This is the assignment for Operation Research Management.I have uploaded the files.
MPM792 Operations Management, T1 2018 Assignment 2: Individual Assignment Operations Management Applied Research Project Value: 60% Due Date: No later than 25th May 2018 11.59 pm via CloudDeakin. This is an individual assignment. The purpose of this assignment is to refine your research skills by you identifying your own operations management topic, finding supporting literature, analysing data, recommending the best approach to managing the issue and making suggestions regarding how it could be implemented and reporting the results. You should select an area in which you have some experience, knowledge and/or interest. You also will have an opportunity to deepen your knowledge on certain aspect of operations management by choosing an operations management topic that suits your own interest and will help your own career prospects. This assignment comprises a mini literature review on the current issues on operations strategy and operations management of firms operating in a specific industry. All work and data submitted by you will be treated in the strictest confidence. At least 8 separate research reference sources would be expected to obtain better than a pass mark. It is expected that this report will be of a high professional standard. To obtain a grade higher than a credit, you must have no layout, grammar, spelling or referencing errors. The work should be relevant, contain the latest research and contain a high level of original thought and input. You are encouraged to work on a current operations management problem or issue within your existing industry. Alternatively, you can choose the specific company or industry which suits your interests, including (but not limited to) electronic, automotive, banking, building, food, hospitality, retail and distribution, finance, consulting, and health care. Select an operations management issue with which you have had experience (or in which you are particularly interested) that fits into one of the following four categories: · Measuring and improving supply chain management. · Measuring and improving customer service quality and satisfaction. · Measuring and improving “Offshoring and/or Outsourcing” decision making · Measuring and improving “Waiting Time” processes If you have a particular research topic that is not included in the above, but you feel it will benefit your career or improve knowledge in an industry, for example a topic that could be presented as a conference paper, I would be happy to discuss your plan. Format your report, using references, as an academic business report – using the structure below. Summary of marking criteria for Assignment 2 This assignment must be written in an academic business report format of a maximum of 4000 words. You should write between 3,000 and 4,000 words. The Executive Summary, TOC, Reference Pages and Appendices can be excluded from the word count. Below is a marking guide only. A more detailed marking rubric is on the CloudDeakin MPM792 website. 1. Executive summary and Table of Contents (200-400 words) – a concise and authoritative summary that includes clear statement about purpose of the research, main findings and recommendations (5% of marks) 2. Introduction (200– 400 words) - focused introduction to the problem or situation (5% of marks) 3. Problem analysis (800-1000 words) - comprehensive analysis of the problem, the strategy, process or topic using appropriate data and frameworks; evidence of engagement with appropriate literature (20% of marks) 4. Current performance analysis (800-1000 words) - make use of appropriate comparative benchmarks and consider the forces affecting the issue you are examining to examine the impact of the problem (20% of marks) 5. Recommended solution (1000-1500) – identify, select and justify your preferred solution with (a brief) consideration of how it could be implemented. You may wish to consider the major operations management techniques currently used by the company for the process, and how successful they are. Provide a comprehensive argument for your recommend solution and its implementation using appropriate data and support from appropriate literature (30% of marks) 6. Summary and conclusion (200-400 words) - provide evidence of reflection on what a successful outcome would be, a concise summary of the main findings and a concise summary of your recommendations (10% of marks) 7. References - make sure you made good use of the literature to support your arguments, considering the appropriateness of your literature sources (10% of marks) Microsoft Word - MPM792 Assignment 2 Rubric-V3.docx Criteria Unacceptable Requires Further Development Satisfactory Good Very Good Exemplary 1. Executive Summary (Weight 5) No Exec Summary or very poor attempt. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐1.4) Does not summarise the main points in the report. (Range 1.5-‐-‐-‐2.4) Some attempt at summarising the main points, but misses important information or contains unimportant information. (Range 2.5-‐-‐-‐2.9) Good summary of the main findings, with only a little extra or missing information. (Range 3.0-‐-‐-‐3.4) Clearly summaries the important results in the report. (Range 3.5-‐-‐-‐3.9) Excellent summary of key findings and recommendation(s). Clearly presented with concise and fluent wording. (Range 4.0-‐-‐-‐5) 1. Score 0.7 2.0 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.5 2. Introduction (Weight 5) No Introduction or very poor attempt. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐1.4) Does not introduce the situation adequately (Range 1.5-‐-‐-‐2.4) Passable description but does not set the scene adequately for the next section (Range 2.5-‐-‐-‐2.9) Good description of the conditions which prepare the reader for the analysis following (Range 3.0-‐-‐-‐3.4) Very insightful description leading smoothly into the problem analysis (Range 3.5-‐-‐-‐3.9) Use of industry literature to set the broader industry level scene as well (Range 4.0-‐-‐-‐5) 2. Score 0.7 2.0 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.5 3. Problem analysis (Weight 20) Demonstrates no ability to clearly and succinctly define the operations challenge or identify relevant contextual factors. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐5.9) Demonstrates a limited ability to clearly and succinctly define the selected operations challenge, including identifying relevant contextual factors. (Range 6-‐-‐-‐9.9) Demonstrates a satisfactory ability to construct a clear and succinct statement about the operations challenge with some evidence of relevant contextual factors and reference to relevant literature. (Range 10-‐-‐-‐11.9) Demonstrates a good ability to independently define a clear and succinct problem(s) with evidence of relevant contextual factors and reference to relevant literature. (Range 12.0-‐-‐-‐13.9) Demonstrates a very good ability to independently and expertly define a clear and succinct problem(s) with evidence of relevant contextual factors and well-‐integrated literature references. (Range 14-‐-‐-‐15.9) Demonstrates an exceedingly high ability to expertly construct a clear, succinct and insightful statement about a problem(s) with evidence of all relevant contextual factors and numerous well-‐integrated literature and references. (Range 16.0-‐-‐-‐20.0) 3. Score 3 7.5 11 13 15 18 4. Current Performance Analysis (Weight 20) No evidence of comparative benchmarks. No logical examination of the operations requirements to solve the challenge. (Range 0 -‐-‐-‐5.09) Examination of feasible benchmarks is partially lacking. Incomplete consideration of appropriate operational requirements and techniques to solve the challenge. (Range 6-‐-‐-‐9.9) Some consideration of benchmarks. Reasonable discussion of operational requirements, but misses some points in the discussion and fails to fully examine the range of options. (Range 10-‐-‐-‐11.9) Good consideration of comparative benchmarks. Provides suitable evaluations of operational requirements/ techniques and clear discussion of the potential for improvement. (Range 12.0-‐-‐-‐13.9) Very good evaluation of comparative benchmarks. Comprehensive evaluation of operational requirements/ techniques and clear identification of the types of changes that are required. (Range 14-‐-‐-‐15.9) Excellent evaluation of comparative benchmarks. Evaluation of operational requirements/techniques contains an authoritative, expert, insightful explanation. Logically and clearly leads onto the selection and justification of the recommended solution section to follow. (Range 16-‐-‐-‐20) 4. Score 3 7.5 11 13 15 18 ( MPM792 Assessment Rubric for Assignment 2, T1 201 8 . ) Criteria Unacceptable Requires Further Development Satisfactory Good Very Good Exemplary 5. Recommended solution (Weight 30) Specific recommendation(s) fail to take into account the complexities of the issues. Other options are not considered. Recommendations are weak. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐8.9) Specific recommendation(s) take into account a very limited view of the complexities of an issue. Other points of view are not consistently acknowledged. (Range 9-‐-‐-‐14.9) Specific recommendation(s) are expertly presented and accurately take into account the complexities of issues. Other points of view are sometimes acknowledged and integrated where appropriate. (Range 15-‐-‐-‐17.9) Specific recommendation(s) are expertly presented and accurately take into account the complexities of issues. Other points of view are often acknowledged and integrated where appropriate. (Range 18.0-‐-‐-‐20.9) Specific recommendation(s) are presented expertly, authoritatively and imaginatively, accurately taking into account the complexities of the issue. Limits of position are acknowledged. Other points of view are synthesised within position. (Range 21-‐-‐-‐23.9) Specific recommendation(s) are presented expertly, authoritatively and highly imaginatively, accurately taking into account the complexities of the issue. Limits of position are acknowledged. Other points of view are expertly synthesised within position. (Range 24-‐-‐-‐30) 5. Score 4.5 12 16.5 19.5 22.5 27 6. Summary and conclusion (Weight 10) Cursory statement (Range 0-‐-‐-‐2.9) Provide a brief description of the findings (Range 3.0-‐-‐-‐4.9) Introduced the principal findings, with appropriate priority and direction for action (Range 5.0-‐-‐-‐5.9) Connected the findings with the original problem to demonstrate why the recommendations were desirable (Range 6.0-‐-‐-‐6.9) Provided a balanced and compelling argument for change based on the recommendations, and drawing attention to the key aspects of the findings (Range 7.0-‐-‐-‐7.9) Providing a compelling argument, drawing attention to the key aspects of the findings and making use of the literature to support the case. (Range 8.0-‐-‐-‐10) 6. Score 1.5 4 5.5 6.5 7.5 9 7. References (Weight 10) Fails to use literature or presents information from inappropriate sources representing very limited points of view or approaches. (Range 0-‐-‐-‐3.9) Often presents complex information from inappropriate sources representing limited points of view or approaches. Does not synthesise information and/or demonstrate an advanced, integrated understanding in any area. (Range 3-‐-‐-‐4.9) Presents information from relevant sources representing various points of view or approaches, and consolidates and synthesizes information. (Range 5-‐-‐-‐5.9) Presents complex information from relevant sources representing various points of view or approaches, and does a good job of consolidating and synthesising information. (Range 6-‐-‐-‐6.9) Synthesises information and knowledge from a range of relevant sources representing various points of view, approaches or cultural contexts, and does a very good job of consolidating and synthesising information. (Range 7-‐-‐-‐7.9) Synthesises complex information and knowledge from a broad range of relevant sources representing various points of view, approaches or cultural contexts, and does an excellent job of consolidating and synthesising information. (Range 8-‐-‐-‐10) 7. Score 1.5 4.0 5.5 6.5 7.5 10 Criteria Unacceptable Requires Further Development Satisfactory Good Very Good Exemplary Overall Score 0-‐-‐29 30-‐-‐49 50-‐-‐59 60-‐-‐69 70-‐-‐79 80—100 Grade N N P C D HD Fail Failed marginally Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction