Assessment Information/brief 2020/21 Module title Operations and Information Management CRN

Assessment Information/brief 2020/21
Module title Operations and Information Management
CRN 33150, 33216
Level 7
Assessment title Consultancy Report (Assessment 2)
Weighting within module This report is worth 50% of the overall module mark.
Submission deadline date and time See OnlineCampus
Assessment set by: Dr Suzanne Kane
How to submit
You should submit your assessment through OnlineCampus by the due date.
Assessment Criteria:
Assessment task details and instructions
Your Task
You are a consultant who has been employed to advise on the effective implementation of strategic changes. You are required to produce the following for the case study provided below:
Part A: Analysis – Business Process Models and strategy analysis
In this section you should develop
1. A series of at least two Business Process Models, which capture the existing and your proposed business processes. The models should follow the BPMN notation shown in the lecture slides. You can utilise Microsoft Visio, Word, PowerPoint or appropriate alternatives to create the models.
2. Strategic analysis: You should use at least one recognised analysis technique such as SWOT, PESTLE etc
Part B: Open Source Software Comparison Table
In this section, you should conduct research into a suitable software solution. You should decide on the set of characteristics which you will use to evaluate the software and your research should consider 4-5 alternatives in detail. This section should be presented as a table.
Part C: Report
In this section, you should write a report which provides an overview of the current situation together with a roadmap outlining how the proposed changes to the business can be achieved to the benefit of the business. This should draw on your analysis in Part A, include your recommendation for software in Part B, and provide recommendations for ensuring that the strategy is effectively implemented, including consideration of the challenges ahead.
This section should follow standard report structure:
Title Page – Contents – Introduction – Main Section – Conclusions and Recommendations – References.
You should use appropriate theories, frameworks, models, that we have covered in the module, to inform and justify your recommendations.
Part D: Reflection on your contribution to the online discussion
In this section you should submit a 250-word reflective summary, accompanied by your own self-assessment of your contribution to the online elements throughout the module, using the table labelled ‘Reflection Self-Assessment Pro forma’ in Appendix A (copy and paste it into your assignment document). The reflective report should include your detailed reflection on your learning process of theories, frameworks, models that we covered in the module, supported with evidence (pasted URLs) from the online discussion forum.
Using the Discussion Forum
The module syllabus will feature discussion forums for you to explore the assignment/share your ideas and findings of group activities. It is recommended that you use these to:
? Share papers and articles that you have found on relevant topics (remember to include links / reference / pdfs if you do this!)
? Discuss the changes to the ways of working – i.e. discuss what processes will change and explore how these might work in practice. You might also consider the changing information needs of the business
? Discuss and share examples of Open Source software that could be of use.
? Present the practice/outcomes/discussion of group activities outside class.
Please don’t be shy of using the discussion forums – the purpose is to give you experience of using collaborative technologies.
This is the marking table which will be used to guide the marking of assessment components:
Section Content Word Count Marks
Part A Analysis – Business Process Models and strategy analysis 1000 (equivalent to) 30
Part B Open Source Software Comparison Table 500 (equivalent to) 20
Part C Report 1250 40
Part D Reflection on your contribution to the online discussion 250 10
Total 3000 100
The case study: Music Mates
Music Mates is a group of three musicians who have been performing together for approximately two years. The group have regular repeat gigs around the North West of England, which provides enough funds for them to be paid as part-time professional musicians. In addition to their musical talents, Alexander, Sergei, and Vassily, are experienced sound engineers, who provide a PA service for the Music Mates gigs and for a number of other bands in the North-West area. They share a wide network of friends who are also musicians and they often promote other bands. But recently these other bands have asked them to be agents for an agree fee. If they decide to take this professional route, it would mean that they could work full-time as musicians/agents.
However, they are aware that starting the agency would require a business approach. They would be responsible for advertising events, social media marketing, keeping business accounts, providing an updated calendar of events, and keeping track of the communications between themselves, the clients who want to book bands, and the bands who are signed to the Music Mates agency.
At the moment, they use a website, a Facebook page, and the SoundCloud audio platform. Alexander, Sergei, and Vassily all have iphone’s and macbook pro laptop computers. They realise that starting the agency requires a business approach, which includes software that will support their business. They have read about Customer Relationship Management software and Enterprise Resource Management software, which appears to offer the type of information technology support that they will need. However, they need professional help before they can make any final decisions about investing funds in business software. They are also interested in the possibility of utilising Open Source Software, but require information on the advantages and disadvantages.
Growing Music Mates into a full-time small to medium enterprise business that supports three members of staff will mean significant changes and there are some concerns that using business technology might change the close working relationships which exist between Alexander, Sergei, Vassily and the bands with which they have personal connections. They are keen to run the business in a democratic style and as such, everyone will have an equal vote on any business decisions. Therefore, they require a report that can be read and understood by each of them. You are the OIM consultant who is responsible for researching this business and providing a consultancy report.
Module Aims
1. Allow students to develop an in-depth understanding of the increasingly important field of operations and information management.
2. Provide students with an overview of the role and contribution of operations and information systems to a company’s strategic position.
3. To provide concepts, techniques and models used for planning, managing and improving operations and information systems in contemporary organisations across a range of business sectors
4. To equip students with the capability to apply their knowledge of operations and information management within their business and management practice or further study.

Appendix A: Reflection Self-Assessment Pro forma
80+ 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 0-40
Quality of contributions Made several good contributions and one or more outstanding contribution. Made several good contributions. Made a few good contributions Made a few valid contributions Made 1 or 2 postings, of poor quality Did not contribute.
Attribution of references Clear referencing of well-chosen and highly relevant sources Clear referencing of all sources, some relevant. Clear referencing of all sources. Sources generally referenced. Used ideas/ words of others without attribution. Cut and paste or absent contributions.
Evidence of collaboration/ facilitation skills Skill shown in weaving contributions into the discussions and wiki and following up on contributions of others. Skill shown in weaving contributions into discussion and / or wiki, or following up on contributions of others Some evidence of links to contributions of others. Basic recognition of contributions of others. Little or no recognition of contributions of others. None
Reflection on online contributions (in reflective summary) Deep reflection shown, with clear and substantial evidence from online discussion and wiki Good reflection, with clear evidence from online discussion and / or wiki Reflection and evidence offered, limitations in one of these Reflection and evidence offered, limitations in both of these Superficial reflection, very limited evidence Very little or no reflection/evidence.
Level 7– Generic Descriptors

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  A firm will decide on the contractor for the execution of their factory building.

Extremely poor
Very poor
Very Good
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Knowledge Totally inadequate demonstration of required knowledge. Not able to link theory to practice. No appropriate themes identified. Virtually no relevant knowledge demonstrated. Fails to adequately demonstrate links between theory and practice. Very poor identification of key themes. Inconsistent or inaccurate knowledge. Limited and inappropriate or inaccurate links between theory and practice. Poor identification of key themes. Limited evidence of knowledge. Inappropriate links between theory and practice.
Inadequate identification of key themes. Basic knowledge with occasional inaccuracies appropriate yet basic integration of theory and practice. Superficial depth or limited breadth with
identification of key themes. Mostly accurate knowledge with satisfactory depth and breadth of knowledge. Sound integration of theory and practice with satisfactory identification of key themes. Consistently relevant accurate knowledge with good depth and breadth. Clear and relevant application of theory to practice. Good identification of key themes. Comprehensive knowledge demonstrating very good depth and breadth. Clear insight into links between theory and practice. Demonstrates ability to transfer knowledge between different contexts appropriately. Integrates the complexity of a range of knowledge and excellent understanding of its relevance.
Excellent depth of knowledge in a variety of contexts. Coherent and systematic application of theory to practice. Outstanding knowledge. Theory is linked to practice to an exceptional level and may be used to formulate new questions, ideas or challenges.
Extremely poor Very poor
Poor Inadequate Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Cognitive processes
Cognitive Processes
No demonstration of analysis, evaluation or synthesis. No evidence of reflection. Unsatisfactory professional judgement No meaningful analysis or evaluation. Unable to identify appropriate issues for reflection. Arguments presented are inappropriate and very poorly linked. Very poor professional judgement. Descriptive occasionally attempts to analyse or evaluate material but lacks critical approach. Confusion and/ or weakness in academic argument. Identifies issues for reflection but lacks evidence of reflective processes. Poor professional judgement. Mainly descriptive evidence of analysis, inconsistent critical approach, little evaluation or synthesis. Follows processes of reflection but fails to demonstrate insight. Inconsistent and/ or inaccurate professional judgement. Critical analysis evident, with some evaluation and synthesis, although limited. Limited evidence of reflection. Some appropriate academic argument although not well applied and lacking in clarity.
professional judgement. Sound critical analysis and evaluation. Relevant academic argument. Demonstrates basic ability of synthesise information in order to formulate appropriate questions and conclusions. Reflective process is utilised, with insight demonstrating planning for future practice. Integrates relevant information in order to make sound professional judgements. Clear, in depth critical analysis, evaluation and academic argument with synthesis of different ideas and perspectives. Utilises reflection to develop self and practice. Aware of the influence of varied perspectives and time frames. Uses a wide range of sources to inform clinical decision making and prioritises plans. Very good analysis and synthesis of material with evidence of critique and independent thought. Balanced and mature approach to reflection used to enhance practice and performance in a range of contexts. Demonstrates ability to make sound decisions in complex and unpredictable contexts. Excellent critical analysis and synthesis. Arguments handled skilfully with imaginative interpretation of material. Willingness to challenge self and practice. Outstanding critical analysis and synthesis. Incorporates evidence of original thinking.

Extremely poor
Very poor


Very Good
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

Presentation is extremely poor. Work has no structure or clarity. Extremely poor use of language.

Presentation is very poor. Work has little discernible structure or clarity. Very poor use of language.
Presentation is poor. Work is disorganised and lacks clarity. Poor use of language.
Presentation is unsatisfactory. Work is limited in terms of structure, coherence and clarity. Limitations in academic style.
Presentation of work is unsatisfactory in terms of structure, coherence, clarity and academic style. Some inconsistencies. Some grammar and syntax errors which detract from the content
Presentation of work is satisfactory
in terms of structure coherence, clarity and academic style. But some inconsistencies in grammar and syntax.
Presentation of work is well organised with good use of language to express ideas/argument. Very few inconsistencies; grammar and syntax good.
Presentation is of a very good standard, demonstrating a scholarly style. Very good grammar and syntax
Presentation is excellent, well-structured and logical. Demonstrates a scholarly style. Excellent grammar and syntax.
Presentation is outstanding demonstrating a fluent academic style.

Extremely poor
Very poor

Very Good
1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Referencing and using evidence No references. No attempt to provide evidence of sources used. Lack of ability to source adequate material. Very poor referencing Poor use of reference material. Inappropriate or outdated sources with numerous referencing errors. Unsatisfactory referencing with frequent error. Limited ability to support content with relevant sources. Narrow range of sources. Referencing in presented work is unsatisfactory
with some inconsistencies or inaccuracies. Over utilises secondary sources. References used are inappropriate in terms of currency. Satisfactory
range of sources identified with appropriate referencing and few inaccuracies. Appropriate use of primary and secondary sources. Good range of sources. Well referenced, very few inaccuracies. Good use of primary and secondary sources. Clear evidence of referencing to a wide range of primary and secondary sources which are used effectively in supporting the work. Detailed use of predominantly primary sources which are well referenced and are used creatively to develop the work. Synthesis of reference material from a wide range of sources both within and across professions

Feedback arrangements
You can expect to receive summative feedback 10 working days after the due date. Typed feedback on your work will be available via OnlineCampus.
Support arrangements
You can obtain support for this assessment by attending the required classes, participating in the class discussions and asking questions in the dedicated forum thread. Engagement is vital for your success in the module.
The University offers a range of support services for students through askUS.
Good Academic Conduct and Academic Misconduct
Students are expected to learn and demonstrate skills associated with good academic conduct (academic integrity). Good academic conduct includes the use of clear and correct referencing of source materials. Here is a link to where you can find out more about the skills which students require
Academic Misconduct is an action which may give you an unfair advantage in your academic work. This includes plagiarism, asking someone else to write your assessment for you or taking notes into an exam. The University takes all forms of academic misconduct seriously. You can find out how to avoid academic misconduct here
Assessment Information
If you have any questions about assessment rules, you can find out more here.
Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes 2019/20 is available at:
In regard to late submissions, you can submit your work up to 21 consecutive days. But all late submissions will be capped at the pass mark. Accepted personal mitigating circumstances will remove the capped mark.
PMCs – self certification is permitted. There is no limitation to the number of PMCs you are applying.
Personal Mitigating Circumstances
If personal mitigating circumstances may have affected your ability to complete this assessment, you can find more information about personal mitigating circumstances procedure here.
Student Progression Administrator
If you have any concerns about your studies, contact StudentCare at
Assessment Criteria
You should look at the assessment criteria to find out what we are specifically considering during the assessment marking. Marks for your assessment will be allocated based on the marking table (see marking table above).
If you fail your assessment, and are eligible for reassessment, you need to take resit in due time (details to be followed). For students with accepted personal mitigating circumstances, this will be your replacement assessment attempt. The reassessment is based on an improvement of your failed submission.

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  (Q) In approximately 500 words, present the paradigms and methodologies used in the TWO articles In… 1 answer below »

Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts

(USA, AUS, UK & CA Ph. D. Writers)


Order from Australian Expert Writers
Best Australian Academic Writers