Final Project: Presentation
Tggri2147
FinalProject.docxPlease read all before bidding.
This project is not just for 12 slides, notes to the slides also need to be including with references to the reading material.
The project must be written to the grading rubric that is included.
Final Project: Presentation
You will create a PowerPoint presentation to be made to the CEO, Operations Manager and Board of Directors of Jones Company, in which you assume the role of Department Manager of Supply Chain for the Jones Company. In this presentation you will be making recommendations based upon the application of S&OP planning strategies to the Jones company supply chain.
Purpose:
The purpose of this assignment is for you to show how supply change and logistics must align and integrate to the company's resources and how a good manager can effectively and efficiently make the integration and alignment in the best interests of the company. You will create a PowerPoint presentation to the CEO, Board and Operations Manager explaining how it will can be done.
Instructions:
Jones Company has made a number of improvements, thanks to your help, but they need to better integrate and align their resources to better serve their customers and improve profitability. As your final assignment, discuss how Jones can use Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) to bring about more cohesion in their operation. Prepare a 12 slide proposal that identifies what activities should be included in their S&OP approach, what should be discussed in their regular S&OP meetings, and what type of metrics (performance metrics) need to be developed and communicated.
Required Elements of the Presentation:
Identify what specific activities should be included in the S&OP approach.
•Clearly explain why the activities should be included and why it will benefit the company.
•What should be on the agenda for discussion on the regular S&OP meetings.
•Explain why these ideas should be on the planning agenda weekly.
•What type of metrics (performance metrics) need to be developed and communicated.
•Explain your rationale for selecting these measures in terms of their pros and cons, using evidence and examples and how they affect the change you are proposing.
Required Formatting of Presentation:
Your presentation is being made to the CEO, Board of Directors and VP for Operations and therefore should be short and concise.
•It should flow well with one slide leading to the next logically. The information should be presented in bullet format with explanation in the note section only.
•The note section would contain what you would "actually say" in the presentation. It must contain support from the class material, facts /conclusions derived from the previous projects.
•The PowerPoint presentation consists of at least 12 slides. Note that students may use Prezi rather than PPT. (Use “Click Here to Add Notes” for talking points).
•Third person writing is required. Third person means that there are no words such as “I, me, my, we, or us” (first person writing), nor is there use of “you or your” (second person writing). If uncertain how to write in the third person, view this link: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/first-second-and-third-person.
•Contractions are not used in business writing, so you are expected NOT to use contractions in writing this assignment.
•The expectation is that you provide a robust use of the course readings. No other books besides the course eBook, if the course has one, can be used. When using a source document, the expectation is that the information is cited and referenced with a page or paragraph number.
Class Readings Links:
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/strategic-supply-chain-management-2221231
https://www.executestrategy.net/blog/how-to-write-a-strategic-plan
https://www.smartsheet.com/sales-operations-planning-101
https://apics-vancouver.org/images/downloads/PDM_s/s_op_to_vancouver_pdm_26_feb_15.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTcXsKIokys&t=25s
Grading Rubric
|
Criteria |
Excellent |
Good |
Developing |
Needs Improvement |
Failure |
|
Identification of S&OP approach activities |
2.5 points
Identification was made of S&OP approach activities. The list showed insightful understanding of the S&OP approach. More than 4 activities were selected. Selections reflect a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in a demonstration of insightful reasoning.
(2.25 - 2.5) |
2.125 points
Identification was made of 3 S&OP approach activities were selected. The list showed a good understanding of the S&OP approach. Selection reflect a strong level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts.
(2.0 - 2.24) |
1.875 points
3 activities were selected; list reflected a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in partially correct conclusions that lack development or detail that demonstrates insight into reasoning.
(1.75 - 1.99) |
1.625 points
3 activities were selected; list reflected a weak level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material; list reflects an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in conclusions that are underdeveloped or lack soundly reasoned conclusions.
(1.5 - 1.74) |
0 points
No discussion of the activities was present; only 1 or 2 activities suggested and list reflected minimal to no level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little to no conclusions.
(0 - 1.49) |
|
Explanation as to why the activities were selected and how they benefit company |
3 points
Presents exceptionally well-supported explanation as to why the activities were selected with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implications and extensions of the material and concepts.
(2.7 - 3.0) |
2.55 points
Presents a well-supported explanation as to why the activities were selected; explanation was mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts but one or two ideas were underdeveloped or missing.
(2.4 - 2.69) |
2.25 points
Satisfactory arguments were presented for the selection of the list but there is a mix of opinion or unclear view with supported arguments using course readings missing. Case study facts are occasionally used but arguments would be much stronger with use of facts.
(2.1 - 2.39) |
1.95 points
List explanation is illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in course readings.
(1.8- 2.09) |
0 points
List lacks meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not provide facts presented in case study.
(0 - 1.79) |
|
Identification of agenda items for regular S&OP meetings |
2.5 points
Identification of agenda items was made. The list showed insightful understanding of the S&OP. More than 4 items were selected. Selections reflect a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in a demonstration of insightful reasoning.
(2.25 - 2.5) |
2.125 points
Identification of agenda items was made. The list showed a good understanding of the S&OP. 3 items were selected.The list showed a good understanding of the S&OP approach. Selection reflect a strong level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts but one item was underdeveloped.
(2.0 - 2.24) |
1.875 points
3 items were selected; list reflected a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in partially correct conclusions that lack development or detail that demonstrates insight into reasoning.
(1.75 - 1.99) |
1.625 points
1-2 items were selected; list reflected a weak level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material; list reflects an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in conclusions that are underdeveloped or lack soundly reasoned conclusions.
(1.5 - 1.74) |
0 points
No discussion of the items list only was presented; only 1 or 2 items suggested and list reflected minimal to no level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little to no conclusions.
(0 - 1.49) |
|
Explanation of why agenda items should be on the planning agenda weekly |
3 points
Demonstrates exceptional understanding of requirements responding completely to each aspect of assignment including minor aspects of the assignment such as using third person writing, required use of course readings, and assignment format.
(2.7 - 3.0) |
2.55 points
Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment.
(2.4 - 2.69) |
2.3 points
Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.
(2.1 - 2.39) |
1.95 points
Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.
(1.8 - 2.09) |
0 points
Fails to demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements.
(0 - 1.79) |
|
Identification of the performance metrics need to be developed and communicated |
2.5 points
Identification of performance metrics was made and communicated. The list showed insightful understanding of the types of metrics to be developed. Selections reflect an excellent level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in a demonstration of insightful reasoning.
(2.25 - 2.5) |
2.125 points
Identification of performance metrics was made and communicated. The list showed a good understanding of the types of metrics to be developed and applied. Selection reflect a strong level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts but one item was underdeveloped.
(2.0 - 2.24) |
1.875 points
Identification of performance metrics was made and communicated. The list showed a satisfactory understanding of the types of metrics to be developed. Selection of the metrics reflected a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting in partially correct conclusions that lack development or detail that demonstrates insight into reasoning.
(1.75 - 1.99) |
1.625 points
Performance metrics discussed but not selected; list reflected a weak level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material; list reflects an unsatisfactory level of reasoning supported by case material and case study facts, resulting in conclusions that are underdeveloped or lack soundly reasoned conclusions. |
0 points
No discussion of the metrics and/or list only was presented; discussion reflected minimal to no level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little to no conclusions.
(0 - 1.49) |
|
Discussion of why these metrics warrant the proposed changes using examples, evidence and a discussion of their pros and cons |
3 points
Presents exceptionally well-supported explanation as to why the metrics chosen best support the proposed change with evidence from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and recognize implications and extensions of the material and concepts.
(2.7 - 3.0) |
2.5 points
Presents a well-supported explanation as to why the metrics chosen best support the proposed changes; explanation was mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts but one major concept was underdeveloped or missing.
(2.4 - 2.69) |
2.3 points
Satisfactory arguments were presented for the selection of the support of the metrics chosen but there is a mix of opinion or unclear view with supported arguments using course readings missing. Case study facts are occasionally used but arguments would be much stronger with use of facts.
(2.1 - 2.39) |
1.95 points
Explanation is illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of facts in case study and essential information presented in course readings.
(1.8 - 2.09) |
0 points
Discussion lacks meaningful explanation or support for why the metrics were best for the changes proposed. Does not provide facts presented in case study or class material; no attempt to discuss the reasoning behind metric selection was made.
(0 - 1.79) |
|
Slide Presentation and Flow |
2.5 points
Presentation flows well and logically; transitions are smooth, interesting, persuasive and enhance presentation. The slides are bulleted, contain intext citation were appropriate and notes explain the slides while supporting the conclusions drawn. Reference list was included in a separate slide at the end.
(2.25 - 2.5) |
2.125 points
Presentation flows well; smooth transitions; use of persuasiveness was underdeveloped in some areas; slides were bulleted and contained APA intext citations where appropriate, notes mostly explained the slides. Reference list was included in a separate slide at the end of the presentation.
(2.0 - 2.24) |
1.875 points
Presentation mostly flowed smooth transitions used were missing in one or two slides; no use of persuasive language; slides were bulleted but the intext citations were missing one or two times; notes were generally instructive of the material presented. Reference list included in a separate slide at the end.
(1.75 - 1.99) |
1.625 points
Presentation is unorganized; very few transitions and/or they distract from presentation; persuasiveness was generally undeveloped. Slides contained all discussion rather than the notes. Support for the information presented was minimal.
(1.5 - 1.74) |
0 points
No presentation was provided or the presentation was minimal with only ideas listed with no development of the material presented.
(0 - 1.49) |
|
Attention to Instructions |
3 points
Demonstrates exceptional understanding of requirements responding completely to each aspect of assignment including minor aspects of the assignment such as using third person writing, required use of course readings, and assignment format |
2.5 points
Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed one minor aspect of assignment.
(2.4 - 2.69) |
2.3 points
Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements; missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.
(2.1 - 2.39) |
1.95 points
Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.
(1.8 - 2.09) |
0 points
Fails to demonstrate any understanding of assignment requirements and or submits the wrong assignment.
(0 - 1.79) |
|
Writing Mechanics |
2 points
Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English, including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, run-on sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors, spelling and grammatical errors. No errors found. No contractions or jargon used.
(1.8 - 2.0) |
1.7 points
Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. One to three errors found.
(1.6 - 1.79) |
1.5 points
Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. Four to 10 errors found.
(1.4 - 1.59) |
1.3 points
Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English, including capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.
( 1.2 - 1.39) |
0 points
Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics: conventions of written English largely incomprehensible; or errors are too plentiful to count.
(0 - 1.19) |
|
APA Format |
2 points
No APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material is used throughout paper; Reference titles follow APA with only the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns capitalized.
(1.8 - 2.0) |
1.7 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA style errors noted or fails to use APA citations when appropriate 1-2 times.
(1.6 - 1.79 |
1.5 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors are noted throughout document; Fails to use APA citations when appropriate 3 times in document.
(1.4 - 1.59) |
1.3 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; Fails to use APA citation when appropriate 4-5 times; or presents only 1-2 in-text citations and reference list in a paper that requires APA citations throughout the document.
(1.2 - 1.39) |
0 points
No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or reference list but omits the other.
(0 - 1.19) |
