Operations Management, 5th edition (by Slack, Nigel, Chambers, Stuart, Johnston, Robert)

ISBN: 978-0273708476

I managed to get the Operations Management, 5th edition (by Slack, Nigel, Chambers, Stuart, Johnston, Robert). Could you please confirm if this is the right book to cover Unit 1 – 3?

As noted elsewhere, if you cannot readily find either of the recommended textbooks for the Operations Management units, any contemporary book will be fine and you can relate the relevant chapters to the topics indicated in the reading list. So yes.

1. I have added a couple of links to additional materials in Units 4, 5 and 6.
   The final assessment states that your “models should follow the BPMN notation shown in the lecture slides”; you can find details of the notation on the internet, such as https://camunda.org/bpmn/reference/
2. This is a case study analysis and to that end, you can make certain assumptions to support your analysis. However, the assumptions need to be explicitly stated and should be reasonable/ logical within the background/framework of the case.
3. I have been watching the forums and the discussions on the Gorry Scott Morton grid. Each analysis has been on the right track.The way I see it, there is no strict “correct”result here. I don’t think there is a right or wrong approach to the Gorry and Scott-Morton grid as each and every organisation is different in its nature, size , hierarchy,etc. and consequently, nature and characteristics of operations, decision making roles, responsibilities,etc. would differ.To that end, there could be some overlap/interchangeability within the grid. Your allocation of the activities under the respective cells have been well reasoned and explained. If I were to be pedantic and want to tweak your grid at all, I might move the New Product activity to the less structured cell under the strategic column.The way I see it, this is a decision where only part of the problem has a clear-cut answer provided by an accepted procedure. The balance would call for a reasonable level of human judgement, evaluation and insight.In other words, a new product line decision is one in which there is sufficient structure for computer and analytic aids to be of value but where a manager’s judgment is essential.
4. In a case study analysis, students often feel they need more information in order to make an intelligent decision. Rarely, if ever (in the real world) do decision makers have all the information they would like to have prior to making important decisions. Therefore, you have to make assumptions. As I mentioned in my post to Nelson,there is nothing wrong with making assumptions as long as they are explicitly stated and reasonable. As regards your second query, what is the evidence that leads you to think that it is 11 plus the new 3 stores?
5. Just couple of days left for the final submission. Let me summarise the important aspects. The assignment is in four parts. Do remember to address all parts and more importantly, include all the parts in one document. Make use of appropriate theories, models, etc covered in the module to support your analysis. Avoid getting stuck with details (descriptive) and missing the larger canvas.Try to bring an evaluative approach to the treatment of the case study. Do follow the structure as laid down in the assignment brief- Title Page – Contents – Introduction – Main Section – Conclusions and Recommendations – References.
6. A student in another class has asked whether he can use examples from his own experience, or if it is always necessary to use academic works to support our contribution?
   My answer is as follows. Academic evidence is better, but anecdotal evidence is better than nothing provided there is some depth to it; in other words it is not enough to simply say “what”, but “how” and “why”.
   Let me give you an example based on my own personal experience:
   The “what” as an example of lean is “HP has recently introduced “Instant Ink” for some of its printers – customers sign up to a monthly printing volume (say 300 pages) and HP regularly sends new cartridges according to usage”.
   The “how” and “why” is “HP has recently introduced “Instant Ink” for some of its printers – customers sign up to a monthly printing volume (say 300 pages) and HP regularly sends new cartridges according to usage. They monitor use wirelessly, and benefit from reduced inventory, reduced trans-shipments, and less likelihood of users migrating to “no brand” cartridges. The customer benefits from significantly lower costs, and the convenience of cartridges being delivered to the door.

Assessments and Academic writing

You have seen so far aspects related to a more general view of the programme. This unit’s aim is to familiarize you with aspects of taking the assessments and writing in an academic setting, such as your required essays for the different modules in the MSc in Procurement, Logistics and Supply Chain Management programme.
There is a plethora of resources on and off the web on academic writing in English. As with most things, going through an important part of the literature can take a lot of time, but some items are more important than others, and those are the ones we shall present here.
The knowledge you gained will be tested in each module through relevant assessment. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the assessment regulations and policies:
A critical skill at Master level is bibliography (or reference) management.
You can find below two guides on Harvard style referencing (under Resources).
Most word processing programs (such as Microsoft’s Word versions, or OpenOffice and LibreOffice) come with built in Bibliography managers, you may find these articles useful depending on your version of program:
1. Ms Word: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/create-a-bibliography-HA010067492.aspx
2. OpenOffice / LibreOffice: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOoAuthors_User_Manual/Writer_Guide/Creating_a_bibliography

OIM Final Assessment:Craven BooksReport

 

Semester 3, 2016-2017

 

• This is an individual assignment worth 50% of the module mark.
• Word length: equivalent of 3000 words in total (do not exceed word limit, a penalty will apply for assignments that exceed it by more than 10%).
• Do not include References in the word count.

 

Submission:

Electronically through OnlineCampus

 

This assignment is in four parts.

 

Section	Content	Word Count	Marks
Part A	Analysis – Business Process Models and strategy analysis	1000 (equivalent to)	25
Part B	Open Source Software Comparison Table	500 (equivalent to)	25
Part C	Report	1250	40
Part D	Reflection on your contribution to the online discussion and wiki	250	10
	Total	3000	100

 

You should include all parts in a single document

 

Relates to Learning Outcomes:

 

• Critically analyse the theory, concepts and models of operations and information management and demonstrate an understanding of the strategic importance of information management in global organisations.
• Evaluate critically the fundamental principles of information systems and the significance of a socio-technical approach to their use in organisations.

• Select and apply appropriate problem-solving and improvement approaches for information systems in organisations.

 

Assessment Housekeeping:

You are required to follow the University’s regulations regarding plagiarism and citing sources and references used. Assignments may not be submitted late. Marking penalties for late submission will follow the University regulations for PMC and late submission.

 

Submission of Assessment:

Please submit an electronic copy of your assessment via OnlineCampus;  the fileshould be in Word format.

 

 

Assignment Brief

 

Case Study: Craven Books

 

Craven Books (CB)is a comic magazine seller in Utah City, USA, with a 40-years life spam competing with mega sellers such as Dreamland Comics, Forbidden Planet, and Metropolis Comics. The company extended their market along North America and Mexico and plans to build-up a digital presence to approach the European market through multi-interface e-commerce and social media groups in order to promote their products to the new markets.

 

This growth strategy has led to an accelerating volume of sales. Accordingly, the company had to process customer orders in batches and recruit qualified store manager and IT specialist to develop a digital strategy consistent with their business strategy.

 

Once he was appointed, the IT manager outsourced the digital strategy to an independent IT consultant who decided to set-up two technological tools for the internal and external processes. Internally, a weighing machine was brought to the store to help checking the right order through weight check. An electronic mapping machine was also attached to this weighing machine in the store area to link the customers’ order from the digital interface with the store management and help locate the relevant items. Externally, the IT consultant has developed a CRM[1] cloud-based interface to help both customer and employees conduct transactions and electronic payment online.

 

Within a year of outsourcing the digital strategy, CB has failed and lost 90% of their customers in addition to making 60% of their staff redundant. Clearly, there was a misalignment between the business strategy and the IT strategy.

 

Peter Craven, the owner of this company, needs your help as a professional information management consultant. He wants to define the areas of misalignments and explore different possibilities of developing a more relevant IT portfolio. These possibilities might include CRM, ERP, and Open Source Software to save the business and fix the fragmentation in his business processes. Therefore, you are required to submit a professional report that can be read and understood by Peter Craven and his fellow team.

 

 

Your Task

 

You are anOIM consultant who has been employed to advise Craven Books on the effective implementation of these strategic changes. You are required to produce the following:

 

Part A:            Analysis – Business Process Models and strategy analysis

In this section you should develop

1. A series of Business Process Models, which capture the existing and proposed business processes. The models should follow the BPMN notation shown in the lecture slides. You can use Microsoft Visio to create the models although you may if you prefer use Word, PowerPoint or appropriate alternatives.
2. Strategic analysis for Craven Books: You should use a 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 for Craven Books. 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, 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.

 

 

Part D:            Reflection on your contribution to the online discussion and wiki

 

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 Proforma in Appendix A (copy and paste it into your assignment document). The reflective report should include your detailed reflection, supported with evidence from the online discussion.

 

 

You should use appropriate theories, frameworks, models, that we have covered in the module, to inform and justify your recommendations.

 

The OnlineCampus module site has been set up with discussion boards(e.g. Units 4, 5, 6) for you to explore the assignment. 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 for Craven Books – 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 for Craven Books

Please don’t be shy in using the discussion board– the purpose is to give you experience of using collaborative technologies.

 

 

Appendix A: Reflection Self Assessment Proforma

 

.

 

Example (Fictional student and subject) Before I started researching the subject of open source, I assumed that support was not available for small businesses (see A Student’s posting “No support available” of 16 Oct). In writing my report I realised that there are a variety of models of support ( see my posting of 19 Oct).      

 

	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 onlinecontributions (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.

Eid

 

Criterion / Mark range	90-100	80-89	70-79	60-69	50-59	40-49	0-39
Overall level (indicative – not for grading)	Standard comparable to journal publication	Standard comparable to conference paper publication	Distinctive work for Masters level	Merit work for Masters level	Acceptable for Masters	Below Masters pass standard	Significantly below Masters pass standard
Scope	Outstanding clarity of focus,  includes what is important, and excludes irrelevant issues.	Excellent clarity of focus, boundaries set with no significant omissions or unnecessary issues.	Clear focus.  Very good setting of  boundaries, includes most of what is relevant.	Clear scope and focus, with some omissions or unnecessary issues.	Scope evident and satisfactory but with some omissions and unnecessary issues.	Poorly scoped, with significant omissions and unnecessary issues.	Little or no scope or focus evident.
Understanding of subject matter	Outstanding with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas.	Excellent with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Excellent expression of ideas.	Very good with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas.	Good with some awareness of relevance of issues. Ideas are expressed, with some limitation.	Basic with limited awareness of relevance of issues.  Limited expression of ideas.	Poor with little awareness of relevance of issues	Little or no understanding of subject matter is demonstrated.
Literature	Comprehensive literature review. Evaluation and synthesis of source material to produce an outstanding contribution.	Excellent independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce an excellent contribution.	Very good independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce a very good contribution.	Good secondary research to extend taught materials. Evidence of evaluation of sources, with some deficiencies in choice and synthesis.	Limited secondary research to extend taught materials. Limited evaluation of sources, deficiencies in choice and synthesis.	Little or no extension of taught materials.  Poor choice and synthesis of materials.	Poor use of taught materials.  No synthesis.
Critical analysis based on evidence	Standard of critical analysis – showing questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought	Excellent standard of critical analysis – excellence in questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought	A very good standard of critical analysis.  Sources are questioned appropriately, and a very good understanding of bias, showing independence of thought	Critical analysis with some questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought.	Analysis evident but uncritical. Sources are not always questioned, with limited independence of thought.	Little or no analysis.	No valid analysis.
Structure of argument, leading to conclusion	Well structured, compelling and persuasive argument that leads to a valuable contribution to the field of study, paving the way for future work.	Argument has excellent structure and persuasiveness, leading to very significant insights and relevant future work.	Well-structured and persuasive argument Insightful conclusion draws together key issues and possible future work.	Structured and fairly convincing argument leads to conclusion that summarises key issues.	Argument has some structure and development towards conclusion with limitations in summary of issues.	Argument is unstructured, no recognizable conclusion.	No evidence of argument or conclusion.

 

[1]CRM: Customer Relationship Management