areas:

KPI Precision
Many reports included KPIs, but some KPIs were still too generic. A strong KPI must include a numeric target, a time period, and a clear definition/formula.
Evidence and Focus
Higher-performing projects used short, clear evidence (cost comparison, small dataset, simple trends) and stayed focused on the core problem. Lower-scoring projects often became broad and lost the main point.
Risk → Mitigation Specificity
A common weakness was listing risks only at a category level. Strong papers translate risks into specific mitigation actions (who does what, when, how it will be monitored).
Writing Efficiency
Some submissions were already complete but could improve significantly through tight editing: remove repeated explanations, keep one main argument line, and make conclusions operational.