M34017 Supply Chain Management Coursework 2 Summative Assessment Brief | UoP

Assessment Mark Scheme: Final Project Report (70%)

Criteria

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Fail

Fail

80 - 100

70 - 79

60-69

50-59

40-49

0-39

Introduction -

Presents a clear, well-

Provides a clear and

The context is explained

The supply chain context is

Context is vague or

The introduction is

Evaluates how

researched supply chain

coherent context. The

clearly but lacks depth in

overly broad or general.

only partially relevant.

disorganised,

clearly and concisely

context using concise and

supply chain is well

research or critical

Background lacks detail or

Presentation lacks

confusing, or not

the context and

relevant information.

researched, and the

insight. Some relevant

clarity. Some relevance to

focus and research

aligned with the task.

background of the

Demonstrates strong insight

relevance of the

background is presented,

the task is implied but not

depth. Key elements

Shows minimal

chosen supply chain

and an ability to frame the

background to the task is

but connections to the

well developed.

are missing or unclear.

understanding or

are presented (0.1)

case effectively for

apparent.

task could be stronger.

engagement with the

modelling.

supply chain context.

Problem Scoping -

Clear, focused, and well-

Clear and feasible scoping

A relevant issue is

The issue is framed

The problem lacks

The problem is vague,

Assesses how well

scoped problem addressing

of a relevant supply chain

scoped with reasonable

broadly or generically.

relevance or clarity.

poorly scoped, or

the improvement

a relevant, current supply

issue. Multiple

clarity. Feasibility is

Only one configuration is

The proposed task

infeasible. No

problem is framed,

chain issue. Several realistic

improvement options are

demonstrated, but only a

explored, with little

appears unrealistic or

configurations are

scoped, and aligned

configurations are explored,

considered with good

few configurations are

comparison. Feasibility is

disconnected from the

considered, or the work

to the coursework’s

showing originality and

depth and structure.

explored. Some

implied but not well

assessment scope.

lacks originality. Overly

timescale and aims.

thoughtful design.

refinement is needed.

demonstrated.

Limited or no viable

generic content or

(0.1)

options are discussed.

unstructured

presentation.

Performance

A detailed, well-structured

A well-developed

The framework offers a

Some relevant

Incomplete or poorly

No clear framework is

Framework

framework that clearly links

framework that links supply

sound basis for

performance measures are

structured framework

used. Only generic

(0.2)

supply chain improvements

chain variables to key

performance evaluation

used, but the framework

with unclear

performance ideas are

to measurable performance

performance metrics.

but omits some important

lacks depth, structure, or

performance links.

presented without

outcomes. Excellent

Research is solid, with

elements (e.g., certain

completeness. Limited

Lacks research depth.

structured evaluation.

research and justified

well-supported

cost types or non-cost

evidence of integration or

Metrics appear

Visuals and

assumptions enhance

components.

metrics).

evaluation.

arbitrary or

explanation are

credibility.

disconnected from

unfocused or irrelevant.

supply chain changes.

Performance

High-quality, well-sourced

Strong use of relevant data

Adequate use of data

Minimal data supports

Data is poorly chosen,

Very unconvincing,

Analysis - Assesses

data informs a clear and

to estimate performance

with mostly relevant

performance estimates.

missing, or irrelevant.

unclear, flawed

the use of data to

persuasive performance

outcomes. Results are well

sources. Performance

Estimates are roughly

Performance estimates

performance estimate.

evaluate

analysis. Assumptions are

explained and visually

estimates are sensible

presented and lack clarity

lack structure and are

Too much text.

performance, the

justified, and results are well

clear. Some assumptions

but could be more

or detailed justification.

hard to follow. Results

Trivial illustrations.

accuracy and

presented using structured

may need minor

precise or supported by

Assumptions are mostly

are speculative or

credibility of

visuals.

clarification.

additional evidence.

implicit.

weakly supported.

estimates, and how

well the analysis

supports the

proposed

improvement

(0.2)

Risk Analysis - Evaluates how well the student identifies, categorizes, and analyses risks using structured

techniques (0.1)

Comprehensive, well- sourced risk analysis using a recognised framework. Risks are prioritised and connected to the proposal. Communicated clearly with visuals.

Thorough use of a recognised risk framework with appropriate detail.

Risks are relevant and prioritised. Minor areas could benefit from more depth or clarity.

A credible risk framework is applied with generally relevant risks. Some risks are underdeveloped or loosely linked to the proposal. Presentation is mostly clear.

Risk analysis exists but lacks depth or selectivity. The framework is only partly used. Important risks may be missed or poorly evaluated.

Risk framework is weak or inconsistently applied. Risks are vague or generic.

Weak connection to the project. Visuals or structure may be

unclear.

No meaningful risk analysis or framework applied. Risks are missing, generic, or irrelevant. Unstructured explanation and poor communication.

Sensitivity Analysis

- Assesses the student's ability to identify critical variables, test their impact using a systematic method, and interpret results

clearly. (0.1)

Multiple critical variables tested using a structured, well-presented sensitivity analysis. Results are clearly interpreted and meaningfully influence the final conclusion.

Relevant variables tested with a well-organised sensitivity analysis. Results are interpreted correctly and linked back to the project's main conclusions.

At least one relevant variable is tested. The method is correct but lacks depth or scope. Results are interpreted but may not strongly influence the conclusion.

Attempted analysis using one variable or unclear method. Interpretation is limited, and results are not clearly integrated into the decision-making.

Sensitivity analysis is attempted but poorly executed. Inappropriate or unclear variables chosen, and no meaningful interpretation provided.

No useful sensitivity analysis. Incorrect method, irrelevant variables, or no interpretation.

Presentation is confusing or absent..

Poster design - Assesses how well the poster uses layout, visuals, and visual hierarchy to communicate key insights clearly and professionally to both technical and general audiences.

(0.1)

Clear visual hierarchy, consistent formatting, and excellent use of space and colour. Visuals (tables, charts, icons, etc.) are professionally presented and directly reinforce key messages. The poster is accessible and engaging, with flawless integration of

content and design.

Clean, well-structured layout with clear sections and logical flow. Visuals are relevant and well- labelled. Text and visuals are balanced, contributing to easy understanding for a range of audiences.

Good use of layout and visuals to communicate core content. Information is organised logically, but some sections may be dense, inconsistent, or lacking visual emphasis. Minor improvements could enhance visual appeal or clarity.

Poster includes basic visuals and layout structure but lacks consistency in design (e.g., mismatched fonts, unclear headings, crowded or empty spaces). Visuals support the message but are not fully integrated.

The layout is cluttered or unbalanced. Visual elements may be hard to interpret or disconnected from the main content. Difficult to follow or navigate the message visually.

Poster lacks structure, contains minimal or irrelevant visuals, and fails to use basic visual design principles. The layout hinders understanding and does not support the message.

Excel File - Assesses clarity, structure, and analytical depth of the Excel file. Credit is given for effective use of functions, transparency, and professional presentation (0.1)

Excel file is clearly structured, well- documented and highly readable. Demonstrates advanced Excel functions usage. All calculations are traceable, and analysis supports decision-making.

Well-organised and easy-to-navigate file. Uses several intermediate to advanced functions effectively. Includes labels and comments to explain logic. The workbook clearly supports the analysis in

the poster.

Good structure, but some sections are not fully explained or organised. Uses some Excel functions, but not consistently.

Analysis is evident and mostly supports the poster content.

Contains relevant data and calculations but lacks structure or clarity. Few or no named ranges or explanations. Excel is used mostly for manual calculations with limited functions.

Poorly formatted. Contains scattered or disconnected tables. Use of formulas is minimal. Difficult to follow the logic of the analysis or link it to the poster.

Excel is used only to display text or static tables. No meaningful analysis or functions are applied. No connection to coursework objectives.