ASSESSMENT BRIEF

Academic year and term: 2022/23 – Semester 3 (Spring)

Module title: Supply Chain Strategy & Processes

Module convener: Mr Gen Zhao

Type of assessment: Summative assessment—Individual report-3,000 words-100% weighting

Formative assessment—One page report overview
Summative assessment: 14/07/2023
Assessment deadline:
Formative assessment: 31/05/2023

Instructions for assessment

Summative assessment

There will be one summative assessment which involves a comprehensive analysis of any operations
performance objectives either a) cost, b) dependability, c) flexibility, d) speed, e)quality of a company
(of your choice) . Only focus on one of these objectives. Compare the chosen company’s performance
with the one of a competitor. This is an individual report and should be 3,000 words (10% tolerance)
excluding references, tables, figures, and appendix, and to be submitted via Moodle Turnitin.

Component Individual Word % Must Must Pass

or group count / Weighting Attempt Y/N
submission length Y/N
Individual report (Company Individual max. 3,000 100% No No
case analysis) words

Steps to be followed:

1. Choose a well-known company (e.g. Unilever, Zara, Mc Donald’s, Amazon) (or a company for which
you can easily access relevant information) and choose one product group of it.
2. Choose one of the operations performance objectives: a) cost, b) dependability, c) flexibility, d)
speed, e)quality
3. Describe the global supply chain of your chosen company by identifying its supply chain members
(upstream (e.g. suppliers) and downstream (e.g. intermediaries)). You can use online sources such as
www.bloomberg.com to identify upstream and downstream players in your chosen company’s
supply chain.
4. Critically analyse its operations performance objective (of your choice) and compare it with one of
its competitor.

Formative feedback and assessment

To receive feedback on your progress, we recommend that you submit and individual report plan, that is
a written assignment of about 500 words, to be submitted via Moodle. Write a report plan including brief
information about your chosen company, product group, and specific dimension(s) of operations
performance objective that will be analysed in your individual report. In week 2, purpose and structure

1
of the assignment will be explained in detail in class in the ‘assessment clinic 1’ session. Formative
feedback will be given in specified seminar slots/assessment clinic sessions (‘assessment clinic 2’ in
week 4, and ‘assessment clinic 3’ in week 8). A summary of the feedback will also be uploaded to
Moodle.

Note that we will not provide any written or marks indicative feedback on drafts for summative
assessment at any time. Should you perceive any formative feedback such way, then please note that it
is not binding for your marking. Markers can also always change, and you have no entitlement to be
marked by the module convener or tutors.

Reading list

Recommended books and reports

Chopra S. & Meindl P. (2015) Supply Chain Management, Strategy, Planning and Operation. (6th ed.)
Pearson.

Christopher, M. (2016) Logistics and Supply Chain Management. (5th ed.), Financial Times Publishing.

Harrison, A., Van Hoek, R., & Skipworth, H. (2014) Logistics Management and Strategy: Competing
through the Supply Chain. (5th ed.) Pearson.

Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2017) Operations Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain
Management. (12th ed.) Pearson.

Neely, A. D. (2007) Business Performance Measurement: Unifying Theories and Integrating Practice.
Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

Savitz, A. W. & Weber, K. (2014) The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Companies Are Achieving
Economic, Social and Environmental Success – and How You Can Too. Indianapolis: Jossey-Bass.

Slack, N. Brandon-Jones, A., & Johnston, R. (2016) Operations Management (8th Ed). Pearson.

UN (2018) Supply Chain Sustainability Report. (2nd ed.) UN Global Compact.

(http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/supply_chain/SupplyChainRep_spread.pdf).

Recommended journal articles

Aitken J., Childerhouse, P., Christopher, M., & Towill D. (2005) Designing and managing multiple
pipelines. Journal of Business Logistics 26(2) pp. 73–96.

Andic E., Yurt, O., & Baltacioglu, T. (2012) Green supply chains: Efforts and potential applications for
the Turkish market. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 58 pp. 50–68.

Baltacioglu T., Ada E., Kaplan, M.D., Yurt, O., & Kaplan, C. (2007) A new framework for service supply
chains. Service Industries Journal 27(2) pp. 105–124.

Bourne, M., Kennerley, M., & Franco-Santos, M. (2005) Managing through measures: A study of impact
on performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 16(4) pp. 373–395.

Chavez, R., Gimenez, C., Fynes, B., Wiengarten, F., & Yu, W. (2013) Internal lean practices and
operational performance: The contingency perspective of industry clockspeed. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 33(5) pp. 562–588.

2
Christopher, M., Mena, C., Khan, O., & Yurt, O. (2011) Approaches to managing global sourcing risk.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16(2) pp. 67–81.

Christopher, M. & Ryals, L.J. (2014) The supply chain becomes the demand chain. Journal of Business
Logistics 35(1) pp. 29–35.

Cooper, M. C., Lambert D.M., & Pagh J. D. (1997) Supply chain management: More than a new name
for logistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management 8(1), pp. 1–14.

Ellram, L.M., Tate, W.L., & Billington, C. (2004) Understanding and managing the services supply
chain. Journal of Supply Chain Management 40 pp. 17–32.

Ferdows, K. (1997) Making the most of foreign factories. Harvard Business Review 75(2), pp.73–87.

Ferdows, K. & De Meyer, A. (1990) Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: In search of

a new theory. Journal of Operations Management 9(2) pp. 168–184.

Fisher, M. (1997) What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Review 75(2) pp.
105–116.

Fisher, M., Hammond, J., Obermeyer, W., & Raman, A. (1994) Making supply meet demand in an
uncertain world. Harvard Business Review 72(3) pp. 83–92.

Gereffi, G. & Lee, J. (2012) Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains. Journal of Supply
Chain Management 48(3) pp. 24–32.

Hesping, F.H. & Schiele, H. (2015) Purchasing strategy development: A multi-level review. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management 21(2) pp. 138–150.

Juttner, U., Peck, H., & Christopher, M. (2003) Supply chain risk management: Outlining an agenda for
future research. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 6(4) pp.197–210.

Kaplan, R. S. & David, N. (1992) The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard
Business Review 70(1) pp. 71–79.

Van Duin, J.H.R., van Dam, T., Wiegmans, B., Tavasszy, L.A. (2016) Understanding financial viability
of urban consolidation centres: Regent street (London). Transportation Research Procedia 16 pp. 61–80.

Ward, P.T., McCreery, J.K., Ritzman, L.P., & Sharma, D. (1998) Competitive priorities in operations
management. Decision Sciences 2 pp. 1035–1046.

Wong, C.Y., Boon-itt, S., Wong, C.W.Y. (2011) The contingency effects of environmental uncertainty
on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational performance. Journal of Operations
Management, 29 pp. 604–615.

Yildirim C., Oflac S. B., & Yurt O . (2018) The doer effect of failure and recovery in multi-agent cases:
Service supply chain perspective. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 28(3) pp.274–297.

Yu, W. (2014) Cooperative purchasing in small and medium-sized enterprises. In: U., R. & R., R. (eds.)
Supply Chain Strategies, Issues and Models. Springer. pp. 193–208.

Yu, W. (2015) The effect of IT-enabled supply chain integration on performance. Production Planning
& Control 26(12) pp. 945–957.

Yu, W., Chavez, R., Feng, M., & Wiengarten, F. (2014) Integrated green supply chain management and
operational performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19(5–6) pp. 683–696.
3
Further case studies

Adıvar, B.O., Yurt, O. (2009) Line Haul Optimization for OFLT Inc: A Teaching Case Study. Journal of
Advances in Management Research. 6(2) pp. 206–219.

Yurt, O. & Karabas, I. (2016) Internationalisation process of a worldwide leading company – Get more
electronics: A teaching case study. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies 7(1) pp. 1–14.

Relevant academic journals

• Journal of Supply Chain Management

• Journal of Operations Management
• Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
• International Journal of Operations & Production Management
• International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management
• Industrial Marketing Management
• Production and Operations Management (POM)
• Manufacturing & Service Operations Management

Relevant trade journals and newspapers

• Supply Chain Management Review

• CSCMP’s Supply Chain (Quarterly)
• Global Trade
• Logistics Management
• Food Logistics
• Supply and Demand Chain Executive
• Supply Management
• Supply Chain Frontiers
• Financial Times
• Management Today

How will your work be assessed?

Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use either the marking criteria provided in the
section “Instructions for assessment” or the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix, as appropriate for
this module. When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that
you can use it to improve future assignments.

Referencing and submission

You must use the Harvard System.

The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted
via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must
not include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further
general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information at StudentZone,
http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/howtostudy/index.html.

4
Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attend your
presentation

The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website: Mitigating
Circumstances Policy

Marking and feedback process

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there
are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks
which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.

• Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback
will be provided.

• Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment
brief.

• Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking
team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback

• Step Four – Work then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm
that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair

• Step Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you.

Additional instructions for re-sit: Individual Report

The same assignment task as for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit, with further instructions
see below.

Re-sit deadlines will be published via Moodle. Visit the module’s Moodle site and check your
Roehampton email account on a regular basis. The school is not obliged to check whether you have noticed
re-sit deadlines.

You are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective
commentary in form of a 400-700 words Essay. You must resubmit your work using the specific re-sit
Turnitin link on Moodle. This additional word count can be added on top of the original word count of
this assignment, if you used the full word count.

The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid in Appendix) except that the 10% weighting
for Presentation, Logical structure, English expression, correct referencing will be awarded instead to
your additional Reflective Essay section. That is, a statement demonstrating how you learnt from the
feedback and what you did differently the second time. Also reflect how the module contents could be
beneficial as knowledge of best practices for a future management, public administration or advisory
career.

If you did not submit work at the first opportunity, you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, in
such case, your Reflection Essay section should reflect upon a) how the module’s concepts are informing
the professions and open up areas of future empirical research and b) how the module contents could be
beneficial as knowledge of best practices for your future management, public administration or advisory
career.

5
If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece
as this is a first submission at a later date, not a re-sit.

The Reflective Essay is marked based on the criteria of Criticality and Evidence-based Logic of
arguments. It is an independent writing task and no supervision will be provided for conducting the essay.

6
Appendix A: Marking rubrics for Summative assessment
Component: Individual Report (Company case analysis)

Rubric Outstanding Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail Not
category (80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) Fail (40-49) (30-39) (20-29) done
(range) 100 85 75 65 55 45 35 25
Assigned mark 0
>>
_____________
_______
Marking
criteria
(weight out of
100)
Criteria 1: Excellent Very good Good level of Satisfactory Basic Relevant Very poor Missing.
Analysis and Cannot be level of level of discussion/ level of evidence of issues poorly analysis Wholly
discussion improved on. discussion/ discussion/ analysis/ discussion/ analysis/ or identified, and incorrect
Exemplary in all analysis/ analysis/ critical analysis but reflection but discussed and discussion. or not
(30%) aspects. critical critical evaluation &/or more some points analysed. attempte
Outstanding evaluation evaluation reflection & a ideas/points superficially d.
analysis. &/or &/or reflection few could be made so
reflection. clearly ideas/points addressed needs further
Highly developing could benefit /developed development.
developed/ points in the from further further.
focused appropriate development
work. way with &/or
thorough evaluation/com
consideration parison.
of alternatives.
Criteria 2: Cannot be Excellent use Very good Good use of Satisfactory Adequate Insufficient Little Missing.
Application of improved on. of theory. use of theory. theory. use of theory. use of use of theory. research Doesn’t
the theory Research Impressive Evidence of a Evidence of a Range of theory. May Limited and use of meet the
includes choice and wide range of Good range of appropriate benefit from range of theory. basic
(30%) Operations range of appropriate appropriate reading is further sources are Very assessme
Management appropriate reading. reading. satisfactory. research. used. limited nt
journals, core content. Research Research Research Limited Little attempt range of criteria.
7
 and essential Research includes includes some includes research made at sources.
text books from includes Supply Chain academic competent often not researching Little
the reading list Supply Chain and journals and attempt at including the topic. A attempt
and web sources and Operations text books one or two academic few websites made at
and grey reports. Operations Management from the academic journals or or a couple of researchin
Bibliography Management journals, core reading list. journals, text text books. books cited. g the topic.
and citation are journals, core and essential Scope for more books and For
very strong. and essential text books breadth though online example,
text books from the sources. just a
from the reading list More breadth website or
reading list and web needed. a text book
and web sources. cited.
sources and
grey reports.
Criteria 3: Outstandingly Excellent Very good Good Limited but Some basic Limited Conclusion Missing.
Conclusions clear concluding clear concluding concluding satisfactory conclusions conclusions is some Doesn’t
and comments concluding comments comments concluding drawn from drawn, and repetitive meet the
recommendatio encompassing comments encompassing encompassing comments the work but often reader sentences. basic
ns key points made encompassin key points key points offered. no real has to find assessme
as well as some g key points made. Very made. Good summary these within nt
(30%) good practical made. good suggestion(s) offered. the work. criteria.
suggestions. Excellent suggestions is/are made.
Cannot be suggestions are made.
improved. are made.
Criteria 4: Exemplary in all Excellent Very good Good Evidence of a An adequate Some but Little Missing.
Presentation, aspects. structure to a structure to a structure to a satisfactory attempt to insufficient structure to Doesn’t
Logical Cannot be practised practised practised structure, structure evidence of the meet the
structure, improved on. presentation, presentation, presentation, practised presentation presentation, presentatio basic
English Professional excellent and very good use good use of presentation, clear English n and poor assessme
expression, standard engaging use of English. English. competent English, lapses. use of nt
correct presentation, of English. High standard Good standard English most parts of A number of English. criteria.
referencing engaging and Faultless of spelling & of spelling & expression. the question spelling and Many
powerful use of referencing grammar. grammar. Few errors in attempted. grammatical spelling &
(10%) English. throughout spelling & Few spelling inaccuracies. grammatic
the Very good Minor errors in grammar. & Failure to cite al errors
assignment. referencing the referencing grammatical all references Poor
8
throughout the of others. Few errors in errors in the main structure
assignment. the Most text. Inconsisten
referencing references Incomplete t use of
of others. are presented reference list. referencing
appropriately in the main
in the main text
text. Incorrect
List of reference
references is list.
correct.