MGT4540/4641 Operations Management 2020-21
1
Coursework 2 (individual report & simulation model)
Read the case study description below. Develop and run Arena simulation model for the
current system. Analyse the results and then modify the system to identify optimal level of
resources required. Note that you are only allowed to modify capacity. Write a technical
report (1,500 words ±10%) that analyses the current performance of the process, conducts
justifiable experiments and makes a clear and justified recommendations for the company.
You are required to submit your report in PDF or MS Word format through Turnitin via
UniHub by the deadline of 9pm on Friday 8th January 2021 (end of learning week 12).
You must also submit your Arena model (.doe file) through a drop-box via UniHub by the
same deadline). Name both of your files using your student number only (this is so that your
Arena model and Report can be combined when marking). Assignment will be blind marked
so don’t include your name in the report. Late submissions or submissions through other
methods will not be accepted.
Your report should include the following:
1. Introduction with a brief discussion on the suitability of computer simulation and
Arena software to address the case study problem. Justify. (10 marks)
2. Analysis of the current system performance (you need to analyse not just report the
results). (20 marks)
3. Experiments with the capacity of the system. Each experiment need to be clearly
justified and results analysed to understand the impact of the proposed change and
the performance of the new system. Only make one change to system at time. (40
marks)
4. Recommendation and discussion on the implications of the recommendation. (10
marks)
** Arena model (.doe file) of the current system must be submitted via the drop-box.
(20 marks)
You are writing this report to your manager so it should look and sound like professional
piece of work.
Keep the submission receipt and a copy of your assignment in a safe place. Note that
Turnitin could get very busy near the deadline. It is advised that you plan your submission
well in advance to avoid any last minute panic. If you are unable to submit your work on
time, you must seek a deferral/extension via UniHub using the Extenuating Circumstances
Process (please note that module leader/tutor will not be able to grant extensions). If you
have acceptable extenuating circumstances and satisfy the requirements for a deferral or
extension, a new deadline will be granted to you for submission. If you are unable to submit
the report on time and do not have a deferral, you will be given 0% marks for this
assessment component. Any grades you see on myUniHub will be unconfirmed grades, as
grades can only be confirmed at the assessment board, and these grades may change.
You will receive feedback within 3 weeks of the submission deadline.
MGT4540/4641 Operations Management 2020-21
2
Case Study
You have recently started a new job as a Junior Process Analyst in a large hospitality
business. Your manager has asked you to investigate one of the branches in their chain of
coffee shops. The branch has received negative customer feedback and the sales have
been declining. Your manager wants to understand if there are any underlying process
related issues in the branch and how these could be resolved. Your manager wants you
to:
1) Gain understanding of the process structure (completed)
2) Measure and collect relevant data from the process (completed)
3) Build a model of the process using Arena simulation software
4) Simulate the current process and analyse the results to gain understanding of its
performance
5) Experiment with the capacity of the system to identify how the process could be
improved
6) Write a report to your manager summarising your findings (+/- 1,500 words)
You have completed Steps 1 & 2 and the information you have collected is summarised
below.
London Airport Terminal 2 branch of Coffee Adventures Shop is located at airport
departure lounge. The key information about the process is as follows: information is as
follows:
Service process has the following steps: 1) Take customer order and payment
Tria(0.5,1,2) – requires one cash machine and one employee, 2) Deliver the order
to the drink machines Constant(0.5) – requires one employee, 3) Make the
purchased drink Tea: Tria(0.5,1,3), Coffee: Tria(1,2,6) or Hot chocolate:
Tria(1.5,3,5) – requires the appropriate machine (one Tea Pot, one Coffee Machine
or one Hot Chocolate Machine) and one employee, 4) deliver the drink to the
customer Expo(0.5) – requires one employee. Same employee completes the order
from Taking order to Delivering the drink.
5% of orders are identified as faulty after delivery to customer and need to be
remade (order needs to be redelivered to drink machines by the same employee
who delivered it to the customer) with delay of Expo(0.5), purchased drink remade
(same drink) and then redelivered to customer with resources and times as
specified earlier.
Company has one machine for making tea, one for making coffees and one for hot
chocolates. Each machine can only be used to make one drink at a time.
Company has two cash machines and two employees
Company sells three different types of hot drinks; 30% of customers order Tea,
50% order coffee and 20% order hot chocolate.
Time between customer arrivals follow Expo(3) distribution
The number of customers arriving at the same time follows Poisson(1) distribution
When a customer arrives and if both cash machine and employee are idle the
customer will be served immediately, otherwise the customer waits in a First-InFirsts-Out (FIFO) queue
Each customer orders only one drink.
All times are given in minutes.
The system starts at time zero minutes with no products present and the
machine(s) idle.
Run the simulation for 120 hours.
MGT4540/4641 Operations Management 2020-21
3
Marking Criteria
Section/ criteria | 70-100% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | 0-39% |
Introduction: A clear introduction and justification of the method used (0-10 marks) |
Outstanding understanding of the simulation concepts. All relevant concepts identified and well discussed. |
Good understanding of simulation concepts. Good discussion of the relevant concepts but incomplete. |
Satisfactory knowledge and understanding of simulation concepts. All relevant concepts identified but not discussed or some concepts identified and discussed. Incomplete. |
Adequate knowledge and understanding of simulation concepts. Few relevant concepts identified but not discussed. |
Inadequate knowledge and understanding of simulation concepts; No relevant/correct information given. |
Analysis: Relevant and informative analysis of the current system performance (0-20 marks) |
Excellent analysis of the current system performance based on data. Data is related to system performance and correct conclusions have been made. |
Good analysis of the current system performance. Data is used to analyse system performance but analysis is partly incomplete or lacks depth. |
Satisfactory analysis of the current system performance. Data is analysed with varying depth and accuracy. No complete understanding of the system performance developed. |
Adequate content; limited depth of analysis. Some analysis of the data is conducted but the analysis is incomplete and not detailed. Focused on reporting data rather than analysis of the system performance. |
Inadequate content; Data is reported but not analysed. Incorrect and incomplete conclusions. |
Experimentation & Analysis: Experiments with the capacity of the system to identify how the process could be improved (0-40 marks) |
Experiments are clear and logical. Each experiment has been clearly justified and results analysed to understand the impact of the proposed change and the performance of the new system |
Experiments are clear and logical. Good justification and analysis but partly incomplete or lacks clarity |
Experiments are unclear or partly illogical. Justification and analysis is satisfactory but incomplete and lacks depth |
Experiments are unclear and illogical. Some relevant justification and analysis. Incomplete. |
Inadequate experiments conducted with no relevant justification and analysis. No understanding of how to use data to develop experiments. Appropriate process not followed. |
MGT4540/4641 Operations Management 2020-21
4
Recommendation and Implications: Clear and justified recommendation and considerations of the possible implications (0-10 marks) |
Logical and coherent recommendation with excellent discussion on relevant implications |
Clear and coherent recommendation with good discussion on most relevant implications |
Recommendation is unclear. Most relevant implications have been recognised but discussion lacks details |
Recommendation is inconsistent and discussion on implications is incomplete |
No coherent recommendation. Most implications are not recognised or discussed. |
Presentation: Clearly presented with limited spelling and grammatical errors |
Very well expressed and understanding of content with limited spelling or grammatical errors |
Very well expressed; good understanding of content with some spelling and/ or grammatical errors |
Well expressed; understanding of content with several spelling and/ or grammatical errors |
Unclear expression of information; little understanding of content; several spelling and grammatical errors |
Several spelling and grammatical errors |
Arena Model: Accuracy of the model developed for the current system (0-20 marks) |
Model correctly illustrates the system logic and data; model is clearly presented and easy to understand |
Some small errors in the model logic/data and presentation is not very clear |
Major error in the system logic/data but most of the model is correct. Easy to understand. |
Major errors in the system logic/data. Model does not run and/or results have significant errors. Model is confusing. |
Model not submitted or the submitted model does not correctly illustrates the system logic and data. Major errors and model does not run. |