supply chain management Comparing the implementation代写
| Marking criteria | Allocated Mark |
| Abstract | Total: 1 mark |
| What is the aim of the report and major findings? | 1 |
| Introduction | Total: 2 marks |
| Does the introduction effectively orientate the reader to the topic area? | 1 |
| Does the introduction specify the problem to be addressed and clarify the purpose of the report? | 1 |
| Methods | Total: 2 marks |
| Tells your readers “how” you find the references, which method you have used to analyse the references and address the problem. What are the issues that you have considered? |
|
| How the references were searched and found? | 1 |
| What are the processes used to analyse the references? | 1 |
| Findings | Total: 4 marks |
| What are the SCM process in each company? What are the similarities and differences between these two companies? | 1 |
| What kind of IT-solution(s) has/have been applied in which stage(s) of the SCM in each company? What are the similarities and differences between these two companies? | 1 |
| How effective is the use of each IT-solution in each company? What are the similarities and differences between these two companies? | 1 |
| How can each company improve its IT-solution(s) used in SCM? | 1 |
| Discussion | Total: 3 marks |
| What can we learn from your report? (aim-related, results relative to the gaps) | 1 |
| What are the contributions and limitations of your research? | 1 |
| What are the future research directions on IT-enabled SCM? | 1 |
| Conclusion | Total: 2 marks |
| Summary of problems, objectives, findings and contributions | 2 |
| General quality requirement | Total: 4 marks |
| The results are evidence-based | 1 |
| The reasoning is logically sound and of high clarity and the paragraphs are well structured and linked | 1 |
| Consistency of required referencing style | 1 |
| Professional presentation of written work (layout, fonts, headings, spelling and grammar) | 1 |
| Individual contribution | Total: 2 marks |
| Describe contribution of each member in term of percentage | 1 |
| Quality of academic writing of each member | 1 |
| Total marks | 20 |