Supply Chain Strategy and Operations

December 9th, 2015

admin

Supply Chain Strategy and Operations
Department: Accounting, Finance and Operations Management

Module Code: MOD004050

Level: 7
Academic Year: 2015/16
Semester/Trimester 1
Contents

1. Key Information 2
2. Introduction to the Module 2
2.1 Employability skills delivered in this Module 3
3. Learning Outcomes and Outline Delivery 3
3.1 Learning Outcomes 3
3.2 Outline Delivery 4
4. Assessment 6
4.1 Element 010: Group Business Presentation, worth 40% of the marks 7
4.2 Element 011: Individual Assignment, submit work via Turnitin/Grademark®, worth 60% of the marks 10
4.3 Submitting your work via Turnitin/Grademark® [Cambridge and Chelmsford students] 10
4.4 Feedback 12
5. Learning Resources 14
5.1. Library 14
5.2. Other Resources 16
6. How is My Work Marked? 16
7. Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards 19
7.1 Specific Assessment Criteria and Marking Rubric or Grading Form 19
8. Attendance 26
9. Assessment Offences 26
10. Module Evaluation 28
11. Report on Last Delivery of Module 29
Re-Assessment Information 30
Re-assessment Element 010: Individual video presentation, worth 40% of the marks 30
Re-assessment Element 011: Individual Assignment, submit work via Turnitin/Grademark®, worth 60% of the marks 31

1. Key Information

Module title: Supply Chain Strategy and Operations

Module Leader: Dr Teng Teng
Chelmsford / Lord Ashcroft Building / MAB301
Extension: 6837
Email: [email protected]

Every module has a Module Definition Form (MDF) which is the officially validated record of the module. You can access the MDF for this module in three ways via:

• the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)
• the My.Anglia Module Catalogue at www.anglia.ac.uk/modulecatalogue
• Anglia Ruskin’s module search engine facility at www.anglia.ac.uk/modules

All modules delivered by Anglia Ruskin University at its main campuses in the UK and at Associate Colleges throughout the UK and overseas are governed by the Academic Regulations. You can view these at www.anglia.ac.uk/academicregs. An extract of the Academic Regulations, known as the Assessment Regulations, is available at this website too (all new students will have received a printed copy as part of their welcome pack).

In the unlikely event of any discrepancy between the Academic Regulations and any other publication, including this module guide, the Academic Regulations, as the definitive document, take precedence over all other publications and will be applied in all cases.

2. Introduction to the Module
Supply chain management is a major strategic concern for organisations, it is often stated that individual organisations no longer compete, but that the impetus of competition has shifted to supply chains/networks. A number of strategic philosophies and techniques are explored on the module that focuses on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of supply chain flow. This module highlights how the ever-demanding customer creates a need for managing the network from raw materials to end-customer across organisational interfaces. Therefore, supply chain networks rely on effective management of relationships and outsourcing arrangements. Supply chains can be fragile due to the participants and external risks, risk management strategies are applied within the module. Any logistics/supply chain strategy has to make trade-offs in terms of cost; quality; flexibility; dependability and time. These strategic priorities are explored in an intensive supply chain simulation game. The game simulations a product supply chain, including necessary functions produces results and statistics about the supply chain that the students must improve over the course of the semester. The overall aim is to provide an insight into the system consequences of decisions, focusing on operational decisions, e.g. procurement, manufacturing, distribution, transport etc. Here students will work in teams, to represent the management of the company, therefore, they must develop a strategy and work together to implement their decisions. The impetus is on real-life practice and the impetus here is on learning by doing. Within this module, students will build team-work; communication; analytical; project management; time management and presentation skills.

2.1 Employability skills delivered in this Module

It is important that we help you develop employability skills throughout your course which will assist you in securing employment and supporting you in your future career. During your course you will acquire a wide range of key skills. In this module, you will develop those identified in the following table.

SKILL Skills acquired in this module
Communication (oral) ? Assessed group presentation and formative team challenge presentation required on this module.
Communication (written) ?
Commercial Awareness
Cultural sensitivity
Customer focus ? Engaging in the supply chain game that incorporates customer metrics.
Data Handling ? Developed on this module – simulation game used provides a wealth of data for analysis.
Decision making ? Students make decisions and see the consequences on the simulation game.
Enterprising
Flexibility ? The tight deadlines for the game and other work requires a flexible approach.
Initiative
Interpersonal Skills
Leadership/Management of others ? Students will acts as leaders in their simulation groups.
Networking
Organisational adaptability
Project Management ? Project management techniques explored and applied in the individual assignment.
Problem Solving and analytical skills ? The simulation game contains a number of problems to solve within it.
Responsibility
Team working ? There is a high-level of team working on this module.
Time Management ? Tools and techniques for time management are practiced and the frequent decisions ensures students manage time.

3. Learning Outcomes and Outline Delivery
3.1 Learning Outcomes
Supply Chain Strategy and Operations, like all modules at Anglia Ruskin, is taught on the basis of achieving intended learning outcomes. On successful completion of the module, the student will be expected to be able to demonstrate the following:

Knowledge and understanding LO 1) Develop a systematic understanding of the relationship between strategic and operational supply chain management
LO 2) Demonstrate a critical awareness of the implications and trade-offs of strategic decisions on supply chains and how to manage associated risks
Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills LO 3) Hone effective transferable management skills: task organisation and the management of capacities in groups; analysis; communication; confidence in presentation skills and efficient time management
LO 4) Critically undertake analysis of a business scenario and develop a project plan for improvement

The assessment is based on meeting these learning outcomes, explicitly, see section 4 where the assessment task is linked to these learning outcomes.
3.2 Outline Delivery

This is indicative and may be subject to change.

Wk Lecture Seminar/Workshop Student-managed learning
1
W/C
28 Sep
2015
Defining the supply chain, its operations and its role in competitive advantage Introduction to key resources: e.g. Gartner

VLE Forum Exercise Chapter 1: Logistics, the supply chain and competitive strategy

FLIPPED Preparation:
Logon to one of the university partners’ sites: Gartner via my.anglia for full access to all resources:

Search for: “The Gartner Supply Chain Top 25 for 2015”
Select one of the 25 and consider their strategy and how they create customer value through their supply chain.
N.B. If you google Gartner and go into the site directly you will only have access to press releases and not the full reports.
2
W/C
05 Oct
2015
FLIPPED CLASS:
What do the best companies do?

Customer value driven by supply chain management and customer service implications Team Challenge: Customer service gap scenario 1

Presentation Skills Chapter 2: Logistics and customer value

Chapter 3: Measuring logistics costs and performance

3
W/C
12 Oct
2015
The business value use of logistics: balancing cost and time Team Challenge: Customer service gap scenario 2

Time planning and project management techniques Chapter 4: Matching supply and demand

Complete Belbin team roles questionnaire
4
W/C
19 Oct
2015
Information and material flow principles: push versus pull Formulation of teams for the simulation game and assessed presentation Chapter 5: Creating the responsive supply chain

FLIPPED Preparation: Watch lean and agile video ready for week 5
5
W/C
26 Oct
2015
FLIPPED CLASS:
Supply Chain Game – exploring strategies for managing supply chains/networks: lean versus agile Team co-ordination of decision-making in the simulation game Focus on team building and working together
6
W/C
02 Nov
2015
Synchronisation and managing the logistics pipeline Team co-ordination of decision-making in the simulation game Chapter 6: Strategic lead time management
Chapter 7: The synchronous supply chain
7
W/C
09 Nov
2015
Complexities, decision-making and trade-offs within supply chain management processes.
Complex Supply Chain scenarios Team co-ordination of decision-making in the simulation game Chapter 8: Supply chain complexity

Chapter 9: Managing the global pipeline
8
W/C
16 Nov
2015
Designing and managing the supply network

Outsourcing/relationship management in supply chains, including the differences between 2PL; 3PL and 4PL and features of outsourcing in logistics/supply chain Assessment Group Presentation
Submitted: In class or electronically
Chapter 11: The era of network competition
9
W/C
23 Nov
2015
Project planning for supply chain improvement: focus on task 3 of the individual assignment. Team Challenge: Complex Supply Chain scenario 1
Chapter 10: Managing risk in the supply chain

10
W/C
30 Nov
2015
Supply chain risks and barriers to supply chain integration Team Challenge: Complex Supply Chain scenario 2 Chapter 12: Overcoming the barriers to supply chain integration

11
W/C
07 Dec
2015
Sustainability and the future of supply chain management
Wrap up Assessment one to ones Chapter 13: Creating a sustainable supply chain
Chapter 14: The supply chain of the future

12
W/C
14 Dec
2015

Individual Assignment Submission
The Individual Assignment is due in by Monday 14th Dec 2015, before 2pm on http://www.submit.ac.uk

4. Assessment
The assessment for this module consists of two elements. Final submission dates for elements of assessment vary.

Element Type of assessment Word or time limit Submission method Final Submission Date
010
Group business presentation (Learning Outcomes 1-3)
HAND-IN AS A VIDEO Maximum of
15 minutes

40% of the mark In class/
CD-Rom/
USB/
VLE Week 8
W/C
16 Nov
2015

011
Individual assignment
(Learning Outcomes 1,2 and 4) 2000 words

60% of the mark Turnitin®UK GradeMark 2PM
Monday 14th December 2015

All coursework assignments and other forms of assessment must be submitted by the published deadline which is detailed above. It is your responsibility to know when work is due to be submitted – ignorance of the deadline date will not be accepted as a reason for late or non-submission.

All student work which contributes to the eventual outcome of the module (ie: if it determines whether you will pass or fail the module and counts towards the mark you achieve for the module) is submitted via GradeMark®. You CANNOT submit work for this module via the iCentres. Additionally, academic staff CANNOT accept this work directly from you.

Any late work (posted to Grademark®) will NOT be considered and a mark of zero will be awarded for the assessment task in question.

You are requested to keep a copy of your work.

4.1 Element 010: Group Business Presentation, worth 40% of the marks
Prepare a 15 minute group presentation on your team’s performance in the simulation. Your presentation should be presented in business style and will be submitted as a video.

Your team presentation will be marked as follows:
Mark Learning
Outcome
Presentation Preparation 10% LO3
Presentation Content 1. Explain your team’s supply chain strategy and main operational aspects. 20% LO1

2. Evaluate how the strategy was operationalised throughout the simulation, exploring successful aspects, trade-offs made and how risks were addressed. 30% LO2
3. Evaluate how your team was organised and managed, exploring strengths and areas for improvement. 10% LO3
Presentation Time and Depth 10% LO3
Individual contribution and Peer Evaluation
(Complete the peer assessment sheet) 20% LO3
TOTAL 100%
See section 7.1 for more details of the assessment criteria the presentation will be marked against
Peer Evaluation Sheet
Team name:
Team member name
Rate each team member (including yourself) from 1-10 on the following: Poor Fair Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Poor Fair Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Poor Fair Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Poor Fair Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Poor Fair Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Participation in group discussions or meetings
Keeping the group focused on the task
Contribution of useful ideas
Supportiveness
Motivation
In the space below indicate the relative contribution of each team member, e.g. if you are in a team of 5 and you felt everyone contributed equally you would give a 20% to each member. However, if you felt one team member contributed a lot more, you could give 30% to that member and 17.5% to the other members.
Contribution to the team

Briefly bullet point your main contribution(s) to the team:
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Any other comments about the team….

4.2 Element 011: Individual Assignment, submit work via Turnitin/Grademark®, worth 60% of the marks
Mark Learning
Outcome
1. Simulation 800 words 30%
Select an area of the simulation scenario (the supply chain game) and explain the significance of this area in terms of strategy and operations of a supply chain (using supply chain theory/models and ideas).

Track the performance of this are during the simulation and how the function/process had on overall results. Explain any trade-offs made in this area. 30% LO1, LO2
2. Scenario Evaluation 600 words 20%
Select one of the scenarios from either the:
• A Customer Service gaps scenario (week 2/3). OR
• A complex Supply Chain scenario (week 9/10). OR
• A supply chain issue at an organisation you work for or have worked for (discuss with your tutor).
Summarise your evaluation of that one business scenario in 600 words, through applying supply chain theory/models and ideas to make a recommendation. 30% LO1, LO4
3. Plan and Risks (largely diagrams, equivalent to 600 words) 30%
Develop a project plan to improve the supply chain scenario you discussed in section 2 (i.e. implement your recommendation). This will include the risk assessment plan for the project. 30% LO4, LO2
Academic Rigour
Your assignment should clearly include the academic insight, i.e. the concepts and the supporting references involved, indicated in the report and listed in the references and bibliography. 10%
TOTAL: 100%
See section 7.1 for more details of the assessment criteria the individual assessment will be marked against.

4.3 Submitting your work via Turnitin/Grademark® [Cambridge and Chelmsford students]
You are required to submit your written assignment(s) online via Turnitin/Grademark. Unless stated on the assignment brief, all your assignments should be submitted online. Hard copy assignments handed into the iCentre will NOT be marked. You must put YOUR Student ID number (SID) as the submission title (details below).

You will be enrolled automatically to two types of Turnitin class: 1) Grademark Classes entitled by module name, to which you will submit a ONE TIME ONLY final submission; 2) The Originality Report Class to which you can submit multiple drafts for originality checking.

The Grademark class page shows the start date (when you can begin submitting work), the due date for your assignment and the post date. All assignments must be submitted by 5pm on the due date. Any late work will NOT be accepted and a mark of zero will be awarded for the assessment task in question. The post date is the date when both feedback and provisional results will be posted online. You should follow the detailed instructions provided on the VLE:
https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Home.aspx

When you submit your paper, remember to include the information:

When you click Upload, you then see a preview of your file. If you are happy it is the right file, click Confirm to submit your work.

POINTS TO NOTE

1. The due date as seen in eVision is the official submission deadline. Any late work will NOT be accepted and a mark of zero will be awarded for the assessment task in question. Do not leave it until the last minute to submit your work – the system becomes extremely busy and can be slower during the period of the deadline.

2. Grademark final submission classes will become available at least 10 working days before the final submission date. Be aware that work can only be submitted ONCE to these classes and cannot be removed or changed. All work for one assessment element must be submitted as one file (not in parts).

3. All work submitted MUST be entitled by your Student ID number.

4. There is guidance about the file types and file sizes supported on Turntin/Grademark – see the section on Preparing my Assignment on : https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/

5. Any work handed in via the iCentre will NOT be marked.

6. The Originality Report is automatically generated by Turnitin on submitting work. A paper copy of the originality report is not required.

7. The Originality Report will not be used to make assessment decisions unless concerns arise as to poor academic practice, plagiarism, or collusion. The report may then be considered as part of the normal investigatory procedures undertaken by the academic team and the Director of Studies (again, please see Section 10 of the Assessment Regulations).

8. Re-sits and extensions are also to be submitted via Turnitin. New Turnitin classes will be created for re-sits.

9. Full details on submitting to Turnitin, the Originality Report, and a FAQs list, can be located on the module VLE. If you have experience submission difficulties, please email: [email protected] Furthermore, there is a support VLE site (https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Home.aspx) there are links to videos to show you how to submit your work and to view your feedback.

4.4 Feedback
You are entitled to feedback on your performance for all your assessed work. For all assessment tasks which are not examinations, this is accomplished by a member of academic staff providing your mark and associated comments which will relate to the achievement of the module’s intended learning outcomes and the assessment criteria you were given for the task when it was first issued. This feedback will be available on-line via Grademark® or may be sent directly to your Anglia Ruskin e-mail account.

Examination scripts are retained by Anglia Ruskin and are not returned to students. However, you are entitled to feedback on your performance in an examination and may request a meeting with the Module Leader or Tutor to see your examination script and to discuss your performance.

Anglia Ruskin is committed to providing you with feedback on all assessed work within 20 working days of the submission deadline or the date of an examination. This is extended to 30 days for feedback for a Major Project module (please note that working days excludes those days when Anglia Ruskin University is officially closed; eg: between Christmas and New Year). Personal tutors will offer to read feedback from several modules and help you to address any common themes that may be emerging.

On occasion, you will receive feedback and marks for pieces of work that you completed in the earlier stages of the module. We provide you with this feedback as part of the learning experience and to help you prepare for other assessment tasks that you have still to complete. It is important to note that, in these cases, the marks for these pieces of work are unconfirmed. This means that, potentially, marks can change, in either direction!

Marks for modules and individual pieces of work become confirmed on the Dates for the Official Publication of Results which can be checked at www.anglia.ac.uk/results.

HOW TO VIEW YOUR FEEDBACK IN TURNITIN GRADEMARK
Click on the class that you wish to view and then you will see the assignments for the module listed. Click the blue view button to open up the document viewer.

The Document Viewer will open and the main feedback on your work is shown in the General Comments:

There may also be Quick Marks on your assignment or a Grading Form/Rubric to show how you performed against the marking criteria, click on the tabs to open them.

Comments List Rubric/Grading Form
5. Learning Resources
5.1. Library

See ReadingLists@Anglia project (http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/index.html)

Library Contacts

Lord Ashcroft International Business School
[email protected]

Resources Notes
(on content and access)

Key text
Christopher, M., 2011 or 2005. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value Adding Networks. 4th ed. or 3rd ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

We will draw heavily on this book, students are advised to purchase a copy. The earlier 3rd edition published in 2005 is also suitable (although less up-to-date).

Books

The books in the list below focus on operations, logistics and supply chains:

Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Cooper, M.B., 2013. Supply Chain Logistics Management. 4th
ed. London: McGraw-Hill.

Chopra, S. and Meindl, P., 2012. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning and
Operation. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Christopher, M., 2011 or 2005. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value
Adding Networks. 4th ed. or 3rd ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Harrison, A. and van Hoek, R., 2010. Logistics Management and Strategy: Competing Through
The Supply Chain. 4th ed. London: Prentice Hall.

Jacobs, F.R., Chase, R.B. and Lummus, R.R. 2010. Operations and Supply Chain Management, 13th ed., Global ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Jonsson, P. 2008. Logistics and Supply Chain Management London: McGraw-Hill.

Verma, R. and Boyer, K. 2010. Operations and Supply Chain Management: World-Class
Theory and Practice, London: Thomson Learning

The books here are also good resources for logistics and supply chain management and should be consulted with. They can be used to support individual assignment.
Journals
Asia Pacific Journal Of Marketing and Logistics.
Chartered Management Institute: Checklists: Operations And Quality
Food Logistics
Front Office Operations and Management
International Journal Of Logistics : Research And Applications: The Journal Of The Logistics Research Network
International Journal Of Operations & Production Management
International Journal Of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
International Journal Of Purchasing And Materials Management
Journal Of Business Logistics
Logistics & Transport Focus: The Journal Of The Institute Of Logistics And Transport
Logistics Information Management
Logistics Journal
Logistics Management
Logistics Management
Logistics Management & Distribution Report
Logistics Manager
Logistics Today
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management: M&SOM.
Manufacturing Systems
Operations & Fulfillment
Operations Management
Outsourced Logistics
Production And Operations Management : An International Journal Of The Production And Operations Management Society
Supply Chain Europe
Supply Chain Management
Supply Chain Management Review
Supply Chain Standard
The Journal Of Supply Chain Management
The Logistics And Transportation Review.
Transport Logistics An International Journal
Transportation & Distribution
Transportation Research. Part C, Emerging Technologies.
Transportation research. Part D, Transport and environment
Transportation research. Part E, Logistics and Transportation Review Available in the Digital Library.

Websites
See the “Web links” section of the VLE for links for helpful links.

Additional notes on this reading list
Access to the library is as follows:
Link to the University Library catalogue and Digital Library http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/
Link to Harvard Referencing guide http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/harvard.htm

5.2. Other Resources

Gartner, Inc. (NYSE: IT) is the world’s leading information technology research and advisory company. We deliver the technology-related insight necessary for our clients to make the right decisions, every day. From CIOs and senior IT leaders in corporations and government agencies, to business leaders in high-tech and telecom enterprises and professional services firms, to technology investors, we are the valuable partner to clients in over 14,000 distinct organizations. Through the resources of Gartner Research, Gartner Executive Programs, Gartner Consulting and Gartner Events, we work with every client to research, analyze and interpret the business of IT within the context of their individual role. Founded in 1979, Gartner is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, USA., and has 6,100 associates, including more than 1,460 research analysts and consultants, and clients in 85 countries.

Login via my.anglia for full access. N.B. If you google Gartner and go into the site directly you will only have access to press releases and not the full reports.

Simulation Supply Chain Simulation package

6. How is My Work Marked?
After you have handed your work in or you have completed an examination, Anglia Ruskin undertakes a series of activities to assure that our marking processes are comparable with those employed at other universities in the UK and that your work has been marked fairly, honestly and consistently. These include:

• Anonymous marking – your name is not attached to your work so, at the point of marking, the lecturer does not know whose work he/she is considering. When you undertake an assessment task where your identity is known (eg: a presentation or Major Project), it is marked by more than one lecturer (known as double marking)

• Internal moderation – a sample of all work for each assessment task in each module is moderated by other Anglia Ruskin staff to check the standards and consistency of the marking

• External moderation – a sample of student work for all modules is moderated by external examiners – experienced academic staff from other universities (and sometimes practitioners who represent relevant professions) – who scrutinise your work and provide Anglia Ruskin academic staff with feedback, advice and assurance that the marking of your work is comparable to that in other UK universities. Many of Anglia Ruskin’s staff act as external examiners at other universities.

• Departmental Assessment Panel (DAP) – performance by all students on all modules is discussed and approved at the appropriate DAPs which are attended by all relevant Module Leaders and external examiners. Anglia Ruskin has over 25 DAPs to cover all the different subjects we teach.

This module falls within the remit of the Accounting, Finance and Operations Management DAP.

The following external examiners are appointed to this DAP and will oversee the assessment of this and other modules within the DAP’s remit:
Accounting, Finance and Operations Management Departmental Assessment Panel
External Examiner’s Name Academic Institution Position or Employer
Dr Des Doran University of Sussex Senior Lecturer
Mr Chris Hunt Nottingham Trent University Head of Accounting & Finance
Prof Javed G. Hussain Birmingham City University Professor of Entrepreneurial Finance
Mr Brian Kriefman Regent’s College London Head of Department of Accounting, Finance &
Mr Leslie Milliken Edinburgh Napier University Lecturer
Dr Julinda Nuri University of Surrey Senior Lecturer in Financial Management
Dr Yulia Rodionova De Montfort University Senior Lecturer
The above list is correct at the time of publication. However, external examiners are appointed at various points throughout the year. An up-to-date list of external examiners is available to students and staff at www.anglia.ac.uk/eeinfo.

Anglia Ruskin’s marking process is represented in the flowchart below:

7. Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards
7.1 Specific Assessment Criteria and Marking Rubric or Grading Form

Element 010: Group Business Presentation, worth 40% of the marks
Assessment Criteria

Preparation
Familiarity with material
Knowledge of subject
Depth of research A
= 7-10 Sample comments
Your presentation was clearly well-prepared as a team effort. Your group demonstrated the ability to analyse the results and thoroughly apply relevant theories/concepts within the simulation scenario.
Some indicators of an A grade:
• All speakers are engaged with the presentation and the flow between speakers shows that they were all well-prepared for the presentation.
• Thorough, in-depth analysis of the results of the game has been made
• Supply chain strategies and theories were researched and well-applied to the simulation scenario
B
=6 Sample comments
The team had effectively prepared for the presentation. Simulation data was handled well for the most part. Relevant theoretical ideas were used on the presentation.
Some indicators of a B grade:
• There was evidence that the presentation had been rehearsed and for the most part speakers seemed well-prepared.
• Analysis of the game scenario was presented knowledgably.
• Evidence of good research on the topic area is evident
• Supply chain theories had been researched and applied, but in places more depth would improve this.
C
=5 Sample comments
The key aspects of the game were explored and understood. However, the presentation in places needed more thought and research. Some analysis of the simulation data was skimmed over and needed more depth.
Some indicators of a C grade:
• Some good research on elements of the game had been conducted.
• The data is presented clearly, but not in enough depth.
• The presentation was un polished in places and speakers needed to be more fluid in their
D
=4 Sample comments
Presentation was largely descriptive rather than analysing the simulation data. There needed to be more depth as the simulation data was not always well-understood and analysed.
Some indicators of a D grade:
• Simplistic explanation of the results that did not demonstrate understanding in detail
• There was not enough connection to the theory
• Description did demonstrate some knowledge of the supply chain concepts/
F
= 3 and below. Sample comments
There is no evidence that the team understood the simulation data or considered the practicalities of managing different functions in a supply chain.
Some indicators of an unsuccessful attempt:
• Superficial presentation of simulation results
• Supply chain theories not really understood or explored in the simulation game context.
• Team were not presenting the ideas fluently and were reading from the slides.
Presentation Content
1. Explain your team’s supply chain strategy and main operational aspects. A
= 14-20 Sample comments
The teams’ strategy is well-developed and there is a sophisticated exploration of the role of operations.
Some indicators of an A grade:
• Teams’ strategic intent is explained and well-referenced.
• There is an eloquent understanding of the operations required to deliver the strategy chosen.
B
=12-13 Sample comments
The simulation is reflected upon with a clear understanding of the strategy pursued and this is well-linked to the operational processes.
Some indicators of a B grade:
• There are some good references to supply chain strategy.
• It is evident that there is good understanding that the strategy relies on the operations processes to succeed.
C
=10-11 Sample comments
The strategy is discussed, however, there is not enough reference to theory. Furthermore, the presentation needed further evaluation of the operations.
Some indicators of a C grade:
• Strategies within the game needed to be linked to theoretical constructs – more reading/research was needed.
• Some consideration of operations is given here.
D
=8-9 Sample comments
The team shows a rudimentary grasp of the supply chain strategies, but this needed to be more analytical.
Some indicators of a D grade:
• No real connection between the game and supply chain strategy is made.
• Only a basic understanding of the operations processes is shown.
F
= 7 and below. Sample comments
The team did not really explore the strategy they pursued. It was not clear the team understood the significance of operations for delivering strategic objectives.
Some indicators of an unsuccessful attempt:
• No depth in the explanation of the strategy chosen.
• Operations processes not considered.
Presentation Content
2. Evaluate your how the strategy was operationalised throughout the simulation, exploring successful aspects, trade-offs made and how risks were addressed. A
= 21-30 Sample comments
The presentation demonstrates a thorough exploration of the results of the simulation. There is an intellectual exploration of the trade-offs made and risks.
Some indicators of an A grade:
• The decisions made within the game are discussed with a critical edge.
• Clear understanding of the interconnectedness of the decisions and trade-offs.
B
=18-20 Sample comments
The simulation game results are reflected upon with a certain level of sophistication. There is a structured discussion of the results, trade-offs and risks.
Some indicators of a B grade:
• Simulation data is critically evaluated for the most part.
• Trade-offs and risks are explored effectively.
C
=15-17 Sample comments
There is some exploration of the decisions made and the results. However, there needed to be more depth and consideration of the trade-offs and risks.
Some indicators of a C grade:
• The simulation game is explored and considered reasonably well, with some analysis.
• There could be more done to link the decisions to the results.
D
=12-14 Sample comments
A basic understanding of the trade-offs and risks in the simulation is given. There is some description of the decisions made, but this needed to be more analytical and consider the impact of the decisions and risks involved.
Some indicators of a D grade:
• Basic explanation of simulation results.
• Graphs/results described but not explained.
F
= 11 and below. Sample comments
The team did not expand on the team’s decision-making processes. There is no real discussion of the trade-offs and risks in supply chains.
Some indicators of an unsuccessful attempt:
• No explanation of the results, just graphs presented without linkage to decisions.
• No evidence of understanding the impact of decisions, e.g. trade-offs and risks.
Presentation Content
3. Evaluate how your team was organised and managed, exploring strengths and areas for improvement. A
= 7-10 Sample comments
An eloquent discussion of team organisation and decision-making processes. There is an intellectual exploration of the team process and the learning experience.
Some indicators of an A grade:
• Team process is expertly explored and there is evidence of excellent team management ad time management skills
• Informed critique of team’s performance and areas for improvement are well-considered.
B
=6 Sample comments
There is good discussion of the team organisation and decision-making. A structured discussion of the how the team and time were managed.
Some indicators of a B grade:
• There is good team cohesion shown and any areas to improve are discussed.
• Time management is explored effectively.
C
=5 Sample comments
There is some level of understanding of how to organise the team and manage time.
Some indicators of a C grade:
• There is some evidence of teamwork, but this needed to be evaluated more and clearer improvement areas identified.
• Time and task management could have been explained better.
D
=4 Sample comments
There is some description of how the team worked, but there is no clear evaluation or identification of improvement areas.
Some indicators of a D grade:
• Little reflection on how the team was organised or how time was managed.
F
=3 and below. Sample comments
The team did not expand on how they were organised or identify any areas for improvement.
Some indicators of an unsuccessful attempt:
• No evidence of consciously working as a team or addressing any team issues/problems.

Presentation Time and Depth

Good use of time available
Well paced
Appropriate amount of depth for time allowed A
= 7-10 Sample comments
The presentation used the time very effectively and expertly managed the time.
Some indicators of an A grade:
• Correct pace to follow the key messages
• Presentation used the 30mins correctly and did not go under or over time.
B
= 6 Sample comments
Presentation flowed well, although in places time could have been used more effectively for more interesting aspects.
Some indicators of a B grade:
• Good pace for the most part.
• Presentation was over or under time but only slightly.
C
=5 Sample comments
Time could have been used more effectively as it seemed that some major points/issues were skimmed over and smaller aspects discussed in too much depth.
Some indicators of a C grade:
• Pace and flow varied between speakers
• Some small aspects given too much time and/or some major aspects skimmed over
• Presentation was over or under time by more than 5 minutes
D
=4 Sample comments
Presentation timing could be improved; some sections were too rushed for the audience to follow. More depth was needed to discuss substantive issues.
Some indicators of a D grade:
• More rehearsal was needed to improve the tone and pace
• Presentation did not spend time on the aspects that management would be interested in
• Presentation was over or under time by more than 8 minutes
F
= 3 and below. Sample comments
The team did not use the time well and did not seem to appreciate the depth required for a management presentation.
Some indicators of an unsuccessful attempt:
• The presentation felt very rushed to the point that team members look flustered
• The tone of the presentation bordered on dis-respectful for management

Individual contribution and Peer Evaluation

Presentation Delivery
Normalised Peer Evaluation Individual presentation
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Flawless presentation skills in all aspects: voice projection, eye contact, appropriate pace, enthusiasm, response to questions Exceptional presentation skills in all aspects: voice projection, eye contact, appropriate pace, enthusiasm, response to questions Outstanding presentation skills in all aspects: voice projection, eye contact, appropriate pace, enthusiasm. Presentation is expertly delivered: good voice projection, eye contact, appropriate pace, enthusiasm. Presentation is sound, but one area could be improved, e.g. eye contact; enthusiasm; voice projection.
Demonstrated reasonable presentation skills, although several areas could be improved to make the presentation more professional, e.g. eye contact; enthusiasm; voice projection. Presentation conveyed some of the message, but needed to be improved considerably in many areas: speakers were too quiet; there needed to be more eye contact and enthusiasm.
There was reading from slides, the individual was not able to answer questions, poor delivery style and poor visual aids.
It was not possible to understand what the presenter was saying, 100% reading from slides, the individual was not able to answer questions, poor delivery style and poor visual aids.
Did not present
Students will complete a peer evaluation sheet (in section 5.1) which will be normalised based on the team performance in the presentation.

Element 011: Individual Assignment, submit work via Turnitin/Grademark®, worth 60% of the marks
Assessment Criteria
A++ = 90-100 A+ = 80-89% A = 70-79% B = 60-69% C = 50-59% D = 40-49% F = 30-39% F- = 20-29% F— = 10 -19% F—- = 0-9%
1. Simulation 800 words 30% Exceptionally thorough research has been conducted into the process and how it operates in the supply chain. Originality in the selection and evaluation of the case study.
The results of the game have been exceptionally evaluated. The discussion provides a very robust, constructive understanding of the data. There is outstanding insight into the process and its role within the supply chain. The game results have been expertly evaluated. There is a clear linkage shown on how they affected the results. The analysis of which is sophisticated and includes critical reflection. The area chosen has been researched in depth which has led to a clear exploration of the area. The data is well-understood and the cause and effect on the results is understood comprehensively. There is good evidence of research into the area chosen using relevant literature. The data is understood and analysed well. However, in places there could be more linkages made between the area chosen and the results. The discussion of the area is clear and there is evidence that the process and role are understood. However, the discussion is more descriptive than analytical. There is an acceptable level of understanding of the process in the game and the wider logistical and supply chain analysis is demonstrated; however, in places this is too descriptive. The explanation of the area is largely descriptive, but it is understood. There are some linkages to the theory, however, the explanation needed to be more grounded in theory. The data is understood and described, but it needed to be linked more clearly to the outcomes. There is some understanding of the results of the game. No real explanation of an area of supply chain, the explanation is not adequate and lacks references. The discussion of the results is somewhat superficial, with no real explanation of graphs/ data. The discussion of the area was weak and totally descriptive. There was no basis in the literature in exploring the chosen area. There is some weak presentation of the data. However, there is no real explanation of how the area effected the performance results. The area of supply chain was not really understood and there were no supporting references. Unfortunately, it is not clear that the supply chain data is understood. There is only a very weak text here, with no linkage of the area with results. NO ANSWER PROVIDED
There was no discussion of one of the areas from the simulation provided and hence, this was not attempted. You needed to explain one of the areas and its role in supply chain management. There was no discussion of the results and how the area effected these results.
2. Scenario Evaluation 600 words 20% Exceptional exploration and evaluation of the scenario. This has been conceptualised in an innovative way. Furthermore, the aligned supply chain recommendation/s are extraordinarily original and well-considered. Outstanding evaluation of one of the scenarios. The supply chain recommendation/s provided are aligned with the analysis completely and are original. There is an excellent level of analysis of a scenario. The analysis benefitted from the adept application of a range of analytical tools. You make some clear well-articulated suggestions for supply chain and operations improvement/s. Very good analysis of the scenario using a good range of analytical models. Some clear good improvement idea/s have been made for how the supply chain situation could be improved. Some analysis of the scenario has been made; this could have been more detailed. You consider how well they currently operate, but, there could have been more depth and understanding shown. You have made a good attempt at evaluating how they can improve their supply chain, however, this needed more reflection and consideration. There is a basic grasp of the scenario. But you don’t really demonstrate enough understanding of how the organisation works or apply the model in detail to get a higher mark. Your supply chain improvement/s are a bit too basic and needed more consideration. There has been no real analysis of a scenario. In this section, you should have considered one of the scenarios and explored it in more depth by applying a model(s) to the scenario (e.g. quality gap model; time/cost mapping; process mapping; etc.). You don’t discuss how they could improve their organisation through their systems and operations. The scenario is considered a little but this section is almost entirely descriptive and not linked to the case context. The ideas are weak and not aligned to the analysis. In this section, you should considered one of the scenarios in more detail and analysed it using a relevant model e.g. quality gap model; time/cost mapping; process mapping; etc. You don’t discuss how the supply chain situation could be improved. Weak description of the models completely out of context of the scenario. There are no ideas to improve the supply chain presented. In this section, you should have considered a scenario in detail by applying model/s to e.g. quality gap model; time/cost mapping; process mapping; etc. You don’t discuss how the supply chain could be improved. NO ANSWER PROVIDED
No supply chain scenario presented and no recommendations made or Part 2 was not attempted.
3. Plan and Risks (equivalent to 600 words) 30% An exceptional implementation plan. The steps to be taken to implement your supply chain idea are carefully identified in your report and included. You also explain how to handle and manage the risks associated with the supply chain improvement project. A professional project plan has been included that identifies the major steps and a clear timescale for these. A great deal of thought has gone into this outstanding plan. Furthermore, the major risks of this supply chain improvement project have been analysed well. A thorough implementation plan has been presented in your report that considers carefully the activities that would need to take place to fully implement your supply chain improvement. You have also developed a risk management plan that identified major risks and how these may be managed. A clear project plan has been provided that is well thought out and contains the main steps to implement your supply chain improvement. There is some discussion of the different risks, however, there needed to be a bit more careful consideration here. You supply chain improvement plan is clear, although a little too generic. There is some good discussion the different risks that the company may face, however, this could have been more thorough. A plan has been produced in this section and there is a risk assessment table. However, this section was not well developed and needed to be more analytical in the identification of the main activities to improve the supply chain and the risks that may be involved. The plan is not focused on operations, supply chains or the scenarios and seems very abstract. There needed to be more links to supply chains and the risks needed more consideration. The plan is too basic to show the organisation how to implement a supply chain improvement. It really needed more thought and consideration of the steps involved and of the potential risks. This is not really a plan, but some attempt has been made to think about implementation. This should be developed into a focused project plan. There needed to be more effort made to analyse the potential risks also. NO PLAN.You should include a plan that shows how your supply chain improvement could be implemented. You should identify each potential risk, assess its likelihood and impact and suggest ways to mitigate the risk.
Academic Rigour 10% The report was exceptional in the way it was written and presented. The reflection shows exceptional insight into your management skills. An outstandingly well-written and presented report. The presentation; expression; layout and use of diagrams was consistently outstanding. Outstanding understanding of the requirements of a supply chain manager. Extremely professional layout and formatting of your report. It is well-written and makes good use of diagrams and figures. The reflection on supply chain management skills is deep and constructive. Your report is well written and well-presented. In the main it has a clear structure and the layout and presentation is good. There is good evidence of reflecting on supply chain management skills. Your report is clear and there has been some attempts to make it professional. There is some reflection on management skills but it could have been deeper and more critical. The presentation of your report was average and there was not enough effort made to structure your report. There is the beginnings of reflection on your skills, which needed much more thought. Your report needed a lot more work to improve its presentation and structure. You needed to clearly indicate the sections. Reflection on your management skills was limited. Your report was weak in the way it was written and presented. You needed to put more thought and care into structuring your work and presenting it. There is little evidence of reflection on your management skills. The assignment was difficult to follow as there was no structure to it and it was poorly written. There was inadequate reflection on supply chain skill sets. NO ATTEMPT
No attempt was made to put the work together into a structure. It was difficult to make sense of the work as it was poorly written. There was no reflection on skill sets in the report.

ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS
LEVEL 7
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 Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2)
Knowledge & Understanding Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills
Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band 90-100% Achieves module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level 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 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 an exemplary use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Very high level 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. Exemplary 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 independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. High level development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills, 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% Satisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions Satisfactory knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions
40-49% A marginal pass in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level Basic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent Basic knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent.
30-39% A marginal fail in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level. Satisfies qualifying mark Limited knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions. Limited research skills impede use of learning resources and problem solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/ Professional skills not yet secure. Weak academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions
20-29% Fails to achieve module outcome(s) related to this GLO. Qualifying mark not satisfied. Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument. Little evidence of 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 virtually absent. Very weak academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions
10-19% Inadequate knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Wholly descriptive, with inadequate synthesis of existing scholarship and inadequate argument. Inadequate use of scholarly conventions. Inadequate use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Extremely weak academic/intellectual skills. Inadequate use of scholarly conventions
1-9% No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in 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 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 (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes
j

8. Attendance
Attending all your classes is very important and one of the best ways to help you succeed in this module. In accordance with the Student Charter, you are expected to arrive on time and take an active part in all your timetabled classes. If you are unable to attend a class for a valid reason (eg: illness), please contact the LAIBS Absences team by emailing:
Cambridge: [email protected] Chelmsford: [email protected]
Anglia Ruskin will closely monitor the attendance of all students and will contact you by e-mail if you have been absent without notice for two weeks. Please remember to “tap-in” using your Ruskin card at every taught session. Continued absence can result in various consequences including the termination of your registration as you will be considered to have withdrawn from your studies.

International students who are non-EEA nationals and in possession of entry clearance/leave to remain as a student (Tier 4 student visa) are required to be in regular attendance at Anglia Ruskin. Failure to do so is considered to be a breach of national immigration regulations. Failure to do so will have serious implications for your immigration status in the UK. Anglia Ruskin, like all British Universities, is statutorily obliged to inform UK Visa & Immigration (Home Office) of significant unauthorised absences by any student visa holders.

9. Assessment Offences

As an academic community, we recognise that the principles of truth, honesty and mutual respect are central to the pursuit of knowledge. Behaviour that undermines those principles weakens the community, both individually and collectively, and diminishes our values. We are committed to ensuring that every student and member of staff is made aware of the responsibilities s/he bears in maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and how those standards are protected.

You are reminded that any work that you submit must be your own. When you are preparing your work for submission, it is important that you understand the various academic conventions that you are expected to follow in order to make sure that you do not leave yourself open to accusations of plagiarism (eg: the correct use of referencing, citations, footnotes etc.) and that your work maintains its academic integrity.
Definitions of Assessment Offences

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is theft and occurs when you present someone else’s work, words, images, ideas, opinions or discoveries, whether published or not, as your own. It is also when you take the artwork, images or computer-generated work of others, without properly acknowledging where this is from or you do this without their permission.

You can commit plagiarism in examinations, but it is most likely to happen in coursework, assignments, portfolios, essays, dissertations and so on.

Examples of plagiarism include:

• directly copying from written work, physical work, performances, recorded work or images, without saying where this is from;
• using information from the internet or electronic media (such as DVDs and CDs) which belongs to someone else, and presenting it as your own;
• rewording someone else’s work, without referencing them; and
• handing in something for assessment which has been produced by another student or person.

It is important that you do not plagiarise – intentionally or unintentionally – because the work of others and their ideas are their own. There are benefits to producing original ideas in terms of awards, prizes, qualifications, reputation and so on. To use someone else’s work, words, images, ideas or discoveries is a form of theft.

Collusion

Collusion is similar to plagiarism as it is an attempt to present another’s work as your own. In plagiarism the original owner of the work is not aware you are using it, in collusion two or more people may be involved in trying to produce one piece of work to benefit one individual, or plagiarising another person’s work.

Examples of collusion include:

• agreeing with others to cheat;
• getting someone else to produce part or all of your work;
• copying the work of another person (with their permission);
• submitting work from essay banks;
• paying someone to produce work for you; and
• allowing another student to copy your own work.

Many parts of university life need students to work together. Working as a team, as directed by your tutor, and producing group work is not collusion. Collusion only happens if you produce joint work to benefit of one or more person and try to deceive another (for example the assessor).

Cheating

Cheating is when someone aims to get unfair advantage over others.

Examples of cheating include:

• taking unauthorised material into the examination room;
• inventing results (including experiments, research, interviews and observations);
• handing your own previously graded work back in;
• getting an examination paper before it is released;
• behaving in a way that means other students perform poorly;
• pretending to be another student; and
• trying to bribe members of staff or examiners.
Help to Avoid Assessment Offences

Most of our students are honest and want to avoid committing assessment offences. We have a variety of resources, advice and guidance available to help make sure you can develop good academic skills. We will make sure that we make available consistent statements about what we expect. In accordance with our ‘Academic Honesty Policy’, you will be able to do tutorials on being honest in your work from the library (http://anglia.libguides.com/GAP) and other central support services and faculties, and will be able to review your work for plagiarism using ‘Turnitin®UK’ (where appropriate), an online service for matched-text. You can get advice on how to use honestly the work of others in your own work from the library website (www.libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/referencing.htm) and your lecturer and personal tutor.

Turnitin®UK will produce a report which clearly shows if passages in your work have been matched with another source. Originality of assessment is an academic judgement and there is no generally acceptable upper or lower similarity score. You may talk about the matched-text in the ‘Turnitin®UK’ report with a member of academic staff to see where you may need to improve your academic practice. If you are not sure whether the way you are working meets our requirements, you should talk to your personal tutor, module tutor or other member of academic staff. They will be able to help you and tell you about other resources that will help you develop your academic skills.
Procedures for Assessment Offences

An assessment offence is the general term used to define cases where a student has tried to get unfair academic advantage in an assessment for himself or herself or another student.

We will fully investigate all cases of suspected assessment offences. If we prove that you have committed an assessment offence, an appropriate penalty will be imposed which, for the most serious offences, includes expulsion from Anglia Ruskin. For full details of our assessment offences policy and procedures, see Section 10 of the Academic Regulations at: www.anglia.ac.uk/academicregs.

10. Module Evaluation

During the second half of the delivery of this module, you will be asked to complete a module evaluation questionnaire to help us obtain your views on all aspects of the module.

This is an extremely important process which helps us to continue to improve the delivery of the module in the future and to respond to issues that you bring to our attention. The module report in section 11 of this module guide includes a section which comments on the feedback we received from other students who have studied this module previously.

Your questionnaire response is anonymous.

Please help us to help you and other students at Anglia Ruskin by completing the Module Evaluation survey. We very much value our students’ views and it is very important to us that you provide feedback to help us make improvements.

In addition to the Module Evaluation process, you can send any comment on anything related to your experience at Anglia Ruskin to [email protected] at any time.

11. Report on Last Delivery of Module

MODULE REPORT FORM

This form should be completed by module tutors (where there is more than one delivery) and forwarded to Module Leaders who compiles the results on to one form for use at the Programme Committee and other methods of disseminating feedback to students.

Module Code and Title:
Anglia Ruskin Department:
Location(s) of Delivery:
Academic Year: Semester/Trimester:
Enrolment Numbers (at each location):
Module Leader:
Other Module Tutors:

Student Achievement Provide a brief overview of student achievement on the module as evidenced by the range of marks awarded. A detailed breakdown of marks will be available at the Departmental Assessment Panel.
Feedback from Students Briefly summarise student responses, including any written comments
Module Leader/Tutor’s Reflection on Delivery of the Module, including Response to Feedback from Students (including resources if appropriate)
Developments during the current year or planned for next year (if appropriate)
External Examiner’s Comments State whether the external examiner agreed the marks and/or commented on the module

Re-Assessment Information

THIS INFORMATION ONLY APPLIES TO STUDENTS WHO ARE UNSUCCESSFUL IN THEIR FIRST SUBMISSION

The re-assessment for this module consists of two elements, check your results in e-vision.
Element Type of assessment Word or time limit Submission method Final Submission Date
010
Individual video presentation (Learning Outcomes 1-3) Maximum of
10 minutes

40% of the mark iCentre: hand in as a video on a USB stick or DVD Check E-vision for specific date.

011
Individual assignment (Learning Outcomes 1,2 and 4) 2000 words

60% of the mark Turnitin®UK GradeMark Check E-vision for specific date.

Re-assessment Element 010: Individual video presentation, worth 40% of the marks

THIS INFORMATION ONLY APPLIES TO STUDENTS WHO ARE UNSUCCESSFUL IN THEIR FIRST SUBMISSION

Prepare a 10 minute individual video presentation on your role in the simulation. A static web cam/camera phone quality is sufficient, as long as, it is clear enough to see the person presenting. No marks are awarded for the quality of the editing/camera work.

Your individual video presentation will be marked as follows:
Mark Learning
Outcome
Video Preparation 10% LO3
Presentation Content 1. Explain the theory/models behind the supply chain strategy your team used in the game. Explain how the strategy linked to the main operational aspects. 20% LO1

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of that strategy throughout the simulation, exploring successful aspects, trade-offs made and how risks were addressed. 30% LO2
3. Evaluate your role during the simulation game, exploring your strengths and areas for improvement. 20% LO3
Presentation Time and Depth 10% LO3
Individual presentation skills 10% LO3
TOTAL 100%
THIS INFORMATION ONLY APPLIES TO STUDENTS WHO ARE UNSUCCESSFUL IN THEIR FIRST SUBMISSION
Re-assessment Element 011: Individual Assignment, submit work via Turnitin/Grademark®, worth 60% of the marks
Mark Learning
Outcome
1. Simulation 800 words
Select a different area of the simulation scenario to your first assignment.*
Explain the significance of this area in terms of strategy and operations of a supply chain (using supply chain theory/models and ideas).

Track the performance of this are during the simulation and how the function/process had on overall results. Explain any trade-offs made in this area. 30% LO1, LO2
2. Scenario Evaluation 600 words
Select one of the scenarios that is different to the first assignment submitted.* You can choose any that you did not use before from either:
• A team Challenge: Customer Service gaps scenario (week 2/3). OR
• A complex Supply Chain scenario (week 9/10). OR
• A supply chain issue at an organisation you work for or have worked for (discuss with your tutor).
Summarise your evaluation of that one business scenario in 600 words, through applying supply chain theory/models and ideas to make a recommendation. 30% LO1, LO4
3. Plan and Risks (equivalent to 600 words)
Develop a project plan to improve the supply chain scenario you discussed in section 2 (i.e. implement your recommendation). This will include the risk assessment plan for the project.

This plan and risk assessment should be based on the new scenario, not the scenario explored in the first assignment submitted.* 30% LO4, LO2
Academic Rigour
Your assignment should clearly include the academic insight, i.e. the concepts and the supporting references involved, indicated in the report and listed in the references and bibliography. 10%
TOTAL: 100%

* You should include your first assignment as an Appendix.

Posted in Uncategorized

Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.