Assignment Guidance and Front Sheet

This sheet is to be populated by the Module Tutor, checked by the Programme Team, and uploaded to Moodle for students to fill in their ID and submit with their assessment.

Student ID or IDs for group work

Student fill in own ID and attach document for submission

Module Title & Code	ES961-10 04 Logistics and Operations Management
Module Owner	Phil Cullen
Module Tutor	Andrew Parker
Module Marker	Andrew Parker
Assesment type	Essay
Date Set	07/11/2020
Submission Date (excluding extensions)	25/11/2020
Marks return date (excluding extensions)	15/01/2021
Weighting of mark	80%.

Assessment Detail	See Below (end of document)
Additional details	There are 2 questions. Questions 1 is based on the production simulation exercise manufacturing aerials that you participated in during the seminars. Question 2 is more general and will require further research into the area. The total length of the report should be 4,000 words. Therefore, a background of the production simulation exercise is not required. Also, do not provide an abstract, introduction or conclusion to your overall PMA, simply answer each question.
Module learning outcomes (numbered)	Comprehensively understand the interrelationships and interdependencies between capacity, inventory and delivery performance. Critically evaluate how to manage capacity, inventory and delivery to achieve effective and efficient operational performance. Compare and contrast different tools and techniques for the planning and control of logistics and operations management and justify their use in a variety of operational environments. Demonstrate awareness of appropriate technology and critically appraise how it can be applied to improve operations management within a supply chain.
Learning outcomes assessed in this assessment (numbered)	As detailed above
Marking guidelines	See below (end of document after the assessment questions)
Submission guidance	To be submitted electronically PLEASE NOTE: Work that is received after 12:00 (UK time), will be recorded as having arrived the next working day.
Academic Guidance	Where further help may be received, link to handbook, details of feed forward, workshops, seminars etc
Resubmission details	The University policy is that students should be given the opportunity to remedy any failure at the earliest opportunity. What that “earliest opportunity” means in terms of timing and other arrangements is different depending on Programme (i.e. Undergraduate, Full Time Masters, Part Time Postgraduate, or Overseas). Students are advised to consult your Programme Team or intranet for clarity.
Late submission details	If work is submitted late, penalties will be applied at the rate of 5 marks per University working day after the due date, up to a maximum of 10 working days late. After this period the mark for the work will be reduced to 0 (which is the maximum penalty). “Late” means after the submission deadline time as well as the date – work submitted after the given time even on the same day is counted as 1 day late. For Postgraduate students only, who started their current course before 1 August 2019, the daily penalty is 3 marks rather than 5.

Writing your PMA: Advice for WMG’s Postgraduate Students

As a postgraduate level student in WMG you may have some concerns about your ability to write at the high standard required. This short guide is intended to provide general guidance and advice. It is important that if you have any questions you discuss them with your module tutor. Remember, in writing your PMA you need to meet the expectations of the reader and university.

A good PMA generally requires you to answer the question and to include…

1. A title, with your student number, module, lecturers name and any other documentation required by the university
2. A contents page and if appropriate, an abstract.
3. An introduction which acts as a ‘map’ to the rest of the document, describing the aim or purpose of the work and explaining how this aim is achieved. At this point it is usually helpful to paraphrase your conclusion.
4. Evidence of an appropriate level of background reading of relevant texts
5. Evidence of systematic and clear thinking, indicative of good planning and organisation
6. Writing which makes sense, is clearly and carefully presented (proof read and grammar checked)
7. A critical style of writing which compares and contrasts the main theories, concepts and arguments with conclusions that are based in evidence presented.
8. High levels of accurate academic referencing.
9. A logical and well-defined structure with headings and subheadings.
10. Clearly labelled and well-presented diagrams and other graphics that are discussed in the text
11. Adherence to usual academic standards including length and a timely submission
12. A reference section in which every source that is cited in the text is listed.

Where to get help:

1. Talk to your module tutor if you don’t understand the question or are unsure as to exactly what is required.
2. https://moodle.warwick.ac.uk/

Study skills and Research Methods Moodle site – we have a lot of resources on this website with workbooks, links and other helpful tools.

3. https://warwick.ac.uk/services/skills/academicwriting/

The university Academic Writing centre provides workshops and useful tools to help you in all aspects of your work.

4. https://moodle.warwick.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=32063&section=1

Plagiarwise, the university’s site to help you to reference properly

5. https://warwick.ac.uk/services/wss Wellbeing support services
6. https://warwick.ac.uk/services/library/students/your-library-online/

Numerous online courses provided by the University library to help in academic referencing, writing, avoiding plagiarism and a number of other useful resources.

Question 1

State your team’s name and the final net worth of your company.

You finished the Aerials production simulation exercise having completed week 24. Table 2, below, shows the demand ratio patterns for both products, Standard and XL, from week 0 until week 35.

For weeks 25-35 for your Aerials business simulation;

• Explain the development of each element of your Master Production Schedule (MPS)
• Create a detailed MPS including material ordering plan
• Propose (and justify) a suitable planning and control system for you company

Table 2- Capacity and demand ratio pattern for the Standard and XL products

Stage	Time period	% Demand for Standard	% Demand for XL
1	0 to week 20	100%	0%
2	Week 21 to 26	100%	+50%
3	Week 27 -35*	25%	75%

*Identify the total demand (Standard +XL) in Stage 2, then for Stage 3, apply the new % ratio to the total (Standard + XL from Stage 2).

Then, critically evaluate your MPS and identify how it will improve on your team’s previous performance during the module on:

• cash flow,
• overcoming any weaknesses&increasing any strengths,with respect to forecasting, capacity management and inventory management,
• management of any risks associated with your proposed MPS (further reading on risk management should be undertaken).

50 marks

Question 2

Select a ‘leading company’ from a MarketLine ‘industry profile’ report for ‘machinery’;MarketLine has a range of industry profile reports for ‘machinery’ for different regions (e.g. Global, Europe, Asia-Pacific) and for individual countries (e.g. UK, China, India). Each report includes overview information on the leading companies in that particular geographic area. The University of Warwick’s MarketLine database can be accessed via http://encore.lib.warwick.ac.uk/iii/encore/record/C__Re1000403.

Undertake further research on your selected company and then, select one area from the module (forecasting, capacity management, inventory management or scheduling & planning) and identify onedeveloping technology/digital technologythat you believe is, or could, improve the logistics and operations if effectively applied to your ‘leading company’. Critically assessthe application, identify the business benefits, and discuss the challenges in implementing thistechnology to your company.

30 marks

POST MODULE ASSIGNMENT

Marking Guidelines

We appreciate that Comprehension and Effort Scores are now combined but to provide clarity of how the marks are awarded, we have specified both comprehension/ effort and presentation marking criteria.

Comprehension

Unsatisfactory <50

Q1) Numerical master production schedule created with uncritical description of its contents or no/incomplete master production schedule created. Limited or no discussion and justification of the logic behind the schedule, development of the forecast, material ordering plan, capacity plan, choice of planning & control system, assumptions made or associated risks. Limited or no discussion of the relationship between the forecast, material ordering plan and master production schedule. Limited or no evaluation of how the new plan addressed any weaknesses encountered during weeks 11 to 24. Includes no or very limited discussion that draws on the unique experience of the group’s simulation and relies heavily on vague/generic discussion.

An uncritical description of events and decisions taken by the group and statement of the outcome with limited, or no, discussion, reflection or evaluation of how/why the decisions were taken and of the impact these decisions had on the final net worth and any penalty charges. Very limited, or no, discussion of the team’s individual strategies for forecasting, inventory management and capacity with no linkage to relevant theories. Very limited, or no, use of actual data (i.e. numerical details for material orders, production schedule, costs etc.) to support & illustrate points made. Limited, or no, discussion of how to improve the future performance with very general, non-specific suggestions unrelated to the individual strategies for forecasting, inventory management or capacity. Limited or no evaluation of the interdependence and inter-relationship between the individual strategies. Includes no or very limited discussion that draws on the unique experience of the group’s simulation and relies heavily on vague/generic discussion.

Q2) no clear choice of a single technology/technique/tool and/or no clear choice of core area such as capacity management and/or leading company. Failure to select a leading company in the specified industry. Vague and very general description of the technology/technique/tool with little or no evaluation of how it is, or could be, used by the leading company to improve the core area. Failure to understand how the digital technology/technique/tool applies to this leading company and/or this industry. No or very limited cited examples of current use of the digital technology/technique/tool to support the evaluation. No evaluation of the quality of the reference sources.

Satisfactory 50-69

Q1) numerical master production schedule created with some discussions and evaluation of its contents. Some justification of the logic behind the schedule, development of the forecast, material ordering plan, capacity plan, choice of planning & control system, assumptions made or associated risks. Some discussion of the relationship between the forecast, material ordering plan and master production schedule. Some evaluation of how the new plan addressed weaknesses, or built on strengths, encountered during weeks 11 to 24. Includes some discussion that draws on the unique experience of the group’s simulation but may contain some vague/generic discussion.

Some critical discussion and evaluation of events and decisions taken by the group, consideration of how/why the decisions were taken and of the impact these decisions had on the final net worth and any penalty charges. Some discussion of the team’s individual strategies for forecasting, inventory management and capacity with some linkage to relevant theories but there may be gaps. Some use of actual data (i.e. numerical details for material orders, production schedule, costs etc.) to support & illustrate points made but some unsupported discussions. Some evaluation of how to improve the future performance with some specific suggestions related to the individual strategies for forecasting, inventory management or capacity.

Q2) choices of a digital technology/technique/tool, core area, such as capacity management, and/or leading company explained. Maybe some weaknesses in the choices, e.g. more than 1 technology/technique/tool, or core area, discussed superficially. Some critical discussion of the strengths & weaknesses of the digital technology/technique/tool with some evaluation of how it is, or could be, used by the leading company to improve the core area. May contain some errors in understanding of how the digital technology/technique/tool applies to this leading company and/or this industry. Some cited examples of current use of the digital technology/technique/tool to support the evaluation but more relevant examples may be omitted. May be no or limited evaluation of the quality of the reference sources.

Distinction 70+

Q1) numerical master production schedule created with clear discussions and evaluation of its contents. Justification of the logic behind the schedule, development of the forecast, material ordering plan, capacity plan, choice of planning & control system, all assumptions explained and methods for managing all major risks explained. Discussion of the relationship between the forecast, material ordering plan and master production schedule. Evaluation of how the new plan addressed weaknesses, or built on strengths, encountered during weeks 11 to 24. Clearly draws on the unique experience of this group’s simulation, citing unique data, strategies and group behaviour to support the arguments and evaluation.

Showing total mastery of the subject matter, complete conceptual understanding and an extremely high level of technical competence shown by fully appropriate selection and correct application of tools/ techniques/ methodologies. The work demonstrates creativity and originality of thought. Shows a sophisticated and critical manipulation and analysis of concepts and theoretical perspectives and capacity for independent thought. The work is extremely well argued; all the main issues are explored and evaluated and the conclusions are fully justified and supported by the evidence presented. Recommendations for improvement (where applicable) are practical and convincing.

Q2) choices of a digital technology/technique/tool, core area, such as capacity management, and/or leading company clearly explained in depth and justified. Critical discussion of the strength & weaknesses of the digital technology/technique/tool related to this leading company and this industry with evaluation of how it is, or could be, used by the leading company to improve the core area. Cited relevant examples of current use of the digital technology/technique/tool in industry are used and the relevance to the leading company & industry clearly explained. Quality of the reference sources evaluated.

Effort

Unsatisfactory <50

Q1) no or very limited linkages to relevant module materials (recommended reading, slides, notes, case studies and simulation exercise experiences).

Q2) no or very limited linkages to relevant module materials (recommended reading, slides, notes, case studies) and no or very limited use of relevant published reference material to support the evaluation of use of the digital technology/technique/tool and/or the application of this digital technology/technique/tool for this leading company & industry. The only published reference material that is cited is dated, i.e. >5 years old. No photographs or diagrams to support explanation of the digital technology/technique/tool and no use of tables to present information, e.g. strengths & weaknesses, benefits & costs, examples of implementation.

Satisfactory 50-69

Q1) some linkage to relevant module materials (recommended reading, slides, notes, case studies, and simulation exercise experiences) but may contain some unsupported descriptions/discussions.

Q2) some linkages to relevant module materials (recommended reading, slides, notes, case studies) but may contain some unsupported descriptions/discussions. Some use of use of relevant published reference material to support the evaluation of use of the digital technology/technique/tool and/or the application of this digital technology/technique/tool for this leading company & industry but maybe some significant gaps. Some cited literature maybe dated and/or the relevance to this leading company/industry is not explained. Limited use photographs, diagrams or tables to support explanation of the digital technology/technique/tool, present strengths & weaknesses, benefits & costs, examples of implementation etc.

Distinction 70+

Q1) clear and appropriate linkage to module materials (recommended reading, slides, notes, case studies, simulation exercise). No or very few unsupported descriptions/discussions. May include linkages to relevant reference sources identified from a wider literature review, additional to the module lecture materials.

Q2) clear and appropriate linkage to module materials (recommended reading, slides, notes, case studies). No unsupported descriptions/discussions. Extensive use of relevant published reference material to support the evaluation of use of the digital technology/technique/tool and/or the application of this digital technology/technique/tool for this leading company & industry with no obvious gaps. All cited literature is of an appropriate age i.e. older references maybe needed to explain context/history and recent references, <5 years, to illustrate current and future application. Appropriate use of photographs, diagrams or tables to support explanation of the digital technology/technique/tool, present strengths & weaknesses, benefits & costs, examples of implementation.