Salford Business School MSc .

Salford Business School MSc Programme Suite, Semester 1, 2016/17 Operations and Information Management – Assignment One The manufacturing/service process design is based on a considerable number of potentially conflicting variables and represents, in essence, a number of trade-offs. Arguably, the Nature of the Business, the Nature of the Product, the Nature of the Market Place, and the Supply Chain Dynamics, affect all decision-making pertinent to process design, management and development. A) By taking as an example a product or a service from an industry that you are familiar with, critically discuss the main factors that influence the manufacturing/service process design. (70% of the mark) B) Discuss how the five Operational Performance Objectives may influence decision-making associated with process design and layouts. (30% of the mark) ASSESSMENT CRITERIA In your answer you must consider Demand Management, Inventory Management and Forecasting, and the effect of other functions of the organisation such as Marketing, Procurement, and Supply Chain Management. Some examples of products/services researched by students in the past include: Smart Phones (specific makes and models), Cars (specific makes and models), NHS A&E Departments, Restaurants, Waterworks, Nuclear Power, Shipbuilding, Waste Recycling etc. The list is potentially endless. This assignment represents 50% of your overall module mark. The maximum word count is 3000 words (+/- 10%) excluding Table of Contents, Executive Summary, References, Appendixes and Tables. You will also need to take the following into account when completing your assignment: • Quality of executive summary (does it give a brief complete summary of your paper for an executive to read?) • Establishment of relevant theory (e.g. what do we mean by process management?) • Allocation of credit and sources used (have I included references and citations to the material I have used?) • Clarity of argument • Overall report presentation including spelling and grammar • Adherence to nominated word limit (+/- 10%) • Word processed (letter size 12, times new roman, 1.5 space), fully referenced (Harvard Referencing System) The assignment must be submitted via OnlineCampus. Please remember that marks for assignment will also be awarded in relation to presentation and structure, and aspects such as use of examples, figures, tables, illustrations and statistics that indicate wider/independent reading. Please see at the end of this document the school Marking Criteria for your level of study. INDICATIVE READING Please refer to the reading list issued at the start of the module on OnlineCampus. Further material in the form of articles from refereed journals and web references are available through www.emeraldinsight.com and www.sciencedirect.com, which are two good starting points for refereed publications. You have access to these through the University library account. You should also have a look at www.Youtube.com. Please search for “How it is made”. ASSESMENT HOUSEKEEPING You are required to follow the University’s regulations regarding plagiarism and citing sources and references used. Assignments may not be submitted late. Marking penalties for late submission will follow the University regulations for PMC and late submission. Criterion / Mark range 90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 0-39 Overall level (indicative – not for grading) Standard comparable to journal publication Standard comparable to conference paper publication Distinctive work for Masters level Merit work for Masters level Acceptable for Masters Below Masters pass standard Significantly below Masters pass standard Scope Outstanding clarity of focus, includes what is important, and excludes irrelevant issues. Excellent clarity of focus, boundaries set with no significant omissions or unnecessary issues. Clear focus. Very good setting of boundaries, includes most of what is relevant. Clear scope and focus, with some omissions or unnecessary issues. Scope evident and satisfactory but with some omissions and unnecessary issues. Poorly scoped, with significant omissions and unnecessary issues. Little or no scope or focus evident. Understanding of subject matter Outstanding with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas. Excellent with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Excellent expression of ideas. Very good with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas. Good with some awareness of relevance of issues. Ideas are expressed, with some limitation. Basic with limited awareness of relevance of issues. Limited expression of ideas. Poor with little awareness of relevance of issues Little or no understanding of subject matter is demonstrated. Literature Comprehensive literature review. Evaluation and synthesis of source material to produce an outstanding contribution. Excellent independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce an excellent contribution. Very good independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce a very good contribution. Good secondary research to extend taught materials. Evidence of evaluation of sources, with some deficiencies in choice and synthesis. Limited secondary research to extend taught materials. Limited evaluation of sources, deficiencies in choice and synthesis. Little or no extension of taught materials. Poor choice and synthesis of materials. Poor use of taught materials. No synthesis. Critical analysis based on evidence Standard of critical analysis – showing questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought Excellent standard of critical analysis – excellence in questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought A very good standard of critical analysis. Sources are questioned appropriately, and a very good understanding of bias, showing independence of thought Critical analysis with some questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought. Analysis evident but uncritical. Sources are not always questioned, with limited independence of thought. Little or no analysis. No valid analysis. Structure of argument, leading to conclusion Well structured, compelling and persuasive argument that leads to a valuable contribution to the field of study, paving the way for future work. Argument has excellent structure and persuasiveness, leading to very significant insights and relevant future work. Well-structured and persuasive argument Insightful conclusion draws together key issues and possible future work. Structured and fairly convincing argument leads to conclusion that summarises key issues. Argument has some structure and development towards conclusion with limitations in summary of issues. Argument is unstructured, no recognizable conclusion. No evidence of argument or conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.