Assessment Information/Brief 2020/21
To be used for all types of assessment and provided to students at the start of the module.
Information provided should be compatible with the detail contained in the approved module specification although may contain more information for clarity.
Global Supply Chain Management
Weighting within module
This assessment is worth 50% of the overall module mark.
Submission deadline date and time
Module Leader/Assessment set by
Dr Christos Papanagnou
How to submit
You should submit your assessment via OnlineCampus.
Assessment task details and instructions
“Today supply chains do much more than just physically moving products and materials from one location to another. The digital, interconnected world demands that supply chains also serve as a connected, coordinated information ecosystem that delivers maximum flexibility, visibility, and transparency,” notes Scott Sopher, a principal with Deloitte Consulting LLP and leader of its Global Supply Chain practice.
Based on the above statement, you are asked to choose a sector/industry (e.g., food, technology, healthcare, retail, services, automotive), and critically:
For each question above, you should support your arguments by bringing into the discussion 1-2 examples of companies that belong to the selected sector/industry. You will also need to consider the following when completing your assignment:
Please remember that marks for the assignment will also be awarded in relation to presentation and structure, and aspects such as the use of examples, figures, tables, illustrations and statistics that indicate wider/independent reading.
Explicit marking criteria and mark ranges can be found below.
Assessed intended learning outcomes
On successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to:
Knowledge and Understanding
Practical, Professional or Subject Specific Skills
Transferable Skills and other Attributes
Word count/ duration (if applicable)
The maximum word count is 3000 words (+/- 10%), excluding References. Words over the word limit may not be considered and not marked.
You can expect to receive feedback for your assignment via OnlineCampus in two weeks from the submission date.
You can obtain support for this assessment by participating in the online class discussions.
The University offers a range of support services for students through askUS.
Good Academic Conduct and Academic Misconduct
Students are expected to learn and demonstrate skills associated with good academic conduct (academic integrity). Good academic conduct includes the use of clear and correct referencing of source materials. Here is a link to where you can find out more about the skills which students require http://www.salford.ac.uk/skills-for-learning.
Academic Misconduct is an action which may give you an unfair advantage in your academic work. This includes plagiarism, asking someone else to write your assessment for you or taking notes into an exam. The University takes all forms of academic misconduct seriously. You can find out how to avoid academic misconduct here https://www.salford.ac.uk/skills-for-learning.
If you have any questions about assessment rules, you can find out more here.
Personal Mitigating Circumstances
If personal mitigating circumstances may have affected your ability to complete this assessment, you can find more information about personal mitigating circumstances procedure here.
Student Progression Administrator
If you have any concerns about your studies, contact StudentCare.
You should look at the assessment criteria to find out what we are specifically looking at during the assessment.
In Year Retrieval Scheme
Your assessment is not eligible for in year retrieval. If you are eligible for this scheme, you will be contacted shortly after the feedback deadline.
If you fail your assessment and are eligible for reassessment, you will need to resubmit in a date that will be notified to you. For students with accepted personal mitigating circumstances, this will be your replacement assessment attempt. Students should be aware that there is no late submission period at reassessment (this includes those students who have an accepted PMC request from a previous attempt).
If a student needs to be reassessed, s/he will be given a new assignment brief with a deadline, which will be provided by the School.
Criterion / Mark range
(indicative – not for grading)
Standard comparable to journal publication
Standard comparable to conference paper publication
Distinctive work for Masters level
Merit work for Masters level
Acceptable for Masters
Below Masters pass standard
Significantly below Masters pass standard
Outstanding clarity of focus, 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 setting of boundaries 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.
Understanding of subject matter
Outstanding with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas.
Excellent with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Excellent expression of ideas.
Very good with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding 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 understanding of subject matter is demonstrated.
Comprehensive literature review. Evaluation and synthesis of source material to produce an outstanding contribution.
Excellent independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce an excellent contribution.
Very good 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 choice and synthesis.
Limited secondary research to extend taught materials. Limited evaluation of sources, deficiencies 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 – showing questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought
Excellent standard of critical analysis – excellence in questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought
A very good standard of critical analysis. Sources are questioned appropriately, and a very good understanding of bias, showing independence of thought
Critical analysis with some questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought.
Analysis evident but uncritical. Sources are not always questioned, with limited independence of thought.
Little or no analysis.
No valid analysis.
Structure of argument, leading to conclusion
Well structured, compelling and persuasive argument that leads to a valuable contribution to the field of study, paving the way for future work
Argument has excellent structure and persuasiveness, leading to very significant insights and relevant future work.
Well-structured and persuasive argument Insightful conclusion draws together key issues and possible future work.
Structured and fairly convincing argument leads to conclusion that summarises key issues.
Argument has some structure and development towards conclusion with limitations in summary of issues.
Argument is unstructured, no recognizable conclusion.
No evidence of argument or conclusion.