INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT
Assignment weight: 20%
Due Date: Week 10 - Friday at 5:00 pm of the week 10
Submission: Electronic submission – upload a Word .doc or .docx to Moodle and Turnitin.
Task Details:
Read the case provided – “ZARA – A Case of Rapid-Fire Fast Fashion Strategy”
After reading the case, prepare a 2300 – 2500 word report analysing the issues in the case, and identify logistics management strategies that enabled the company to become successful or otherwise. In your report, you need to consider:
• The fundamental reasons for success, with a comparison to another successful and an unsuccessful company?
• How can the company maintain its competitive advantage, here the concept of sustainability may be introduced?
• Could this be suitable for other companies and if so explain why, if not explain why?
Research Requirements:
Students need to support their analysis with reference from the text and a minimum of eight (8) suitable, reliable, current and academically acceptable sources – check with your tutor if unsure of the validity of sources.
Students seeking Credit or above grades should support their analysis with increased number of reference sources comparable to the grade they are seeking.
Sources such as Wiki…, scribed.com, docstore.com, etc. are not considered acceptable sources and should not be used – reliance on such sources will result in a Fail grade.
Presentation:
• Word count applies to content only, not title page, executive summary, table of contents and reference list.
• The report format should be as follows:
o Title page o Executive summary o Table of contents o Introduction o Suitable headings and sub-headings to cover the relevant content and elements of analysis
o Conclusion o Recommendations
o Reference list / bibliography o Appendices (if relevant)
• Harvard referencing (Anglia version) is to be used.
Marking Guide:
Marks will be awarded on the following basis and converted to a mark out of 20:
Marking Rubric for MGT704 Logistics Management (Individual Assignment 20%)
Criteria Fail
(0 – 49%) Pass
(50 – 59% Credit
(60 – 69%) Distinction (70 – 79%) High Distinction (80 – 100%)
Accuracy of referencing according to Harvard when support your claims 10 % More than half the in text or references and or in the reference list are inaccurate Confused with nearly half the references inaccurately provided. Several errors only throughout the work and or in the reference list. Two or Four errors only No mistakes or limited to a typo or two
Research and analysis of company information
20% Few or no key issues mentioned with a predominant use of internet to support the very little attempt at research Some key issues identified. Very limited use and/or insufficient ranges of sources used and mostly internet based All key issues identified Used a range of sources, most of which were relevant and showed greater use of research skills than a
Google search All key issues identified. Scholarly use of a wide range of sources of data including those from the EBSCO database All key issues expertly identified. Highly proficient and scholarly use of a wide range of relevant sources expertly applied and consistent with those found in the EBSCO database
Application of relevant
theories of logistics management
40% Critical analysis poorly demonstrated if at all Critical analysis somewhat demonstrated
Little application of accepted theories and models to set task Critical analysis demonstrated generally Application of some generally accepted
theories and models to set task Competent application of relevant theories and models. Considerable demonstration of critical analysis. Application of theories and models relevant to set task Scholarly application of relevant theories and models Scholarly demonstration of critical analysis. Application of theories and models relevant to set task and demonstrated within the set text used in the subject.
Development of Report, conclusion argument/responses recommendations
20% Argument, if evidenced, not developed or supported. Poor, if any conclusions and recommendations Argument is not well developed and supported. Conclusion and recommendations evident but not logical or well supported. Logically developed argument supported by evidence. Effective conclusion and to a limited extent logical recommendations Logically developed argument clearly supported by evidence
Comprehensive conclusion & evidence of some enlightened
thought supporting recommendations Logical argument developed in a scholarly fashion supported by evidence Recommendations draw arguments together in an influential and scholarly manner
with evidence based recommendations
Written
communication and
referencing
10% Referencing is either insufficient or contains significant inaccuracies Quotations over-used and/or used when irrelevant Presentation poorly set out. Poor use of language, grammar and spelling Some inaccuracies in use of correct referencing style Quotations used frequently. Presentation set out in fair manner minor errors in grammar correct use of language generally. Reasonable skill in use of correct referencing style. Direct quotations used sparingly. Presentation shows a legible level of structure with adherence to rules of grammar and generally the correct use of
language Skill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style.
Paraphrased key comments as opposed to utilizing direct quotes and the use of direct quotation almost non-existent.
Presentation expertly set out. Correct use of rules of language and grammar Superior skill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style. Proficient in paraphrasing key comments and sparing use of direct.
Quotations Report expertly, scholarly set out. Scholarly use of correct language throughout