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.
| Module title | Customer and Supplier Engagement |
| CRN | 52968/52970 |
| Level | Level 7 |
| Assessment title | Written Individual Report of 4000 words |
| Weighting within module | This assessment is worth 65% % of the overall module mark. |
| Submission deadline date and time | Submission date: 14th May 2021 before 4.00pm |
| Module Leader/Assessment set by Dr Susantha Udagedara Maxwell 606b r.m.u.s.udagedara@salford.ac.uk +44 (0)161 295 2782 | |
| How to submit Students must submit the written report to blackboard (e-Submission) assessment folder for written assignment by 14th May 2021 before 4.00pm. | |
| You should prepare a report not exceeding 4000 words. Select ONE of the supply chain management functions given below and critically evaluate how the selected function of supply chain management is vital in determining the effectiveness of global supply chains and the marketing activities during COVID 19 pandemic. You are advised to select a sector or industry and illustrate your answer with examples. As a guide you should: (a) Critically evaluate the academic literature on ONE of the following functions (60 marks): (i) Demand Forecasting (ii) Inventory management/Lean/JIT (iii) Bullwhip Effect, and determine its role in supporting supply chain and marketing related activities (iv) Transportation and Warehousing (b) Illustrate your answer with examples from retailing supply chains you are familiar with either through drawing on media coverage and/or your industry experience and consider any pertinent ethical and sustainability implications (40 Marks) Some of the data for this assignment may be ‘live’ for instance a supply chain event and COVID 19 disruptions reported in newspapers or company reports. You should use these sources for information where necessary. You should use relevant academic as well as practitioner sources to support your arguments and the excellent review of secondary sources of information should be evidenced by the list of references. | |
| Assessed intended learning outcomes On successful completion the student will be able to: Upon successful completion of the module, you will be able to: 3. Critically analyse alternative functional aspects of / typical approaches to Marketing and Supply Chain Management synergies in the international business environment. 4. Critically reflect upon issues of ethical / socially responsible and sustainability concern in Marketing and Supply Chain Management synergies Transferable Skills and other attributes (maximum of 5) On completion you will have developed the ability to: 5. Enhance and apply planning, organising, decision-making and time management skills appropriate for use in an organisational context. 6. Experiment and develop personal initiative and responsibility in undertaking complex investigations in the solving of organisational problems and issues. 7. Critically analyse and apply key ideas and concepts via comprehensive research relevant both to the subject area and to professional practice in the field. 8. Use terminology associated with the subject area accurately and in a way which demonstrates sophisticated knowledge and understanding. 9. Develop and enhance individually and/or collaboratively effective written and/or oral communication skills for both specialist and nonspecialist audiences | |
| Module Aims 1. To develop students’ understanding and awareness of key concepts and current trends / challenges in Marketing and Supply Chain Management. 2. To develop students’ critical awareness of the collaborative / integrative synergies between Marketing and Supply Chain Management. 3. To enable students to critically analyse alternative functional aspects of / typical approaches to Marketing and Supply Chain Management synergies in the international business environment. 4. To enable students to critically reflect upon issues of ethical / socially responsible and sustainability concern in Marketing and Supply Chain Management synergies. | |
| Word count/ duration (if applicable) A Microsoft Word document of no more than 4000 words excluding references, abstract and appendices. Markers will cease considering content for the purpose of grading and feedback once the stated maximum length has been exceeded. Content beyond this point will not contribute to the determination of the awarded mark and will not be commented upon in feedback. | |
| Feedback arrangements You can expect to receive feedback on your performance for assessed work and this feedback will be available online via Turnitin. The feedback will be available within three weeks of the submission date. Marks will be available on Blackboard. You will need to log into the full site to access the written feedback. The mark and feedback will be released at 4 pm, 04 June 2021Please contact module leader if you want to discuss your results | |
| Support arrangements You can obtain support for this assessment. There will be an opportunity to discuss and ask questions regarding individual written assignment during the lectures, guided studies and seminar sessions.Tutors office hours and contact details (such as emails) are available under Staff Information on BlackboardA reply can be expected within 2 working days if you do not receive a reply please email again stating that the email is a second request for support. Further assignment information is available under Assessment and Module Information (Coursebook) on Blackboard. askUS 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. Assessment Information 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. Personal Tutor/Student Progression Administrator If you have any concerns about your studies, contact your Personal Tutor or your Student Progression Administrator. | |
| Assessment Criteria The following assessment framework will be used. Please see the appendix 1 for level 7 grade descriptors Criteria Percentage of mark Use of theory 30% Quality of arguments 30% Use of appropriate examples 20% Conclusions 10% Presentation and evidence of appropriate citations 10% | |
| In Year Retrieval Scheme Your assessment is not eligible for in year retrieval. | |
| Reassessment If you fail your assessment, and are eligible for reassessment, you will need to resubmit on or before (see Blackboard for up to date details) . 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 you need to be reassessed, the school will email you and you will have the opportunity to improve your work as the reassessment will be the same task and you will be informed about the submission date? You will be invited to a reassessment drop-in session to support you through the process. |
Please see the appendix 1 for level 7 grade descriptors
Appendix 1 : Level 7– Generic Descriptors
| Extremely poor | Very poor | Poor | Inadequate | Unsatisfactory | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | Excellent | Outstanding | |
| 1-9 | 10-19 | 20-29 | 30-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Cognitive processes Cognitive Processes | No demonstration of analysis, evaluation or synthesis. No evidence of reflection. Unsatisfactory professional judgement | No meaningful analysis or evaluation. Unable to identify appropriate issues for reflection. Arguments presented are inappropriate and very poorly linked. Very poor professional judgement. | Descriptive occasionally attempts to analyse or evaluate material but lacks critical approach. Confusion and/ or weakness in academic argument. Identifies issues for reflection but lacks evidence of reflective processes. Poor professional judgement. | Mainly descriptive evidence of analysis, inconsistent critical approach, little evaluation or synthesis. Follows processes of reflection but fails to demonstrate insight. Inconsistent and/ or inaccurate professional judgement. | Critical analysis evident, with some evaluation and synthesis, although limited. Limited evidence of reflection. Some appropriate academic argument although not well applied and lacking in clarity. Unsatisfactory professional judgement. | Sound critical analysis and evaluation. Relevant academic argument. Demonstrates basic ability of synthesise information in order to formulate appropriate questions and conclusions. Reflective process is utilised, with insight demonstrating planning for future practice. Integrates relevant information in order to make sound professional judgements. | Clear, in depth critical analysis, evaluation and academic argument with synthesis of different ideas and perspectives. Utilises reflection to develop self and practice. Aware of the influence of varied perspectives and time frames. Uses a wide range of sources to inform clinical decision making and prioritises plans. | Very good analysis and synthesis of material with evidence of critique and independent thought. Balanced and mature approach to reflection used to enhance practice and performance in a range of contexts. Demonstrates ability to make sound decisions in complex and unpredictable contexts. | Excellent critical analysis and synthesis. Arguments handled skilfully with imaginative interpretation of material. Willingness to challenge self and practice. | Outstanding critical analysis and synthesis. Incorporates evidence of original thinking. |
| Extremely poor | Very poor | Poor | Inadequate | Unsatisfactory | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | Excellent | Outstanding | |
| 1-9 | 10-19 | 20-29 | 30-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Professionalism | Awareness of self and relationships with others and the team not demonstrated. Lack of insight into scope of practice demonstrated. | Major limitations in awareness of self and relationships with others and the team. Very poor knowledge of group values, beliefs, ethical and political issues. Very poor awareness of and operation within scope of practice. | Limitations in awareness of self and relationships with others and the team. Poor knowledge of group values, beliefs, ethical and political issues. Some awareness of and operation within scope of practice. | Some limitations in awareness of self and relationships with others and the team. Limited knowledge of group values, beliefs, ethical and political issues. Inadequate awareness and operation within scope of practice. | Unsatisfactory awareness of self and relationships with others. Acceptable knowledge of the team and their contribution to it. Some awareness of group values, beliefs, ethical and political issues. Awareness of and operation within scope of practice. | Satisfactory awareness to self and relationships with others. Satisfactory knowledge of the team and their contribution to it. Awareness of group values, beliefs, ethical and political issues. Satisfactory awareness of and operation within scope of practice. | Good awareness of self and relationships with others. Good knowledge of the team and their contribution to it. Good awareness of group, values, beliefs, ethical and political issues. Good awareness of and operation within scope of practice. | Very good awareness of self and relationships with others. Very good knowledge of the team and their contribution to it. Very good awareness of group values beliefs, ethical and political issues. Very good awareness of operation within scope of practice. | Excellent awareness of self and relationships with others. excellent knowledge of the team and their contribution to it. Excellent awareness of group values beliefs, ethical and political issues. Excellent awareness of operation within scope of practice. | Outstanding awareness of self and relationships with others. Outstanding knowledge of the team and their contribution to it. Outstanding awareness of group values beliefs, ethical and political issues. Outstanding awareness of operation within scope of practice. |
| Extremely poor | Very poor | Poor | Inadequate | Unsatisfactory | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | Excellent | Outstanding | |
| 1-9 | 10-19 | 20-29 | 30-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Communication | Presentation is extremely poor. Work has no structure or clarity. Extremely poor use of language. | Presentation is very poor. Work has little discernable structure or clarity. Very poor use of language. | Presentation is poor. Work is disorganised and lacks clarity. Poor use of language. | Presentation is unsatisfactory. Work is limited in terms of structure, coherence and clarity. Limitations in academic style. | Presentation of work is unsatisfactory in terms of structure, coherence, clarity and academic style. Some inconsistencies. Some grammar and syntax errors which detract from the content | Presentation of work is satisfactory in terms of structure coherence, clarity and academic style. But some inconsistencies in grammar and syntax. | Presentation of work is well organised with good use of language to express ideas/argument. Very few inconsistencies; grammar and syntax good. | Presentation is of a very good standard, demonstrating a scholarly style. Very good grammar and syntax | Presentation is excellent, well structured and logical. Demonstrates a scholarly style. Excellent grammar and syntax. | Presentation is outstanding demonstrating a fluent academic style. |
| Extremely poor | Very poor | Poor | Inadequate | Unsatisfactory | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | Excellent | Outstanding | |
| 1-9 | 10-19 | 20-29 | 30-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Motor skills | Unsafe. Unable to perform skills. | Unsafe. Very poor application of skill, major limitation in skill performance. Ineffective | Unsafe. Poor application of skill, some limitations in skill performance. Ineffective | Unsafe. Unsatisfactory application of skills. Inconsistent in skill performance. | Unsafe inadequate application of skill, inconsistent performance of skill with some limitations. | Safe, competent application of skills. Effective performance, demonstrating dexterity and sensitivity. | Safe application of skills with good level of competence. Effective performance with an ability to plan, anticipate and priorities action. | Safe application of skills with very good level of competence. Effective and proficient performance. | Safe application of skills with excellent level of competence. Effective and proficient performance with flexibility and creativity | Safe, outstanding application of skills, perceives the situation as a whole. |
| Extremely poor | Very poor | Poor | Inadequate | Unsatisfactory | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | Excellent | Outstanding | |
| 1-9 | 10-19 | 20-29 | 30-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Referencing and using evidence | No references. No attempt to provide evidence of sources used. | Lack of ability to source adequate material. Very poor referencing | Poor use of reference material. Inappropriate or out dated sources with numerous referencing errors. | Unsatisfactory referencing with frequent error. Limited ability to support content with relevant sources. | Narrow range of sources. Referencing in presented work is unsatisfactory with some inconsistencies or inaccuracies. Over utilises secondary sources. References used are inappropriate in terms of currency. | Satisfactory range of sources identified with appropriate referencing and few inaccuracies. Appropriate use of primary and secondary sources. | Good range of sources. Well referenced, very few inaccuracies. Good use of primary and secondary sources. | Clear evidence of referencing to a wide range of primary and secondary sources which are used effectively in supporting the work. | Detailed use of predominantly primary sources which are well referenced and are used creatively to develop the work. | Synthesis of reference material from a wide range of sources both within and across professions |
