This assessment MUST be undertaken as an individual piece of work.
Learning outcomes addressed
Understand and justify how organizations secure and deploy their resources both in a traditional and digital environment according to their capability and capacity
Understand and evaluate and use business data analysis to provide a range of solutions for a business problem
Use all appropriate information and internet-based technologies available effectively within a professional context
Understand how organizations use technologies to communicate effectively with stakeholders.
Analyze a business situation and provide a number of possible suitable solutions.
Communicate effectively in an appropriate medium and style with regard to audience and desired emotional effect
The portfolio assessment will examine the body of knowledge derived from a range of learning outcomes covered in the module and allows students to undertake research and investigations and make conclusions on business cases.
Portfolio contents include 3 ITEMS WHICH ARE:
(1) a simulation game score relating to an operation’s business performance for Module 1 and Module 2;
(2) 500 written words considering the fundamentals of operations management in an applied context drawn from module 1 of the game;
(3) and a further 500 written words considering a specific applied operational practice as related to a set of critical questions drawn from module 2 of the game.
Note that the result of the game will not be used to determine your mark for Assessment 1; it is pertinent though that the outcome is used to show that you have learned theoretical and practical perspectives of operations management from the simulation experience.
The Portfolio Assessment should include the topic areas covered in the first 4 weeks of the semester showing your knowledge and understanding of:
In section 2 you must present your work in three subsections which are as follows:
In section 3 you must present your responses to the tasks and questions based on the context of the factory environment within the game in two subsections which are as follows:
You need to demonstrate understanding of how organizations effectively manage
the range of operational functions and e-business in an evolving business contextt, as well ability to reflect on operations theory within the traditional and digital perspective while making informed suggestions using theories and applied practices with the support of academic sources.
The report must include evaluation and reflection on the practical application of operations management theories and principles with reference to the simulation game (modules 1&2) and supported by findings from academic and practitioner literature. You must use reputable and recognized sources to conduct your research and avoid using obscure websites.
The deadline for the report is Thursday 31st October 2019, 1.00 p.m.
The length of the report is 1000 words +-10%. – The limit excludes game score result reports, game support statement, title page, table of contents, diagrams, tables, figures, reference list and appendices.
You should write in clear, concise and correct English. Remember to Spell check, Grammar check and Proofread. Do not put far too many points into one paragraph. Keep the points separate, at the very least by using a new paragraph for each point.
Format: PDF, page numbers, 1.5 line spacing, normal margins, Arial/Times New Roman 12 point font
Document Name: Ops_Dig_Bus_A1_PORTFOLIO_SEM1
Assessment title: Operations Management in Manufacturing and Digital Economy
The report should have a suitable structure and may follow the recommended structure:
This is an individual assignment and is worth 50% of the total marks available for this module. Each student must submit an electronic copy of their report to Blackboard. The marking scheme for the report:
|Use of theory||25%|
|Presentation and structure||5%|
Note that marking criteria should not be seen as the structure of the report nor expected headings of your report. You should view the marking criteria as a useful indicator about the level you need to achieve for your work.
Note that textbook descriptions of methods, tools and techniques will not be given marks, although a brief description or outline of such techniques may be necessary.
Students may use the formal Mitigating Circumstances procedures to justify the late submission or non-submission for valid reasons. Pease note that the Module Leader cannot grant any extensions. Any requests should be made to the Mitigating Circumstances Board and supported by appropriate evidence. For more information on this please contact the WBS Registry.
When writing a report, you will need to support your arguments by referring to published work such as books, journal or newspaper articles, government reports, dissertations and theses, and material from the Internet. All work must be fully referenced and follow the correct referencing style guide. You must include at least 8 references in the report.
It is expected that you use the Westminster Harvard Referencing style within this work. You may want to consult the referencing style guide at Referencing your Work.
Academic offenses, including plagiarism are treated very seriously. Plagiarism must be avoided at all costs and students who break rules, however innocently, will be penalized. All submitted work is passed through ‘Turnitin’ system to determine the originality score.
It is your responsibility as a student to make sure that you understand what constitutes an academic offense, what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. Consult the Handbook of Academic Regulations for more information.
Report feedback will be available on Week 10. Electronic feedback sheet will appear on blackboard. Further face-to-face feedback can be given individually when necessary. All marks are classed as provisional until approved by the final Examination Board.
It is a requirement that you submit your work in this way. All coursework must be submitted by 1.00 p.m. (13.00) UK time on the due date.
If you submit your coursework late but within 24 hours or one working day of the specified deadline, 10% of the overall marks available for that element of assessment will be deducted, as a penalty for late submission, except for work which is marked in the range 40 – 49%, in which case the mark will be capped at the pass mark (40%).
If you submit your coursework more than 24 hours or more than one working day after the specified deadline you will be given a mark of zero for the work in question.
The University’s mitigating circumstances procedures relating to the non-submission or late submission of coursework apply to all coursework.
Georgia Markoudi 27.08.2019
|Individual Report marking rubric
|No meaningful level of introduction with description of the case study meaningless or incomplete. It is copied with no attempt to summarise or paraphrase. No context of the report is covered and outline of key topics missing.||Inadequate introduction with incomplete description of the case study with facts, which are poorly summarised and paraphrased with inconsistencies or omissions. Limited context of the report is covered with outline of many key topics missing||Very basic introduction with incomplete description of the case study which are summarised and paraphrased, but with inconsistencies or omissions. Context of the report is not clearly set and is missing an outline of many key topics.||Adequate introduction with description about the case study with important facts, which are summarised and paraphrased, but with minor inconsistencies or omissions. Context of the report is set and outlined but may omit some key topics.||Very good introduction with description case study with important facts, which are summarised and paraphrased. Context of the report is set and outlined.||Excellent introduction with brief of case study with most important and meaningful facts, which are well summarised and paraphrased. Context of the report is well set and clearly outlined.||../10|
|Very poor with no attempt at integration and practical application of theory. No appropriate theory/model is chosen, or choice of models is irrelevant, and application is muddled. Theory/models are not acknowledged or acknowledged incorrectly.||Poor integration and practical application of theory. Choice of the selected theory/model is not satisfactory, with other more suitable models should have been chosen. Application of theory/models to the company was missing or rudimentary with omissions or errors in its depth, breadth and interpretation. Theory/models are not acknowledged or acknowledged with major errors.||Very basic integration and practical application of theory. Choice and relevance of selected theory/models is sufficient, but other more suitable models should have been chosen. Application of theory/models to the company was basic with omissions or errors in its depth, breadth and interpretation. Theory/models are acknowledged, but with major errors.||Good integration and practical application of theory. Choice and relevance of selected theory/models is sufficient, but other suitable models could have been chosen. Application of theory/models to the company is good but with omissions or errors in its depth, breadth and interpretation. All theory/models are correctly acknowledged, but with errors.||Very good integration and practical application of theory. Choice and relevance of selected theory/models is suitable and sufficient. Application of theory/models to the company is good but with minor omissions or errors in its depth, breadth and interpretation. All theory/models are correctly acknowledged, with minor errors.||Excellent integration and practical application of theory. Choice and relevance of selected theory/models is outstanding. Application of theory/models to the company is outstanding in its depth, breadth and interpretation.
All theory/models are correctly acknowledged.
|Inadequate level of findings, analysis and critical evaluation. Descriptive. Lacks evidence of agile methods application and insights. The breadth, depth and integration of findings/literature/data into work is inadequate. Some literature irrelevant to topic.||Weak level of evidence of findings, analysis and critical evaluation, but more development and commentary is needed. May need to do more than describe. Unsatisfactory evidence of insights and focus. The breadth, depth and integration of findings/literature/data into work is very limited||Basic level of evidence of findings, analysis and critical evaluation, but some ideas/points superficially made and will require further development. Superficial insights and focus. The breadth, depth and integration of findings/literature/data into work is limited.||Good level of findings, analysis and critical evaluation, but more ideas/points could be addressed and developed further. Good insights and focus. The breadth, depth and integration of findings/literature/data into the work are good.||Very good level of findings, analysis and critical evaluation with few ideas/points could benefit from further development and discussion. Well-developed focused work and insights. The breadth, depth and integration of findings/literature/data into the work are very good.||Excellent level of findings, analysis and critical evaluation with clearly developing and thorough discussion. Highly developed focused work and insights. The breadth, depth and integration of findings/literature/data into the work is outstanding.||../40|
|Conclusions are muddled. Conclusions are not supported by the findings.
|Conclusions are not clearly explained. Conclusions are not supported by the findings.
|Conclusions are not clearly explained, and few conclusions are supported by the findings and inconsistent with the interpretation of data.
|Conclusions are explained and some conclusions are supported by the findings but are somewhat inconsistent with the interpretation of findings||Conclusions are clearly explained and are mostly supported by the findings. and are consistent with interpretation of findings.
|Conclusions are clearly explained and are all supported by the findings. and are consistent with the interpretation of findings.||../15|
|No references||Major mistakes in referencing or major references missing.||Minor mistakes or inconsistencies in referencing.||Appropriate referencing, minor mistakes.||Referencing accurate.||All referencing accurate.||../5|
|Presentation & structure
|Very poor report structure with illogical sections/signposting. Report is poorly written and requires proof reading.||Poor report structure. Writing style is muddled and not always clear. Standard of proof-reading needs improving, as report has many errors.||Basic report structure. Writing style is not always clear. Standard of proof-reading needs improving, as report has a number of errors.||Good presentation and structure of the report with flowing sections. Writing is mainly clear. Good standard of proof reading but with some errors.||Very good presentation and structure of the report with flowing sections. Fluent academic writing style. Very good standard of proof reading with very few errors.||Excellent presentation and structure of the
report with flowing sections. Fluent and articulate academic writing style. Excellent standard of proof reading with no or minor errors.