| Criteria | FAIL =<25% | PASS =55% | CREDIT=65% | DISTINCTION =75% | HIGH DISTINCTION>=85% |
| Accuracy ofreferencing accordingto Harvard whensupport your claims10 % | More than half thein text or references and or in the reference list are inaccurate | Confused with nearly half the references inaccurately provided. | Several errors only throughout the work and or in the reference list. | Two or Four errors only | No mistakes or limited to a typo or two |
| Research and analysisof companyinformation20% | Few or no key issues mentioned with a predominant use of internet to support the very little attempt at research | Some key issues identified. Very limited use and/orinsufficient ranges of sources used and mostly internet based | All key issues identifiedUsed a range ofsources, most of which were relevant and showed greater use of research skills than a Google search | All key issues identified. Scholarly use of a wide range of sources of data including those from the EBSCO database | All key issues expertly identified. Highly proficient and scholarly use of a wide range of relevant sources expertly applied and consistent with those found in the EBSCO database |
| Application of relevanttheories of logisticsmanagement40% | Critical analysis poorlydemonstrated if at all | Critical analysis somewhatdemonstratedLittle application of accepted theories and models to set task | Critical analysisdemonstrated generallyApplication of some generally acceptedtheories and models to set task | Competent application ofrelevant theories andmodels. Considerable demonstration of critical analysis. Application of theories and models relevant to set task | Scholarly application of relevant theories and modelsScholarly demonstration of critical analysis . Application of theories and models relevant to set task and demonstrated within the set text used in the subject. |
| Development ofReport, conclusionargument/responsesrecommendations20% | Argument, if evidenced, notdeveloped or supportedPoor, if any conclusions andrecommendations | Argument is not welldeveloped and supported. Conclusion and recommendations evident but not logical or well supported. | Logically developedargument supported byevidence. Effective conclusion andto a limited extent logical recommendations | Logically developedargument clearly supported by evidenceComprehensive conclusion & evidence of some enlightened thought supportingrecommendations | Logical argument developed in a scholarly fashion supported by evidence Recommendations draw arguments together in an influential and scholarly manner with evidence based recommendations |
| Writtencommunication andreferencing10% | Referencing is eitherinsufficient or contains significant inaccuraciesQuotations over-used and/or used when irrelevant Presentation poorly set out. Poor use of language,grammar and spelling | Some inaccuracies in use of correct referencing style Quotations used frequently. Presentation set out in fair manner minor errors in grammar correct use of language generally. | Reasonable skill in use of correct referencing style. Direct quotations used sparinglyPresentation shows a legible level of structure with adherence to rules of grammar and generally the correct use of language | Skill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style. Paraphrased key comments as opposed to utilizing direct quotes and the use of direct quotation almost non existent. Presentation expertly set out. Correct use of rules of language and grammar | Superior skill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style. Proficient in paraphrasing key comments and sparing use of directQuotations Report expertly, scholarly set out. Scholarly use of correct language throughout |
Assessment 2
Assessment Type: Case Study 2 – individual assessment -3000 – 3500 word report
Purpose: To allow students to further develop and apply the knowledge and skills of the subject to real world organisations. This assessment relates to Learning Outcomes a, b, c and d.
Value: 30%
Due Date: Week 10 – 5.00 pm Friday of Week 10
Submission: Electronic submission – upload a Word .doc or .docx to Moodle and Turnitin
Topic: Learning from the logistics success of others. The specific case will be advised via Moodle by the end of Week 6.
Task Details:
After reading the case, prepare a 3000 – 3500 word report (executive summary, table of contents body, conclusions and recommendations) analysing the issues in the case, and identify logistics management strategies that will improve the outcomes for the business. Use a minimum of 10 academic journal articles, plus the text supporting your identification of problems and proposals / recommendations to resolve the questions.
More specific details will be provided via Moodle. Research Use a minimum of 10 references, plus the text supporting your identification of Requirements: problems and proposals / recommendations to resolve the questions. It is envisaged a Credit grade would require up to 18 references with a minimum of 8 academic journals. A Distinction would require up to 22 references with a minimum of 12 academic journals. To be considered relevant, reference sources should be used correctly to support the discussion, analysis and recommendations, so take care to carefully link the case elements and discussion / analysis to correctly referenced logistics concepts and models, Articles chosen need to be recent (written since at least 2008) and relevant to both the topic and context of the assessment task. Additional non-academic sources may also be used, however students need to show an understanding of their validity.
Sources such as Wiki…, scribed.com, docstore.com, etc. are not considered acceptable sources and should not be used – reliance on such sources will result in a Fail grade.
Presentation: Report format – 3000 – 3500 word Word.doc or Word.docx (word count applies to content only, not title page, executive summary, table of contents and reference list). Reports should have a title page attached reflecting the content and the author, executive summary, table of contents, introduction, suitable headings and sub-headings to cover the relevant content and elements of analysis, conclusion, recommendations, reference list/bibliography, appendices (if relevant). Harvard Anglia referencing is to be used.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more