Critical review

Assessment 3 instructions

Critical Review

 

  • Required Length: 1250 words
  • Format: Individual written report | MS Word
  • Marks Allocated:25% total

 

Analysing supply chain data can be tedious and very time consuming. Even when a large amount of data is available, the effort to clean, categorize and understand the data is often high. Given the complexity of FastGood’s supply chain network and cruciality of the time factor (refer to the FastGood case study and associated dataset), Mrs. Banerjee would like to know how strategic supply chain decisions can be made more efficiently and effectively. In-house consultants approached Mrs. Banerjee and suggested she implement the Geographic Analytics (GA) solution which was initially developed and applied by Hewlett Packard (HP). GA is a data visualization technique which can be used to illustrate the network information on a map and drive supply chain optimization.

In the following interview, Jozo Acksteiner, manager of strategy and analytics, and Travis Parker, program manager of global supply chain, tell their story about the GA approach:

(HP Embraces a New Level of Global Analytics, Jozo Acksteiner, manager of strategy and analytics, and Travis Parker, program manager of global supply chain)

 

Mrs. Banerjee asked students to do some research about the GA method and report how well this supply chain management solution is argued, and if it is a viable solution for FastGood. Here’s your chance to understand the GA approach and provide your suggestions on how the method could be improved to address the FastGood’s supply chain challenges!

To do so, students are asked to carefully read the following article and write a critical essay to the authors which will also be submitted to Mrs. Banerjee:

 

Acksteiner, J. and Trautmann, C., 2013. Geographic analytics: how HP visualizes its supply chain. Supply Chain Management Review, 17(1).

 

Taking the FastGood case study and the associated dataset into consideration, your essay should detail your critique of the proposed GA method and justify your opinions, with reference to both the material covered in Module 1-6 of this subject and to the relevant academic literature (at least 3 academic sources e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles, book and book chapters). Make sure your response is engaging, well-informed, and analytic – increasing the chances of your response being published!

Important tips:

 

  • Make sure you carefully read the Supplementary material (How to write a critical review paper) and marking criteria before you start working on your assignment.
  • Submit your final critical essay as a Word document, including your analyses and recommendations about the business.
  • Remember to use the Academy of Management referencing style. (Note that your reference list are not included in your total word count.)

 

MGT5PSC: Assessment 3 marking rubric 

 

   
CRITERIA 

 

Excellent (> 80 %) Very good (70 – 79%) Good (60 – 69%) Acceptable (50 – 59%) Unacceptable (<50%)
Critical analysis

 

(50% of total mark)

☐ Excellent depth of analysis, evaluation and interpretation.

 

Clear articulation of main arguments, primary justifications and supporting arguments.

 

Evidence of deep and broad understanding grounded on theory and research

 

(40-50 marks)

☐ Very good analysis, evaluation and interpretation.

 

Clear articulation of main arguments, primary justifications and supporting arguments.

 

Evidence of very good understanding grounded on theory and research

 

(35-39 marks)

☐ Good analysis, evaluation and interpretation.

 

Good articulation of main arguments, primary justifications and supporting arguments.

 

Evidence of good understanding grounded on theory and research

(30-34 marks)

☐ Fair analysis, evaluation and interpretation.

 

Fair attempt to articulate main arguments, primary justifications and supporting arguments.

 

Evidence of some understanding grounded on theory and research

 (25-29 marks)

☐ Insufficient attempt at analysis, evaluation or interpretation. No justification or supporting arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(<25 marks)

Structure and

style

 

(30% of total mark)

☐ Excellent flow of discussion (summary and main argument

of the authors; main arguments, primary justifications and supporting arguments of the CRP; conclusions)

 

Addresses the authors appropriately and

professionally

 

Appropriate use of headings or subheadings to improve readability.

 

 (24-30 marks)

☐ Very good flow of discussion (summary and main argument of the authors; main arguments, primary justifications and supporting arguments of the

CRP; conclusions)

 

Addresses the authors appropriately and

professionally

 

Appropriate use of headings or subheadings to improve readability.

 

(21-23 marks)

☐ Good flow of discussion (summary and main argument of the authors; main arguments, primary justifications and supporting arguments of

the CRP; conclusions)

 

Addresses the authors.

 

Appropriate use of headings or subheadings to improve readability.

 

 

 

(18-20 marks)

☐ Fair flow of discussion.

 

Addresses the authors or editor.

 

Little use of headings or subheadings used to improve readability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(15-17 marks)

☐ Poor flow of discussion throughout the paper.

Poor structure leading to poor readability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(<15 marks)

 

Writing and referencing

 

(20% of total mark)

☐ Excellent use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature (more than three academic references).

 

Excellent referencing used throughout. Excellent grammar and spelling.

 

(16-20 marks)

☐ Very good use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature (three academic references).

 

Correct referencing, and very good grammar and spelling.

 

 

(14 marks)

☐ Good use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature (three academic references).

 

Mostly correct referencing. Good grammar and spelling.

 

(12 marks)

☐ Fair use of relevant sources of literature (two academic references).

 

Some referencing errors. Some grammar and spelling errors.

 

 

(10 marks)

☐ Few if any literature sources included and poor standard of referencing.

 

Poor spelling and grammar.

 

 

(< 10 marks)