RTM-2 (Wednesday Morning) — Project Evaluation & Learning Notes

This page publishes the RTM-2 results for the Wednesday Morning class. The purpose is transparency and academic improvement: students can review their score, see the exact strengths/weaknesses of the submitted paper, and use the notes as a checklist to improve future projects.

Key Notes

  • If a student’s name/NIM does not appear in the RTM-2 submission dataset, the score is marked T (To be confirmed).
  • T means the work was not identified in the submitted file list (title/team member not matched yet) and will be updated when valid data is received.

RTM-2 Score List (Wednesday Morning)

No.NIMName (Reference List)Final ScoreRTM-2 TitleShort Note (Specific)
164251872FATHIR NUR RAMADHANTNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
264251884RIZKYA RACHMALIANA88RTM2_64.1E.01_Tim7_Analisis Pengendalian Proses Produksi Donat.pdfKPI + 10-day dataset; gaps computed; improvement plan includes timeline & PIC; academic integrity is evident.
364251899MUHAMMAD FAARI RAKA ADISEPUTRO86Cashier Service Time Analysis (UMKM Minimarket)5-day observation (avg 3.3 min); clear +0.3 min gap; operational improvement plan is relevant; integrity is evident.
464251902RIYADH AHMAD MUDZAKIRTNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
564251910ANASTASIA JEVIKA BEREK88RTM2_64.1E.01_Tim7_Analisis Pengendalian Proses Produksi Donat.pdfMulti-aspect KPI + complete dataset; gap per KPI is shown; measurable improvement plan; integrity is evident.
664251912CUT ZALIANTI88RTM2_64.1E.01_Tim7_Analisis Pengendalian Proses Produksi Donat.pdfEnd-to-end process analysis; gaps in time/defect/topping/stock are clear; actions + indicators included; integrity is evident.
764251928SALWA NAFINGA88RTM2_64.1E.01_Tim7_Analisis Pengendalian Proses Produksi Donat.pdfDataset & gaps are consistent; root cause points to tools/process; improvements are specific; integrity is evident.
864251953DEWI AGUSTINE PRABOWO90Production Standards & Performance Gap in UMKM Cassava Chips (“NusaSnack”)SOP & KPI are clear; defect gap 5.78% vs ≤3% computed; corrective actions are detailed; integrity is evident.
964251967GENDIS AYU LARASATI90Production Standards & Performance Gap in UMKM Cassava Chips (“NusaSnack”)Time gap 5.38 hrs vs ≤5 hrs and QC 3.6 vs ≥4 are clear; tool+SOP+training improvements; integrity is evident.
1064251985SABILLAH FASQAL86Cashier Service Time Analysis (UMKM Minimarket)KPI (Average Service Time) is clear; 5-day dataset + constraints; SOP/tool/payment-method improvements; integrity is evident.
1164252009REZA ADHITYA PRATAMA PUTRA91White Bread ProductionComplete KPI–target–actual–gap table; 5M plan + cost + timeline + regulatory compliance; integrity is evident.
1264252037ROBIATUL ADAWIYAHTNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
1364252048ADINDA DWI NOVITA91White Bread ProductionKPI (defect/cycle time/material efficiency/OTD) complete; corrective action is detailed (PIC, cost, indicators); integrity is evident.
1464252057SINDI MEYOLA BR SEMBIRING91White Bread ProductionFull KPI gap analysis + operational impact; improvement plan is highly detailed and measurable; integrity is evident.
1564252081KHANSA PRAYUDATI FATHINAH90Production Standards & Performance Gap in UMKM Cassava Chips (“NusaSnack”)4 KPIs + targets; clear gaps in defect/time/QC; corrective actions are realistic; integrity is evident.
1664252084RAHMAD RISKIANTO86Cashier Service Time Analysis (UMKM Minimarket)Daily transaction/time data is clear; +0.3 min gap computed; cashier/QRIS technical improvements; integrity is evident.
1764252099YODI RAMADANITNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
1864252104REGITA LESTARI68Health Service Standard Implementation for Good GovernanceMany key fields are missing (KPI/dataset/gap); argument is still general; structure does not meet RTM-2 requirements.
1964252113JUANITA RESTIAH ASTUTITNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
2064252117NADIN JANIA NURHAYATI68Health Service Standard Implementation for Good GovernanceKPI/dataset/gap not provided; improvement plan not based on numbers/standards; format requirements not met.
2164252131FAISAL HILMI JAYALAKSANA91White Bread ProductionComplete KPI set + clear gaps; improvement plan includes PIC, cost, indicators, and 3-month target; integrity is evident.
2264252134FEBBY AFRAWATI SAHIDU90Production Standards & Performance Gap in UMKM Cassava Chips (“NusaSnack”)Defect/time/QC gaps are explicit; multi-aspect corrective actions (tools, SOP, layout); cost–time–quality impacts are clear.
2364252147SYALWAWIBOWO84HR Control: Attendance & DisciplineAttendance/late/absence KPIs exist; basic dataset; gap vs 95% standard explained; root cause still general; integrity is evident.
2464252148DESWITA AISYAH84HR Control: Attendance & DisciplineAttendance/late/absence data + percentages; gap vs 95% standard is clear; improvements exist but are not yet quantitatively detailed.
2564252155ANISA PUTRI NUR INDAH SARI68Health Service Standard Implementation for Good GovernanceMany core components missing; no KPI formula/targets and no gap calculation; improvements are too general.
2664252156HAMALIN HABIB HASIBUANTNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
2764252161INSANUL HAKIMTNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
2864252163ANGGIT SETIAWANTNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
2964252167RASHIKA ZAKIA ZAHRATNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
3064252168NAYSILLA AZZAHRA84HR Control: Attendance & DisciplineKPI + % dataset exist; gap vs standard explained; improvement plan is fairly clear; root cause analysis remains generic.
3164252173NAYLA FITRI ZASKIA84HR Control: Attendance & DisciplineAttendance/late/absence dataset exists; gap vs 95% target is clear; actions lack numeric targets per step; integrity is evident.
3264252184BALQIS FITRIAH ALAWIYAHTNot found in the RTM-2 dataset submitted (title/team not identified yet).
3364252193NATHANAEL VIGGO PAIRUNAN86Cashier Service Time Analysis (UMKM Minimarket)5-day dataset; clear +0.3 min gap; technical & payment-method improvements are relevant; integrity is evident.

General Evaluation (What the Data Shows)

Across RTM-2 submissions, most groups successfully applied the RTM-2 “control standard” logic: KPI → dataset → target vs actual → gap → corrective action. The strongest papers were those that added PIC (person-in-charge), deadlines, and measurable follow-up indicators, making the project operational rather than descriptive.

Common Strengths (Seen in High Scores: 88–91)

  • Clear KPI tables (target–actual–gap) and consistent measurement.
  • Short datasets (5–10 days) presented as evidence (not just narrative).
  • Corrective actions that include timeline, cost estimation, and responsibility (PIC).
  • Academic integrity is indicated when claims are traceable to data or cited sources.

Common Weaknesses (Seen in Lower Scores: ~68–84)

  • Missing core components: no KPI formulas, no dataset, no gap calculation.
  • Overly general arguments (“improve service quality”) without numeric targets.
  • Root cause is often implied but not explicit; many reports need a clearer cause analysis (e.g., simple 5-Why / Fishbone summary).
  • Some improvement plans list actions, but do not specify how success will be measured after implementation.

Fast Self-Check Before Submitting RTM-2

Use this checklist:

  • Do I show at least 1 table with KPI + target + actual + gap?
  • Do I include a dataset (minimum 5 days / 1–2 weeks) that supports the KPI?
  • Do I write at least one clear root cause (not only symptoms)?
  • Does each corrective action include PIC + deadline + indicator?
  • Are sources and data traceable (integrity and citations)?