Evidenced by Carolyns observation notes Paragraph 1. I feel that this would have been better documented by using bullet points for the observations made and relating them to the criteria achieved. Some of the assessment criteria achieved are within the observation detail but it is confusing and unclear which criteria have been achieved. It is confusing as a third party to clearly see which comments relate to which criteria. CES t is obvious that some of the criteria were not met during the observation as 1.7 and 1.8, and 2.3 and 2.4 are to do with body language, in this scenario everything was done over the telephone or by email. Further questions relating to a situation where these critera would be covered would have been very helpful, and would have enabled Alan to achieve all of the criteria at this stage.
MPA, again some criteria were not met during the observation, Further questioning during and after the observation could have covered the criteria , 1.7, 1.8, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5
For example further probing about referring to colleagues for 1.7 and 1.8 could have produced more evidence to support understanding of this criteria
A scenario question relating to distractions whilst dealing with this customer would have underlined Alan’s understanding of 2.3 and 2.4 and 3.3 and 3.4
Criteria 3.5 could have been met by further questioning, about face to face customer experiences.
I feel that Carolyn could have been much more effective in this area. The questions that were asked didn’t relate to the criteria to be assessed at all. The conversation did show that Alan had a good understanding of the company and that some of this knowledge enabled him to offer a personal touch to customers. The questions that Carolyn prepared could have been much more relevant to the criteria that was being assessed, for example Carolyn could have asked Alan some questions related to criteria CES 1.7 and 1.8 and 2.3 and...