| Category | Assignment | Subject | Management |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Chester | Module Title | BU7763 Strategic Supply Chain Management |
| Word Count | 4000 Words |
|---|---|
| Assessment Type | Individual Report |
| Assessment Title | Assessment 1 |
| Academic Year | 2024-25 |
Critically analyse the application of the concept you researched in your class-based group project for an organisation of your choice.
You will produce a report building upon the Group Research Project you conducted and contributed to during the module, as documented in your group’s MS Teams area. In this report, you will explore the application of the supply chain technology and collaboration concept you selected or were assigned to. The themes available for your cohort of students are provided in class and also within a supplement at the end of the module guide available on the module Moodle and Teams pages.
Before you start this assignment, you will have to indicate the organisation you wish to use in your analysis to the module leader. You will be informed how to do this in the class during the module. Each person will need to select a different organisation from the others in their group.
The title of your assignment will be:
A Critical Analysis of the Application of [Concept] for [Organisation Name]
The structure (therefore the subheadings) of your assignment must be as follows:
Executive Summary or Introduction 200 words approx.
This should succinctly indicate the main arguments you raise in your assignment and the key recommendations for the organisation. We suggest you might write this as a final task to ensure it matches the content of the main body of the assignment.
1. Characteristics of [Concept] 1000 words approx.
Define the general characteristics of your chosen supply management concept and critically assess its general application, using up-to-date published literature to support your arguments.
2. Application of [Concept] in [Organisation’s] Operations and Supply Network 1000 words approx.
Report the actual and potential further application of your concept in your chosen organisation’s management of its supply network. This part is generally descriptive, but you are expected to provide references and sources to indicate where you have gathered the data and information about your chosen organisation.
3. Critical Analysis of [Concept] within [Organisation] 1000 words approx.
Report the positive and negative aspects of the application of your concept within your chosen organisation. Here, you can consider the following: What have been the benefits? What issues or problems have the organisation encountered? Has the organisation realised the full potential and value of the application yet?
4. Recommendations for [Organisation] 400 words approx.
Provide three key, concise recommendations for the organisation how they might improve the effectiveness of their application of the supply chain concept you have been evaluating.
5. Conclusion 400 words approx.
Summarise your main arguments and findings from the main body of your assignment.
References – in the standard APA(7) style, please.
Notes:
1. The overall word count must be 4000 words +/-10% (i.e. between 3600 and 4400 words), excluding words on any diagrams and the references section.
2. Please adhere to the word count requested for your answer to each question.
3. Only use the subheadings prescribed in the structure above – do not add additional subheadings within each of these sections.
4. Use course texts and other reputable literature to back up and inform your arguments and discussion.
5. Top marks will be awarded to those assignments that indicate clear competencies in critical analysis of supply chain management principles, concepts and practices.
6. The assignment must be submitted as a Word document – any other format will not be accepted or marked.
7. This assignment accounts for 100% of the overall module assessment.
In addition to guidance provided for this assignment over the four main days of class teaching, there are three timetabled Assessment Support classes provided:
Assessment Support 1 and 2 are 3-hour face-to-face sessions.
Assessment Support 3 is a 2-hour online session delivered via Teams a few days before the submission deadline.
Extensive guidance and help will be provided at these Support classes. Your lecturers will deliver some structured material, but the emphasis is on participation of students in class and there will be adequate time for individual and group help, and for formative feedback on your emergent assignment. Attendance is compulsory for these support classes.
Please ensure you review the Assessment Checklist, which can be found in the Moodle module assessment tile. All tutors on the module will be able to advise and support students with the assessment. You can message them via email or MS Teams chat or arrange to meet in person. You may also wish to contact the Academic Skills Team (ASk) for additional support.
These must be the outcomes for the assignment stated on the module descriptor.
This assignment will show that you can:
1. Position the design, operation and quality management of supply networks within both a conceptual and strategic framework.
2. Interpret and apply theories of decision making and design in supply chain management to the practice of supply management, including supply network configuration, process optimisation, developing lean, agile and resilient operations, quality improvement, make or buy decisions, supplier portfolio management, and supply relationship management and power relations.
3. Analyse the operational requirements when managing supply networks in contemporary international businesses.
4. Reflect critically from a strategic perspective on current "best practices" in supply and procurement management.
5. Conceptualise and communicate strategic supply chain management issues in a convincing and meaningful way.
6. This assignment will show that you can conduct critical and analytical student research into an individual organisation's supply network. By tackling a specific theme, the assignment will also demonstrate your grasp of contemporary supply management concepts and practice, using the taught material and group research covered in class.
Specific recommended core reading for each session’s topic was provided in the module Moodle pages.
The following are the most useful general textbooks for this module.
You must submit assessments in Microsoft Word / Excel / Microsoft PowerPoint / Other* (*tutors to specify the format for the submission and delete as appropriate)
The file must be no larger than 100MB.
Your writing is expected to conform to Standard English in terms of spelling, syntax, and grammar.
Include your word count at the end of the assignment or on the front cover.
Set up your page for A4 paper in portrait style.
The font size must be a minimum of point 12 Calibri (or equivalent) for the body of the assessment.
Line spacing in the body of the assessment must be 1.5 lines.
Number the pages consecutively.
Students should submit work before 4 pm UK/BST time (unless otherwise specified above in part A) on the deadline date electronically via Moodle. Please follow the ‘Turnitin submission’ link on the module space and follow the on-screen instructions, paying particular attention to any specific instructions for each assignment.
You must submit your work with the following details written on the first page:
Student work that does not have this information on it will not be identifiable after marking has taken place and risks being recorded as a non-submission.
|
|
Distinction 90–100% |
Distinction 80-89% |
Distinction 70-79% |
Merit 60-69% |
Pass 50-59% |
Fail 40-49% |
Fail 30-39% |
Fail 20-29% |
Fail 10-19% |
Fail 0-9% |
|
Knowledge (35%) Knowledge and understanding of the approaches and application of leading, managing and developing people in organisations.
Critical engagement with the sources used to answer the question. |
Insightful and sophisticated engagement with research and/or practice pertaining to field(s) and disciplines of study. Sophisticated demonstration and application of knowledge, offering innovative and/or original insights, possibly unparalleled in their application. A sophisticated degree of synthesis, quite likely of complex and disparate material. |
Advanced engagement with research and or practice pertaining to the field(s) and disciplines of study. Accomplished demonstration of knowledge, contributing towards innovative and/or original insights. Extremely high degree of synthesis of research material. |
A high degree of engagement with research and/or practice pertaining to field(s) and disciplines of study.
Excellent demonstration of knowledge, with the possibility for new insights.
A high degree of synthesis relating to research material. |
Sustained engagement with research and/or practice pertaining to disciplines of study.
An assured understanding of current problems, supported by critical analysis with the potential for new insights.
A sustained application and depth of research material and accuracy in detail. |
Engagement with relevant knowledge pertaining to discipline and key issues. Satisfactory understanding and conceptual awareness enabling critical analysis.
Response is appropriate and addresses the range of learning outcomes, where the knowledge is accurate. Work may lack sustained depth. |
Unsatisfactory engagement with relevant knowledge pertaining to discipline and key issues. Insufficient understanding and conceptual awareness of knowledge(s) pertaining to the field. Response does not address the full range of learning outcomes, inaccurate and/or missing knowledge at times. |
Inadequate coverage of relevant issues, inconsistent understanding shown. Inadequate understanding of underpinning issues, weak and underdeveloped analysis.
Response does not address learning outcomes, inaccurate and missing knowledge. |
Lack of relevant research and little understanding shown. Very weak understanding of key issues, work lacks critical oversight.
Substandard engagement with research material, misunderstanding evident. |
Severely lacking in relevant research and underpinning knowledge. Slight understanding of key issues, little attempt at critical analysis. Slight engagement with research material, inaccurate knowledge and misunderstanding throughout. |
Negligible understanding of key issues, which is likely to show no critical analysis or engagement with the learning brief. No engagement with research tasks. |
|
|
Distinction 90–100% |
Distinction 80-89% |
Distinction 70-79% |
Merit 60-69% |
Pass 50-59% |
Fail 40-49% |
Fail 30-39% |
Fail 20-29% |
Fail 10-19% |
Fail 0-9% |
|
Analysis (45%) Critical analysis and interpretation.
Critical evaluation of leading, managing and developing people, in response to the business challenge in the case study provided.
Appropriate analytical discussion and interpretation of source material. |
A sophisticated command of imaginative, insightful, original or creative interpretations. An unparalleled level of analysis and evaluation.
A sophisticated cogent argument offering new and original contributions to knowledge. |
Advanced command of imaginative, insightful, original or creative interpretations. Accomplished level of analysis and evaluation.
A highly developed cogent argument with the potential to bring new and original contributions to knowledge. |
An excellent command of imaginative, original or creative interpretations. A high degree of analysis and evaluation.
A sustained argument with the possibility for new insights. |
A convincing and sustained command of accepted critical positions.
A developed conceptual understanding that enables the student to find new meanings in established hypotheses. A developed and sustained argument with the possibility for new insights. |
An ability to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively. A satisfactory evaluation of current research and critical scholarship in the discipline.
Ability to devise a coherent critical/ analytical argument is supported with evidence. |
A lack of ability to deal with complex issues.
Judgements not fully substantiated and understood. The ability to construct an argument is underdeveloped and not supported fully with evidence. |
A lack of ability to deal with complex issues. Judgements are not substantiated or understood and the critical position is not made clear. Weak interpretation of research and work is not supported with evidence. |
Very weak analysis, possibly limited to a single perspective.
Substandard argument, work lacks scholarly analysis and interpretation.
Episodes of self- contradiction and/or confusion. |
Slight indication of ability to deal with key issues. Slight analytical engagement and reflection, work lacks criticality throughout.
Lacks evidence, work shows self- contradiction and confusion. |
Negligible coverage of learning outcomes.
No attempt to interpret research material. |
|
Communication and expression (10%) Communication skills: creative, written and presented in a structured manner.
Communication of intent, adherence to academic protocols. |
A sophisticated response, the academic form matches that expected in published and professional work.
Mastery and command of specialist skills pertaining to the academic form.
Fluent and highly coherent, scholarly expression. |
Persuasive articulation, were the academic form largely matches that expected in published work.
Accomplished command of specialist skills pertaining to the academic form, discipline, and context(s); |
A high degree of skill, the academic form shows exceptional standards of presentation or delivery.
A high command of specialist skills pertaining to the academic form, discipline, and context(s). |
Secure and sustained expression, observing appropriate academic form.
Fluent and persuasive expression of ideas, work shows flair.
Assured interpretation of the style and genre, content, form and technique for specialist and non-specialist audiences as appropriate. |
Good expression, observing appropriate academic form.
Predominantly accurate in spelling and grammar, ideas communicated appropriately and satisfactorily.
Satisfactory application of specialist skills with effective technical control. |
Unsatisfactory demonstration and application of key communication skills and academic form.
Recurring errors in spelling and grammar, ideas limited and underdeveloped, possibly poor paraphrasing.
Skills demonstrated are insufficient for the task and work may lack technical judgement. |
Significant errors evident in the academic form.
Weaknesses in spelling and grammar, lacks coherence and structure, possibly poor paraphrasing.
Work lacks technical judgement. |
Very weak observation of academic conventions. Severe deficiencies in spelling and grammar and expression undermine meaning, possibly poor paraphrasing.
Substandard relationship between content, form and technique. |
Slight observation of academic conventions. Weak expression, mostly incoherent and fails to secure meaning, poor paraphrasing.
Slight engagement with the work. |
Negligible observation of academic conventions. Incoherent and confused expression, poor paraphrasing.
No discernible demonstration of key skills (pertaining to the discipline);
No engagement with the work. |
|
|
Distinction 90–100% |
Distinction 80-89% |
Distinction 70-79% |
Merit 60-69% |
Pass 50-59% |
Fail 40-49% |
Fail 30-39% |
Fail 20-29% |
Fail 10-19% |
Fail 0-9% |
|
Sources 10%
Academic referencing skills Reading and use of appropriate sources.
Accurate and consistent acknowledgment and referencing of sources. |
Extensive range and sophisticated use of appropriate sources.
Unparalleled standard of research both in breadth and depth, which demonstrates a very high intellectual engagement and rigor. |
Extensive range and use of appropriate sources. Extremely well referenced research both in breadth and depth, which demonstrates high intellectual engagement and rigor. |
Substantial range and sophisticated use of sources. Well- referenced research both in breadth and depth, which demonstrates clear intellectual rigor. |
An assured range of reading, with sustained reference to key and core texts. The work may include current research at the leading edge of the discipline.
Very good referencing in breadth and/or depth, which shows a very good level of intellectual rigor. Sources acknowledged appropriately according to academic conventions of referencing. |
A satisfactory range of core and basic texts, which references current research in the discipline.
Sources acknowledged appropriately according to academic conventions of referencing.
The work may contain minor errors and be limited in breadth, depth and intellectual rigor. |
Insufficient range of source reading of core and basic texts.
Sources not acknowledged in line with academic conventions of referencing. |
Reading material is inadequate and may not include core and basic texts.
Sources inaccurately referenced. |
Very weak engagement with source reading of core and basic texts.
Inconsistent and/or limited referencing of sources. |
Severely lacking source reading.
Sources either not present and/or not referenced. |
Negligible attempt to identify source material.
No indication of source reading. |
Need Plagiarism free Answers for your college/ university BU7763 Assignments
Order Non-Plagiarized AssignmentHaving trouble completing your BU7763 Strategic Supply Chain Management assignment on time? Our Supply Chain Management Assignment Help service is the best for you! Our expert writers offer high-quality, plagiarism-free, and AI-free assignments at pocket-friendly rates. You can even check our free assignment samples before placing your order. We promise on-time delivery and 24/7 support, no matter your academic needs. From Business Management to technical subjects, we cover it all. We also provide University of Chester Assignment Samples that have been written by the phd expert writers.
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
