Strategic Supply Chain Management

MIS313 – Strategic Supply Chain Management – Trimester 1 2023
Assessment Task 1
Part A – Case Study Report and Complex Diagrams
Part B Feedback Reflection – Individual Assignment
DUE DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, 10 May, by 8:00pm (AEST)
PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: Part A (40%), Part B (10%)
WORD COUNT: Part A (2000 words, complex diagrams), Part B (500 words)
First Draft Submission: Drafts of Part A Sections 2 & 3 by
Sunday 19 March, 8:00pm (AEST).
Selecting Company: Record company choice (Option 1) /
submit confirmation form (Option 2) by Sunday 26 March,
8:00pm (AEST).
Second Draft Submission: Drafts of Part A Section 4 & Section
5 (metric/strategic aspects) by Sunday 2 April, 8:00pm
Third Draft Submission: Drafts of Part A Section 5
(operational aspects) by Sunday 23 April, 8:00pm (AEST).
This is an individual assessment where you will be a junior consultant for ConsultantCo. The aim of this
assessment is for you to apply supply chain management and logistics knowledge (GLO1 Discipline-specific
knowledge) to a company:
reviewing a specified subset of the company’s supply chain practices (GLO5 Problem Solving);
evaluating a problem with the practices and associated solution (GLO5 Problem Solving); and
evaluating the social and environmental responsibility with the practices and the solution (GLO8
Global Citizenship);
building capacity to seek, interpret accurately and act upon feedback to improve problem solving
skills (GLO5 Problem Solving).
You will source a client for ConsultantCo – either a unique company from a specified list provided you will
research (option 1) or a real company you will interview (option 2). You will then prepare a report to be
evaluated by a senior consultant (i.e. a Deakin academic) of ConsultantCo. This is similar to real
consultancies where junior consultants’ work for an external client is evaluated by senior consultants.

Page 2 of 13
The report is therefore
not for the client. The report instead must meet the requirements expected by
ConsultantCo. After you submit the assignment for evaluation (marking) by a senior consultant (Deakin
academic), you can create a version of the report that meets the client’s needs if necessary (Option 2).
The two parts of this single individual assessment are as follows:
Part A – a Case Study Report comprising a text word limit of 2,000 addressing ConsultantCo’s
requirements in the table below, plus a minimum of
one (1) complex diagram.
Part B – a Feedback Reflection Report (text word limit of 500, no diagrams) on how you sought,
interpreted accurately and used feedback to improve your Case Study Report (Part A).
Specific Requirements
Part A – Recording a company choice (Option 1) / selecting a company (Option 2)
There are two options for selecting a company on which do write the Part A Case Study Report.
Option 1 involves selecting a unique company from a list of large (often multinational) companies, which has
not been selected by another student. Instructions/steps on how to record your choice can be found under
Option 1 Company Selection Tool menu option found under the Content tab, Assessment Resources and
Assessment 1. Only students who record a unique company selection using the Option 1 instructions
can use that company. You will then research that company and its industry to meet the ConsultantCo
requirements below. You can change the company (up to the end of Week 3), but from the list provided and
only if the new company has not already been recorded by another student.
Option 2 is for students who want to use a real company from any country which they do not own/manage
and which no other student is using. Students cannot own/manage the company, because GLO5 Problem
Solving requires interviewing a client including the owner/manager. It cannot be the same company as
another student because Part A will be too similar, and potentially guilty of collusion (Academic Misconduct).
It can be a company in which you work. Option 2 is high risk due to COVID-19 because even if owner/
managers agree, they can later change their mind, delay interviewing, etc. Further, Option 1 will have
comparatively less workload because Option 2 can be time-consuming (e.g. many owner/managers might
say no, interviewing takes time, etc). Option 2 is therefore at the student’s own risk (e.g. no extensions). The
owner/manager must sign a
confirmation form (see Content tab, then Assessment Resources, then
Assessment 1) before interviews can start. A franchise (e.g. pizza store) and a store/department/division run
by a large company with different owners/managers will be considered different companies. Ask the
owner/manager if they have already signed the
confirmation form for another student. If yes, you must
select another company. If you have not finished the interviews/confirmation by Week 3, you must change
to Option 1 because you will be a high risk not completing. Work on Option 1 in parallel as a back-up.
Students are required to select a unique (or different) company, in the case of Option 1 or for Option 2,
because Part B of the assignment requires that drafts of students’ Part A sections will be shown by staff
during the weekly seminars for ‘on the right track?’ feedback. Selecting different companies means there is
no risk of students copying your work for four reasons. First, there is no benefit of copying because the
sections of the Part A Case Study Report will be different for each company. Second, copying other students’
work is considered Academic Misconduct and can incur severe penalties including zero for the assignment.
Third, if any student decides to risk a severe Academic Misconduct penalty by copying, staff will know the
original author of the work because the original author will be the one who submitted the draft. Fourth,
students are not permitted to copy the work of other students, nor record seminars in any form when
other students’ drafts are shown
and, if suspected or caught doing so, will be reported to the Academic
Integrity Committee. See the “interim milestones” and the Part B details below for further information.

Page 3 of 13
In the assignment requirements below, the selected company (either Option 1 or Option 2) will be referred
to as “the client”, and will be considered as the company you have sourced for ConsultantCo.
Part A – ConsultantCo requirements for the Case Study Report
Table 1 below summarises the structure and requirements for the Part A Case Study Report expected by
ConsultantCo. ConsultantCo provides this structure because the assignment is complex. The structure
provides a good balance of broad guidance (i.e. high-level section headings) with flexibility (e.g. the content
written specifically about the chosen client). Further, many real-life consultancies have a “house-style” for
reports, so providing a structure is consistent such an industry practice.
The Part A Case Study Report will focus on
a single product type which you (and owner/manager for Option
2) select, and which the client sources from a tier 1 supplier. You can select any product type, so long as the
buys it regularly (at least monthly). These criteria are necessary because:
Selecting more than one product type increases the complexity of the assignment too much,
especially if the client uses different sourcing practices for different product types.
Where a client uses the same sourcing practices for different product types, the report will be
applicable to the other product types, and thus a single product type is sufficient.
Students will have difficulty developing a report with sufficient detail to meet ConsultantCo’s
requirements if they select a product type which is purchased less frequently than monthly.
We focus on a product type (not a specific product brand, size, etc) because Option 2 clients are
often reluctant to be more specific. For example, a restaurant might source “soft drink” of various
brands, sizes and flavours. The product type in this example would be “soft drink”.
Table 1 specifies ConsultantCo’s requirements for the Case Study Report, including the scope for client
evaluation. This means some types of supply chain problems (e.g. parts of SOURCE and all of MAKE, DELIVER,
RETURNS) and associated solutions, as well as some social and environmental responsibility issues, will be
outside the scope and cannot be explored. The scoping is necessary because:
Deakin policy states that assignments must differ each trimester, which requires different scope or
foci each year. Our approach is to focus on a different part of the SOURCE process and a different
SCM metric each year. This is better than alternatives, including students only being allowed to pick
companies from a different industry each year, or limiting choice of product type each year. Our
approach achieves a good balance between flexibility for students (and real clients in the case of
Option 2), and Deakin assignment policy.
Scoped requirements are common in industry. Further, such scoping means that feedback and
answers to one student’s assignment drafts/questions will more likely help all students.
The skills and knowledge that you (and the real client in the case of Option 2) gain from the doing
the scoped assignment are applicable in other areas. For example, the solution evaluation relating to
a specific product type within the specified part of SOURCE could potentially apply to other aspects
of the client’s practices. You can consider if/how the solution examined within the scope of this
report might apply to other client practices, but after the assignment has been completed.
The word counts in
Error! Reference source not found. for each section are a guide only, and can be e
xceeded. That is, you have full flexibility to decide how much to write for each section – the table only offers
suggestions. The only word limit requirement for the assignment is that the text in Part A cannot exceed the
total text word count
by even one (1) word, including section headings. This is explained further in the
Word count calculation section below, and summarised in the rubric (see Assessment 1 Rubric at the end of
this document).

Page 4 of 13
Table 1: Part A – Case Study Report structure and requirements

Requirement Requirements for the Part A report sections
Cover page (one
page only)
Title (“Assessment – Part A Case Study Report; Part B Feedback Reflection Report”);
Unit code and name;
Student name and student ID;
Text word count of Part A Case Study Report;
Client details for Option 2: owner/manager name, address, contact number;
The chosen product type which the client sources;
Table of contents.
1. Introduction
About 100 words.
State the client name, industry and size, and the purpose of the report relating to the
product type sourced.
2. Client
About 250 words.
2.1 Goals/strategies (you can reorder 2.1 and 2.2 if it flows more logically)
Evaluation of the client’s goals/strategies/values regarding the product type sourced,
including evaluation of CSR-related sourcing strategies/policies that (should) apply.
2.2 Product/service types
Evaluation of the client’s major products/services (using sourced product type) it sells.
Option 1 requires extrapolation/inference from research into the client and/or its
industry. Option 2 too for CSR aspects, since they may be reluctant to discuss.
3. Decision factors
About 200 words
(text, not image).
Table evaluating the decision factors (requirements), and priorities, the client uses to
decide if they will make
any change to sourcing (e.g. new technology, change to a
process, etc). Decision factors might relate to CSR, staff time (e.g. can any change to
sourcing increase staff workload?), technology (e.g. can any change require staff to
use/learn technology), and alignment to Section 2.1.
Option 1 requires extrapolation
or inference from research into the client and/or its industry.
4. [product type]
sourcing tasks
Insert diagram(s)
as a GIF/JPEG.
No text/words
explaining the
Diagram 1 (1a, 1b etc if split) showing all “put away, including inventory update and
procedural compliance (e.g. CSR)”
tasks in the source SCOR process for the chosen
product type, including repeated tasks and those determining/fixing problems.
Diagram 1 will include client-specific details on how the tasks are done manually
and/or with technology (e.g. ERP, fax, email), what role/position does which tasks,
what triggers the tasks (e.g. previous task, always a specific day?). Diagram 1 will
include any interactions with tier 1 suppliers because “put away” tasks occur after
that. Include numbered citations to all sources (e.g. owner, research), which can be
placed at the end of the Figure caption.
Option 1 (and maybe Option 2) requires
extrapolation/inference from research into the client and/or its industry.
5. SCM metric
About 1400 words
You can add
headings, but
these are included
in the text word
For Option 2, Section 5 does not involve any interviewing in the client (only Sections
2-4). Section 5 should be written based only on your own research and evaluation.
Evaluate positive/negative implications of introducing new SCM metric(s) to measure
packaging on the sourced product type. Evaluate the following for the metric(s):
Summarise example types of packaging, where each type goes (e.g. landfill,
supplier, recycling) and any associated environmental impact, and measure type
relevant to the type of packaging (e.g. quantity, volume, weight).
Strategic evaluation regarding alignment of the metric(s) with the client’s decision
factors and strategic sourcing objectives/goals. If not applicable, then explain why.
Operational evaluation of what is involved in introducing and using the metric(s):
o Collecting the data for the metric(s) (who will do it and will they resist? What
type of data do they need to collect and how feasible is this for the client?)
o Introducing/changing existing technology (only if absolutely necessary)
o Calculating the metric(s) (who will do it, will they resist, ease of calculation?)
o Changing any parts of Diagram 1 (modified tasks, extra tasks/complexity?)
o Evaluating change management (training, and will staff resist/be capable?)
Extrapolation/inference of these implications will be needed from research into the
client (Option 1) and the client’s industry (Option 1 and 2).

Page 5 of 13

Requirement Requirements for the Part A report sections
6. Conclusion
About 50 words
Conclude the report with a summary of key points / facts from the report. This report
not make any recommendations.
7. Client sources
Not in the text
word count.
List all sources from the client cited in the report. For Option 2, this will include at
one (1) personal communication reference (e.g. interview with the owner). For
Options 1 and 2, it can include the client’s website (if applicable), other sources (e.g.
client strategy/annual reports) to support client-specific evaluation in Sections 2-4.
See for formatting
instructions. Use the “personal communication” style for interviews (Option 2 only).
8. Industry sources
Not in the text
word count.
High quality (e.g. academic journal articles, industry reports, reports on handling the
sourcing of product types, environmental impact reports) and relevant research
sources about the client’s industry cited in the report (including in diagrams) to
support Sections 2-5 (especially Option 1). See formatting instructions at:
Appendices are not permitted in this assignment, and will be ignored if included.

The aim of the Case Study Report is to present a balanced and thorough evaluation of the implications or
feasibility of the client introducing the new SCM metric. This will include exploring positive (beneficial) and
negative strategic and operational issues. That is, the report will present everything (except financial
evaluation) which would enable the client to weigh up and decide if the new SCM metric is feasible to
implement. But you will not make the decision for the client, which means the report will
not state the final
decision you believe the client should make based on your evaluation (i.e. no final recommendation).
You will write the report about the client for the senior consultant of ConsultantCo. For Option 2, if the
owner/manager of the client is interested in your report ideas, they can get independent advice to make a
decision themselves and should not decide using the information in your report. This is to protect you and
the client. Please provide the owner/manager with a copy of the report as a “thank you” for their time and
help. You can tailor the report for the owner/manager as needed (e.g. removing parts only relevant for
assessment). For Option 2, do not criticise the owner, company, etc in the version of the report you give
them! Owners of small companies in particular often feel their company is part of their identity, so criticising
the company is criticising them personally. Instead, write in a positive manner such as “An opportunity to
enhance…”, especially for problems in the company which the owner has not told you about.
Part A – Text word count penalty and calculation
The “Part A text word count penalty” rubric criterion states that the text word count of the Case Study
Report must be less than or equal to the text word limit (not a single word more), as stated in the
Assessment Requirements section. The 10% leeway on the word count DOES NOT apply in this unit.
Following the rubric, a penalty mark will be deducted from your final mark.
This strict requirement by ConsultantCo reflects industry requirements that, when you are asked to write a
problem solving (or evaluation) report of ‘X’ words or ‘X’ pages, exceeding this requirement is typically not
acceptable. An important GLO5 problem analysis skill, therefore, is convincing managers (and in this
assignment, the senior consultants) your evaluation is thorough and complete within such restrictions.
Further, a strict word limit ensures that you do not do more work than is required for the assessment.
The word count is determined by selecting everything from the Part A section heading through to the end of
the Conclusion section in Table 1 above (i.e. excluding only the cover page and reference lists), and using MS
Word’s word count feature. The text word limit includes everything (e.g. headings, text in tables, citations).
Nothing can be scanned, and no images can be used, to reduce the word count, except Diagrams 1 in the
requirements table. Note that the rubric specifies a word count penalty if anything other than Diagram 1 is
scanned or is an image in Part A.

Page 6 of 13
Diagram 1 (including 1a, 1b, etc if required) can be image files (e.g. GIF, JPEG) so they are not included in the
text word count. Software used to create diagrams (e.g. Powerpoint) typically have options to save each
diagram (e.g. Powerpoint slide) as an image, then the image file can be copied into the report. Diagrams 1a,
1b, etc must have captions (e.g. “Figure 1a:
title of the diagram”), which can be inside the image file so that
it does not increase the word count.
You can use a numbered citation approach so that citations do not contribute to the text word limit (see
example), because there are no spaces between citation numbers and punctuation/words. The reference list
is still formatted using the Harvard referencing style. This example is not relevant to assignment, but it
shows how to use numbered citations, and synthesise (or combine evidence from) multiple sources.

It is unclear from existing research whether differences in revenue of small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
has an impact on their ability to adopt information systems (IS) tools. This is because most studies
1,2,4,5 did
not state any maximum revenue to be an SME, or differentiate SME sizes on the basis of revenue. Only two
studies, by contrast, stated that companies must have less than 50 million Euros in revenue
3(p268) or Canadian
dollars in sales
6(p1007) to be considered an SME, but neither article differentiates SMEs on the basis of revenue
or sales. The fact that most studies did not state the maximum revenue to be an SME, or differentiate SMEs
based on revenue, may be due to limitations of the definition of SMEs used or cited in the studies. It was
therefore not possible to identify the extent to which revenue affects if/how SMEs adopt IS tools, or what
revenue related support different types of SMEs may need.
Research sources
1. Lee, S, Park, SB & Lim, GG 2013, ‘Using balanced scorecards for the evaluation of “Software-as-a
Information & Management, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 553-561.
2. Zhang, M, Sarker, S & Sarker, S 2013, ‘Drivers and export performance impacts of IT capability in ‘born
global’ firms: a cross-national study’,
Information Systems Journal, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 419-443.
3. Alonso-Mendo, F, Fitzgerald, G & Frias-Martinez, E. 2009, ‘Understanding web site redesigns in small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): a U.K.-based study on the applicability of e-commerce Stage
European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 264-279.
4. Bidan, M, Rowe, F & Truex, D 2012, ‘An empirical study of IS architectures in French SMEs: integration
European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 287-302.
5. Levenburg, NM 2005, ‘Does size matter? Small firms’ use of e-business tools in the supply chain’,
Electronic Markets, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 94-105.
6. Bergeron, F, Raymond, L & Rivard, S 2004, ‘Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business
Information & Management, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1003-1020.

Part A – No copying of any content, including client sources
All aspects of the Part A Case Study Report should be written in your own words (e.g. sections, tables,
Diagram 1, etc). This means that no content of any kind from any source can be copied into the report,
including no copying from client sources (e.g. websites, reports, etc). The report asks for your evaluation of
client background, decision factors, tasks in Diagram 1 and new SCM metric implications. This means that
everything you write and draw for Part A must be entirely your own work, because the evaluation must be
your work only. Copying from any sources therefore will not meet ConsultantCo requirements.

Page 7 of 13
Part B – Feedback Reflection Report
Business professionals (e.g. Business Analysts, Consultants) must obtain feedback from clients to verify that
the professional’s work is ‘on the right track’ (e.g. they understand client needs) and will not be rejected (or
‘failed’) by the client (e.g. refuses to pay the professional). Professionals cannot say it was the client’s fault if
a report is rejected by the client. Instead, this indicates a failure of a business professional to engage in
quality problem solving. In this unit, you will be treated as professionals. You must take active steps to
ensure that Case Study Report is ‘on the right track’ (i.e. will not be rejected/failed by ConsultantCo or the
senior consultants). This means, in the case of Option 2, that following the client’s advice about how to write
the report may not satisfy ConsultantCo’s requirements and may result in you being ‘on the wrong track’.
You are expected to seek actively, interpret accurately and respond constructively to feedback/clarifications
on whether your understanding and drafts are ‘on the right track’ before submission. You are required to
write a 500 word Feedback Reflection Report summarising how you sought, interpreted and utilised the
feedback, including providing evidence that your interpretation of feedback is accurate. That is, how do you
know you interpreted the feedback correctly? What actions did you take to check your interpretation? For
Part B, you
only critique the effectiveness of your active seeking and accurate interpreting/implementing of
Do not comment on feedback quality from consultants, nor why you could not attend seminars.
(The former can be done by contacting the Unit Chair directly and/or completing unit evaluation surveys.)
‘On the right track?’ feedback can only be ‘sought actively’ by submitting drafts of specified Part A sections
(see the interim milestone due dates above, and Table 2 below) and by attending the weekly seminars. It is
only during the seminars that senior consultants will advise whether drafts are ‘on the right track’, why and
(if not) what can be done to get the draft ‘back on track’.
Senior consultants will not view / give feedback
on drafts at any other times, including not via email, CloudDeakin discussion folders, after the seminars,
The senior consultants will only provide feedback if a student submits a draft by the due date and
attends the seminars. All students can ask questions in the CloudDeakin discussion folders relating to Part A
to clarify their understanding of the interpretation, and/or to clarify interpretation of the rubric (see below).
Students registered with the Deakin Disability Resource Centre, or with other justified reasons, who cannot
meet the draft due date schedule and cannot attend any or most Burwood or Cloud seminars in real-time
should contact the Unit Chair on
[email protected] for alternative arrangements. See below for
further information on how many seminars can be missed (e.g. due to illness) without affecting Part B.

Page 8 of 13
Table 2: Weekly outline of the seminars

Week (starts…) Student seminar preparation/submissions Focus of the seminars
1 (6 Mar) Read Assessment Task 1 requirements. Assessment 1 requirements and Q&A
2 (13 Mar) Select ‘client’, preliminary research,
submit Section 2 & 3 drafts.
Assessment 1 requirements and Q&A
3 (20 Mar) Submit client confirmation form & start
interviews (option 2),
record client choice
& continue research (option 1).
Feedback: half of Sections 2 and 3 drafts.
4 (27 Mar) Improve Section 2, Submit Section 4 & 5
(metric/strategic) draft
Feedback: other half of Sections 2 and 3.
5 (3 Apr) Improve Section 3 Feedback Section 4 (Diagram 1) drafts
Break (10 Apr) No seminars
6 (17 Apr) Improve Section 4, Submit Section 5 draft
Feedback on Section 5 drafts
7 (24 Apr) Improve Section 4 & 5, draft Part B. Feedback on half of Section 5 drafts
8 (1 May) Improve Section 5, polish Part A and B. Feedback on other half of Section 5
9 (8 May) Polish and submit Part A/B this week. Assessment Task 2 (exam overview)
10 & 11 Review the sample exam. Discussion of sample exam questions.

There are various points to note from
Page 9 of 13
Table 2 and the interim milestone due dates for drafts:
The Introduction (Section 1), Conclusion (Section 6) and source/references sections do not require
feedback because these are short and simple sections compared to Sections 2 to 5. For this reason, the
Part B Feedback Reflection Report cannot reflect on these sections. Further, you will
not reflect on any
aspect of sourcing/selecting/recording the client, which is also outside the scope of Part B. Part B will
only relate to ‘on the right track?’ feedback received during the seminars on Sections 2 to 5. Finally, the
Part B report will only relate to the feedback seminars in Weeks 3 to 8 (not Weeks 1 and 2).
There are three due dates for drafts, and each due date has specified sections to submit. Actively
seeking feedback means submitting these drafts on time. Submission of section drafts not specified for a
due date will be ignored by senior consultants because each seminar has a focus. It is important to have
a go at drafting and submitting the specified sections, even if sections are not ready, because it will help
you determine if you are ‘on the right track’. The earlier you draft a section, the less time you will waste
doing work that is ‘on the wrong track’.
Over a two week period, each student who submits a draft will have an opportunity to get ‘on the right
track?’ feedback in one week for one (1) section (referred to as ‘
my draft’ seminars). For the week you
do not get feedback on the other section, learn from the feedback given to other students on that
section to determine if you are ‘on the right track’ (referred to as ‘
others’ drafts’ seminars). Actively
seeking feedback means attending both ‘my draft’ and ‘others’ drafts’ seminars. Learning from feedback
given to others, not just feedback on your own drafts, is an essential problem solving skill in industry.
The seminars are capped at 20 students so that 10 students can receive ‘on the right track?’ feedback
during each seminar over two weeks. Students can change to another seminar if there are less than 20
students in that other seminar via the CloudDeakin groups
until the cut-off date stated at the top of this
document under the interim milestones. This means:
o Seminar dates/times that fit every student’s availability or timetable cannot be guaranteed. See
the instructions in yellow above if it is not possible to attend the only seminars with space.
o Students who are registered for, but fail to submit a draft for and/or attend, a seminar will be
removed to make space for students who can only attend, and will commit, to that seminar.
o If you need to change your seminar during the trimester due to factors beyond your control,
please contact the Unit Chair as per the yellow text above. If a change is not possible, then an
alternative to attending the seminars will be arranged.
Submitting a single section that is scheduled for feedback during the second week (e.g. Section 3 for the
first due date) will not lead to, nor guarantee, such a student will be selected for the second week. For
this reason, it is important to submit a draft for all sections specified for that due date. This is the only
way to receive ‘on the right track?’ feedback on a section you have drafted (i.e. a ‘my draft’ seminar).
You will reflect on your active seeking of feedback from at least 2 of the 3 ‘my draft seminars’. This
means you can be sick or miss one ‘my draft’ seminar without affecting your Part B result. If situations
beyond your control mean you anticipate missing more than 1, see the instructions in yellow above.
Senior consultants will not advise which drafts will be given feedback in which week, and will not
negotiate which week you will receive feedback. Instead, the Part B Feedback Reflection Report is where
you reflect on how
you managed seeking ‘on the right track?’ feedback by attending the seminars.
The feedback seminars will not be recorded to protect the work of the original authors. This means you
must take responsibility and implement strategies to verify you are ‘on the right track’ for any sections
where you cannot attend a seminar. Some hints are provided below, but other strategies could include
talking to fellow students about the feedback/ideas they learned during the seminars. How can you
verify their interpretation is accurate, and that your interpretation of what they say is accurate?

Page 10 of 13
A template for the Part B Feedback Reflection Report is shown below, where the parts in
bold between the
square brackets state what reflection and evidence you need to provide:

Examples of accurate interpretation of feedback:
My draft (Seminar 3):
[specific example of feedback, why the draft was not ‘on the right track’, evidence
that you interpreted feedback accurately]
My draft (Seminar 6):
[specific example of feedback, why the draft was not ‘on the right track’, evidence
that you interpreted feedback accurately]

With regards to checking the accuracy of your interpretation of the ‘on the right track?’ feedback:
You can post questions (not post section drafts) to CloudDeakin discussion folders to query your
interpretation. What evidence indicates that you interpreted the responses in CloudDeakin accurately?
Consider what evidence you have that feedback on other students’ drafts of the same section during the
‘my draft’ seminars confirmed the accuracy of your interpretation of the feedback on your draft.
The rubric criterion regarding the Part B Feedback Reflection Report indicates that the assessment of your
reflection will be affected if you choose not to submit drafts and/or attend (some of) the seminars. But there
are still opportunities for critical self-reflection of your approach to seeking, interpreting and acting on the
‘on the right track?’ feedback. For example:
If you do not attend at least 2 ‘my draft’ seminars, you can replace the ‘my draft’ seminars reflection
with ‘others’ drafts’ seminars if you attended these. For example, what evidence do you have that
you have interpreted and applied the feedback on other students’ drafts accurately? Did you
volunteer ‘on the right track?’ feedback on another student’s draft during the seminar, and did the
senior consultant confirm that your feedback was accurate? How can you be sure that you applied
that feedback accurately to your own draft? Students are doing their assignments on different
companies, so why did you conclude it was relevant to apply that feedback to your company?
If you choose not to attend any seminars, you can reflect self-critically on the implications of your
choice. For example, what were the risks of this choice? How did you mitigate those risks? What are
the risks of only posting to and/or reading CloudDeakin discussion posts? And/or talking to peers?
Learning Outcomes
This task allows you to demonstrate achievement towards the unit learning outcomes. The ULOs are aligned
with specific graduate learning outcomes – that is, the skills and knowledge graduates are expected to have
upon completion of their studies – and this assessment task is an important tool in determining achievement
of those outcomes.
If you do not demonstrate achievement of the unit learning outcomes, you will not be successful in this unit.
It is good practice to familiarise yourself with the ULOs and GLOs as they provide guidance on the
knowledge, understanding and skills you’re expected to demonstrate upon completion of the unit. In this
way they can be used to guide your study.

Unit Learning Outcomes (ULO) Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLO)
ULO 1: Identify and critically analyse SCM
organisational issues against strategic objectives,
and evaluate SCM solutions to these issues.
GLO1 Discipline-specific knowledge and capabilities
GLO5 Problem solving

Page 11 of 13

ULO 2: Consider global, national and local social
and environmental responsibilities when
identifying, analysing and evaluating SCM
organisational issues and solutions.
GLO1 Discipline-specific knowledge and capabilities
GLO8 Global citizenship
ULO 3: Seek, interpret and act upon feedback to
improve proposed SCM solutions.
GLO1 Discipline-specific knowledge and capabilities
GLO5 Problem solving

You are to submit your assignment in the individual Assignment Dropbox in the MIS313 CloudDeakin unit
site on or before the due date.
When uploading your assignment, name your document using the following syntax:
<your surname_your
first name_your Deakin student ID number_MIS313.doc (or ‘.docx’)
. For example,
Submitting a hard copy of this assignment is not required.
You must keep a backup copy of every assignment you submit, until the marked assignment has been returned
to you. In the unlikely event that one of your assignments is misplaced, you will need to submit your backup
Any work you submit may be checked by electronic or other means for the purposes of detecting collusion
and/or plagiarism.
When you submit an assignment through your CloudDeakin unit site, you will receive an email to your Deakin
email address confirming that it has been submitted. You should check that you can see your assignment in
the Submissions view of the Assignment Dropbox folder after upload, and check for, and keep, the email
receipt for the submission.
Marking and feedback
The marking rubric for this task is below and also available in the MIS313 CloudDeakin unit site – in the
Assessment folder (under Assessment Resources).
It is always a useful exercise to familiarise yourself with the criteria before completing any assessment
task. Criteria act as a boundary around the task and help identify what assessors are looking for
specifically in your submission. The criteria are drawn from the unit’s learning outcomes ensuring they
align with appropriate graduate attribute/s.
Identifying the standard you aim to achieve is also a useful strategy for success and to that end,
familiarising yourself with the descriptor for that standard is highly recommended.
Students who submit their work by the due date will receive their marks and feedback on CloudDeakin
15 working days after the submission date.
Extensions will only be granted for exceptional and/or unavoidable circumstances outside the student’s

Page 12 of 13
Students seeking an extension for an assignment prior to the due date should apply directly to the Unit Chair
by completing the
Assignment and Online Test Extension Application Form. Requests for extensions will not
be considered after 12 noon, Wednesday 10 May 2023. Applications for
special consideration after the due
date must be submitted via StudentConnect.
Late submission
The following marking penalties will apply if you submit an assessment task after the due date without an
approved extension: 5% will be deducted from available marks for each day up to five days, and work that is
submitted more than five days after the due date will not be marked and will receive 0% for the task.
‘Day’ means working day for paper submissions and calendar day for electronic submissions. The Unit Chair
may refuse to accept a late submission where it is unreasonable or impracticable to assess the task after the
due date.
Calculation of the late penalty is as follows:
this is based on the assignment being due on a Thursday at 8:00pm
1 day late: submitted after Thursday 11:59pm and before Friday 11:59pm– 5% penalty.
2 days late: submitted after Friday 11:59pm and before Saturday 11:59pm – 10% penalty.
3 days late: submitted after Saturday 11:59pm and before Sunday 11:59pm – 15% penalty.
4 days late: submitted after Sunday 11:59pm and before Monday 11:59pm – 20% penalty.
5 days late: submitted after Monday 11:59pm and before Tuesday 11:59pm – 25% penalty.
Dropbox closes the Tuesday after 11:59pm AEST time.
The Division of Student Life (see link below) provides all students with editing assistance. Students who wish
to take advantage of this service must be organized and plan ahead and contact the Division of Student Life
in order to schedule a booking, well in advance of the due date of this assignment.
Any material used in this assignment that is not your original work must be acknowledged as such and
appropriately referenced. You can find information about plagiarism and other study support resources at
the following website:
Academic misconduct
For information about academic misconduct, special consideration, extensions, and assessment feedback,
please refer to the document
Your rights and responsibilities as a student in this Unit in the first folder next
to the Unit Guide in the Resources area of the CloudDeakin unit site.

GLOs N (0-29%) N (30-49%) P (50-59%) C (60-69%) D (70-79%) HD (80-100%)
Part A –
Case Study
ULO No. 1
(GLO1 &
(out of 50)
No evaluation of client
factors and/or implications of a
new SCM metric to measure
the packaging on the sourced
product type. Little/no
knowledge of SCM principles.
Report has significant content
copied from other sources.
(0 to 14.9 marks)
Limited evaluation of client
factors and/or implications of a
new SCM metric to measure
the packaging on the sourced
product type. Limited use/
knowledge of SCM principles.
Report has many content
copied from other sources.
(15-24.9 marks)
Some evaluation of client
factors, and implications of a new
SCM metric to measure the
packaging on the sourced
product type (omits many details,
quite generic). Some knowledge/
use of SCM principles (but many
Report has some content copied
from other sources.
(25-29.9 marks)
Adequate evaluation of client
factors, and implications of a new
SCM metric to measure the
packaging on the sourced product
type (omits some detail and/or a little
generic). Adequate use/knowledge of
SCM principles (but some issues).
Report has almost no content copied
from other sources.
(30-34.9 marks)
Mainly thorough, clear client
specific evaluation of background,
decision factors and practices, and
implications of a new SCM metric
to measure the packaging on the
sourced product type (omits minor
details). Sound use/knowledge of
SCM principles (minor issues).
Report does not have content
copied from other sources.
(35-39.9 marks)
Thorough, clear, client-specific
evaluation of background,
decision factors and practices,
and implications of a new SCM
metric to measure the
packaging on the sourced
product type. Excellent
use/knowledge of SCM
Report does not have content
copied from other sources.
(40-50 marks)
Part A –
Case Study
ULO No. 2
(GLO1 &
(out of 40)
Poor/no evaluation of CSR
aspects of client decision
and of the new SCM metric,
including adverse impacts on
staff and the environment
(little/no detail, all generic,
little/no relevance, most
required details missing).
(0-11.9 marks)
Limited evaluation of CSR
aspects of client decision
and of the new SCM metric,
including adverse impacts on
staff and the environment
(mostly low quality, very
generic, many missing details).
(12-19.9 marks)
Some evaluation of CSR aspects
of client decision factors/
practices/background and of the
new SCM metric, including
adverse impacts on staff and the
environment (omits many details,
quite generic).
(20-23.9 marks)
Good evaluation of CSR aspects of
client decision factors/background/
practices and of the new SCM
metric, including adverse impacts on
staff and the environment (a little
generic, omits some details).
(24-27.9 marks)
Quite detailed, clear evaluation of
CSR aspects of client decision
factors/background/practices and
of the new SCM metric, including
adverse impacts on staff and the
environment (omits minor details).
(28-31.9 marks)
Thorough, clear evaluation of
CSR aspects of client decision
and of the new SCM metric,
including adverse impacts on
staff and the environment.
(32-40 marks)
Part B –
ULO No. 3
(GLO1 &
(out of 10)
Examples show no (accurate)
use/interpretation of feedback
to evaluate/improve drafts. Part
A report shows no accuracy of
feedback interpretation. No
evidence of using seminars or
CloudDeakin discussion
(0-2.9 marks)
Examples are generic, unclear/
little evidence of accurate use/
interpretation of feedback to
evaluate/improve drafts. Part A
report shows little interpretation
accuracy. Requirements not
met for seminars, but maybe
some evidence of CloudDeakin
discussion folders use.
(3-4.9 marks)
Examples of using feedback to
evaluate/improve the drafts, but
examples mostly generic and,
with Part A report quality issues,
indicates many issues with
accurate interpretation. Met
requirements for 1 “other’s drafts”
seminar only, or self-critique of
using only peers / CloudDeakin
discussion folders.
(5-5.9 marks)
Some clear, specific examples, and
Part A report quality, evidencing
somewhat accurate interpretation/
use of feedback to evaluate and
improve the drafts. Met requirements
for 2 “other’s drafts” seminars only.
(6-6.9 marks)
Mostly clear, specific examples,
and Part A report quality,
evidencing accurate use/
interpretation of feedback to
evaluate critically/improve the
drafts. Met requirements for 1 “my
draft” only, plus 1+ “other’s drafts”
(7-7.9 marks)
Very clear, specific examples,
and Part A report quality,
evidencing accurate and self
critical use/interpretation of
feedback to evaluate/improve
drafts. Met requirements for 2+
“my draft” seminars.
(8-10 marks)
Part A text
word count
Part A is 150+ over the text
word limit, and/or 4+ scanned
text/tables (except Diagram 1).
Minus 20 marks
Part A is 101-150 over the text
word limit, and/or 2-3 scanned
text/tables (except Diagram 1).
Minus 15 marks
Part A is 51-100 over the text
word limit, and/or 1 scanned
text/table (except Diagram 1).
Minus 10 marks
Part A is 11-50 over the text word
limit, but has no scanned text/tables
(except Diagram 1).
Minus 5 marks
Part A is 1-10 words over the text
word limit, but has no scanned
text/tables (except Diagram 1).
Minus 2 marks
Part A is under or exactly on
the text word limit, no scanned
text/tables (except Diagram 1).
No penalty