Richmond Business SchoolAssessment Brief 2020/21Page 1 of 4 B: Learning Outcomes• Develop efficient supply chain strategies for small, medium and large businesses.• Critically analyse the impact of logistics and supply chain investment on ROI for national and globaloperations. C: Assessment TaskAn individual management report analysing how supply chain management is conceived, supported, delivered anddeveloped in … Continue reading “SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT | My Assignment Tutor”
Richmond Business SchoolAssessment Brief 2020/21Page 1 of 4 B: Learning Outcomes• Develop efficient supply chain strategies for small, medium and large businesses.• Critically analyse the impact of logistics and supply chain investment on ROI for national and globaloperations. C: Assessment TaskAn individual management report analysing how supply chain management is conceived, supported, delivered anddeveloped in a chosen organisation.Your report should critically analyse the following with regard to the organisation’s supply chain:• relationships.• Information systems.• procurement / outsourcing.• sustainability.Within your report, you should introduce relevant concepts and models and answer the following:• in what ways can supply chain relationships be improved?• how does the organisation (managers) mitigate supply chain risk and reduce supply chain costs?• what is the organisation doing to improve supply chain sustainability?Your report should be 2,500 words in length.(excludes, list of references and appendices) Assessment DetailsModule TitleSUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENTModule CodeMGT 6801Module LeaderAlex DalzellComponent NumberA2Assessment Type, Word Count & WeightingASSESSMENT2,500-WORD WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT (50%)Submission Deadline28th May 2021Submission InstructionsTHROUGH TURNITINFeedback Return Datetba Richmond Business SchoolAssessment Brief 2020/21Page 2 of 4 Specific Criteria/GuidanceStudents should refer to the Course reading list and support their answers with other resources of their choice, asappropriate. Key Resources• Mangan J et al., (2020) Global Logistics & Supply Chain Management, 3rd edition. Wiley.• Christopher, M., (2016) Logistics and Supply Chain Management. 5th ed. London: FT Publishing.• Dani, S., (2019) Strategic Supply Chain Management: Creating Competitive Advantage and Value Through EffectiveLeadership. London: Kogan Page.Journals:• Supply Chain Management (Online)• Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management (Online)• Supply Chain Management ReviewWebsites:• www.ft.com Submission Guidance• Students should submit work before 12 noon on the deadline date via the appropriate ‘Turnitin submission’link on the Moodle module page. Please check your email confirmation to ensure you have submitted tothe correct place.• Assessments should be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc and .docx) format (generated from the wordprocessing software you are using, not a scanned document. Do not upload Open Office documents (.odt,.odp).• Do not upload documents directly from Google Drive and One Drive.• The file must be no larger than 40MB.Document Format• The font size must be a minimum of point 12 Calibri (or equivalent).• Line spacing in the body of the assessment must be 1.5 lines.• Include the following details written on the first page:Title of your workModule title and codeYour student number. Do not write your name.Word count (Please note penalties for excess word count)Module Tutor (if relevant)• Number the pages consecutively. Richmond Business SchoolAssessment Brief 2020/21Page 3 of 4 Academic Integrity and PenaltiesIt is your responsibility to ensure that you are familiar with all of the information contained in this brief as failure todo this may impact on your achievement.Please refer to the various Assessment Guidance provided.• Late Work Penalties: Unless you have an extension, any work submitted past the assessment deadline willbe subject to a penalty as per regulations.• Mitigating Circumstances: Please refer to the latest guidance if for any legitimate reason you are unable tomeet the assessment deadline. Marking CriteriaPlease see attached rubric for marking criteria. Marking Criteria for MGT6801 Supply Chain Management CRITERIA ANDWEIGHTING70–100(1st class Pass)60–69(upper second Pass)50–59(lower second Pass)40–49(third class Pass)30—39(Fail)20–29(Fail)0–19(Fail)Understanding ofsubject matter andtheory of Logistics &Supply Management.(30%)Excellent, very soundunderstanding ofcomplexities of keytheoretical models,concepts andarguments.Clear, soundunderstanding ofsubject matter,theory, issues anddebate.Reasonable level ofunderstanding ofsubject matter, theoryand ideas; main issuessatisfactorilyunderstood.Partial understandingof subject matter,core concepts andrelevant issues; basicreference to theory.Very littleunderstanding ofsubject matter, ideasand issues; may beissue of misreading/misinterpretation ofquestion.Significant weaknessesand gaps inunderstanding ofsubject matter, ideasand issues;misunderstanding ofquestion.Devoid ofunderstanding ofsubject matter,ideas and issues.Critical analysis usingtheory and theirapplication to Logistics& Supply ChainManagement.(30%)Very good depth andbreadth of criticalanalysis; sustained,thorough questioninginformed by theory.Consistentdevelopment ofcritical analysis andquestioning, usingtheory.Some attempt atcritical analysis usingtheory; may belimited and lackconsistency orconviction.Some evidence ofrationale; minimalattempt to examinestrengths andweaknesses of anargument.Limited breadth anddepth of analysis,inadequate criticalskills; shallow andsuperficial.Lacking or erroneousanalysis; negligibleevidence of thought.Isolated statementsindicating lack ofthought.Structure and argumentin relation to Logistics &Supply ChainManagement concepts.(30%)Excellent organisationof ideas; clear,coherent structureand logical, cogentdevelopment ofargument.Logically structured;good organisationof ideas; wellreasoneddiscussion; coherentargument.Reasonable structure;organisation may lacksome logicalprogression; attemptmade to arguelogically withsupporting evidence,although some claimsmay beunsubstantiated.Basic structure; maybe some repetition ordeviation; someability to construct anargument but maylack clarity orconviction, withunsupportedassertion.Poorly structured,little logic;may haveunsubstantiatedconclusions based ongeneralisationStructure confused orincomplete; poor ifany relationshipbetween introduction,middle andconclusion; lack ofevidence to supportviews expressedLack ofrecognisablestructure orreference toargument; norelated evidence orconclusionsRange and relevance ofreading and researchand Harvardreferencing.(10%)Excellent command ofhighly relevant,extensivelyresearched material.All sourcesacknowledged andmeticulouslypresented.Wide range of coreand backgroundreading, effectivelyused.Sourcesacknowledged andaccuratelypresented.Reasonable range ofreading; referencesrelevant but not widevariety of sources.Sources acknowledgedand referencingmostly accurate.Background readingmostly relevant butover-reliant on fewsources.Sourcesacknowledged;references not alwayscorrectlycited/presented.Scant evidence ofbackground reading;weak investigation.Referencingincomplete orinaccurate.No evidence ofrelevant reading.Referencinginaccurate or absent.No evidence ofreading.No attempt atreferencing.
