please find attached files
Subject Title Value Chain Management Subject Code MGT804 Lecturer / Tutor Dr Ali Alavi and Mr Hadi Rezaei Vandchali Semester August 2019 Assessment Title Case study Analysis Learning Outcome/s LO1, LO2 and LO4 Assessment type (group or individual) Individual Weighting 25% Word count 1500 words Due date Sunday 8th September 2019 Class submission Lecture☐Tutorial X Submission type Paper copy☐Turnitin X Format / Layout of Assessment (details of what to include) (cross the appropriate check boxes) Report: ICMS Cover Page Table of Contents Synopsis / Executive Summary Introduction Findings Conclusion Recommendations Reference List Appendices ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Essay: ICMS Cover Page Abstract Introduction Body Conclusion Recommendations Reference List Appendices X ☐ ☐ X X X ☐ X X Oral Presentation: Paper submission PowerPoint submission Peer review (group presentation) Reference List ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Other: (outline specific details here – use check boxes) Assessment instructions (clear, succinct, without repetition) Select one of the Gartner top 25 supply chains and using publicly available information identify the stages in the organisation's value chain. ( ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE ) ( Page 1 of 2 ) Identify target customers, key suppliers, partners and competitors. Analyse and evaluate the performance of the logistics and supply chain Readings for the assessment (instructions where they can be found e.g. MyAthens database, Moodle etc.) Lectures Materials, further readings at the end of each lecture’s slides, MyAthens for credible journals articles Grading Criteria / Rubric · Application of relevant value chain management concepts/frameworks and theories · Logical development of arguments in presenting your analysis · Appealingintroduction,conclusionsand recommendations · Error free writing with appropriate formatting · Use of relevant credible sources and appropriate referencing style Peer Review Evaluation (group work – optional) Grading Rubrics FAIL PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION Evidence -– 20% Use of literature/evidence of reading. Little evidence of literature being consulted or irrelevant to the assignment. Less than required academic/industrybased references used. Literature is presented uncritically, in a purely descriptive way and indicates limitations of understanding. 6-7 academic/industrybased references used. Clear evidence and application of readings relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified. 8-9 academic/industrybased references used. Able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources, developing own ideas in the process. 10-11 academic/industrybased references used. Has developed and justified using own ideas based on a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed. More than 12 academic/industry-based references used. Concepts -– 25% Uses and explains concepts and theories that are relevant to the topic. (25%) Lack of or Inaccurate or inappropriate choice of concepts/theory. Fails to address the task set. Selection of concepts/theory is appropriate, but some aspects have been missed or misconstrued. Some of the work is focused on the aims and themes of the assignment. Clearly articulates key concepts and theories and the relationship to the investigation. The theories work in an appropriate straightforward manner. Has addressed the main purpose of the assignment. Insightful critical analysis and appropriate selection of concepts/theories in key areas. Has addressed the purpose of the assignment coherently and with some attempt to demonstrate imagination. Assignment demonstrates integration and innovation in the selection and handling of concepts/theory. Has addressed the purpose of the assignment comprehensively and imaginatively. Analysis – 20% Methodology. Demonstration of critical analysis. Fails to analyse information. Can analyse a limited range of information (i.e., using classification principles). Can analyse with guidance using given classification principles. Can analyse a range of information with minimum guidance, can apply major theories and compare alternative methods/techniques Can analyse new and/or abstract data and situations without guidance using a wide range of techniques appropriate to the topic. Conclusions -– 20% Demonstrate ability to develop informed opinions based on literature and apply these to the topic Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature. Comprehensive evidence of findings and conclusions with clear relationship to theory/literature. Good development shown in summary of arguments based in theory/literature. Analytical and clear conclusions well- grounded in theory and literature showing development of new concepts. Style -15% Quality of written expression (clear, logical, comprehensive) and referencing. Communication is unstructured and unfocused both in written word and document layout Errors in grammar, word choice, spelling or written expression AND/OR errors in referencing style. Some communication is effective. Acceptable standard of academic writing, some errors in writing and layout of document Consistent errors in grammar, word choice, spelling or written expression OR errors in referencing style. Can communicate effectively- good standard of academic writing and well-crafted document layout. Very few errors in grammar, word choice, spelling or written expression AND no errors in referencing style. Can communicate in a superior manner. High standard in document layout Clear, concise academic written presentation with no grammatical errors, appropriate word choice and correct spelling. Few minor errors in referencing Can communicate in a high quality, engaging and effective manner, Extremely well-crafted document layout No errors in grammar, word choice, spelling or written expression AND no errors in referencing style.