It's not marketing or financial report.15-20refrences should be therei have to make this report on talleys seafood company which is NewZealand based company.
BMG732 Advanced Operations Management – Assignment Brief – Assignment 2: Professional Report 1 BMG732 ADVANCED OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENT BRIEF ASSIGNMENT 2: PROFESSIONAL REPORT ASSIGNMENT DETAILS Due: 9am Wednesday 29th May 2019 Weighting: 60% Requirement: You are required to construct an inductive professional report. The development of an inductive report is a strongly applied piece of work and must link theory and practice. You are to: 1. Pick a New Zealand company or organisation. The exact company you choose is up to you, but it must be one for which you can find an adequate amount of secondary data. 2. Undertake a strategic operations analysis of the company to determine the current situation. 3. From your analysis, make conclusions and develop recommendations for the company to provide direction about how it should proceed in the future. Your report must: Be from the operations management perspective, reflecting key concepts and frameworks we have considered in our readings and discussions (i.e. not be a marketing or accounting report) Be realistic and functional Use theory and practice to demonstrate knowledge The report must demonstrate comprehension of the whole strategic operations management topic. Therefore, whatever you choose you must make reference to strategic operations management models, frameworks, concepts and terminology that you have encountered in workshops and self-learning, and from directed material and independent research. This must be combined with industry material and data to provide sound argument, rationale, and decisions, ultimately leading to useful recommendations that your report will produce. Length: 4,000 words (approximately 8 pages), plus references list Learning outcome(s) addressed: 1. Develop and apply operations strategy for a range of organisations. 3. Identify the key components of an effective operations strategy. 4. Formulate operations strategies for a range of small and medium businesses. Refer: Appendix 1. Professional report marking schedule Appendix 2. Critical reading Learning guide – Reports (on NMIT Moodle) BMG732 Advanced Operations Management – Assignment Brief – Assignment 2: Professional Report 2 APPENDIX 1. PROFESSIONAL REPORT MARKING SCHEDULE Name: Section Marking Criteria Mark Title Well-chosen subject Executive summary A useful summary of the entire report Covers the essence of the aims, objectives, findings and main recommendations. Introduction /10 Provides an overview of the subject matter of the report Establishes the context of the report Includes a statement about the change, problem or issue that needs investigating Terms of reference or scope of the report Defines the objectives of the report Sets readers expectations States any limitations or assumptions Discussion /50 Analyses the situation using theoretical and practical concepts Uses evidence to back claims Is logical and creates sound argument Major topics identified Develops the main issues/themes Conclusions /10 Summarises the key findings – the key issues or problems in the situation Grounded in the present situation Listed as numbered points in order of importance Relate directly to the objectives of the report Recommendations /5 Details the course of action that should be followed Recommendations flow from findings Action oriented & focus on the future Are specific, realistic and achievable Presentation /10 Clear communication Sound structure Format, layout and spelling Uses appendices to supplement discussion In own language (i.e., >90% paraphrased & <10% quotes). research /15 relevant information sources referenced correctly, by apa format broad and deep consultation of reference material valid information drawn from a number of reputable sources referencing, in-text and listed by apa format total marks (%) 100.00 bmg732 advanced operations management – assignment brief – assignment 2: professional report 3 grade criteria a-/a-a+ (outstanding /excellent) a comprehensive exploration of the topic, with sound critical comment and a clear synthesis of the issues. original and/or scholarly content and depth of conceptual and theoretical analysis. a lucid and logically structured argument with systematic and critical evaluation of the main points. detailed support from literature with references appropriately integrated. high quality sources identified, interpreted and evaluated virtually flawless presentation. clear, concise and logically presented argument and/or discussion. b/b+ (very good) a systematic exploration of the assignment topic which may include some critical comment and appraisal. substantive content. clear introduction, conclusion and thematic sequence, with main points elaborated. regular support provided from the literature. use of quotes where appropriate, with some interpretive comment. clear expression, well-constructed sentences and paragraphs with feresentation flaw s. c+/b- (competent) a reasonably balanced summary of the issues as reflected in course study materials. adequate content but lacking theoretical depth. clear introduction, with some organization of main points but lacking clear links and/or thematic sequence the text of the assignment shows that the course materials have been read and acknowledged. an accurate bibliography is attached most presentation details met e.g. spacing, fonts, margin, legibility, citations, grammar, and spelling. c (acceptable) assignment requirements/topic not fully covered. material is insufficiently elaborated. overuse of quotations with little explanation. acceptable but flawed content adequate introduction, with structure barely discernible and/or somewhat confused and some major points missed. reference material is not well integrated into text of the assignment. little evidence that quality of sources has been considered. limited acknowledgement and light bibliography minor presentation flaws. d (flawed) unacceptable and flawed content, unreflective personal comment, incoherent argument structure very confused, not discernible, not explained. little or no evidence of critical reading in the text of the assignment inadequate acknowledgements and/or bibliography major presentation flaws. quotes).="" research="" 15="" ="" relevant="" information="" ="" sources="" referenced="" correctly,="" by="" apa="" format="" ="" broad="" and="" deep="" consultation="" of="" reference="" material="" ="" valid="" information="" drawn="" from="" a="" number="" of="" reputable="" sources="" ="" referencing,="" in-text="" and="" listed="" by="" apa="" format="" total="" marks="" (%)="" 100.00="" bmg732="" advanced="" operations="" management="" –="" assignment="" brief="" –="" assignment="" 2:="" professional="" report="" 3="" grade="" criteria="" a-/a-a+="" (outstanding="" excellent)="" ="" a="" comprehensive="" exploration="" of="" the="" topic,="" with="" sound="" critical="" comment="" and="" a="" clear="" synthesis="" of="" the="" issues.="" original="" and/or="" scholarly="" content="" and="" depth="" of="" conceptual="" and="" theoretical="" analysis.="" ="" a="" lucid="" and="" logically="" structured="" argument="" with="" systematic="" and="" critical="" evaluation="" of="" the="" main="" points.="" ="" detailed="" support="" from="" literature="" with="" references="" appropriately="" integrated.="" ="" high="" quality="" sources="" identified,="" interpreted="" and="" evaluated="" ="" virtually="" flawless="" presentation.="" clear,="" concise="" and="" logically="" presented="" argument="" and/or="" discussion.="" b/b+="" (very="" good)="" ="" a="" systematic="" exploration="" of="" the="" assignment="" topic="" which="" may="" include="" some="" critical="" comment="" and="" appraisal.="" substantive="" content.="" ="" clear="" introduction,="" conclusion="" and="" thematic="" sequence,="" with="" main="" points="" elaborated.="" ="" regular="" support="" provided="" from="" the="" literature.="" use="" of="" quotes="" where="" appropriate,="" with="" some="" interpretive="" comment.="" ="" clear="" expression,="" well-constructed="" sentences="" and="" paragraphs="" with="" feresentation="" flaw="" s.="" c+/b-="" (competent)="" ="" a="" reasonably="" balanced="" summary="" of="" the="" issues="" as="" reflected="" in="" course="" study="" materials.="" adequate="" content="" but="" lacking="" theoretical="" depth.="" ="" clear="" introduction,="" with="" some="" organization="" of="" main="" points="" but="" lacking="" clear="" links="" and/or="" thematic="" sequence="" ="" the="" text="" of="" the="" assignment="" shows="" that="" the="" course="" materials="" have="" been="" read="" and="" acknowledged.="" an="" accurate="" bibliography="" is="" attached="" ="" most="" presentation="" details="" met="" e.g.="" spacing,="" fonts,="" margin,="" legibility,="" citations,="" grammar,="" and="" spelling.="" c="" (acceptable)="" ="" assignment="" requirements/topic="" not="" fully="" covered.="" material="" is="" insufficiently="" elaborated.="" ="" overuse="" of="" quotations="" with="" little="" explanation.="" acceptable="" but="" flawed="" content="" ="" adequate="" introduction,="" with="" structure="" barely="" discernible="" and/or="" somewhat="" confused="" and="" some="" major="" points="" missed.="" ="" reference="" material="" is="" not="" well="" integrated="" into="" text="" of="" the="" assignment.="" little="" evidence="" that="" quality="" of="" sources="" has="" been="" considered.="" ="" limited="" acknowledgement="" and="" light="" bibliography="" ="" minor="" presentation="" flaws.="" d="" (flawed)="" ="" unacceptable="" and="" flawed="" content,="" unreflective="" personal="" comment,="" incoherent="" argument="" ="" structure="" very="" confused,="" not="" discernible,="" not="" explained.="" ="" little="" or="" no="" evidence="" of="" critical="" reading="" in="" the="" text="" of="" the="" assignment="" ="" inadequate="" acknowledgements="" and/or="" bibliography="" ="" major="" presentation="">