BSc Operations Management UG5002

1 BSc Operations Management UG5002 Minor Assessment Angelo Arcuri AY 2015/2016 Assessment: Individual Project Word Count: 2000 +/–100 per person Percentage of final grade given: 25% Submission Date Written Report Week 6 – See Portal for submission details Submission Date Oral Presentation: N/A Objectives of the minor assessment The aim of this assignment is to give students a chance to test their ability to apply the tools presented in the “Operations Management” course to the analysis of real-world business cases. Description of the assignment The case: Braccialini Group, Florence (Italy). Braccialini Group is a leather goods manufacturer, managing several trademarks, either directly owned or used under license. Each student is expected to submit a case report, based also on the analysis of relevant background readings on top of the case study itself, addressing the following issues: ? Explain what is meant by “operations” and discuss their strategic role at Braccialini. ? State what transformed and transforming resources are used in the production process. ? Describe the group’s operations abroad. ? Explain what the terms “quality, speed, dependability, flexibility and cost” mean in the context of operations and competitiveness at Braccialini. ? Suggest a process for the design of new products. This is an academic piece of work: your case report is expected to link theory and practice You should take care to ensure that the work you submit has a high standard of presentation. You must acknowledge all sources of information and evidence using the Harvard Referencing System. The report will count for 25% of the final grade given for the “Operations Management” course. 2 Structure of the assignment. Cover page. It includes the course name, the project title, the students’ full names, the lecturer’s full name and the submission date. Table of contents. It includes all the headings with appropriate page numbers, including the References and the Appendices. Executive summary. Introduction. It introduces the reader to the case you are going to present. Analysis. (see under “Description of the assignment”) Conclusions. They draw key insights from the case analysis, summarize the main features of the company presented and propose future development for its business and organisational solutions. References. Format. The case report is expected to consist of approximately 2000 words, not counting tables or inserts, introduction and conclusions. The report should be prepared as a neatly typed Word document (Times New Roman, 12 points), with double spacing and page numbering. Tables or data taken from other sources may be included in one or more Appendices. All sources must be referenced in the text and a full list of references (including visited websites) must be provided, in compliance with the Harvard Referencing System. Submission Details: Projects and slides must be delivered by email to the lecturer and the academic office. The project must also be loaded on Turnitin by the deadline. A paper copy of the project and slides must also be delivered to the lecturer at the start of class during Week 6. Deadline for submission by email and on Turnitin: Sunday, November 15th at midnight Deadline for submission of hardcopy: at the start of class, Week 6 Turnitin Code: TBA Lateness policy. For each day of delay, 5 points will be subtracted to the grade you earned with your minor assessment (maximum 25 points). If you submit your case report after 5 days from the deadline, you will receive a grade of 0 (zero) for your minor assessment. 3 GENERAL GRADING CRITERIA Excellent work: 70% Above satisfactory work: 60% - 69% Satisfactory work: 50 - 59% Below satisfactory work: 40% - 49% Failure: Below 40% Relevance 30% Excellent knowledge and understanding of material and an imaginative sense of its relevance across a range of issues, and context or policy situation; excellent use of course material and other relevant information to support argument Very good use of course material and other information; well chosen to support arguments relevant to question Competent use of course materials and other information to support most arguments Some use of appropriate course materials and experience to support arguments; capacity to identify relevance, but may be rather narrowly focused and miss out important areas Little or no sign of relevance Content 30% Independent and creative, and demonstrates clear thinking; ability to analyse and critically evaluate material Good knowledge and understanding of the material, across a broad spectrum, combined with an ability to evaluate, analyse and reflect on key issues Reasonable knowledge of the material and ability to draw upon more than one source for ideas; uses key themes well. Adequate understanding and use of course and other relevant material; mostly descriptive, but with some grasp of key course themes and issues and a capacity to discuss these in context Very limited knowledge and understanding and the issues involved Depth 30% A sensitive awareness of conflicting arguments and ideas and of their provenance. Clear grasp of implications. Well organised use of most of the major points with an ability to draw upon them creatively and critically; awareness of conflicting arguments and ideas and attempt to address them in context Capacity to grapple with conflicting arguments and ideas; beginning to draw together and synthesise ideas and perspectives from a range of theory Some attempt to address the conflicting arguments and ideas from the course, some signs of an attempt to take an evaluative, analytical and critical stance; some appropriate use of concepts, but with only limited evidence of independent thinking Lack of awareness of conflicting arguments and ides Structure 10% Excellent organisation of material; clear, logical flow of argument; good signposting throughout Good, clear framework and reasoned argument with evidence of careful thought Sensible use of major points integrated into the answer; logical flow of ideas is apparent Framework is apparent with an introduction, argument and conclusion, but the logical flow and coherence is not always consistent and may be difficult to follow Little or no evidence of planned structure and organisation