MMM267 – Business Logistics
T2 2019
Assessment 1 – Research Report
DUE DATE AND TIME: Monday of Week 8, 02/09/2019, 11:59PM AEST
PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: 40% HURDLE DETAILS: N/A
Learning Outcome Details
Unit Learning Outcome (ULO) Graduate Learning Outcome (GLO)
ULO 1: Demonstrate an understanding of the set up and management of an efficient and sustainable supply chain. GLO 1: Discipline-specific knowledge and capabilities
Appropriate to the level of study related to a discipline or profession.
ULO 2: Identify, evaluate and apply different approaches to supply chain management including the design and delivery of operations within a variety of different organisations using appropriate technology & tools.
GLO 1: Discipline-specific knowledge and capabilities
Appropriate to the level of study related to a discipline or profession.
GLO 3: Digital literacy
Using technologies to find, use and disseminate information.
ULO 3: Explain and critically evaluate the role of supply chain management and its cross-relations with other organisational functions with a view to ensuring ethical & sustainable SCM practices. GLO 1: Discipline-specific knowledge and capabilities
Appropriate to the level of study related to a discipline or profession.
GLO 4: Critical thinking
Evaluating information using critical and analytical thinking and judgment.
GLO 5: Problem solving
Creating solutions to authentic (real world and illdefined) problems.
Assessment Feedback:
Students who submit their work by the due date will receive their assignment marks and feedback on CloudDeakin by close-of-business on Tuesday, 24/09/2019.
Description / Requirements
Select any Australian business organization of your choice (or an international business organization with a noticeable presence in the Australian market). Research your chosen business organization’s supply chain practices in depth and write a 3000-word research report based on your findings.
Your research report should identify and review relevant sustainability aspects of the organization’s current supply chain. In your write-up, you are expected to demonstrate accurate understanding and relevant incorporation of at least one relevant supply chain management (SCM) theory/concept covered in the weekly lectures and prescribed topic readings up to Week 7 of the trimester.
Your submitted research report should specifically address/focus on the following four key aspects:
1. Provide a brief descriptive profile of your chosen business organization (e.g. nature of business, level of competition it faces, target customers, recent financial performance etc.)
2. Provide a detailed description of the current supply chain practices of the organization.
3. To what extent do you think are the firm’s current supply chain practices sustainable? What evidences can you find of the firm’s cooperation with and development of its key suppliers?
4. Provide recommendations to further improve the sustainability of the organization’s supply chain practices. Also suggest suitable backup measures against any sudden disruptive events that you think could impair the firm’s supply chain and affect the continuity of its supplies.
Word limit: 3,000 words (+/- 10%) excluding tables, figures, list of references and any appendices.
References – academic and non-academic sources:
You must reference a minimum of six (6) academic/scholarly sources. These can include academic journal articles or chapters from academic books (including your prescribed textbook, which will count as ONE scholarly source). Suitable academic journals can be found by conducting a search of the Deakin Library academic databases (a list of relevant journals is provided on the Unit Guide).
Much of the information regarding your selected organizations required can be obtained from only non-academic (sometimes identified as professional or industry) sources, which includes the organization’s own website. This is often the only way to find out up-to-date information about a business or organization. Any non-academic sources, if used, must be included in your Reference list appended to the report, but these will NOT be counted as part of your academic/scholarly sources.
Following are some of the suggested non-academic sources:
Organization web sites:
– Annual Reports
– Annual Reviews
– Media Releases
– Stock Market Analysis
Credible media websites (including but not limited to):
– The Age
– The Australian
– The Australian Financial Review (AFR)
– The ABC
– Business Review Weekly (BRW)
Non-academic sources:
Deakin Library Homepage: ?click on a-z databases and type the database name, choosing from these excellent options:
– IBIS World (industry market reports and company research)
– Factiva (articles in the media)
– Newsbank
– TV news broadcasts
– TV documentaries
Any other non-academic sources e.g. credible personal interviews (please give full details if used)
Students must correctly use the Harvard style of referencing.
Formatting:
– Font: Size 12 Times New Roman, Calibri or Arial
– Line spacing: 1.5, no indentation, but one extra line spacing between paragraphs
– Margins of 2.54 cm
– Headings and sub-headings
– Alphanumeric or decimal outline/numbering system up to three levels for sections
– Page numbers: Roman numbering and Arabic numbering used appropriately
– Header and/or footer: student name, ID number, unit code and assessment task name
Suggested report structure:
This is an academic research report and must therefore adopt a critical/analytical perspective. You need to research your selected organization thoroughly, demonstrate a sound grasp of the current literature on SCM, and draw from a range of theoretical frameworks and concepts from your textbook/lecture materials/external research to inform and underpin your analysis. This critical analysis then flows on to the specific recommendations you make. A suggested structure is as follows:
– Title Page
– Table of Contents
– Executive Summary
– Background and Introduction
– Body
– Conclusion
– Recommendations
– References
Submission Instructions
You must keep a backup copy of every assignment you submit, until the marked assignment has been returned to you. In the unlikely event that one of your assignments is misplaced, you will need to submit your backup copy.
Any work you submit may be checked by electronic or other means for the purposes of detecting collusion and/or plagiarism.
When you are required to submit an assignment through your CloudDeakin unit site, you will receive an email to your Deakin email address confirming that it has been submitted. You should check that you can see your assignment in the Submissions view of the Assignment dropbox folder after upload, and check for, and keep, the email receipt for the submission.
Plagiarism and other forms of cheating:
Plagiarism occurs when a student presents the work of another person as the student’s own work, or includes the ideas of others as quotations, summaries or paraphrases, without acknowledgement as to its authorship.
Collusion occurs when a student obtains the agreement of another person for a fraudulent purpose with the intent of obtaining an advantage in submitting an assignment or other work.
Assignments may be checked for plagiarism (via Turnitin) and disciplinary procedures will be initiated if any student’s work is found to include plagiarism (i.e., penalties will be imposed relative to the degree of infringement. It is the responsibility of the student to be informed about the University’s policies on academic integrity and make sure they have received any mandatory training.
Plagiarism is the copying of another person’s ideas or expressions without appropriate acknowledgment and presenting these ideas or forms of expression as your own. It includes not only written works such as books or journals but data or images that may be presented in tables, diagrams, designs, plans, photographs, film, music, formulae, web sites and computer programs. Plagiarism also includes the use of (or passing off) the work of lecturers or other students as your own.
Plagiarism is a form of cheating that Deakin University regards as an extremely serious academic offence. The penalties associated with plagiarism are severe and extend from cancelling all marks for the specific assessment item or for the entire unit through to exclusion from your course.
It is important to realise, however, that it is certainly not cheating to use the work of others in your research report. On the contrary – a well-constructed report should normally refer to and build on the work of others for positioning, supporting and strengthening your work and advancing knowledge. Plagiarism occurs when due recognition and acknowledgement of the work of others is not provided. Therefore, whenever you are using another person’s research or ideas (whether by direct quotation or by paraphrasing) you must appropriately cite the source. If you are ever in doubt about the most appropriate form of referencing, you should consult your lecturer or the Academic Skills Advisor. Talking about your assignment with other students is acceptable and encouraged. However, jointly writing up the assignment, or using the same written words from your discussion, is a form of cheating because we are not able to identify whose idea the information is. Unauthorised collaboration involves working with others with the intention of deceiving examiners about who actually completed the work. If there has been any collaboration in preparing individual assessment items, this must be disclosed (clearly stated that it is a joint effort). While multiple students can select the same business organization, please note that any collaborative work will strictly not be acceptable as both the unit assessment items are individual.
Notes
• Penalties for late submission: The following marking penalties will apply if you submit an assessment task after the due date without an approved extension: 5% will be deducted from available marks for each day up to five days, and work that is submitted more than five days after the due date will not be marked. You will receive 0% for the task. ‘Day’ means working day for paper submissions and calendar day for electronic submissions. The Unit Chair may refuse to accept a late submission where it is unreasonable or impracticable to assess the task after the due date.
• Extensions can be granted only for circumstances well and truly beyond your control such as documented serious illness or for compassionate reasons under special circumstances. Extensions can only be approved by the Unit Chair. Please email your request to the Unit Chair (sukanto@deakin.edu.au) BEFORE the due date. You will be required to provide evidence to support your request and a draft of the work completed to date. Where an extension is approved you will be given between 1 day and 2 weeks to submit your work. Any request for extension after the submission due date will need to be made via the designated online application system for Special Consideration – such requests should not be emailed to the Unit Chair.
(Please see: www.deakin.edu.au/students/studying/assessment-and-results/special-consideration)
Work or holidays or other assignments are NOT acceptable grounds for an extension – you are expected to manage these issues as part of your studies. You are strongly encouraged to start early and to continually backup your assignment as you progress. Computer crashes or corrupted files will NOT be accepted as valid reasons for an extension of any length.
• For more information about academic misconduct, special consideration, extensions, and assessment feedback, please refer to the document Your rights and responsibilities as a student in this Unit in the first folder next to the Unit Guide of the Resources area in the CloudDeakin unit site.
• Building evidence of your experiences, skills and knowledge (Portfolio) – Building a portfolio that evidences your skills, knowledge and experience will provide you with a valuable tool to help you prepare for interviews and to showcase to potential employers. There are a number of tools that you can use to build a portfolio. You are provided with cloud space through OneDrive, or through the Portfolio tool in the Cloud Unit Site, but you can use any storage repository system that you like. Remember that a Portfolio is YOUR tool. You should be able to store your assessment work, reflections, achievements and artefacts in YOUR Portfolio. Once you have completed this assessment piece, add it to your personal Portfolio to use and showcase your learning later, when applying for jobs, or further studies. Curate your work by adding meaningful tags to your artefacts that describe what the artefact represents.
Performance
Criteria N (0-29) N (30-49) P (50-59) C (60-69) D (70-79) HD (80-100)
Presenting a descriptive profile of the chosen business organization
ULO 1 (GLO 1)
5 marks 0.7 points
Descriptive profile on the chosen business not presented.
(0-1.4 marks) 2.0 points
Descriptive profile is very inadequate and disjointed.
(1.5-2.4 marks) 2.7 points
Descriptive profile is presented but not in a very organized manner.
(2.5-2.9 marks) 3.2 points
Descriptive profile is presented in a somewhat organized manner.
(3.0-3.4 marks) 3.7 points
Descriptive profile is thorough and presented in a well-organized manner.
(3.5-3.9 marks) 5.0 points
Descriptive profile is thorough and presented in a planned and excellently wellorganized manner. (4.0-5.0 marks)
Retrieving information on and presenting a detailed description of the current supply chain practices of the chosen business organization
ULO 1 & ULO 2 (GLO 3)
10 marks 1.5 points
No evidence of any relevant information retrieval and any description whatsoever.
(0-2.9 marks) 4.0 points
Little evidence of information retrieval and poor technical description evidencing almost no understanding of the relevant theory.
(3.0-4.9 marks) 5.5 points
Some evidence of information retrieval and attempted technical description but with major gaps evidencing a rather limited understanding of the relevant theory. (5.0-5.9 marks) 6.5 points
Evidence of information retrieval and satisfactory technical description evidencing a basic understanding of the relevant theory.
(6.0-6.9 marks) 7.5 points
Evidence of information retrieval and good technical description evidencing a reasonable understanding of the relevant theory. (7.0-7.9 marks) 10.0 points
Solid evidence of information retrieval based on thorough research and excellent technical description evidencing an advanced understanding of the relevant theory. (8.0-10.0 marks)
Critically analysing the overall sustainability of supply chain of the chosen business
organization
ULO 3 (GLO 4)
10 marks 1.5 points
No evidence of any analysis whatsoever.
(0-2.9 marks) 4.0 points
Some attempt of analysis but it is not logical or contextually relevant.
(3.0-4.9 marks) 5.5 points
Attempted critical analysis and logical argumentation but key issues not correctly identified due to a rather limited understanding of the subject matter. (5.0-5.9 marks) 6.5 points
Critical analysis is logical and contextually relevant and identifies a number of key issues.
(6.0-6.9 marks) 7.5 points
Critical analysis is logical and contextually relevant, clearly identifying and addressing the key issues.
(7.0-7.9 marks) 10.0 points
Critical analysis is logical and contextually relevant, clearly identifying and addressing the key issues at great depth and detail.
(8.0-10.0 marks)
Page 7 of 8
Providing logical recommendations to the management to further improve the sustainability of the chosen organization’s supply chain practices and building resilience against sudden disruptive events.
ULO 3 (GLO 5)
10 marks 1.5 points
No recommendations given.
(0-2.9 marks)
4.0 points
Recommendations are very few, incoherent and do not flow from the preceding analysis.
(3.0-4.9 marks)
5.5 points
Recommendations are somewhat coherent but appear random and not adequately linked to the preceding analysis. Little evidence of problem perception due to a rather limited understanding of the subject matter. (5.0-5.9 marks) 6.5 points
Recommendations are coherent and linked to the preceding analysis. Some degree of problem perception evident in the recommendations.
(6.0-6.9 marks)
7.5 points
Recommendations are coherent, measured and well linked to the preceding analysis. Problem perception clearly evident in the recommendations.
(7.0-7.9 marks) 10.0 points
Recommendations are coherent, measured and extremely well linked to the preceding analysis. A very high level of problem perception clearly evident in the recommendations. (8.0-10.0 marks)
Following formatting instructions and compliance with Harvard referencing
5 marks 0.7 points
None of the assignment instruction on formatting, referencing and length were at all followed or were followed correctly. Submitted work clearly missed the assessment brief.
(0-1.4 marks) 2.0 points
Most of the assignment instructions on formatting, referencing and length were not followed at all or followed incorrectly. Submitted work fell short of the meeting the brief.
(1.5-2.4 marks)
2.7 points
Assignment instructions on formatting, referencing and length were in general followed but there were a number of issues of noncompliance with requirements. Submitted work barely just met the assessment brief. (2.5-2.9 marks) 3.2 points
Assignment instructions on formatting, referencing and length were followed with very few issues of noncompliance with requirements. Submitted work more or less met the assessment brief.
(3.0-3.4 marks) 3.7 points
Assignment instructions on formatting, referencing and length were followed closely with no noticeable issues of non-compliance with requirements. Submitted work met the assessment brief.
(3.5-3.9 marks)
5.0 points
Assignment instructions on formatting, referencing and length were followed meticulously with no issues of non-compliance with requirements. Submitted work accurately met the assessment brief.
(4.0-5.0 marks)
Overall 40 N
0 or above N
12 or above P
20 or above C
24 or above D
28 or above HD
32 or above
Page 8 of 8

Published by

Medical

View all posts