Paper Title: “Company Vision & Mission”
Course Format: Report Tugas Mandiri (RTM) — Outcome-Based Education (OBE)
This webpage is published to ensure every student can see their RTM-3 score, understand the main reason behind the score, and learn how to avoid common mistakes in academic writing and analytical reporting.
RTM is designed to train students to think critically, analytically, collaboratively, and to write in an academic style that meets formal standards. RTM-3 specifically focuses on analyzing the alignment of a company’s vision–mission with the business environment and organizational strategy, and producing operational and measurable improvement recommendations.
RTM General Requirements (Applied to RTM-3)
- Team & roles: 4–6 students (leader, data analyst, writer, citation editor, presenter)
- Format: DOC/PDF, A4, Times New Roman 12, 1.5 spacing, margins 3 cm (L) & 4 cm (K), page numbering, tables/figures include title & source
- Length: 6–10 main pages (excluding cover, table of contents, references, appendices)
- References: minimum 5 sources, mostly within the last 5 years, using one consistent style (APA / IEEE / Vancouver)
- Submission: Google Form (one upload per team)
- File name:
RTM3_Class_TeamX_ShortTitle.pdf - Academic integrity: paraphrase properly, cite sources, similarity check encouraged
- Late penalty: −5 points/day (max 2 days). More than 2 days = 0 (unless approved with valid proof)
Assessment Rubric (100%)
- Structure 10%
- Writing quality 10%
- Introduction 15%
- Data analysis & discussion 30%
- Conclusion 10%
- References & citation 10%
- Timeliness 15%
Feedback Code System (So You Can Learn Faster)
Each student receives one main feedback code based on the assessor note. Use the code to know what you should fix first.
Code Dictionary
- K1 — KPI needs to be sharper / measurable targets missing
Your analysis is good, but KPIs should be quantified (targets, period, formula, and evidence). - K2 — References & citations need improvement
Recency (≤5 years), citation consistency, weak sources, or bibliography not fully compliant. - K3 — Document hygiene issues
Placeholders, missing sources for tables/figures, unclear evidence for numbers/claims. - K4 — Format/consistency not aligned with RTM instruction
Formatting inconsistency, layout issues, inconsistent structure, missing RTM elements. - K5 — Writing & technical accuracy
Typos, spelling, inconsistent terms, unclear labeling, or data presentation needs tidying. - K0 — Strong overall
Meets rubric well; improvements are minor.
What High-Scoring RTM-3 Papers Usually Did Well
- Explained vision–mission alignment using a clear logic chain: environment → strategy → internal capability → recommendation
- Presented recommendations as operational actions, not only general statements
- Included measurable KPIs (targets, time horizon, formula, evidence)
- Used recent and credible references with consistent citation style
- Ensured every numerical claim had a strong source (no unsupported “claims”)
RTM-3 Score Recap — Monday Class
| No | NIM | Student Name | Final Score | Assessor Note (Short) | Code |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 64250007 | AL VICKY JULMANSYAH | 86.8 | UMKM object clear & relevant; KPI needs sharpening. | K1 |
| 2 | 64250012 | ILMA FATIMAH | 88.0 | Complete structure & tech focus; minor spelling. | K5 |
| 3 | 64250022 | KINANTI PUTRI RAHMANIA | 90.0 | Neat vision–mission analysis; tidy citations. | K2 |
| 4 | 64250036 | RHAMADAN INDA ROBBI | 84.0 | Neat structure; check recency of references. | K2 |
| 5 | 64250040 | KURNIA ILMA IKFIYAH | 90.0 | Very complete; numeric claims need stronger sources. | K3 |
| 6 | 64250042 | MAESYAH NURAMELIA | 91.0 | Very complete; relevant references. | K0 |
| 7 | 64250067 | JUWITA KHOIRULISA | 91.0 | Clear and consistent environment analysis. | K0 |
| 8 | 64250073 | JAVANI NABHILA AZZAHRA | 91.0 | Digitalization argument is well-structured. | K0 |
| 9 | 64250085 | ZEVANIA CHRIS ALLANT SARAGIH | 86.8 | UMKM object clear; KPI needs strengthening. | K1 |
| 10 | 64250087 | MARCELLA PRILIANTY | 88.0 | Strong conclusion; remove placeholders. | K3 |
| 11 | 64250097 | REI RAHMAN FAUDZI | 82.0 | KPIs & risks exist; formatting consistency needed. | K4 |
| 12 | 64250109 | DHEA CHAERINA ZULYANTI | 81.0 | ≤5-year reference requirement not met. | K2 |
| 13 | 64250118 | ANDRA YANI | 91.0 | Appendices & references support integrity. | K0 |
| 14 | 64250126 | ZAHRA SALSABILA | 88.0 | Clear framework; minor spelling. | K5 |
| 15 | 64250128 | SINTYA SURYANI DEWI | 88.0 | Complete structure through KPI & implications. | K0 |
| 16 | 64250140 | CAMILA KANZA THETTA RAHIMAH | 90.0 | Logical flow; citation consistency. | K2 |
| 17 | 64250144 | AS SYAUKAN SRI DANO IMRON | 81.0 | Group score; same note. | K4 |
| 18 | 64250156 | RACHELIA FEBIYANTI | 81.0 | Program & KPI exist; citations inconsistent. | K2 |
| 19 | 64250177 | DANAR DWI ASTOMO | 87.0 | Method is explicit; argument fairly strong. | K0 |
| 20 | 64250181 | RIZKA ALIFIA NOVARINA | 88.0 | Clear phased implementation. | K0 |
| 21 | 64250187 | NOVITRIYANI DIRA SUPRIATNA | 81.0 | Group score; same note. | K4 |
| 22 | 64250212 | SITI ALFARISYA | 81.0 | Group score; same note. | K4 |
| 23 | 64250218 | RAIHAN AL ARROYAN | 87.0 | Clear structure & objectives. | K0 |
| 24 | 64250224 | NASYWA TAJALI AL’AIN | 88.0 | Minor spelling; clear framework. | K5 |
| 25 | 64250225 | MUHAMAD DHIMAS RAMADHANNI | 84.0 | Complete structure; writing accuracy. | K5 |
| 26 | 64250233 | ADINDA MAYSA | 89.0 | Logical analysis; minor citation issue. | K2 |
| 27 | 64250234 | SABRIANA | 89.0 | Ready for grading; tidy headings. | K4 |
| 28 | 64250241 | POPPY AGIS FIRZATULLAH | 88.0 | Risk analysis & mitigation present. | K0 |
| 29 | 64250242 | NATASYA ARYANTY | 82.0 | Group score; same note. | K4 |
| 30 | 64250243 | NADIRA RAHMADANI, SM | 82.0 | Group score; same note. | K4 |
| 31 | 64250245 | REVALIA ASSAN | 90.0 | Neat analysis; citation consistency. | K2 |
| 32 | 64250249 | NABILA SEPTI ROMADHONI | 86.8 | UMKM object relevant; KPI needs sharpening. | K1 |
| 33 | 64250252 | RENALDI PATI NGGUMBE | 84.0 | Clear structure; term consistency. | K4 |
| 34 | 64250255 | WINANSYAH | 86.8 | UMKM object clear; KPI needs sharpening. | K1 |
| 35 | 64250261 | ATHALLAH REHANDO EKA RADITYO | 87.0 | Method & steps are logical. | K0 |
| 36 | 64250270 | MUHAMMAD IVAN ZEIN | 84.0 | Complete structure; strengthen data evidence. | K3 |
| 37 | 64250288 | LAURA SYAHNANDA ZULFIA | 90.0 | Logical flow; citation consistency. | K2 |
| 38 | 64250302 | VALLIN AL ZAHARA | 88.0 | Strong analysis flow; KPI is present. | K1 |
| 39 | 64250319 | RISMIA ALDELIA PANE | 88.0 | Objectives & problem statement clear. | K0 |
| 40 | 64250337 | SHABILA MUSYAQINAH | 86.8 | UMKM object clear; KPI needs strengthening. | K1 |
| 41 | 64250341 | SYAFIQ NAUFAL AFANDI | 82.0 | Group score; same note. | K4 |
| 42 | 64250356 | SYIFAA ANNISA ZALFAA | 89.0 | Strong discussion; KPI needs quantification. | K1 |
| 43 | 64250362 | IRENE DWI ALIZA | 91.0 | Clean manuscript; ready for grading. | K0 |
| 44 | 64250383 | MUHAMMAD FAIDHLUL MA’ARIF | 87.0 | Systematic & consistent. | K0 |
| 45 | 64250400 | NADYA KHAIRANI | 90.0 | Clear public service vs efficiency focus. | K0 |
| 46 | 64250411 | DENAYLA FARENISA | 82.0 | Group score; same note. | K4 |
| 47 | 64250429 | SAFIRA NOVELIA | 88.0 | Remove placeholders; tidy citations. | K3 |
| 48 | 64250438 | CHELSY NACILA MELATI PUTRI JAYA | 88.0 | Complete and relevant structure. | K0 |
| 49 | 64250451 | IBNU RESTU SANTOSO | 84.0 | Strong conclusion; improve data presentation. | K3 |
| 50 | 64250463 | ZOYA NASHIFA SETIAWAN | 88.0 | Complete structure to appendices. | K0 |
| 51 | 64250471 | ERICK ADENIO | 88.0 | Only needs administrative finishing. | K4 |
| 52 | 64250472 | YULIA NUR SATRIANI | 90.0 | Very complete; strengthen claim integrity. | K3 |
| 53 | 64250474 | NANDA ZHAHWA KHOIRUNNISSA | 90.0 | Very complete; strengthen claim integrity. | K3 |
| 54 | 64250483 | ADINDA SALWA SYAHIRA | 88.0 | Structured content; KPI included. | K1 |
| 55 | 64250491 | DILLA ARLIANA | 89.0 | Complete structure; consistent references. | K0 |
| 56 | 64250492 | CHINTYA APRILIA PUTRI | 89.0 | Neat academic flow; minor typos. | K5 |
| 57 | 64250498 | INDIRA NARESA PUTRI | 90.0 | Very complete; claims need sources. | K3 |
| 58 | 64250500 | RASYA PUTRA RIZKYANTO | 87.0 | Complete structure; check data accuracy. | K3 |
| 59 | 64250511 | MELANI ZULQIA WARDANI | 90.0 | Very complete; consistent citations. | K0 |
| 60 | 64250543 | TALITHA SYIFA | 86.0 | Complete structure; reference consistency. | K2 |
| 61 | 64250556 | MAESYILA AZHARA | 88.0 | Analysis exists; spelling & references. | K2 |
| 62 | 64250563 | SALWA AMALINDA | 87.0 | Group score; typos & figure sources. | K3 |
| 63 | 64250566 | CHYNTHIA AFRILLIA | 82.0 | Equalized with Ilona Asvika. | K4 |
| 64 | 64250571 | NAZWA PUTRI NABILA | 81.0 | KPI needs numeric target/time period. | K1 |
| 65 | 64250583 | ASHILAH FATHIYYA NABILAH | 85.0 | Academic language & citations. | K2 |
| 66 | 64250588 | CINDY RAMADHANI RIEFWANTI | 90.6 | Vision–mission vs digital transformation analysis. | K0 |
| 67 | 64250609 | REZA ADI PUTRA | 90.0 | Strong KPI & implementation implications. | K0 |
| 68 | 64250611 | MARCELLA ALLIVIANI MULYONO TOBING | 82.0 | Complete structure; references 2019. | K2 |
| 69 | 64250614 | RIZQIKA PUTRI HUDANI | 86.0 | Argumentative; tidy writing. | K5 |
| 70 | 64250617 | NAYLA PUTRI RAHMA NOVIANTI | 88.0 | Analysis exists; spelling & references. | K2 |
| 71 | 64250644 | MUTIA DWI SABRINA | 90.0 | Complete structure; KPI needs strengthening. | K1 |
| 72 | 64250645 | RIZKA WIDYA PUSPITA | 82.0 | Complete structure; references 2019. | K2 |
| 73 | 64250657 | SITI NOVITA SARI | 85.0 | Ensure ≤5-year references. | K2 |
| 74 | 64250664 | SENIA DEWI PAMELA | 74.0 | References older than 5 years. | K2 |
| 75 | 64250665 | LINA AULIA | 74.0 | References older than 5 years. | K2 |
| 76 | 64250686 | SYAFIRA GHINA KHALILAH | 90.6 | Strong and consistent argumentation. | K0 |
| 77 | 64250687 | DWI PRASETYO | 90.0 | Strong cross-functional analysis. | K0 |
| 78 | 64250700 | NADINE SAYIDA RAHMAN | 90.0 | Strong PSO vs vision–mission analysis. | K0 |
| 79 | 64250722 | SHELVY SURYA ALLATHIIF | 90.0 | Complete structure; ready for grading. | K0 |
| 80 | 64250736 | SYELLEN BEAUTY LISTIANISA | 86.0 | Recommendations exist; final formatting. | K4 |
| 81 | 64250742 | MEYSIA AULIA PUTRI | 90.0 | Strong PSO vs vision–mission analysis. | K0 |
| 82 | 64250746 | FIRZA MALIKA CHATAMI SULAEMAN | 90.0 | Strong PSO vs vision–mission analysis. | K0 |
| 83 | 64250755 | DINAR KEIZIA NURAZIZAH | 87.0 | Group score; typos & figure sources. | K3 |
| 84 | 64250756 | MONICA SAPUTRI | 90.6 | Implementable phased recommendations. | K0 |
| 85 | 64250758 | ALYA SALMA KAMILA | 81.0 | KPI needs numeric target/time period. | K1 |
| 86 | 64250760 | FRANSISKUS SIMANULANG | 84.0 | Clear framework; typos & identity details. | K5 |
| 87 | 64250768 | ALYA SALSABILA | 90.6 | Strong vision–mission & KPI analysis. | K0 |
| 88 | 64250776 | ADE PUTRI AULIA | 90.0 | Strong PSO vs vision–mission analysis. | K0 |
| 89 | 64250781 | ZULAYKA LATIFA ZIHAN | 90.0 | Strong PSO vs vision–mission analysis. | K0 |
| 90 | 64250782 | AMANDHA ANNAS NATASYA | 85.0 | Tables/figures need clear sources. | K3 |
| 91 | 64250783 | NUR FANISAHILLA | 88.0 | Analysis exists; tidy formatting. | K4 |
| 92 | 64250796 | ZAHRA HUMAIRA | 82.0 | Complete structure; references 2019. | K2 |
| 93 | 64250823 | DIVA PUTRI AURELIA TRIYANTO | 90.0 | Complete structure; KPI needs strengthening. | K1 |
| 94 | 64250826 | MUHAMMAD RAFID RABBANI | 84.0 | Re-check NIM format. | K4 |
| 95 | 64250831 | SHEIRA MAULIDA PUTRI | 87.0 | Strong analysis; typos & KPI definition. | K5 |
| 96 | 64250833 | AYU SAFITRI | 87.0 | Group score; same note. | K4 |
| 97 | 64250834 | RAHMANIA TRIANI RAHMASARI | 86.0 | Standardize citations & bibliography. | K2 |
| 98 | 64250838 | DINDA OLIVIA | 90.0 | Clear case focus; KPI needs strengthening. | K1 |
| 99 | 64250853 | IRMA WATI | 74.0 | References older than 5 years. | K2 |
| 100 | 64250858 | RIZKY RAMADANA PUTRA | 90.0 | Strong conclusion & digital innovation. | K0 |
| 101 | 64250859 | MUHAMMAD ZIDNI FADHLAN | — | No score/notes provided in the input. | — |
| 102 | 64250867 | ARINI REVALIA PUTRI | 86.0 | Citation consistency. | K2 |
| 103 | 64250869 | GHINA NAYLA ALFARAH | 87.0 | Group score; typos & figure sources. | K3 |
| 104 | 64250874 | MIA DWI SUSANTI | 85.0 | Method exists; references need tidying. | K2 |
| 105 | 64250901 | DINDA INTAN NURAINI | 84.0 | Group score; identity & spelling. | K5 |
| 106 | 64250914 | NUR SYIFA RAHMADONA | 85.5 | Implementation idea exists; analysis should be more concise. | K4 |
| 107 | 64250915 | FIRIYAL AZKIA | 90.6 | Neat business environment analysis. | K0 |
| 108 | 64250916 | LANYA SUBIYANTO | 85.0 | Bibliography format consistency. | K2 |
| 109 | 64250923 | SYAQIRA HERREL | 81.0 | KPI needs numeric target/time period. | K1 |
| 110 | 64250925 | NINDA ULYA RAHMA | 81.0 | KPI needs numeric target/time period. | K1 |
| 111 | 64250928 | FITA HANA KHAIRINA | 90.0 | Complete structure; KPI needs strengthening. | K1 |
| 112 | 64250934 | MUHAMAD REZA RAMADHAN | 90.0 | Functional evaluation & risk mitigation. | K0 |
| 113 | 64250940 | RAYA ACHMADIYOSO | 84.0 | Format and spelling consistency. | K5 |
| 114 | 64250941 | ALPI YANSYAH | 90.0 | Integration risk & cybersecurity. | K0 |
| 115 | 64250956 | DEVA AYU OCTAVIA RAMADHANI | 88.0 | Analysis exists; spelling & references. | K2 |
| 116 | 64250967 | CHAIRUNISA RAMADHANI | 88.7 | Neat structure; consistent citations. | K0 |
| 117 | 64250977 | SALWA FITRIYAH | 74.0 | References older than 5 years. | K2 |
| 118 | 64251420 | ILONA ASVIKA | 82.0 | Complete structure; references 2019. | K2 |
| 119 | 64251585 | SUCI RAMADHANI ISLAMI | 81.0 | KPI needs numeric target/time period. | K1 |
| 120 | 64251874 | NOVA MARIA ULFA | 88.0 | Ensure references meet requirements. | K2 |
Students with Missing Score Data
- 64250859 — MUHAMMAD ZIDNI FADHLAN: No score was provided in the input.