Maritime Finance and Business Modelling

MODULE:

 

MAR702 – Maritime Finance and Business Modelling
COURSEWORK:

 

This piece of coursework represents 50% of your overall module grade.
FORMAT:

 

Report.
LENGTH:

 

2,000 words ± 10% (which excludes tables, graphs, appendices, any Excel work and references).
TYPOGRAPHY:

 

Arial, size 12, 1½ line spacing, with justified margins.  Pages should be numbered at the bottom right.
REFERENCING:

 

Harvard referencing style should be used, and a minimum of ten academic sources must be referenced.
   
SUBMISSION:

 

 

The report part of this coursework must be submitted as one Microsoft Word document, online at the MAR702 DLE website.  In addition, separate Excel spreadsheet files that relate to Question A and Question B should also be submitted via the MAR702 DLE website.
CONTACT: Dr Mark Bennett – Room 405i Cookworthy Building.

 

 

INFORMATION

 

Students must complete questions A and B.  Full marking criteria are shown on pages 2-4.

 

Question A: (50 marks 1000 words)

 

Critically analyse a range of different forecasting methods that could be used to predict port container throughput flows at one UK container port of your choice.  You should create worked examples of forecasts using Excel (one of which must include Multiple Regression, whereby you should also calculate and interpret Variance Inflation Factors and Durbin-Watson statistic). In addition, your report should critically analyse the data that your Excel forecasts have generated as well as discussing the implications this could have for your chosen port.

 

Question B: (50 marks 1000 words)

 

In a context related to procurement, logistics, operations, supply chain management or shipping, produce a linear programming or integer programming model in Excel that incorporates a minimum of four decision variables and three constraints that is capable of reaching an objective function of maximizing profit or minimizing costs.  If possible, data for constraints, profit levels, or costs should be realistic and based on data obtained from existing published sources.  Furthermore, a 1000 word analysis of your model should be produced which critically evaluates the results it has produced, along with any recommendations for how it could be improved.

1

 

 

 

QUESTION A: PORT CONTAINER FORECASTING (50 marks) (1000 words)
Marking criteria Fail Marginal fail Pass Merit Distinction Distinction
0%-39% 40%-49% 50%-59% 60%-69% 70%-85% 86%-100%
Critical evaluation of a range of different forecasting methods

(20 marks)

 Nothing of academic value.        No attempt at

critical evaluation – the forecasting methods are simply described.

 Only a limited attempt made at critical evaluation.      Good critical evaluation of different forecasting methods are provided – strengths and maybe limitations considered      Very good critical evaluation of the

different forecasting methods are provided – strengths and limitations considered, with examples of other UK ports that have used these forecasting methods.

 Excellent critical evaluation of different forecasting methods are provided – strengths and limitations are comprehensively evaluated, with reference examples of other UK ports that have used these forecasting methods.

 

Excel generated forecasts using

Excel

(15 marks)

 No forecasts produced, or significant errors in forecasts.      One forecast has been produced

that is satisfactory (may contain errors in calculations).

     Two forecast have been produced that are satisfactory (may contain minor

errors in calculations).

     Three forecast have been produced that are good and function correctly, with no errors in calculations.  Four correctly produced forecast are produced that are well presented in Excel and which are completely free from any errors in calculations.  Five correctly produced forecast are produced that are exceptionally well presented in Excel and which are completely

free from any errors in calculations.

Analysis of forecasts generated

in Excel

(12 marks)

 No relevant analysis provided.      No attempt to analyse data from the forecasts produced.  Responses are completely descriptive.      Partial analysis of forecasts are provided with some basic discussion of the implications to the chosen port.      Good analysis of forecasts which also analyses implications to the chosen port with references to existing published sources.  Very good analysis of forecasts which also analyses implications to the chosen port with references to existing published sources (which must include at least three recent journal papers from  Excellent analysis of forecasts which also analyses implications to the chosen port with references to existing published sources (which must include at least five recent journal papers from the last 5 years).
            the last 5 years).  
Academic journal references  (3 marks)  No references from academic journals are used. Reliance on internet sources and maybe a single text.  No references from academic journals used but some main textbooks used. More reliance on internet sources.  At least one reference from academic journals used in addition to the main textbooks. More than two references from academic journals used in addition to the main textbooks.  More than three references from academic journals published in the last 5 years are used in addition to the main textbooks.  More than five references from academic journals published in the last 5 years are used in addition to main textbooks.

 

 

QUESTION B: LINEAR PROGRAMMING (50 marks) (1000 words)      
Marking criteria Fail Marginal fail Pass Merit Distinction Distinction
0%-39% 40%-49% 50%-59% 60%-69% 70%-85% 86%-100%
Critical evaluation of linear programming

model (20 marks)

 Nothing of academic value.       No attempt at

critical evaluation – the optimization model is simply described.

 Only a limited attempt made at critical evaluation.      Good, critical evaluation of the optimization model is provided – strengths and maybe limitations considered.      Very good, critical evaluation of the optimization model – strengths and limitations are considered.  Excellent, critical evaluation of the optimization model – strengths and limitations considered and some comparisons with other similar models within the same context are made.
Analysis of results produced by linear programming model

(15 marks)

 No relevant analysis provided.      No attempt to analyse data contained in the answer report, limits report and sensitivity report.  Only partial analysis of data contained in the answer report, limits report and sensitivity report is provided.      Good analysis of data contained in the answer report, limits report and sensitivity report, which

also considers implications to the chosen context.

 Very good, critical analysis of the data contained in the answer report, limits report and sensitivity report, in addition to providing substantiated and logical analysis to the chosen context.

 

 Excellent analysis of the data contained in the answer report, limits report and sensitivity report is given, which also compares results against similar existing models within the same context.
Recommendations for improving the  No recommendations  Limited attempt at recommendations  Weak recommendations Satisfactory

recommendations which may

Realistic

recommendations that

Excellent, recommendations that are sensible and consider all of
linear programming model  (12 marks) are provided. are made, but overall they are very poor and incomplete. which are not detailed enough, and appear more like a conclusion. only consider one of following in any detail:

•   Choice of variables

•   Limitations of using Excel

•   Consequences of implementing recommendations

 

consider at least two of the following in detail:  Choice of variables

•   Limitations of using

Excel

•   Consequences of implementing recommendations

 

the following in detail:

•  Choice of variables

•  Limitations of using Excel

•  Consequences of implementing recommendations

 

Academic journal references (3 marks)  No references from academic journals are used. Reliance on internet sources and maybe a single text.  No references from academic

journals used but some main textbooks used. More reliance on internet sources.

 At least one reference from academic journals used in addition to the main textbooks.      More than two references from academic journals used in addition to the main textbooks.  More than three references from academic journals published in the last 5 years are used in addition to the main textbooks.  More than five references from academic journals published in the last 5 years are used in addition to main textbooks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

University of Plymouth Coursework Assessment Guidelines

 

The following set of guidelines is given to help students focus on what areas they need to fulfil in order to obtain the indicated mark when completing written work.

 

Grading levels for written assignments are as follows:

 

Distinction (86-100%)

Your work is of an excellent standard and may have the potential for future publication in an academic or professional context. You demonstrate a highly sophisticated engagement in an academic debate with evidence of clear and insightful synthesis of theoretical issues (and practice, where appropriate) which inform your argument. Your work acknowledges differing perspectives and interpretations through critical analysis and evaluation of theoretical models and/or practical applications and demonstrates an excellent understanding of the complexity of the context in which your work is situated and impinging external factors. Your ideas are presented in a clear and succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned. Referencing is consistently accurate throughout the work, with a sophisticated written style including excellent grammar and sentence construction.

 

Distinction (70-85%)

Your work is of an extremely good standard and may have the potential for future publication in a professional context. You demonstrate a sophisticated engagement in an academic debate with evidence of clear synthesis of theoretical issues (and practice, where appropriate) which inform your argument. Your work acknowledges differing perspectives and interpretations through critical analysis of theoretical models and/or practical applications and demonstrates an excellent understanding of the complexity of the context in which your work is situated and impinging external factors. Your ideas are presented in a clear and succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned. There are very few, if any, errors in referencing, grammar or syntax as appropriate.

 

Merit (60-69%)

Your work demonstrates a systematic and broad understanding of the subject that is clearly based on current and appropriate research. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue, and a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and issues. The work demonstrates an ability to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application. Some small errors in referencing, grammar or syntax as appropriate

 

Pass (50-59%)

Your work has demonstrated some ability to critically engage with current issues in the discipline, and the structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of grounding in theory and engagement with pertinent problems issues. The work explores and analyses issues, but may not be strong on presenting synthesis or evaluation, and may be descriptive in parts. Your work has drawn adequate conclusions which may not always reflect the complexity of the subject matter. Some repeated errors in referencing, grammar or syntax as appropriate.

 

5

 

Marginal fail (40-49%)

Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass may have been demonstrated, the work does not adequately address each of the required learning outcomes for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence of an ability to apply the principles of the discipline to a wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. There may be a lack of a questioning approach to the investigation and overly simple conclusions drawn which do not reflect the complexity of the subject matter. Work may be poorly structured and presented with frequent referencing, syntax or grammatical errors.

 

Fail (0-39%)

There are unlikely to be any of the characteristics of a pass demonstrated in this work and the work has not adequately addressed each of the required learning outcomes for the specified assessment task. There will be little evidence of an ability to apply the principles of the discipline to a wider context. The work will be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. There will be a lack of a questioning approach to the investigation and overly simple conclusions drawn which do not reflect the complexity of the subject matter. Work may be poorly structured and presented with frequent and basic errors in grammar and syntax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6