Home › Documents › Deakin University › MIS713 - Digital Transformation Of Supply Chains › MIS713 Assessment Task 1 Part A & B (Case Study Report & Feedback Reflection)

Doc

University Deakin University
Course MIS713 - Digital Transformation Of Supply Chains
Year 2026
Author Shally
Subject Supply Chain & Logistics
File Type PDF

33 views 15 pages

Assignment Instructions

MIS713 – Digital Transformation of Supply Chains - Trimester 2 2025
Assessment Task 1 – Part A - Case Study Report and Complex Diagrams;
Part B Feedback Reflection – Individual/Group Assignment
DUE DATE AND TIME: Friday, 5 September 2025, by 8:00pm (AEST)
PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: Part A (40%), Part B (10%)
WORD COUNT: Part A (3000 words, complex diagrams), Part B (500 words)
Description
This is an individual assessment. For the assessment, you will take the role of a consultant working for
ConsultantCo. ConsultantCo is a company that provides consulting services in the field of supply chain
management and digital transformation. ConsultanceCo assists clients in harnessing the potential of digital
solutions to optimize their supply chain processes, improve decision-making, and gain a competitive edge in
the market. The assessment involves you (as a consultant in ConsultantCo) applying digital transformation and
supply chain management (SCM) knowledge (GLO1 Discipline-specific knowledge) to a company(client):
• reviewing a specified subset of the company’s supply chain practices (GLO5 Problem Solving);
• evaluating a specified type of problem with the SCM practices and evaluating an associated digital
transformation solution (GLO5 Problem Solving); and
• evaluating the social and/or environmental responsibility with the SCM practices and the digital
transformation 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 that you will
research (option 1) or a real company you source and interview a manager/staff (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 consultants’ work is evaluated by senior consultants.
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 desired (Option 2).
The two parts of this single individual assignment are as follows:
• Part A – a Case Study Report comprising a text word limit of 3000 addressing the requirements in Table
1 below, plus at least one (1) complex diagram but more likely multiple smaller diagrams to aid
readability. The report will detail the client’s current supply chain activities, and evaluate a digital
transformation solution (GLO1 Discipline-specific knowledge, GLO5 Problem Solving) and related
social/environmental responsibility aspects (GLO8 Global Citizenship). The limit of 3000 words in total
for Part A is very strict and cannot be exceeded by even one (1) word. You can decide how to split
these words between the Part A sections outlined in Table 1, which gives an optional guide.
• Part B – a Feedback Reflection Report (text word limit of 500, no diagrams) is a critique of the
effectiveness of how you sought and utilised feedback in the seminars and CloudDeakin discussion
folders regarding your understanding of the Part A requirements to produce Part A. Effective use of
feedback, and reflecting on your use, is a critical part of being an effective problem solver (GLO5).
Page 2 of 14
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 not selected
by another student, which must only be selected from the list found under the Content tab, Assessment
Resources, then Assessment 1, then Option 1 Company Selection Tool in the MIS713 CloudDeakin unit site.
Instructions/steps on how to record your choice can be found under there. Only students who record a unique
company selection from the list 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. It can be a company in which you work. 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.
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
Case setting Introduction:
Recent years have seen significant shifts in supply chain management, particularly in response to
changing consumer behavior and the rapid growth of e-commerce. As more consumers turned to
online shopping, logistics and delivery networks faced tremendous pressure, prompting companies to
rethink, upscale, and often overhaul their delivery capabilities.
Simultaneously, disruptions in global supply chains highlighted the vulnerability of traditional make
and delivery systems. Irregular and unpredictable make and delivery timelines pushed organizations
to develop more robust and resilient systems. Operational adjustments were also made to improve
safety, including the adoption of contactless deliveries and enhanced hygiene protocols.
These challenges have prompted businesses to re-evaluate their delivery methods, with a growing
emphasis on reducing carbon emissions, minimizing waste, and promoting energy efficiency.
Companies are increasingly designing make and delivery strategies that balance the demands of high-
volume, time-sensitive logistics with environmental responsibility, aiming for supply chains that are
not only resilient and efficient but also sustainable.
Technological advancements, such as artificial intelligence, have played a critical role in addressing
these emerging sustainability challenges. AI-powered analytics have optimized delivery routes to lower
fuel consumption and reduce carbon footprints. Similarly, AI-driven demand forecasting has helped
Page 3 of 14
mitigate issues such as overproduction and waste caused by fluctuating demand. The push for
innovation has also accelerated the adoption of autonomous electric delivery solutions—such as
drones and electric vehicles—offering the potential for zero-emission delivery systems. In this evolving
landscape, AI and other technologies continue to serve as a key enabler in aligning delivery operations
with sustainability goals while managing growing consumer expectations.
Part A – Case Study Report Instructions:
Overview
Your case study report should address the requirements outlined in Table 1. The word limit is strictly 3,000
words – please note this cannot be exceeded by even a single word.
Client’s Current Supply Chain Activities
Begin by detailing the client's current supply chain activities, focusing on the make or deliver tasks. Discuss the
challenges the clients have faced in these activities. Make sure you address changes in consumer behaviour,
supply chain disruptions, and modifications in make or delivery practices. Refer to your readings and class
discussions for examples and further insights.
Digital Transformation Solution Evaluation
Evaluate a digital transformation solution that the client has adopted to adapt to these changes and include
information about potential future changes to further transform their make or deliver tasks. You may wish to
focus on advanced technologies (e.g., AI, digital twin, big data analytics, etc), considering its potential in route
optimization, demand forecasting, and other relevant areas. Explain how this solution could improve the
client's make or delivery capabilities in the face of ongoing challenges.
Social/Environmental Responsibility Aspects
Discuss how the client's supply chain activities and the proposed digital transformation solution align with
social and environmental responsibilities. Consider elements such as carbon emissions, waste reduction, and
energy efficiency in your analysis. However, also focus on societal changes and challenges related to
sustainable practices, minorities, inclusion, and diversity. Explain how the client could balance increased
demand with sustainable practices.
Diagrams
Include at least one complex diagram or multiple smaller diagrams to aid readability. These should effectively
illustrate concepts or processes discussed in the text. Diagrams are not included in the word count but make
sure they are clear, relevant, and properly labelled.
Remember, your case study report should not only display your understanding of the discipline-specific
knowledge (GLO1) but also your problem-solving skills (GLO5) and your awareness of global citizenship (GLO8).
Table 1 below summarises the structure and requirements for the Case Study Report. We provide this
structure because the assignment is complex, and past students requested a structure that balances broad
Page 4 of 14
guidance (i.e., high-level headings) with flexibility (e.g., content adaptable for specific chosen organisations).
This is similar to industry/consultancy practices that provide a “house-style” for reports (e.g., ConsultantCo’s).
The Case Study Report will present an analysis of the client’s make or deliver practices associated for a single
product/service type (not a specific brand) of your choice that the client sells to its customers, and related
negative environmental and social impacts (of your choice) that are relevant to and occur in the client’s make
or deliver practices.
Table 1 specifies the Case Study Report requirements, including scope. This means, for instance, some types
of supply chain problems (e.g., source, return) cannot be explored. The scoping is necessary because in the
past, where students selected their own businesses, experience has shown that most students prefer scoped
requirements. It means feedback and answers to one student on the assignment can help all students. It is
open in other areas to balance students wanting structure versus wanting flexibility.
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 problem
type within a specified supply chain process can be applied to other client practices.
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 the end of this document).
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;
• The product/service type chosen.
• Name of Company and Option number
• Client details for Option 2: owner/manager name, address, contact number;
Table of contents • Add table of content
• Add list of figures/tables if applicable
1. Introduction
Guide: 100 words
(can be exceeded)
Introduce the Client (State the client’s name, industry, size, and background of the
client).
Address the product/service chosen, the chosen CSR negative environmental and
societal impact and the purpose of the report.
2. Client
background
Guide: 300 words
(can be exceeded)
2.1 Goals/strategies (you can reorder these sections if it flows more logically)
Evaluate the organisation’s goals/strategies relating specifically to the chosen
product/service type, including CSR-related aspects of their goals/strategies and how
they were challenged by any disruptions (e.g., natural disasters, geopolitical tensions,
etc). Address the targets and the current progress.
2.2 Products/services
Introduce and evaluate the selected product/service type which it sells to customers,
including any CSR-related characteristics of the product/service (if applicable).
Option 1 requires extrapolation/inference from research into the client and/or its
industry. Option 2 for CSR aspects, since interviewees may be reluctant to discuss.
Page 5 of 14
Requirement Requirements for the Part A report sections
3. Make or deliver
tasks
Insert diagram(s)
as a GIF/JPEG.
No text/words
explaining the
diagram.
Diagram 1 (1a, 1b etc) showing all tasks of the make or deliver processes for the
chosen product/service type, including potential negative environmental and societal
impact tasks, repeated tasks, and those identifying/fixing problems in response to the
disruption. For each task, provide company specific details on how it is done manually
and/or with what specific technology and the position title of who does the task.
Carefully elaborate on the different technologies used and how the digital
transformation of the supply chain has affected/improved the make or deliver tasks.
The diagram will include tasks interacting with all buyer behaviour segments for the
chosen product/service type. Option 1 (and maybe Option 2) requires
extrapolation/inference from research into the client and/or its industry.
4. CSR problem
Guide: 1000
words (can be
exceeded)
For Option 2, this section does not require interviewing the client, especially if they
are reluctant to talk about CSR. This section for both Option 1 and 2 can be written
entirely based on your own research and evaluation.
• Explain one (1) specific negative environmental impact (e.g., land, air, water) and
(1) specific negative societal impact (e.g., inclusion, discrimination, worker safety
and well-being) that could be caused by one or more task(s) undertaken by the
client’s staff during make or deliver. Negative impacts caused by tasks performed
by third-parties involved in make or deliver (e.g., transport, customers) cannot be
used.
• Make it clear which task(s) from Diagram 1 could cause the negative impact and
why.
• Explain why the negative environmental and societal impacts are specifically
relevant to the client. This should include identifying and justifying the negative
implications for the client if the identified task(s) have a negative environmental or
societal impact.
5. Technical
solution
evaluation
Guide: 1,500
words (can be
exceeded).
Add subsection
headings, which
are included in the
text word count.
For Option 2, Section 5 does not involve any interviewing in the client (only Sections
2-3). Section 5 should be written based only on your own research and evaluation.
5.1 Technical solution
Provide an overview of technical solution that addresses the following with respect to
the CSR problem in Section 4:
• Explains relevant data types that the client should collect (e.g., live camera-feed
data of the client’s staff doing make or deliver tasks, IoT data from sensors,
recording of software use by client staff) and already collects (e.g., ERP system
data, ERP event log data) about make or deliver task(s) and their potential
negative environmental impact.
• Explains the solution (e.g., type, techniques, etc) that could address one (1) aspect
of negative environmental and one (1) aspect of negative societal impact by
analysing the data to:
o Predict the cost incurred if the task(s) has a negative impact OR
o Identify the type of negative impact costs the task(s) may cause OR
o Predict the likelihood that a task might cause a negative impact OR
o Identify the types of causes of the negative impact by task(s) OR
o Alert in real-time if task(s) might cause a negative impact.
• Explain how the solution addresses the challenges faced by the client.
• Describes the solution in terms of a realistic, incremental change for the client
(e.g., pilot project that will only address a specific aspect of the negative impact).
Page 6 of 14
Requirement Requirements for the Part A report sections
5. Technical
solution
evaluation
(continued)
5.2 Technical solution viability evaluation
The evaluation of the solution viability will include the following:
• Alignment (or non-alignment) with the client’s strategic objectives/goals.
• Potential problems for the client with collecting new data and with the new use of
existing data, including possible staff/customer resistance. Potential resolutions?
• Issues with new/existing technology to implement the solution (e.g., client does
(not) have the expertise, off-the-shelf versus in-house versus outsourced options,
staff resistance to use of the technology, etc). Potential resolutions?
• Client’s capacity to afford the solution or how realistic the solution might be (no
cost-benefit or financial analysis is needed; focus on broad affordability).
• Is a non-AI solution more realistic for the client to address the CSR problem?
Extrapolation/inference of these implications will be needed from research into the
client and the client’s industry (Option 1 and 2).
6. Conclusion
Guide: 100 words
(can be exceeded)
Conclude with recommendations to the ConsultantCo senior consultant on whether
ConsultantCo should work with the client, based on the Sections 4 and 5 evaluations,
on the next stage of future detailed evaluation (e.g., cost-benefit analysis).
Note: for Option 2 please remove all recommendations from the version of the report
given to the real business to avoid repercussions, if the business follows your
recommendation and experiences problems/losses. This is despite the confirmation
form stating they must get separate advice before taking action.
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 least
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 2-5. See
http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-support/referencing 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:
http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-support/referencing.
Note: for students wanting to use Endnote to create citations and references,
Sections 7 and 8 can be combined into a single section if preferred. For students
using Option 1 where the difference between client and industry sources is not as
clear, combine Sections 7 and 8 if preferred.
No appendices Appendices are not permitted in this assignment and will be ignored if included.
The aim of the Case Study Report is to present an evaluation of the implications or viability of the client
introducing the AI solution. The report will focus on potential negative implications of the AI solution so that
ConsultantCo can determine early in the consultancy lifecycle whether to “qualify out” before developing a
full-scale proposal for client. This approach is typically used, for example, by ERP consultants in industry who
compete for a client’s business and develop ERP proposals for free for client consideration. A report that only
presents benefits of the AI solution for the client will therefore not achieve ConsultantCo’s goal of determine
whether it is worth devoting resources on a full-scale proposal.
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
Page 7 of 14
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 Part A 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 in some units 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 Introduction section heading through
to the end of the Conclusion section in Table 1 above (e.g., excluding only the cover page and reference lists),
and using MS Word’s word count feature (unchecking the “footnote” and “endnote” option). 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.
Diagram 1 (i.e. 1a, 1b, etc) 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 studies1,2,4,5 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 revenue3(p268) or Canadian
dollars in sales6(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.
<<< REST OF THE REPORT OMITTED >>>
Research sources
1. Lee, S, Park, SB & Lim, GG 2013, 'Using balanced scorecards for the evaluation of “Software-as-a-
service”', 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
Models', European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 264-279.
Page 8 of 14
4. Bidan, M, Rowe, F & Truex, D 2012, 'An empirical study of IS architectures in French SMEs: integration
approaches', 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
performance', Information & Management, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1003-1020.
<<< REST OF THE REFERENCES ARE OMITTED>>>
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), no copying of diagrams and no quoting. The report
asks for your evaluation of client background, tasks in Diagram 1, CSR problem, and new AI solution and its
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.
Part B – Feedback Reflection Report
Business professionals (e.g., Business Analysts, Consultants) must obtain feedback from clients to verify that
the professional’s work addresses client needs (meets their requirements) 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 the 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
you understand the Case Study Report requirements so that it is not rejected/failed by ConsultantCo or the
senior consultants. In the case of Option 2, following the interviewee’s advice about how to write the report
may not satisfy ConsultantCo’s requirements.
You are expected to seek actively, interpret accurately and respond effectively to feedback/clarifications on
your understanding of the Part A requirements above 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 feedback. 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 by completing unit evaluation surveys.)
The weekly seminars are your main opportunity to get feedback on your understanding of the assignment
requirements. There is a Burwood seminar requiring face-to-face attendance, and a Cloud Seminar requiring
real-time online attendance. The latter will be recorded for those who cannot attend.
The seminars involve interactive activities which will help you determine how well you understand the Part A
and Part B requirements. Staff facilitators will give feedback on your attempts of the activities. You will then
apply that feedback and understanding when working on Part A sections and the Part B reflection.
All students can ask assignment related questions during the seminars, and via the CloudDeakin discussion
folders, which also constitutes feedback. Questions can relate to interpreting the assignment requirements
and assessment rubric. The CloudDeakin folders can also be used to ask follow-up questions arising when you
start to apply the seminar feedback when drafting the Part A sections.
Please see the Week 1 seminar slides for a weekly timetable of which Part A sections will be the focus each
week. These slides can be found via the Content tab in CloudDeakin, then the Learning resources option, then
see the bottom of the Week 1 topic resources).
Page 9 of 14
There are various points to note about the seminars and the Part B Reflection Report:
• 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, there
are no seminars covering these sections of Part A, but you are welcome to ask questions in CloudDeakin.
• Any aspect of selecting the client, product/service type, CSR problem etc (covered in Section 2) is outside
the scope of Part B.
• The previous two points mean that the only seminars and Part A sections that are within the scope of
the Part B Reflect Report will be the Weeks 3 to 6 seminars about Sections 3 to 5.
• Part B should reflect on a minimum of two seminars out of the 4 within the scope of Part B, which means
that students can miss two seminars without affecting Part B.
A template for the Part B Feedback Reflection Report is shown below, where the parts in bold between the
square brackets are examples of what types of things to reflect upon for a seminar:
Examples of accurate interpretation of feedback:
Seminar X: [specific example of feedback that indicated you did not understand the assignment
requirements for a section, evidence that you interpreted feedback accurately, actions taken to check
the accuracy of feedback interpretation, how the feedback was used to write the section, etc].
Seminar Y: [as per above].
With regards to checking the accuracy of your interpretation of the seminar 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?
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, evaluate and justify the SCM issues of
organisations (including existing use of digital
transformations) against their strategic objectives.
GLO1 Discipline-specific knowledge
GLO5: Problem solving
Page 10 of 14
Unit Learning Outcomes (ULO) Graduate Learning Outcomes (GLO)
ULO 2: Evaluate SCM solutions (including associated digital
transformation where applicable) and justify those which
can resolve an organisation’s SCM issues and support its
strategic objectives.
GLO1 Discipline-specific knowledge
GLO5: Problem solving
ULO 3: Critically evaluate and justify SCM issues and
solutions of an organisation taking into account their global,
national and local economic, social and environmental
responsibilities.
GLO1 Discipline-specific knowledge
GLO8: Global citizenship
ULO 4: Seek, interpret and act upon feedback to improve
proposed SCM solutions.
GLO1 Discipline-specific knowledge
GLO5: Problem solving
Submission
You are to submit your assignment in the individual Assignment Dropbox in the MIS713 CloudDeakin unit site
on or before the due date. The assignment submission will include Part A and B in the one file.
When uploading your assignment, name your document using the following syntax: <your surname_your first
name_your Deakin student ID number_MIS713.doc (or ‘.docx’). For example,
‘Jones_Barry_123456789_MIS713.doc’.
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
copy.
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 MIS713 CloudDeakin unit site - in the
Assessment Task 1 section (via the ‘Assessment Resources’ menu under the Content tab).
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 attributes.
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.
Page 11 of 14
It is a challenging assignment with high-level requirements. Students are expected to ask many questions
in CloudDeakin to clarify the assignment requirements, and to obtain further detail. You should
commence this assignment starting in Week 1.
Extensions
Extensions will only be granted for exceptional and/or unavoidable circumstances outside the student’s
control.
Requests for extensions must be made by 12 noon, Friday 5 September 2025 on the submission date using
the online Extension Request form under the Assessment tab on the unit CloudDeakin site. All requests for
extensions should be supported by appropriate evidence (e.g., a medical certificate in the case of ill health).
Applications for extensions after 12 noon, Friday 5 September 2025 on the submission date require
University level special consideration and these applications must be must be submitted via StudentConnect
in your DeakinSync site.
Late submission
If you submit an assessment task after the due date without an approved extension or special consideration,
5% will be deducted from the available marks for each day after the due date up to seven days*. Work
submitted more than seven days after the due date will not be marked and will receive 0% for the task. The
Unit Chair may refuse to accept a late submission where it is unreasonable or impracticable to assess the task
after the due date.
*'Day' means calendar day for electronic submissions and working day for paper submissions.
An example of how the calculation of the late penalty based on an assignment being due on a Thursday at
8:00pm is as follows:
• 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.
• 6 days late: submitted after Tuesday 11:59pm and before Wednesday 11:59pm – 30% penalty.
Page 12 of 14
• 7 days late: submitted after Wednesday 11:59pm and before Thursday 11:59pm – 35% penalty.
The Dropbox closes the Thursday after 11:59pm AEST/AEDT time.
Support
The Division of Student Life provides a range of Study Support resources and services, available throughout
the academic year, including Writing Mentor and Maths Mentor online drop ins and the SmartThinking 24
hour writing feedback service at this link. If you would prefer some more in depth and tailored support, make
an appointment online with a Language and Learning Adviser.
Referencing and Academic Integrity
Deakin takes academic integrity very seriously. It is important that you (and if a group task, your group)
complete your own work in every assessment task 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 referencing
(and avoiding breaching academic integrity) and other study support resources at the following website:
http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-support
Your rights and responsibilities as a student
As a student you have both rights and responsibilities. Please refer to the document Your rights and
responsibilities as a student in the Unit Guide & Information section in the Content area in 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
Report
ULO No. 1
(GLO1 &
GLO5)
(out of 40)
Little/no evaluation of
company background and
practices; or evaluation of
a technical solution. It has
little/no detail, is all generic
and/or unrealistic, little/no
use or knowledge of SCM
principles, and/or little/no
focus on a (incremental)
technical solution.
(0-11.9 marks)
Limited evaluation of company
background and practices due
to omitting most details, and
mostly generic and unrealistic.
Report shows limited
use/knowledge of SCM and
digital transformation
principles, and/or has limited
focus on a company specific
(incremental) solution.
(12-19.9 marks)
Some evaluation of company
background and practices, but
omits many details and/or is quite
generic. Technical solution is
presented but is quite unrealistic,
needs to be a lot more incremental,
and/or more company specific.
Some use/knowledge of SCM and
digital transformation principles, but
many issues.
(20-23.5 marks)
Adequate company specific:
evaluation of company background
and practices, but omits some detail
and/or is a little generic. Technical
solution may be a little unrealistic,
could be a bit more incremental
and/or company-specific. Adequate
use/knowledge of SCM and digital
transformation principles, but some
issues.
(24-27.9 marks)
Mainly thorough, clear
company-specific evaluation
of company background and
practices. Mostly realistic,
incremental, company-
specific technical solution.
Sound use and knowledge of
SCM and digital
transformation principles, but
some minor issues.
(28-31.9 marks)
Thorough, clear, company-
specific evaluation of
company background and
practices. Very realistic,
incremental and company-
specific technical solution.
Excellent use and
knowledge of SCM and
digital transformation
principles.
(32-40 marks)
Part A –
Case Study
Report
ULO No. 2
(GLO1 &
GLO8)
(out of 50)
Poor/no evaluation of CSR
in client background/
practices, negative
environmental impact, and
technical solution linked to
costs, causes or alerts of
that impact, and staff
resistance issues with the
technical solution. Little or
no detail, entirely
superficial/ board and/or
not meeting the
assignment requirements.
(0 to 14.9 marks)
Limited evaluation of CSR in
client practices/background, of
a negative environmental
impact, and of the technical
solution linked to costs,
causes or alerts for that
impact, and staff resistance to
the solution. It is low quality,
very superficial/ broad, and/or
omits most CSR details.
(15-24.9 marks)
Some evaluation of CSR in client
practices/background, of a negative
environmental impact, and of a
technical solution linked to that
impact. But the evaluation omits
many CSR details, is quite
broad/superficial, and/or the
negative impact has limited links to
CSR. The solution may not be
linked clearly to the costs, causes
or alerts of a negative
environmental impact and/or to
staff resistance issues.
(25-29.9 marks)
Good evaluation of CSR in client
practices/background, of a negative
environmental impact, and of a
technical solution related to costs,
causes or alerts of that impact and
staff resistance issues. Some CSR
detail is omitted, is a little broad/too
superficial and/or negative impact
needs to relate more clearly to CSR.
The solution needs to relate more to
costs or causes of the negative
environmental impact.
(30-34.9 marks)
Quite detailed, clear
evaluation of CSR in client
practices/background, of a
relevant negative
environmental impact, and of
a technical solution
addressing costs, causes or
alerts of that impact and staff
resistance issues. Omits
minor details and/or could be
clear in some areas. The
chosen negative impact and
the solution is quite clearly
related to CSR.
(35-39.9 marks)
Thorough, clear evaluation
of CSR in client practices/
background, of a very
relevant negative
environmental impact, and
of a technical solution
addressing costs, causes
or alerts of that impact and
staff resistance issues. The
chosen negative impact
and the solution is very
clearly related to CSR.
(40-50 marks)
Part B –
Feedback
Reflection
Report
ULO No. 3
(GLO1 &
GLO5)
(out of 10)
Examples indicate no use
of seminars/ CloudDeakin
discussion folders and/or
(accurate) interpretation/
use of feedback to
understand assignment
requirements. Part A
report shows no accuracy
of feedback interpretation.
(0-2.9 marks)
Examples are generic,
unclear/ little evidence of
using seminars/ CloudDeakin
discussion folders and/or
accurate use/ interpretation of
feedback to understand
assignment requirements.
Part A report shows little
interpretation accuracy.
(3-4.9 marks)
Examples of using feedback from
seminars / CloudDeakin discussion
folders to understand assignment
requirements, but examples mostly
generic and, with Part A report
quality issues, indicates many
issues with accurate interpretation.
(5-5.9 marks)
Some clear, specific examples, and
Part A report quality, evidencing
somewhat accurate interpretation/
use of feedback to understand
assignment requirements, including
some evidence using seminars/
CloudDeakin discussion folders.
(6-6.9 marks)
Mostly clear, specific
examples, and Part A report
quality, evidencing accurate
use/ interpretation of
feedback to understand
assignment requirements,
including very good use of
seminars/ CloudDeakin
discussion folders.
(7-7.9 marks)
Very clear, specific
examples, and Part A
report quality, evidencing
accurate and self-critical
use/interpretation of
feedback to understand
assignment requirements,
including extensive use of
seminars/ CloudDeakin
discussion folders.
(8-10 marks)
Part A text
word count
penalty
Part A is 150+ over the
text word limit, and/or 4+
scanned text/tables
(except Diagram 1).
Minus 10 marks
Part A is 101-150 over the text
word limit, and/or 2-3 scanned
text/tables/images (except
Diagram 1).
Minus 7.5 marks
Part A is 51-100 over the text word
limit, and/or 1 scanned
text/table/images (except Diagram
1).
Minus 5 marks
Part A is 11-50 over the text word
limit, but has no scanned text/
tables/images (except Diagram 1).
Minus 2.5 marks
Part A is 1-10 words over the
text word limit, but has no
scanned text/tables/images
(except Diagram 1).
Minus 1 mark
Part A is under or exactly
on the text word limit, no
scanned text/tables/images
(except Diagram 1).
No penalty
Page 14 of 14

Get Sample Solution PDF

Loading preview...

Solution Files 1 file

PDF

Solved-AT-1.pdf

PDF file

Get the complete solution

Enter your email to receive download links for all 1 solution file.

Get Sample Solution

Get Free Access

Enter your details and we'll send the download link to your inbox.

Email address *

Phone number *

Your information is secure and never shared with third parties.

Assignment Instructions

Solution Files 1 file

Get the complete solution

Need help with your assignments?

Our Services

Countries

Quick Links

Follow Us

Please fill this data

Assignment Instructions

Solution Files 1 file

Get the complete solution

Related Documents

Need help with your assignments?

Get Free Access

Check your email!

Request Submitted!

Please fill this data