Salford Business School

Salford Busin” rel=”nofollow”>iness School

MSc Programme Suite, Semester 1, 2016/17

Operations and Information Management – Assignment One
The manufacturin” rel=”nofollow”>ing/service process design is based on a considerable number of potentially conflictin” rel=”nofollow”>ing variables and represents, in” rel=”nofollow”>in essence, a number of trade-offs. Arguably, the Nature of the Busin” rel=”nofollow”>iness, the Nature of the Product, the Nature of the Market Place, and the Supply Chain” rel=”nofollow”>in Dynamics, affect all decision-makin” rel=”nofollow”>ing pertin” rel=”nofollow”>inent to process design, management and development.

A) By takin” rel=”nofollow”>ing as an example a product or a service from an in” rel=”nofollow”>industry that you are familiar with, critically discuss the main” rel=”nofollow”>in factors that in” rel=”nofollow”>influence the manufacturin” rel=”nofollow”>ing/service process design.
(70% of the mark)

B) Discuss how the five Operational Performance Objectives may in” rel=”nofollow”>influence decision-makin” rel=”nofollow”>ing associated with process design and layouts.
(30% of the mark)
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
In your answer you must consider Demand Management, Inventory Management and Forecastin” rel=”nofollow”>ing, and the effect of other functions of the organisation such as Marketin” rel=”nofollow”>ing, Procurement,and Supply Chain” rel=”nofollow”>in Management. Some examples of products/services researched by students in” rel=”nofollow”>in the past in” rel=”nofollow”>include: Smart Phones (specific makes and models), Cars (specific makes and models), NHS A&E Departments, Restaurants, Waterworks, Nuclear Power, Shipbuildin” rel=”nofollow”>ing, Waste Recyclin” rel=”nofollow”>ing etc. The list is potentially endless.

This assignment represents 50% of your overall module mark. The maximum word count is 3000 words (+/- 10%) excludin” rel=”nofollow”>ing Table of Contents, Executive Summary, References, Appendixes and Tables. You will also need to take the followin” rel=”nofollow”>ing in” rel=”nofollow”>into account when completin” rel=”nofollow”>ing 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 in” rel=”nofollow”>included references and citations to the material I have used?)
• Clarity of argument
• Overall report presentation in” rel=”nofollow”>includin” rel=”nofollow”>ing spellin” rel=”nofollow”>ing and grammar
• Adherence to nomin” rel=”nofollow”>inated word limit (+/- 10%)
• Word processed (letter size 12, times new roman, 1.5 space), fully referenced (Harvard Referencin” rel=”nofollow”>ing System)

The assignment must be submitted via Onlin” rel=”nofollow”>ineCampus. Please remember that marks for assignment will also be awarded in” rel=”nofollow”>in relation to presentation and structure, and aspects such as use of examples, figures, tables, illustrations and statistics that in” rel=”nofollow”>indicate wider/in” rel=”nofollow”>independent readin” rel=”nofollow”>ing. Please see at the end of this document the school Markin” rel=”nofollow”>ing Criteria for your level of study.

INDICATIVE READING
Please refer to the readin” rel=”nofollow”>ing list issued at the start of the moduleon Onlin” rel=”nofollow”>ineCampus. Further material in” rel=”nofollow”>in the form of articles from refereed journals and web references are available throughwww.emeraldin” rel=”nofollow”>insight.com and www.sciencedirect.com, which are two good startin” rel=”nofollow”>ing poin” rel=”nofollow”>ints 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 regardin” rel=”nofollow”>ing plagiarism and citin” rel=”nofollow”>ing sources and references used. Assignments may not be submitted late. Markin” rel=”nofollow”>ing 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
(in” rel=”nofollow”>indicative – not for gradin” rel=”nofollow”>ing) Standard comparable to journal publication Standard comparable to conference paper publication Distin” rel=”nofollow”>inctive work for Masters level Merit work for Masters level Acceptable for Masters Below Masters pass standard Significantly below Masters pass standard
Scope Outstandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing clarity of focus, in” rel=”nofollow”>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 settin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of boundaries, in” rel=”nofollow”>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.
Understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of subject matter
Outstandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing expression of ideas. Excellent with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Excellent expression of ideas. Very good with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing 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 understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of subject matter is demonstrated.
Literature
Comprehensive literature review. Evaluation and synthesis of source material to produce an outstandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing contribution. Excellent in” rel=”nofollow”>independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce an excellent contribution. Very good in” rel=”nofollow”>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” rel=”nofollow”>in choice and synthesis. Limited secondary research to extend taught materials. Limited evaluation of sources, deficiencies in” rel=”nofollow”>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 – showin” rel=”nofollow”>ing questionin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of sources, understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of bias, in” rel=”nofollow”>independence of thought Excellent standard of critical analysis – excellence in” rel=”nofollow”>in questionin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of sources, understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of bias, in” rel=”nofollow”>independence of thought A very good standard of critical analysis. Sources are questioned appropriately, and a very good understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of bias, showin” rel=”nofollow”>ing in” rel=”nofollow”>independence of thought Critical analysis with some questionin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of sources, understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of bias, in” rel=”nofollow”>independence of thought. Analysis evident but uncritical. Sources are not always questioned, with limited in” rel=”nofollow”>independence of thought. Little or no analysis. No valid analysis.
Structure of argument, leadin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to conclusion Well structured, compellin” rel=”nofollow”>ing and persuasive argument that leads to a valuable contribution to the field of study, pavin” rel=”nofollow”>ing the way for future work. Argument has excellent structure and persuasiveness, leadin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to very significant in” rel=”nofollow”>insights and relevant future work. Well-structured and persuasive argument Insightful conclusion draws together key issues and possible future work. Structured and fairly convin” rel=”nofollow”>incin” rel=”nofollow”>ing argument leads to conclusion that summarises key issues. Argument has some structure and development towards conclusion with limitations in” rel=”nofollow”>in summary of issues. Argument is unstructured, no recognizable conclusion. No evidence of argument or conclusion.

find the cost of your paper