subject name is supply chain stakeholder relationship management.
I have added the doc file related to the assesment. please find it attached.
the assignment is in the form of ESSAY . NEEDS TO HAVE INTRO, BODY, AND CONCLUSION WITH references .
Supplier Relationships and Stakeholder Management- subject ASSISGNMENT TYPE ESSAY - 1500-1800 WORDS Assessment information: · Critically analyse the need for procurement, sourcing, and collaborative relationships and types of relationships within supply chains, and demonstrate how to proactively prevent and resolve conflict within supply chain relationships. · Identify, comprehend, and analyse alternative concepts, models, frameworks, and issues in supplier selection, supplier management, supplier relationship management and supplier reward systems. · Analyse types of relationships, intensity of relationship involvement, and models of developing and implementing successful supply chain relationships while recognising the strategic importance of supplier integration. Assessment Brief: Perform the assignment in the following steps. Record all these tasks in a single Microsoft Word document. 1- Use an artificial intelligence (AI) tool (of your choice), such as ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com), to write an essay on one of the journal paper topics given below. These papers are uploaded on Blackboard under the Reading List. 2- Cut and paste the answer given by the AI tool into a new Microsoft Word document. Ensure you create a Cover Page that includes your name, student ID, class day and time, journal paper topic, AI tool used, and the date the AI tool was used. 3- Critique the work generated by the AI tool used in step 1. The critique must be done using ‘Track Changes’ and/or ‘New Comment’ in Microsoft Word. Marks will be given purely on your criticism of the AI’s output. You must also relate your opinion to literature and/or industry practices by including references to at least 10 peer-reviewed articles. Note: select one topic. List of Journal Articles: · Offshore Outsourcing of Professional Services: A Transaction Cost Economics Perspective · The Impact of Transaction Costs and Institutional Pressure on Supplier Environmental Practices · Resource based theory in operations management research · Operations Management and the Resource Based View: Another View · An Analysis of Supply Risk Assessment Techniques · A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Risk in Supply Networks · Triads in Supply Networks: Theorizing buyer-supplier-supplier relationships · Developing Stakeholder Theory · Tensions in Stakeholder Theory · Managing Supply Risk with Early Supplier Involvement: A Case Study and Research Propositions · Managerial Perceptions of Supply Risk · Towards a Theory of Supply Chain Management: The Constructs and Measurements Standards Criteria Below Expectations (Fail) 0-49 Meets Expectations (Pass) 50-59 Meets Expectations (Credit) 60-69 Exceeds Expectations (Distinction) 70-79 Exceeds Expectations (High Distinction) 80-100 Standard of Critique (i.e. critique, not explanation) (__ marks) The critique of content is unclear and is not explicitly stated in the submission. There is little or no analysis that anything was learnt. The critique of content is sufficiently clear and is stated in the submission. There is superficial recognition of learning from the exercise. The critique of content is substantially clear and consistent with the supporting material. There is adequate recognition of learning from the exercise. The critique of content is substantially clear and effectively stated; it is reinforced with supporting material. Interesting observations of learning is presented. The critique of content is compelling; it is precisely stated, reinforced, and strongly supported. Interesting observations of learning is presented. Analysis of the AI output (__ marks) The analysis is vague and is based on irrelevant information. There is no mention of positive nor negative aspects of the output. A logical analysis was presented based on partial use of relevant information. There is a brief mention of positive and/or negative aspects of the output. A logical analysis based on thorough use of relevant information. There is a thorough mention of positive and negative aspects of the output. A coherent and comprehensive analysis based on thorough use of the most relevant information. Positive and negative aspects of the output are thoroughly analysed and presented convincingly. A coherent and complete analysis based on complete use of all relevant information. Positive and negative aspects of the output are thoroughly analysed and presented convincingly. Context and Purpose (__ marks) Did not demonstrate adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose and a clear focus on the assigned task(s). Demonstrates some consideration of context, audience, and purpose and attempts to focus on the assigned task(s). Demonstrates adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose and a clear focus on the assigned task(s). Demonstrates a good understanding of context, audience, and purpose and fully aligns with the assigned task(s). Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to the assigned task(s) and focuses all elements of the work. Spelling and Grammar (__ marks) Did not use language that conveys meaning with sufficient clarity and includes numerous errors. Uses language sufficiently well to convey basic meaning although errors reduce effectiveness of communication. Uses language that generally conveys meaning with clarity although writing may include some errors. Uses language that effectively conveys meaning with clarity. Any errors which occur do not reduce effectiveness of communication. Uses language that skilfully and effectively communicates meaning with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error-free. Referencing (__ marks) Included fewer than __ references and/or did not sufficiently reference as per University standards. The Chicago referencing format was not followed. The reference list was inconsistent. Some referencing was done correctly, as per the Chicago referencing format. The reference list had some inconsistencies. Most references were correctly acknowledged, both in-text and within the reference list, in the Chicago referencing format. The reference list had some inconsistencies. Most references were correctly acknowledged, both in-text (direct and in-direct quotes) and within the reference list, in the Chicago referencing format. The reference list was consistent. All references were correctly acknowledged, both in-text (direct and in-direct quotes) and within the reference list, in the Chicago referencing format. The reference list was consistent with no errors.