Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

Monthly Archives: December 2021

Retail and Manufacturing Logistics

ASSESSMENT 2: INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

 

Module Code: BHT4017
Module Title: Retail and Manufacturing Logistics
Assessment Type

(Initial)

Individual Assignment
Academic Year 2021-22 Term 1

 

Assessment Task 
You are required to research and prepare an essay in response to the following:

 

Discuss the challenges facing retailers with regards to ensuring product availability in the shift to an omnichannel retail format, using examples from your chosen sector. (eg. grocery, fashion clothing, convenience products, discount stores).

 

Your answer may include:

An explanation of omnichannel

The chosen sector and its characteristics

Retail strategy and its impact on;

Managing customer expectations

Manufacturing and supplier relationships

Distribution networks

Inventory management

Handling promotions

Information technology

 

The Individual assignment is worth 80% of the module.

 

Duration N/A Word Count 2500 words
Task specific guidance:

 

–       You should demonstrate an understanding of the contemporary issues facing retailers and manufacturers and their logistics.

–       Your answer should be supported with appropriate evidence from textbooks, journal articles, market data, or on-line materials.

–       You should present a reasoned argument using both theory and practical evidence, as expected for final year study.

–       The assignment should be written in essay format. Section headings may be added.

–       The word count does not include the front cover and refences list at the end.

–       You should aim to meet the word count as closely as possible.

 

General study guidance:

 

·       Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from a source. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list.

 

·       Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style.  For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link:

o   APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/

 

  • The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct. You can contact them at busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk.

 

·       If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation Development Centre team busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk. It is possible to arrange 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop.

·       Do not exceed the word count.

 

 

Assessment criteria
 

  • The Assessment Criteria are shown the end of this document.  Your tutor will discuss how your work will be assessed/marked and will explain how the assessment criteria apply to this piece of work.  These criteria have been designed for your level of study.

 

  • These criteria will be used to mark your work and will be used to support the electronic feedback you receive on your marked assignment. Before submission, check that you have tried to meet the requirements of the higher-grade bands to the best of your ability. Please note that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
  • The Learning Innovation Development Centre can help you to understand and use the assessment criteria.  To book an appointment, either visit them on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk

 

 

Learning Outcomes
 

This section is for information only.

 

The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.

 

On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:

 

·   Compare and contrast the relative merits of competing distribution network and system solutions from both retailer and manufacturing perspectives.

 

·   Understand the potential changes required within the total supply chain solutions supporting advanced international businesses.

 

·   Understand the impact of promotions on production schedules and stockholding policy.

 

·   Assess the impact of quick response and product diversification on production lot sizes.

 

Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1 Assessment criteria

 

These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed.  They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.

 

Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.

 

 

The grades between Pass and Very Good should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module.  The Exceptional and Outstanding categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the Excellent requirements, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding

(Excellent +)

Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes Met Met Met Met Met Met Not met or partially met Not met or partially met Not met or minimal Not met or minimal
Response to the question /task Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach Very good response to task; elements of sophistication in response Well-developed response to assessment task with evident development of ideas Secure response to assessment task but not developed sufficiently developed to achieved higher grade Adequate response that meets minimum threshold, but with limitations of development Nearly a sufficient response but lacks key aspects. Insufficient response Little response No response
Knowledge and understanding (F, I and H)

Knowledge requirements are different at F, I and H level.  Please use the relevant level knowledge assessment criteria

Conceptual and critical understanding of contemporary knowledge in the subject and its limitations (H) Skilfully integrates conceptual knowledge from

other modules or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative critical insights into the subject and its ambiguities in a considered individual voice

Excellent conceptual knowledge and critical appreciation of the key tensions, controversies disagreements and disputes drawing on ideas from beyond the module bounds. Offers original, compelling, insightful or interesting additional perspectives. Draws on an extended conceptual knowledge

 

Shows very strong ability to apply/ critique ideas and a well-developed consideration of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Performance at this level and above shows intellectual comfort with doubt, ambiguity, controversy, uncertainly and complexity -rather than seeking certainty and a single right answer.

Demonstrates competent conceptual knowledge drawing on a broader knowledge base. A good attempt at integrating and critiquing. Some solid insights into the limitations of knowledge.

 

No major errors or misunderstanding.

Demonstrates secure conceptual knowledge, conventional critical understanding of relevant knowledge.  Some awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

 

 

Few inaccuracies.

 

 

Demonstrates adequate basic conceptual knowledge, some formulaic critical understanding and awareness of limitations of knowledge.

 

No integration of ideas.

 

Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance

Mentions some terminology relating to theories, concepts

 

Demonstrates insufficient grasp of a basic knowledge.  Very limited critical understanding and awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Many errors in understanding and omissions.

Demonstrates little core knowledge.  No critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Major misunderstandings and significant omissions.

Demonstrates virtually no core knowledge or critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

 

Many errors in understanding and extensive omissions.

Wholly irrelevant.
 

 

Cognitive / Intellectual skills

A range of means of framing cognitive and intellectual skills are provided to reflect the variety of assessment tasks across the School.  Module leaders should consider the following criteria and select the one(s) that best reflect the assessment tasks. Assessment task briefs should be designed with sufficient information to provide students with a clear understanding of the core intellectual skills expected within the bounds of the module– corresponding with the appropriate level of study

 

Module leaders should be clear about the nature of information / data to be analysed, as well as the ‘tools’ of analysis expected.  Analytical tools can be based on logic (comparison, connection, categorisation, evaluation, justification) and/or numerical (e.g. statistics, financial) or other.

 

Analysis of information / data using qualitative or quantitative analytical methods Shows inspired / creative insights of both analytical method and results/ findings/ conclusions. Adapts, combines, and possibly reconfigures recognized analytical methods in a way that leads to enhanced insight into a problem area. Extended and accurate analysis of information / data.

 

Expected analytical methods used are wholly appropriately within normal boundaries.

 

Fully appropriate results/conclusions of analysis    within the scope of the tool.

 

 

Competent analysis with evident use of analytical methods.

 

Fully appropriate results / conclusions / findings.

 

No major errors or misunderstanding.

Secure basic analysis with generally sound use of analytical methods.

 

Largely appropriate results with few significant errors

Adequate basic analysis with largely appropriate use of analytical methods.

 

Partially appropriate results/ finding/conclusions with some errors

Inadequate analysis with largely appropriate use of analytical methods.  Partially appropriate results with some errors Barely any relevant analytical methods of information / data.  Major misunderstandings or omissions Negligible analysis of information / data Many errors in understanding and omissions.  No relevant analysis of information / data
Application of knowledge / skills to practice / a solution(s) / proposal / conclusion Creative & original application of knowledge /skills to produce new insights and offers a novel and comprehensive solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the boundary of the brief. Applies knowledge / skills to develop a comprehensive solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the original boundary of the brief.

 

Extended insights.

Applies knowledge / skill in a sophisticated manner to develop a well conceptualised and solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Alternative approaches might be considered.

 

Thoughtful and developed insights/ creativity.

Applies knowledge/skill in a logical and developed manner to provide a considered solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some good insights /creativity

 

No logical errors.

Applies knowledge/skill in a logical manner to provide a more developed solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some but limited insights/creativity.

 

Few logical errors

Applies knowledge/skills in a basic manner to develop a simple but limited solution/ proposal/conclusion.

No insights / creativity

Logical errors evident.

Use of some knowledge to provide a solution / proposal / conclusion, but limited solution/ proposal / conclusion Some use of knowledge, but mostly insufficient. Weak use of knowledge / skills evident.  Very limited solution / proposal / conclusion. No evidence of attempt to analyse or interpret information or provide a solution/proposal/ conclusion.
Argument, reasoning Intellectually coherent and comprehensive argument that articulates authentic, considered stance in own voice Compelling argument that shows intellectual agility and captures ambiguity.  Wholly relevant. Sharply focused and complex argument.

 

All points wholly relevant

 

Convincing and coherent reasoning.

Clearly articulated argument with consideration of different perspectives.

 

Mostly relevant points.

 

 

Logically coherent reasoning.

Satisfactory argument but limited in complexity.

 

Broadly relevant points.

 

Some limitations in terms of reasoning

Adequate basic level of argument provided.

Some relevant points but also a number of irrelevant points

Errors in reasoning.

Weak argument with substantial errors in reasoning. Descriptive or largely incoherent Largely incoherent No argument is offered
Use of referenced* evidence and sources to support task

 

*APA 7th

Systematic and rigorous use of evidence/ sources beyond the normal bounds of the module to robustly support purpose of the work. Evidence of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Comprehensive use of high-quality evidence and sources beyond the normal bounds of the module and shows evidence of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is very well supported by very extensive use of evidence / sources.

 

All points fully substantiated.

 

No unsubstantiated points.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is well supported by more developed use of sources/evidence

 

Most points are substantiated and no major unsubstantiated points

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate.  Some minor errors in citations or references.

Task is supported by several sources /evidence.

 

Some points are unsubstantiated.

 

Referenced appropriately

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate but may include errors

Task supported by basic evidence and sources but is over-reliant on very few sources.

 

Significant number of points are unsubstantiated.

Some effort to reference, but frequent errors and omissions

One or two apparent references to concepts introduced in the assessment task

 

Very few points are substantiated using evidence / sources.

 

Significant errors and omissions in referencing

Little or no evidence

 

Significant errors and omissions in citation and application of referencing

Unsupported

 

Very little attempt to cite or reference

No evidence

No citations

Structure and, style in supporting the development of ideas

(criteria relevant for essay-style work)

Elegant flow and structure is integral to the argument. An exceptional demonstration of academic writing which effectively guides the reader. Elegance of flow that skilfully through the work and excellently supports key message.

 

 

Well-ordered logical flow of material in a fluid style which contributes well to the development of the key messages and guides the reader through the writer’s thinking.

 

Clear logical and structured flow of material that guides the reader and supports the development of key messages. Basic logical flow of material with elements of signposting for the reader which supports key messages to some extent, but which can lapse in places. Some logical flow of material with some observable elements of signposting for the reader but elements of disorganisation

May contain repetition or irrelevant material which obscures the key messages.

Some attempt at structure, but disorganized and ineffectual in reflecting argument or analysis. No evident intent of structure.  Disorganised, irrelevant or repetitive content. None Insufficient evidence
Language and style Lucid, fluent, elegant, and compelling, using a distinctive and individual voice Clear and fluent with a breadth of vocabulary. Discernible author voice. Clear functional writing with a discernible author voice. Clear and straightforward use language.

 

Largely error free

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax.

Limited flaws.

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that conveys the meaning of the text.

 

Many vocabulary, grammar and syntax errors that obscure meaning Extensive flaws in vocabulary, grammar and syntax that prevent the text from being understandable. Unacceptable Insufficient evidence
Formatting of work (font, pagination, labelling) Impeccable formatting entirely consonant with assessment brief expectations Excellent formatting.  Polished and consonant with the assessment brief expectations. Formatting consonant with assessment brief expectations.  No formatting issues. Formatting very largely free from major presentational problems and consonant with assessment brief. Formatting broadly consonant with assessment brief but some breaches of guidance. Acceptable formatting, but some breaches of guidance.  Some unprofessional aspects Formatting not sufficiently consonant with assessment brief. Multiple formatting issues. Formatting not consonant with assessment brief. Very poor with multiple formatting issues No discernible attempt format work. No formatting
 

 

 

Regulatory constraints

For the past 10 years, Helping Hands Hospital and the two nearby academic medical hospitals have been doing a great job of serving the population; however, the population is increasing in diversity and expanding into rural locations. These changes have sparked a concern about the ability of individuals to access care. Access to care is a determinant of health, but there are numerous barriers to access. There is an upcoming orientation for new staff, and you have been asked to address the access to care concern. Please include the following:

Discuss 2 barriers to accessible health care in your Fontana, California community.
Give an example of something a hospital could do to improve access to care for your community.

If you are looking for an original valid answer for this question click here

Research Paper 311

The topic, research question, and hypothesis for your research paper can be anything pertaining to border and coastal security. Once you have decided on a topic, develop a research question and hypothesis to support it. There is no need to submit your question and hypothesis for “approval”.

Paper Format:

Cover Page
Introduction (include the specific research question and hypothesis which are presented at the end)
Literature Review – Critical analysis is the key here
Methodology (This needs to more than a single sentence that states “I used qualitative methods”. Take the time to explore what type of qualitative method you used…. Content Analysis and Case Study are the two approaches that seem most likely for this course.
Analysis – What does your research tell you? What are your conclusions??
Conclusion – ensure you include what future research should cover that has not been explored.
Reference List
Technical Requirements

Your paper must be at a minimum of 10-12 pages (the Title and Reference pages do not count towards the minimum limit).
Scholarly and credible references should be used. A good rule of thumb is at least 2 scholarly sources per page of content. However, a minimum of 10 scholarly sources are required.
Type in Times New Roman, 12 point and double space.
Students will follow the current APA Style as the sole citation and reference style used in written work submitted as part of coursework.
Points will be deducted for the use of Wikipedia or encyclopedic type sources. It is highly advised to utilize books, peer-reviewed journals, articles, archived documents, etc.

 

Discrimination against women

2,000 words (max 2,500, including references but excluding appendices)
– Collect a manageable set of discourse data that represents discrimination against women.
– Write up a paper that offers a critical discourse analysis of the data using the concepts and principles of CDA (see attached file)
– You need to cite at least three academic references to support your arguments.

SECTIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PAPER:
You should include the following headings in your paper. Sub-headings may be added where appropriate:
TITLE – Give your project a concise title. For example: Hong Kong in Transition: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Chris Patten’s Speeches. Please do not use a separate cover page.
NAME (in full)
STUDENT ID

1. INTRODUCTION: briefly state the background, aims, and focus of your study. Because of the word limit, you cannot cover all aspects of a certain topic. For example, you can focus on legitimation strategies only in your analysis, rather than trying to cover as many strategies as possible.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW: this is not just a summary of what you have read, but a critical discussion of the previous studies/concepts/theories that frame your project.
3. CONTEXT AND ANALYTICAL CATEGORIES: describe the type and amount of data you have collected,, the specific analytical categories or concepts of CDA used to analyze the data, and procedure of data analysis.
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: Describe what you have found in the analysis. Explain and interpret your findings in light of both data and theories.
5. CONCLUSION: Summary and implications of the study: How has this project informed the social issue in question? Why is CDA a meaningful framework for understanding the data concerned?
6. REFERENCES (APA style)
Optional: Appendix (you may include your dataset but this is not necessary if you don’t refer to it in your paper) The appendix will not count towards the word limit.

Formatting Requirements
– Spacing: AT LEAST 1.5 pt
– Margin: AT LEAST 1 inch on all sides
– Font: Cambria or Times New Roman
– Write in paragraphs, not bullet points.
– Citation and Referencing style: APA
– Use section numbers not letters. For example: 1. Introduction, 2. Literature Review, etc.

Some useful references: (feel free to go beyond this list!)
– Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 173-203.
– Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4(2), 249-283.
– Flowerdew, J. (2004). Identity politics and Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty: Analysing the discourse of Hong Kong’s first chief executive. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1551-1578.
– Flowerdew, J. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and strategies of resistance. Advances in discourse studies, 195.
– KhosraviNik, M. (2010). The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of language and Politics, 9(1), 1-28.
– Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’in four US presidential addresses. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287-314. Teo, P. (2000). Racism in the news: A critical discourse analysis of news reporting in two Australian newspapers. Discourse & society, 11(1), 7-49.
– Chapter 9 of Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing.
– Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & communication, 1(1), 91-112.