OSCM case study
Gaurav123
OSM_Accessibleassignmentbrief_2020-2021v2.docxAssessment Instructions
To complete this module students must submit an Individual Written Assignment (2500 words excluding references) (weight = 100%)
Students should examine the case study using and applying concepts drawn from the module.
The case study will be published on Blackboard.
To pass this assessment, the written assignment must include an analysis and discussion based on the Operations & Supply Management module concepts.
Students should discuss the two topics below applying them to the case study:
· Capacity & Demand Management
· Location implications
Expected content: definition of concepts, explanation and their application to the case study using adequate and relevant examples. Discussion should include evaluation and critical analysis.
Indicative/suggested structure:
· Overview of topics (1000 words)
· Case study analysis (1000 words)
· Recommendations (500 words)
Marking Criteria
The following criteria will be used in evaluating this assessment:
· KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING of the topic (20%): Provides definitions and explains concepts in own words.
· APPLICATION (20%): Applies the module topics to the case study and uses relevant examples from the case study.
· EVALUATION (20%): Analyses the case study, evaluating the information provided (discussion goes beyond descriptive analysis or a mere copy of case study statements)
· RECOMMENDATIONS (20%): Provides recommendations for the company based on the application and linking to other module topics (in addition to the main topics discussed).
· COMMUNICATION AND PRESENTATION (10%): Effectively engages in debate in a professional manner and produces detailed and coherent reports.
· REFERENCING STYLE (10%): Referencing according to Harvard style; In-text referencing; Full list of references
Note: At least one textbook must be used to support the assignment. Avoid website references such as Investopedia, Wikipedia, etc. or relying solely on the information on the lecture slides.
Please see a detailed marking grid in Appendix A.
Formative feedback and support during the module
Formative feedback provides opportunities to reflect on your ongoing work and preparation for your assignment. This will be done on an ongoing basis thorufhout the module in the tutorial sessions. Support to your assignment will be provided in each tutorial.
Tutors will not read full drafts but will provide support and guidance within the tutorials.
Further information about this assessment is available on the Blackboard site for this module and includes: FAQs and guidance videos.
Formatting
Please use the following file format(s): Word or .pdf. We cannot ensure that other formats are compatible with markers’ software and cannot guarantee to mark incorrect formats.
All work should be word processed in 12-point font Times New Roman or Arial and single spaced.
The first page of your coursework must include:
· Your student number
· The module name and number
· Your word count
Word Limit
The maximum word limit for this coursework is 2500 words (excluding references).
· There is no +/- 10% on word count and anything after the maximum word count will not be marked, in line with UWE Bristol’s Word Count Policy.
· In line with UWE policy, this word count includes everything in the main body of the text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, lists, etc.).
· The references, bibliography and footnotes (provided footnotes only include references) are NOT included in this word count.
Referencing and Assessment Offences
Please ensure you reference all sources used when developing your assessment, using the UWE Harvard. Failure to properly reference your work to original source material can be grounds for the assessment offence of plagiarism and may result in failure of the assessment or more serious implications. Further guidance on correct referencing is available on UWE’s Study Skills referencing pages.
UWE’s Assessment Offences Policy outlines potential offences and it is your responsibility to understand this policy and avoid potential offences. Details of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it can be found on UWE’s Study Skills pages about avoiding plagiarism.
Text-matching software (e.g. SafeAssign) is used to check every submission against other submissions made at the same time, previous submissions to UWE and other universities, and internet sources. We may also manually search for matches. When submitting your work, you will be required to confirm that the work is your own.
It is an assessment offence to:
· copy work from any source, including your own previous assessments, and present it as your own work for this assessment, or to provide your own work to others
· to work with others on the assessment in any way, or for anyone to make amends on your work (including proofreaders, who may highlight issues but not edit the work)
· change individual words but keep, essentially, the same sentences and/or structures from other sources: this will be detected by text-matching software. Please write in your own words and style to convey your own learning.
Instructions for submission
You must submit your assignment before the stated deadline by electronic submission through Blackboard. Notification that the electronic submission portal is open for your assignment is displayed (usually two weeks before the submission date) in the Coursework tab in myUWE, the Coursework tab in Blackboard and via an announcement in the Blackboard course.
Please allow sufficient time to upload your assignment, as the system becomes busier and slower as the deadline approaches. Only your final upload will be counted. Ensure all your information is submitted at one attempt to avoid overwriting your intended submission. Always check and retain your receipts.
Late submission in the 24 hours following the deadline will be accepted but the assignment mark will be capped at a pass. Submissions after 24 hours will not be accepted. For full guidance on online submission through Blackboard, see UWE’s Academic Advice pages on Assignments.
Submissions of coursework by any other method (including a paper copy, on disk or by email) are NOT permissible for this module unless specifically agreed in advance of the submission date.
Before submitting your work, please ensure that:
· You have proof read you work thoroughly to ensure your work is presented appropriately
· You have addressed all the required elements of the assessment
· You have referenced in accordance with the guidance provided
· You have addressed each of the marking criterion
· The submission is in the correct format
Final feedback and marks release
Students will normally receive marks and feedback on their submission within 20 working days of the submission deadline (not including public holidays or university closure days). Any delay in returning students’ work will be communicated by the module leader via Blackboard.
Feedback on this module is not limited to the written comments you will receive on individual written assessment submissions.
Feedback and marks for this module will be available by 23 February 2021. For further guidance on feedback, please refer to the module handbook.
Further guidance and support
There are a number of sources of support to improve your study skills, including:
· The UWE Library Study Skills pages – for online support and bookable workshops
· The Faculty of Business and Law’s Academic Success Centre for bookable workshops
· Guidance on using UWE’s Library.
Specific study skills pages relating to this module include:
· How to plan and structure your writing
· Further research skills / techniques
For further guidance on UWE assessment regulations and terminology see UWE’s Academic Advice pages.
Personal Circumstances
If you are experiencing difficulties in completing a piece of assessment on time due to unexpected circumstances (for example illness, accident, bereavement), seek advice from a Student Support Adviser at the earliest opportunity. Appointments can be made via an Information Point or online via the Student Support Pages.
Student Support Advisers can advise as to whether you should submit an application for ‘Personal Circumstances (PCs)’, how to do so and what evidence is required to support the application. Further details on PCs can be found on the Student Support Pages.
The module leader cannot grant personal circumstances or extensions.
4
Appendix A: Marking grid
|
(Total mark: 100%)
|
Excellent
|
Good |
Satisfactory
|
Needs improvement
|
Fail |
|
KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING of the topic Provides academic definitions and explains concepts in own words. (20%) |
Excellent understanding of topic, significant relevant material included. Excellent definition and explanation of concepts. (20) |
Good understanding of topic, relevant material included. Good definition and explanation of concepts. (15) |
Satisfactory understanding of topic, mostly relevant material included. Satisfactory definition and explanation of concepts. (10) |
Acceptable understanding of topic, mostly relevant material included. Acceptable definition but the explanation might not always be clear. (5) |
Poor understanding of topic, significant irrelevant material included. Unclear definition, no sources used and limited to no explanation of concepts. (0) |
|
APPLICATION (application of concepts to the case) Applies the module topics to the case study and uses relevant examples from the case study. (20%) |
Shows detailed application of module topics relevant to the case study. All relevant concepts (on that topic) are covered and applied and examples are relevant to the area of study. Always uses extremely detailed and relevant examples from the case study to support argument. (20) |
Shows good application of module topics relevant to the case study. Most relevant concepts (on that topic) are covered and applied and examples are relevant to the area of study. Mostly uses relevant examples from the case study to support each argument. (15) |
Shows general application of the module topics relevant to the case study. Understands most concepts which are related to study. Satisfactory application of concepts with minor misunderstandings. Sometimes uses relevant examples; some examples provided out of context of argument. (10) |
Shows limited application of module topics relevant to the case study. Understands concepts but application is incomplete or inappropriate. Not many relevant examples used to support arguments made. (5) |
Very limited use of concepts and theories. Application is not given or considered. No use of examples to support argument. (0) |
|
EVALUATION Analyses the case study, evaluating the information provided (discussion goes beyond descriptive analysis or a mere copy of case study statements) (20%) |
Well integrated study with in-depth original and critical analysis. In depth and critical evaluation of material. Draws detailed conclusions relevant to study. (20) |
Largely integrated study with a good level of original and critical analysis. Critical evaluation of most data. Most conclusions relevant to study. (15) |
Mostly integrated study with some original and critical analysis. Evaluates using a selection of techniques to judge information. Some conclusions are not drawn from the information. (10) |
Predominately descriptive, without originality or critical analysis. Unable to make judgements about relevance and significance of information. (5) |
Wholly descriptive. Unable to judge the value of information. (0) |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS Provides recommendations for the company’s operations based on the application and linking to other module topics (in addition to the main chosen topic). (20%) |
Excellent operational recommendations for the organisation have been made. These have been based on and linked back to the analysis of the case. Several additional module topics are used in the recommendations. (20) |
Good operational recommendations for the organisation have been made. Generally based on and linked back to the analysis of the case. Some additional module topics are used in the recommendations. (15) |
Reasonable operational recommendations for the organisation have been made. Might not always be directly based on or linked back to the analysis of the case. General reference to other module topics in the recommendations. (10) |
Little to no operational recommendations for the organisation have been made. Not directly based on or unclear how it is linked back to the analysis of the case. Limited to no reference to other module topics in the recommendations. (5)
|
No operational recommendations for the organisation have been made and/or no link to the analysis of the case. No consideration of other module topics in the recommendations. (0) |
|
COMMUNICATION AND PRESENTATION Can engage effectively in debate in a professional manner and produce detailed and coherent reports. (10%) |
Always communicates effectively and excellently in an appropriate format/ language in a clear and concise manner. Excellent logical flow. (10)
|
Always communicates effectively in an appropriate format/language in a clear and concise manner. Good logical flow. The message is clear. (8) |
Communicates effectively in an appropriate format/language. Usually presents information in a clear and concise manner. Satisfactory logical flow. (6)
|
Meaning is clear and format conforms to basic requirements. Limited use of language and message is not always clear. (4) |
Does not communicate effectively and meaning is unclear. Does not use appropriate format/ language. Unclear message. (0) |
|
REFERENCING STYLE Referencing according to Harvard style In-text referencing Full list of references (10%) |
Referencing always according to Harvard style. Accurate in-text referencing and consistent full list of references (10) |
Referencing mostly according to Harvard style. Accurate in-text referencing and consistent full list of references with minor inconsistencies. (8) |
Referencing mostly according to Harvard style. Mostly accurate in-text referencing and mostly consistent full list of references with some mistakes. (6) |
Referencing frequently does not comply to Harvard style. Persistent mistakes with in-text referencing and full list of references. (4) |
Referencing frequently does not comply to Harvard style. Incomplete or inexistent references. (0) |
