Digital Business Delivery-1

Module Handbook

Module Title:

Delivering Digital Business

Module Code:

MN7030SR

Module Leader:

Prof KOH Kee Lee

Prof (Dr) Alvin Chan

Session: 2024/25

Teaching period: Spring, March 2024

Pre-requisites: None

Canvas URL: https://stanfort.instructure.com

1. Teaching team

Details of staff teaching on the module

Name	Role	Office	Email
Professor KOH Kee Lee	Dean, EDP	Level 11, Stanfort Academy	[email protected]
Professor (Dr) Alvin CHAN	Senior Lecturer	Level 11, Stanfort Academy	[email protected] sg

2. Module Summary and Description

A business adds value through its operations, which today are typically highly dependent on the use of digital technology to link together organisations within the value network, connect with customers, improve delivery, personalise products and services, and match demand and supply. It is vital that managers and leaders understand both how business operations are designed, managed and improved, and the relationship between new product/service development and operations.

The potential for AI, the Internet of Things, big data and robotics to further increase the use of technology in the operational domain is already clear, whether using AI in in a legal process or robots to make burgers. An understanding of the links between technology and operations is critical for anyone aspiring to be a business manager, owner or entrepreneur. The course provides conceptual, analytical and practical insights into the effective management of operations in all organisations, in both the private and the public sectors. The course is concerned with large and small organisations from all over the world.

Throughout the course of the module consideration will be given to the need for businesses to reduce their impact on climate change and to operate in a sustainable and ethical manner.

The module aims to: • build knowledge and understanding of the key challenges of building and managing operations and technology systems • strengthen awareness of the importance of reducing contributions to climate change and the current and emerging means to achieve this goal in business operations • build knowledge and understanding of the role played by people in operational delivery including Lean and Agile working • equip students to be able to analyse and recommend improvements to the operation of a business system, whether a start-up or a well-established enterprise

Module Learning Outcomes

This module asks a fundamental question - how do organisations create and deliver value?. The module content is provided through traditional lectures, in class simulations and activities, group work and critically through independent learning. Students must study the core textbook (see weblearn) in addition to attending sessions; simply attending the session will not cover the depth of material to pass a course at this level.

On successful completion of the module students will be able to:

· Learning outcome 1 (LO1) Critique key practices and theories within the areas of operations management, service operations, and process management. 

· Learning outcome 2 (LO2) Critically evaluate the contribution of operations management and information systems to a business organisation’s performance and strategic aims

· Learning outcome (LO3) Critically evaluate the business operations implications of current and emerging digital technologies as opportunities and threats

Module Syllabus/Content

The syllabus covers the physical and digital creation and delivery of value through Operations Management, covering

· process management,

· supply chain management,

· lean operations and quality management,

· Inventory, capacity and Enterprise resource management,

· innovation, new product development,

· risk and knowledge management.

Examples and teaching materials are drawn from digital and analogue organisations, from the public, private and third sectors. We are concerned with the general principles of creating and delivering value, regardless of sector.

3. Indicative weekly teaching programme

The indicative weekly programme shows the topic likely to be covered in each teaching week, please note that the precise order can change. Check your Weblearn module for up to date information.

To view the time, date and location of class see your personal timetable available at

https://student.londonmet.ac.uk/timetable

LESSON	INDICATIVE CONTENT
A	Directing digital operations
1	Fundamentals of Operations
2	Ridge Farm Glider case
3	Designing, mapping and improving Processes
B	Developing digital operations
4	Value creation: Manufacturing/SC
5	Value creation; Services
6	Value creation: Digital Networks
C	Delivering digital operations
7	Planning & control: Inventory and ERP systems
8	Supply chain Management
9	Assessment 1 Group presentations between 22 – 29 April 2024 (to be advised by the lecturer)
D	Designing digital operations
10	Lean operations and Quality Management
11	Innovation, Design and Technology enablement
12	Managing for Value creation in Projects, Knowledge Management and Resilience, Review and Reflections
	Assessment 2 due on 18 June 2024 @ 11.59pm

To pass the module you must achieve an overall minimum mark of 50%. If you pass the module on re-assessment, the component you resit will be capped at a pass mark level of 50%

4. Reading lists

Core text:

Slack, N. and Brandon-Jones A. (2020). Operations Management. Pitman, 9th edition.

General

Caldwell, N.D., Roehrich, J. K., & George, G. (2017). Social Value Creation and Relational Coordination in Public-Private Collaborations . Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 54(6), 906–928 PDF on Google Scholar

Ihssan Jwijatia, I., Bititci, U.S., Caldwell, N.D., Garengo, P., Dan, W. (2021). Impact of national culture on performance measurement systems in manufacturing firms. Production Planning and Control, in press,   https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2026674

Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78(6), (May, 1973), pp. 1360- 1380 PDF on Google Scholar

tabell, C.B. and Fjeldstad, O.D. (1998), “Configuring value for competitive advantage: on chains,shops, and Networks”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19(5), pp. 413-437 PDF on Google Scholar

Services

Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. and Schlesinger, L.A., (1994) Putting the Service Profit Chain to Work, Harvard Business Review Mar/Apr, 72, 2,164-170 PDF on Google Scholar

Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68(1), Jan, pp. 1-17 PDF on Google Scholar

Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Vol.36, pp1–10 PDF on Google Scholar

Strategy

Berry, W.L., Hill, T. and Klompmaker, J.E. (1999) Aligning marketing and manufacturing strategies with the market, International Journal of Production Research, 37, 16 , pp 3599-3618 

Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of inter

organizational competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23(4), pp. 553-560 PDF on Google Scholar

Supply Network Management

Kim, Y., Yi-Su, C., Linderman, K. (2015). Supply Network disruption and resilience. Journal of Operations Management, Vol.33-34, pp43-59

Lamming, R., Johnsen, T., Zheng, J. and Harland, C. (2000) An initial classification of supply networks, International Journal of Production and Operations Management, 20, 6, 675-691

Han, Y., Caldwell, N.D., Ghadge, A. (2020). Social network analysis in operations and supply chain management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Production and Operations Management, Vol. 40(7/8), pp. 1153-1176

Procurement

Caldwell, N.D. Walker, H., Harland, C., Knight, L.A., Zheng, J., Wakeley, T. (2005). Promoting Competitive Markets: the role of Public Procurement. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol.11, (5&6), September-November, 242-251

Caldwell, N.D., Howard, M. (2014). A critical evaluation of contracting for complex performance in markets of few buyers and few sellers: the case of military procurement. International Journal of Production and Operations Management. Vol. 34(2), Feb, p270-294

Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management, Harvard Business Review, pp109-117 Definitely used the Library, internet version appears translated into Chinese.

Mapping and Improving Processes

Hammer, M. (1990) Regineering work: don't automate obliterate . Harvard Business Review, July-August,

Capacity Management

Guerrier, Y. and Lockwood, A. J. (1989) Managing Flexible Working in Hotels, The Service Industries Journal, 9, 3, 406-419

Lean Operations

Aitken, J., Childerhouse, P. Christopher, M. And Towill, D. (2005) Designing and managing multiple pipelines, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 (2), pp 73-96

Hines, P. Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004) Learning to evolve - A review of contemporary lean thinking. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24 10, 994-1011

Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25, pp420–437 PDF on Google Scholar The best.

Inventory Management

Berry, W.L. and Hill, T. (1992) Linking Systems to Strategy, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 12, 10, 3-15

Hawking, P. (2007) Implementing ERP Systems Globally: Challenges and Lessons Learned for Asian Countries, Journal of Business Systems, Governance, and Ethics, 2, 1, 21-32

Quality Management

Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2002) Quality management revisited: a reflective review and agenda for future research, Journal of Operations Management, 20, 91-109

Terziovski, M., Power, D. and Sohal, A.S. (2003) The longitudinal effects of the ISO 9000 certification process on business performance, European Journal of Operational Research, 146, 3, 580-595

Servitisation

Baines, T., Lightfoot, H., Peppard, J., Johnson, M., Tiwari, A., Shehab, E. and Swink, M. (2009),

“Towards an operations strategy for product-centric servitization”, International Journal of

Operations and Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 494-519

Smith, L., Maull, R. and Ng, I.C.L. (2014), “Servitization and operations management: a service

dominant-logic approach”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,

Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 242-269.

Sousa, R. and de Silveira, G.J. (2019) “The relationship between servitization and product

customization strategies”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,

Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 454-474

Supply Chain

Ghadge, A. Dani, S., Ojha, R., Caldwell, N. D. (2017). Using risk sharing contracts for supply chain risk mitigation: A buyer-supplier power and dependence perspective . Computers & Industrial Engineering. Vol. 103, 01.2017, p. 262–270

Fisher, M.L. (1997). What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp105-116 PDF on Google Scholar

Kim, Y. and Choi, T.Y. (2015), “Deep, sticky, transient, and gracious: an expanded buyer-supplier

relationship typology”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51(3), pp. 61-86

Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V., Whang, S. (1997). The Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp93-102 PDF on Google Scholar

Outsourcing

McIvor, R. (2009). How the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm inform outsourcing evaluation. Journal of Operations Management . Volume 27, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 45-63 PDF on Google Scholar

Classic article combining TCE, RBV and outsourcing

Arnold, U. (2000). New dimensions of outsourcing: a combination of transaction cost economics and the core competencies concept. European journal of purchasing & supply management, Volume 6, Issue 1, March, Pages 23-29 PDF on Google Scholar

Transaction Cost Economics and Supply Chain / RBV

Williamson, O.E. (1975). Economic Organization: The Case For Candor, Academy of Management Review  VOL. 21, NO. 1 |,

Williamson, O.E. (2005). Transaction cost economics and business administration . Scandinavian Journal of Management Volume 21, Issue 1, March 2005, Pages 19-40 PDF on Google Scholar

Williamson, O.E. (2008). OUTSOURCING: TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS AND SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT, Journal of supply chain management, 44(2), pp5-16 PDF on Google Scholar

Resource Based View / Capabilities

Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management , 17(1) pp99-120 Not in Library but PDF on Google Scholar

Barney, J.B. (1999). How a firm's capabilities affect boundary decisions. Sloan Management Review, 40, pp137-145 PDF on Google Scholar

TEECE, D.J., PISANO, G., SHUEN, A. (1997). DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18:7, 509–533 (1997) PDF on Google Scholar

Wernerfelt, B. (1984)  A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), pp171-180 PDF on Google Scholar

5. Academic Integrity and Plagiarism

Academic integrity requires honesty in your studies. You should not present another person’s sentences or ideas as your own work. You should clearly identify quotations through the use of quotation marks and references to the sources. Failure to adhere to these academic standards may lead to allegations of Academic Misconduct, which will be investigated by the Student Casework Office.

Academic Misconduct covers a variety of practices, such as:

· Plagiarism: copying another person’s ideas or words and presenting them as your own work, without the use of quotation marks and/or references;

· Self-plagiarism: resubmitting, in part, or in entirety one of your assignments for another piece of work; Inventing, altering or falsifying the results of experiments or research;

· Commissioning or contracting another person to complete an assessment;

· Colluding with others in the production of a piece of assessed work which is presented as entirely your own work;

· Cheating in an exam (for example, but not limited to taking revision notes into the exam room or copying off another student during an exam).

For full details of Academic Misconduct and how allegations are investigated, see the relevant section of the University’s academic regulations: https://student.londonmet.ac.uk/your-studies/student-administration/rules-and-regulations/academic-misconduct/ .

6. Assessment

All assessments are designed to support your learning and help you develop a deeper understanding of the topics covered in your module.

· Formative assessments provide an opportunity to learn and do not contribute to your grade.

· Summative assessments contribute to your overall mark and grades.

Module Assessments (Summative)

Assessment Methods	Description of Item	% weighting	Week Due
Presentation	Group presentations	30%	15 April 2024
Written assignment	Individual work on the creation and delivery of value by an organisation of your choice.	70%	18 June 2024@1159 hours

7. Assessment Brief

Assessment 1

· This summative assessment for MN7030 is a Group Presentation with your findings delivered in class. The Group Presentation will be recorded for the second marker.

· The presentations will be delivered during the scheduled lesson from 22 to 29 April 2024. A copy of the ppt slides have to be uploaded onto Canvas from 15 April 2024.

· You are required to submit your assessment online access as a PowerPoint file (.pptx).

· Your presentation should not exceed 12 minutes and will be followed by 5 minutes for questions. All group members must contribute equally to delivering the presentation.

· The names of all group members and their student numbers should be on the title page of the presentation.

· A total of 100 marks are available for this module assessment which represents 30% of the total marks for the module.

· A total of 100 marks are available for this module assessment. Each member of the group will receive the same mark unless:

· during the presentation, there are differences in individual contribution. Up to 10 marks are allocated for individual contributions during the presentation.

· no later than 3 days before the presentation, team members raise with the module leader the issue of an individual not meeting their commitments. A reduction of up to 10 marks may be made be made for failure to meet commitments to the group as evidenced in the group meeting minutes.

· There is no requirement for referencing

· The University takes academic misconduct very seriously and seeks at all times to rigorously protect its academic standards. Plagiarism, collusion and other forms of cheating constitute academic misconduct, for which there is an explicit range of graduated penalties depending on the particular type of academic misconduct. The penalties that can be applied if academic misconduct is substantiated range from a reprimand to expulsion in very serious cases and for repeated instances of misconduct. Guidance on preventing plagiarism is available here: https://learning.londonmet.ac.uk/TLTC/learnhigher/Plagiarism/

The brief

Select either one organisation’s application of a new technology, or a new technology itself. Critically evaluate the business operations implications for our personal and/or business lives of this emerging technology. Critically evaluate the implications of adopting this new technology in terms of opportunities and threats.

N.B. be sure to include something about the environmental and sustainability issues around the technology, and ethical issues if relevant.

Presentation Structure

You should structure your presentation as follows:

· Title page

· Group member list

· Executive Summary

· Introduce your organisation/technology

· What/how does it change our business or personal lives

· Opportunities/Threats of adoption

Assessment 2

· This summative assessment 2 is for MN7030 Digital Business Delivery. Some of the general points for this assessment are given below:

· The deadline for submission FOR ALL STUDENTS REGARDLESS OF COHORT is 11.59pm on 18 June 2024.  Please note that late submissions will not be marked. 

· You are required to submit your assessment via online access. Hard copies or any other digital form of submissions (e.g. via email) will not be accepted. 

· For this coursework, the submission word limit is an absolute maximum, of 2,500 words. The cover sheet, table of contents, executive summary, numerical tables, diagrams, references, appendices, and annexes are included within the 2,500 words count calculations. You must specify the total word count on the front page of your report. Sticking to a strict word limit is difficult and an important skill for you to acquire, so make sure that you write in a concise and focused manner.

· Your report should be typed font size 12 and 1.5 line spacing with Arial or Times New Roman. You must include a word count at the start of the report.

· Do not put your name or contact details anywhere on your submission. You should only put your student number on the cover page to ensure your submission is recognised in the marking process. 

· A total of 100 marks are available for this module assessment which represents 70% of the total marks for the module.

· All your references must have correct citations in the main body text and a complete reference in the list of references using the Harvard Referencing Format (see https://student.londonmet.ac.uk/library/subject-guides-and-research-support/referencing-and-copyright/referencing/ for guidance).

· The University takes academic misconduct very seriously and always seeks to rigorously protect its academic standards. Plagiarism, collusion, and other forms of cheating constitute academic misconduct, for which there is an explicit range of graduated penalties depending on the particular type of academic misconduct. The penalties that can be applied if academic misconduct is substantiated range from a reprimand to expulsion in very serious cases and for repeated instances of misconduct. Guidance on preventing plagiarism is available here: https://learning.londonmet.ac.uk/TLTC/learnhigher/Plagiarism/

The Brief

Select an organisation that you can apply what you are learning on this course, and research relevant articles, you should have at least 10 reference sources and higher marks will go to the use of good quality operations and information systems journal references. This could be a service operation, such as a coffee shop, project and construction companies, other retail or distribution, transport or manufacturing operation but it has to be one where you can identify the contribution of operations management. Students commonly select companies from the following list – but you may want to do something more original such as an organisation you have worked for, or admire such as an independent retailer of coffee shop: Tesco, Amazon, Toyota, ZARA, Starbucks, McDonald’s KFC etc. More original choices usually produce higher marks but well known organisations can be safer – remember our discussions of trade offs!

Note: If you pick firms in a complex technology industry select a part of the industry not the whole supply chain otherwise your work will be too broad and lack analytical depth. EG, you might choose Apple, but only one part e.g. customer facing retail, manufacturing or supply chain, but not all!.

1.1 Required in your report:

First study again Learning outcomes 1 and 2. Then study the assignment marking scheme below (section 3) are two main parts should be answered in your report. Note that beyond the normal requirements of a report (an executive summary, good structure and conclusions/recommendations) the core of the marks are for e valuating the objectives of the selected organisation. You might discuss aspects of operations and digital strategy, goals and objectives, contribution to competitive priorities, order qualifiers/winners, customers, and technology. Flowing on from this analysis, in a strategic sense what is operations and digital management expected to deliver? Therefore what is the organisation’s operations and digital management required to deliver? How does Operations and technology management translate these organisational goals into tangible outcomes and processes?

Essentially address the question how does the operation management of your organisation deliver on the strategy? What are the opportunities and barriers of implementing operations management in your chosen company?

8. Grading criteria

Grade	Indicative mark range	Code
Pass	50-100 %	P
Reassess	<50 %	R

Level 7 Generic Grade Descriptions

Mark	Achievement level
Distinction	85-100%	a) Outstanding work showing extensive knowledge and understanding of an extensive range of relevant operations management and digital management trends, scenarios, issues, concepts, theories and data. Exceptional ability to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate. b) Solutions and recommendations demonstrate strong ethical appreciation and deep understanding of the need for corporate responsibility. c) Evidence of extensive reading, study and sense making beyond the course content, and of independent thought. d) Writing that is fluent, clear, concise and grammatically correct. Tables, diagrams and other figures are highly effectively in supporting the text and presenting key messages. e) Numeric analysis that is complete and free from errors with application of methods that may be insightful or original  f) A submission that is focused and relevant to the task, comprehensive, accurate, and presented in a very professional manner. Excellent use made of digital technology. g) Demonstrates strong ability to pursue research at Doctoral Level. h) Comprehensive, error free citations and reference list.
	70-84%	a) Excellent work showing extensive knowledge and understanding of a considerable variety of operations management and digital delivery management trends, scenarios, issues, concepts, theories and data. Good analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. b) Solutions and recommendations demonstrate ethical appreciation and awareness of the need for corporate responsibility. c) Evidence of substantial reading, study and sense making beyond the course content and of independent thought. d) Writing is fluent, clear, concise and grammatical. Strong use of tables, diagrams and other figures in supporting the text and presenting key messages. e) Numeric analysis that is complete and mostly free from errors with appropriate application of methods.  i) A submission that is relevant to the task, comprehensive, accurate, and presented in a well-structured and organised manner. Good use made of digital technology. j) Demonstrates the ability to pursue research at Doctoral Level. k) Comprehensive citations, and correct use of the Harvard style in the reference list.
Merit	60-69%	a) Good work showing wide knowledge and understanding of an extensive range of relevant business trends, scenarios, issues, concepts, and theories. Some analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. b) Ethics and corporate responsibility questions are considered. c) Questions of ethics and corporate responsibility are addressed appropriately. d) Reference made to relevant course material with evidence of some reading, study and sense making beyond the course content and some independent thought. e) Writing is clear, mostly concise, and has few grammatical errors. Good use of tables, diagrams and other figures in supporting the text and presenting key messages. f) Numeric analysis that is complete and mostly free from errors with relevant and effective application of methods.  g) A submission that is relevant to the task though less than completely comprehensive, is mostly accurate, and is well presented. Mostly good use of digital technology. h) Effective use of citations and a complete reference list. Some minor errors in use of the Harvard style
Pass	50-59%	a) Adequate work showing reasonable knowledge and understanding of relevant business issues, concepts, and theories. Limited analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. b) There is some clear but limited consideration of ethics and corporate responsibility. c) Little or no evidence of reading, study and sense making beyond the course content and little or no independent thought. d) Writing is less than clear, is not concise and has some grammatical errors. Some use of tables, diagrams and other figures in supporting the text and presenting key messages. e) Numeric analysis that is mostly complete and free from significant or critical errors with appropriate application of methods f) A submission that is mostly relevant to the task and reasonably accurate, but not very comprehensive and with some errors and shortcomings of presentation, structure and organisation. Basic use of digital technology in the creation and presentation of the work. g) Adequate citation and reference list. Some errors in use of the Harvard style and some missing citations.
Fail	40-49%	a) A weak piece of work showing only limited knowledge and understanding of course content with substantial errors or omissions. Mainly descriptive with little or no analysis, synthesis and evaluation, and no independent thought. b) Ethical and corporate responsibility issues are not considered. c) Evidence of a range of sources but with reliance on inappropriate sources without critical evaluation. d) Writing is not clear and has frequent grammatical errors. e) Numeric analysis that is mostly complete but contains errors with significant effect, or methods that are applied inappropriately  f) Much of the submission is not relevant to the task. Lacking in professionalism, weak presentation, poorly structured and organised. Ineffective use of digital technology in the creation of the work. g) Limited citation and reference list.
	30-39%	A poor piece of work with extensive errors and omissions, badly written and ungrammatical. A little relevant material but poorly presented with little evidence of understanding. Weak use of digital technology.
	0-29%	A very poor piece of work lacking in understanding and with serious errors and omissions but with evidence of some knowledge vaguely relevant to the question.

2