MOD011077 Level 7 Procurement, Logistics and Project Delivery Management CW Assessment 2026/27 | ARU

Assessment 

Coursework – Individual Written Analytical Report

Assessment code: 

011

Academic Year:

2026/2027

Trimester:

1

Module Title:

Procurement, Logistics and Project Delivery Management

Module Code:

MOD011077

Level:

7

Module Leader:

Titus Olaniyi

Weighting:

60 %

Word Limit:

3000 words. This exclusion applies to the bibliography and other items listed in Rule 6.89 of the Academic Regulations.

Assessed Learning Outcomes

1 & 2

1.)  Knowledge and Understanding:

▪  Recognise the unique characteristics of Procurement, Logistics and Project Delivery to demonstrate an understanding of how projects from global businesses need to be scoped and managed.

2.)  Knowledge and Understanding

▪  Critically assess the key tools and techniques for managing project delivery in an agile global business environment.

Artificial Intelligence Category

Category 2 - Independent Use of AI as a Research Tool

Submission Deadline:

Please refer to the deadline on the VLE.

Project Title

Discipline

Agency

Country/Region

Year (Start/Approval)

Funding Amount

Description

Web

Link

Rural Economic

Transformation

Project

(RETRAP)

Agriculture / Development

World Bank

Liberia

2021

≈ US$161 million

Enhances agribusiness, rural roads, and livelihoods.

World Bank

RETRAP

Additional

Financing

Agriculture

World Bank

Liberia

2023

US$85 million (76M credit + 9M grant)

Expands rural infrastructure and farmer access.

Details

Djibouti

Economic

Corridor Project

Transport

World Bank

Djibouti

2026

≈ US$200–

300 million*

Improves regional logistics and trade corridors.

WB Portal

Renewable

Energy

Procurement

Project

Energy

World Bank

Zimbabwe

2026

≈ US$50–

100 million *

Supports renewable energy deployment frameworks.

WB

Amazon

Bioeconomy &

Forest

Restoration

Environment

World Bank

Brazil

2024–2025

US$426

million

Promotes sustainable agriculture and biodiversity.

WB List

Food & Irrigation Security Project

Agriculture / Water

World Bank

Indonesia

2027 (pipeline)

US$500

million

Strengthens irrigation

systems and food resilience.

WB

Clean Metro Manila Project

Urban

Environment

World Bank

Philippines

2027

US$350

million

Waste

management

and pollution reduction.

WB

Health

Insurance

Strengthening

(JKN-KUAT)

Public Health

World Bank

Indonesia

2027

US$850

million

Expands healthcare financing coverage.

WB

International

Fund for Cultural

Diversity

Culture

UNESCO

Global

2024–2025

≈ US$2.7 million (cycle funding)

Supports creative industries and policy reforms.

UNESCO

Underwater

Cultural

Heritage

Programme

Heritage

UNESCO

Global

2022–2025

≈ US$110k– 400k per project

Protects submerged cultural heritage.

UNESCO

Anti-Doping

Fund

Programme

Sports / Health

UNESCO

Global

2020–2025

≈ US$4.2 million

Promotes clean sport practices globally.

UNESCO

Horizon Europe

– NewWave

Project

Engineering /

Circular

Economy

EU

Europe

2022–2026

€5.06 million

Develops sustainable biobased manufacturing.

CORDIS

ELIXIR

Infrastructure

Biotechnology

EU

Europe

Ongoing (since 2013 expanded)

≈ €500M+ (multiphase) *

Integrates life science data infrastructure.

Info

European Social Survey

Social Sciences

EU

Europe

Ongoing (since 2001)

≈ €80M+ cumulative *

Provides comparative cross-country data.

EU

ITER Fusion

Energy Project

Energy / Physics

Euratom

/ Global

Partners

Global

2013–2034

€18–22

billion

World's largest fusion experiment.

ITER

ALICE “Living Bricks” Project

Materials Science

EU

(Horizon

2020)

Europe

~2019–2023

≈ €3–5 million *

Bio-material innovation for sustainable housing.

UKRI

Central Africa

Digital

Integration

Program

ICT

World Bank

Africa

2027

US$265

million

Expands broadband and digital economy.

WB

Fisheries & Aquaculture

Marine Science

World Bank

Red Sea

2027

≈ US$150–

300 million *

Enhances sustainable

WB

Development

Project

fisheries systems.

Skills

Development

Project

Education / Labour

World Bank

Philippines

2027

US$250

million

Improves workforce skills and employability.

WB

Horizon Europe

Programme

(Overall)

Research (All fields)

EU

Europe/Global

2021–2027

€93.5 billion total budget

Largest EU research funding programme.

EU

Section

Assessment criteria/points to consider

Marks available

(1) 

Project

Logistics and

Value Chain Analysis. 

In this section, you should critically evaluate: 

▪  What specific challenges did HS2 face in managing its inbound, outbound, distribution, and reverse logistics operations?

▪  Conduct a critical evaluation of how disruption to logistics value chain was managed in the chosen international projects.

30

(2) 

Procurement

Strategy, Risk

Management

and Resilience

In this section, you should assess:

▪  What are the syntheses of a critical assessment of the procurement strategy and its impact on competitive advantage.

▪  How does the international chosen project compare with the UK Procurement Act 2023.

▪  How can strategic lead‑time management and risk management be analysed as critical factors in the performance of global supply chains?

30

(3) 

Digital

Transformation and

Sustainability.

This area is where you should analyse: 

▪  To what extent can JIT, Lean, Agile Thinking, Value Engineering, IoT, AI, and E‑procurement practices be analysed and evaluated as drivers of operational performance and innovation?

▪  To what extent does the international project approach issues relating to socially responsible procurement and sustainability initiatives that demonstrates demonstrate equity (social justice), effectiveness and accountability?

▪  In what ways does the possible disruption provides insights that can inform and shape the evolution of future supply chains?

30

(4) 

Formatting and referencing

You should aim to meet the following expectations in terms of formatting and referencing:

▪ Correct and thorough use of Harvard referencing. This includes in-text references and an alphabetised bibliography.

10

▪

Appropriate and consistent choice of visual elements, including the correct selection of graphs and tables concerning their explanatory purpose

▪

Legible and consistent presentation of data in graphs and tables, including clearly labelled and denominated axes

▪

Organised and logical approach to structure, including table of contents, list of figures and tables, numbered pages, numbered sections and subsections, and bibliography.

▪

Spelling, punctuation, and grammar (SPG): UK English consistent with good practice in business and management applications.

The work will be assessed in an integrative manner, as indicated in the marking rubric that is consistent with

Anglia Ruskin University's generic assessment criteria and marking standards

Task 1 

Project Logistics and

Value Chain Analysis. 

The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. 

 There is little to no use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario. There is little to no knowledge of key issues/concepts of the discipline. 

Inadequate understanding and critical appraisal of Project Logistics (9-11 marks) might be vague, disorganised, or impressionistic; use negligible or inappropriate primary sources; fail to recognise the chosen firm’s Project Logistics and Value Chain. 

A limited understanding and

critical appraisal of the Project Logistics (12-14 marks) might lack organisation or be poorly organised, drawing ineffectively on primary sources, and recognising the chosen firm’s Project Logistics and Value Chain superficially.

A sound understanding and critical appraisal of Project Logistics (15-17 marks) might be organised appropriately but suboptimal in some respects; draws appropriately on primary sources but without rigorous critical insight; elaborates the chosen firm’s Project

Logistics and Value Chain in a largely appropriate way.

A good understanding and critical appraisal of Project Logistics (18-20 marks) might be well organised, drawing convincingly and appropriately on primary sources; elaborating the relevance/significance of the chosen firm’s Project Logistics and Value Chain in a correct and largely rigorous way.

An excellent

understanding and critical appraisal of Project Logistics (21-23 marks) might be very well organised, drawing rigorously and insightfully on primary sources; explain the relevance/significance of the chosen firm’s Project Logistics and Value Chain correctly and rigorously.

An outstanding understanding and critical appraisal of Project Logistics (24-26 marks) might be organized with rigor and according to the

 specific conceptual needs of the analysis carried out, drawing rigorously, insightfully, and resourcefully on primary sources; demonstrated the relevance/significance of the chosen firm’s Project Logistics and Value Chain correctly and rigorously, perhaps adapting them to the needs of the analysis carried out.

An exceptional understanding and critical appraisal of Project Logistics (27-30 marks) might be wellorganized, drawing rigorously, insightfully, and resourcefully on a range of well-chosen primary sources; established the relevance/significance of the chosen firm’s Project Logistics and Value Chain correctly and rigorously, perhaps adapting and/or augmenting them to better meet the needs of the analysis carried out.

30 Marks 

0 -8

9-11

12-14

15-17

18-20

21-23

24-26

27-30

Task 2

Procurement Strategy, Risk and Resilience. 

The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. 

There is little to no use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario. There is little to no knowledge of key issues/concepts of the discipline. 

Inadequate evaluation of the effectiveness of Procurement Strategy and Digital

Transformation (9-11 marks) in terms of relevance/importance/

practicality, etc., relies exclusively or largely on subjective judgment; uses negligible or inappropriate primary sources; fails to justify the importance of managing risk and resilience in the pursuit of successful projects. 

Limited evaluation of the effectiveness of Procurement Strategy and Digital

Transformation (12-14 marks) in terms of relevance/importance

/practicality, etc., lack of organization or poorly organized; rely to an inappropriate extent on subjective judgment; draw ineffectively on primary sources; justified the subsequent context in embedding risk management and

managing resilience in the pursuit of a successful project. 

Sound evaluation of the effectiveness of Procurement Strategy and Digital

Transformation (15-17 marks) in terms of relevance/importance

/practicality, etc.; draw appropriately on primary sources but without rigorous critical insight; evaluated the subsequent context in a largely appropriate way and adopting risk management principles and embedding resilience towards achieving a successful project.

Good evaluation of the effectiveness of Procurement Strategy and Digital

Transformation (18-20 marks) in terms of relevance/importance

/practicality, etc.; presented a convincing and somewhat critical judgment of the following context: Specifically, adopting risk management principles and

 embedding resilience towards achieving a successful project.

Excellent evaluation of the effectiveness of

Procurement Strategy and

Digital Transformation (2123 marks) in terms of

relevance/importance/pra

cticality, etc.; might be very well organized; drawing rigorously and insightfully on primary sources; provided a critical and insightful verdict of the following context. This should include adopting risk management principles and embedding resilience towards achieving a successful project

Outstanding evaluation of the effectiveness of Procurement Strategy and Digital

Transformation (24-26 marks) in terms of relevance/importance

/practicality etc.; might be organised with rigor and according to the specific conceptual needs of the analysis carried out; draw rigorously, insightfully and resourcefully on primary sources; provided a critical and incisive judgment of the following context. In clear terms, this should be explicit in the adoption of risk management principles and embedding resilience towards achieving a successful project. 

 Exceptional evaluation of the effectiveness of Procurement Strategy and Digital

Transformation (27-30 marks) in terms of relevance/importance

/practicality, etc.; be well-organized, drawing rigorously, insightfully, and resourcefully on a range of well-chosen primary sources; provided a critical and sharp verdict of the following context. A clear discuss of the adoption of risk management principles

 and embedding

resilience towards

 achieving a successful

project. 

This should include adopting risk management principles and embedding resilience towards achieving a successful project.

Answers at this level will generally display a scrupulously exact command of relevant terminology and theory and an authoritative approach to argumentation.

30 Marks 

0-8

9-11

12-14

15-17

18-20

21-23

24-26

27-30

Task 3

Digital Transformation and Sustainability.

The task was not followed, and there was little to no evidence of the assessment criteria having been met. 

There is little to no use of appropriate theories and models to critically analyse the scenario. There is little to no knowledge of key issues/concepts of the discipline. 

Inadequate assessment of digital transformation (JIT, Lean, Agile Thinking,

Value engineering, IoT, AI, and E-procurement) practices and sustainability (9-11 marks); be vague, disorganised, or impressionistic; use negligible or inappropriate primary sources; Fail to judgmentally assess the insights that can inform and shape the evolution of future supply chains.

Limited assessment of digital transformation

(JIT, Lean, Agile Thinking, Value engineering, IoT, AI,

 and E-procurement) practices and sustainability (12-14 marks); draws ineffectively on primary sources; A shallow explanation of the insights that can inform and shape the evolution of future supply chains.

A sound assessment of digital transformation

(JIT, Lean, Agile Thinking, Value engineering, IoT, AI, and E-procurement)  practices and sustainability (15-17 marks), with perhaps suboptimal levels of detail or clarity in some respects; draws appropriately on primary sources but without rigorous critical insight; presents adequate explanation of the insights that can inform and shape the evolution of future supply chains.

A good assessment of digital transformation

(JIT, Lean, Agile Thinking, Value engineering, IoT, AI, and E-procurement)  practices and sustainability (18-20 marks); be well organised; draw convincingly and appropriately on primary sources; offer a convincing and somewhat critical explanation of the insights that can inform and shape the evolution of future supply chains.

An excellent assessment of digital transformation (JIT, Lean, Agile Thinking, Value engineering, IoT, AI, and E-procurement)  practices and sustainability (21-23 marks); was very well-organised; drew rigorously and insightfully on primary sources; Presented a critical and insightful explanation of the insights that can inform and shape the evolution of future supply chains.

An outstanding assessment of digital transformation (JIT, Lean, Agile Thinking,

Value engineering, IoT, AI, and E-procurement) practices and sustainability (24-26 marks); might be organised with rigour and according to the specific conceptual needs of the analysis carried out; draw rigorously, insightfully, and resourcefully on primary sources; Presented a critical and insightful explanation of the insights that can inform and shape the evolution of future supply chains.

An exceptional assessment of digital transformation (JIT, Lean, Agile Thinking,

Value engineering, IoT,

 AI, and E-procurement) practices and sustainability (27-30 marks); be wellorganised, drawing rigorously, insightfully, and resourcefully on a range of well-chosen primary sources; offer a critical and insightful explanation of the insights that can inform and shape the evolution of future supply chains. Answers at this level will generally display a scrupulously exact command of relevant terminology and theory, and a powerful approach to argumentation.

30 Marks 

0-8

9-11

12-14

15-17

18-20

21-23

24-26

27-30

Formatting and referencing

There is no or, at best, little use of

recognisable academic

conventions such as Harvard/OSCOLA

referencing style, naming, and referencing tables and figures. The work will exhibit severe inconsistencies in the bibliography or in-text citation. 

Inadequate level of formatting and referencing (3 marks) might use a referencing system other than Harvard or exhibit severe inconsistencies in bibliography or intext citation. Visual elements such as graphs and tables may be poorly formatted to the extent that legibility is affected; presentation of graphs and tables might be confusing; structure might exhibit considerable flaws and inconsistencies; spelling, punctuation, and grammar might deviate considerably

from expected norms at Level 7, with grammatical errors, ‘false friends’ wrong spellcheck language used.

A limited level of formatting and referencing (4 marks) might use Harvard referencing adequately, with some inconsistencies in the bibliography or in-text citation. Visual elements such as graphs and tables may exhibit some flaws in presentation, but

 without completely losing their explanatory value. The structure might be generally consistent, but it exhibits some flaws and inconsistencies.  Spelling, punctuation, and grammar might deviate somewhat from best practice at Level 7.

A sound approach to formatting and referencing (5 marks) might use Harvard referencing

consistently, with perhaps some minor mistakes in in-text citation and bibliography. Visual elements such as graphs and tables will generally be clear and legible with some minor flaws. The structure will be generally consistent, with perhaps minor flaws and inconsistencies. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar might

 adhere adequately to best practice at Level 7.

A good approach to formatting and referencing (6 marks) might use Harvard referencing consistently throughout. Visual elements such as graphs and tables will be clear and legible for their type. The structure will be consistent and logical throughout. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar will be generally consistent with best practice for Level 7, with a few minor flaws.

An excellent approach to formatting and referencing

(7 marks) might use Harvard referencing consistently throughout. Visual elements such as graphs and tables will approach optimal design characteristics for their type. The structure will be almost entirely clear, consistent, and logical. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar will exhibit few flaws and some sophistication as to language and syntax.

An outstanding approach to formatting and referencing (8 marks) might be used by Harvard referencing consistently throughout,

implementing in almost all respects the Anglia Ruskin version of the Harvard standard. Visual elements such as graphs and tables will be optimally designed and presented for their type. The structure will be entirely clear, consistent, and logical. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar will exhibit minimal flaws and considerable sophistication as to language and syntax.

An exceptional approach to formatting and referencing (9-10 marks) might use Harvard referencing

consistently throughout, implementing in every respect the Anglia Ruskin version of the Harvard standard. Visual elements such as graphs and tables will be entirely flawless. The structure will be entirely clear, consistent, and logical. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar will exhibit faultless UK English at a high level of sophistication as to language and syntax, approaching doctoral or publication quality in places or throughout.

10 Marks  

0-2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9-10

Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous, demonstrating independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, modify, and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate and focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance, or display.

Mark Bands

Outcome

Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)

Knowledge & Understanding

Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective, and Transferable Skills

90-

100%

Achieves module outcome(s)

Exceptional analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy.  Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making an exceptional use of scholarly conventions.  Demonstrates exceptional independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication. 

Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics.  Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills, independence of thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/ intellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication. 

80-

89%

Outstanding analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with clear originality and autonomy.  Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument, making exemplary use of scholarly conventions.  Demonstrates outstanding independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency

Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics.  Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a

high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding expressive/professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Outstanding academic/intellectual skills

70-

79%

Excellent analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics.  Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument, making excellent use of scholarly conventions.  Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and a

Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.  Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, excellent level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills,

high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. 

and considerable creativity and originality. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills, and considerable creativity and originality. 

60-

69%

Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics.  Development of conceptual structures and argument making, consistent use of scholarly conventions

Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics.  Development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions

50-

59%

A marginal pass in module outcome(s)

Sound knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in the discipline.

Occasionally descriptive, but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. 

Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in the discipline. Occasionally descriptive, but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in the use of scholarly conventions. 

40-

49%

A marginal

failure in

module outcome(s)

. Satisfies the default

qualifying mark

Limited knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in the discipline. Fairly descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions.

Limited research skills impede the use of learning resources and problem-solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression.

Team/Practical/Professional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions. 

30-

39%

Fails to achieve module

outcome(s)

. 

Qualifying mark not

satisfied

Inadequate evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate evidence of argument.

Inadequate evidence of the use of scholarly conventions.

Inadequate evidence of research skills, use of learning resources, and problem-solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills are virtually absent. Inadequate evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Inadequate evidence of the use of scholarly conventions. 

20-

29%

Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline.  Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument.  Little evidence of the use of scholarly conventions.

Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources, and problem-solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills are virtually absent. Little evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of the use of scholarly

conventions

10-

19%

Deficient knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline.  Wholly descriptive, with a deficient synthesis of

Deficient use of research skills, learning resources, and problem-solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional

existing scholarship and a deficient argument.  Deficient use of scholarly conventions.

skills are absent. Deficient

academic/intellectual skills. Deficient use of scholarly conventions

1-9%

No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in the discipline.  Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever.  No evidence of use of scholarly conventions.

No evidence of use of research skills, learning resources, and problem-solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills are non-existent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions

0%

Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice, and (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (e.g., answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes