+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science
Module Code:
NG3S240
Assessment Cover Sheet 2021-22
Module Title:
Module Team:
Industrial Management
Assessment Title and Tasks:
Meinwen Taylor
Assessment No.
Location
1R (of 2)
Date Set:
Submission Date:
Return Date:
30-Jun-22
05-Aug-22
07-Sep-22
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP RECORDS OF ALL WORK SUBMITTED
Marking and Assessment
This assignment will be marked out of 100%
This assignment contributes to 50% of the total module marks.
Learning Outcomes to be assessed (as specified in the validated module
descriptor https://icis.southwales.ac.uk/ ):
Apply and critically evaluate a range of industrial management principles and
techniques
Critically evaluate complex engineering management systems
Marking Criteria/Marking Scheme
Marking Scheme Summary
Clear identification of company and locations
Critical analysis of company location
Identification and analysis of manufacturing trends
Selection of suitable information and tools
Presentation, structure of report and referencing
Total:
Marks Awarded
20
20
30
20
10
100
For a more detailed marking scheme, see overleaf.
Feedback Method
Feedback will be given via grading rubric and notes using Turnitin (where the work
is to be submitted).
Provisional mark only: subject to change and / or confirmation by the Assessment
Board
Detailed Marking Scheme
Clear identification of company and locations
Exceptional
Precise, referenced, explanation of the company and its’ location.
work (1st)
Very good
Clear, referenced, explanation of the company and its’ location.
work (2.1)
Good work
All required information identified and suitably described with references.
(2:2).
Adequate
Overall description stated but a little unclear or lacking detail.
work (3rd)
Inadequate
Information not clearly identified, and overall descriptions unclear or not stated.
work (Fail)
Critical analysis of company location
Exceptional
work (1st)
Very good
work (2.1)
Good work
(2:2).
Adequate
work (3rd)
Inadequate
work (Fail)
Very good
work (2.1)
Good work
(2:2).
Adequate
work (3rd)
Inadequate
work (Fail)
Very good
work (2.1)
Good work
(2:2).
Very good
work (2.1)
Good work
(2:2).
Adequate
work (3rd)
Inadequate
work (Fail)
20
Outstanding knowledge of background theory demonstrated and very well-reasoned data
requirements and tools identified. Original critical thinking evident and all information is
organised in a logical and coherent manner.
Very good knowledge of background theory demonstrated and a well-reasoned data
requirements and tools identified. Original thinking evident and information organised in a
logical and coherent manner.
Reasonable understanding of background theory and a reasoned data requirements and tools
identified. Limited original thinking evident, but information is organised in a reasonably logical
manner.
Gaps in understanding and knowledge of background theory but data requirements and tools
identified. Little evidence of original thinking and information lacks organisation.
Inadequate work lacks basic knowledge and understanding. Data requirements and tools lacks
coherence. Discussion confused with serious gaps in understanding.
Adequate
work (3rd)
Inadequate
work (Fail)
Presentation, structure of report and referencing
Exceptional
work (1st)
30
Very detailed critical analysis of manufacturing location trends, with use of relevant and
appropriate literature, supporting a wide ranging discussion. Location trends and strategies
evaluated with original critical thinking evident.
Detailed analysis of manufacturing location trends with use of relevant and appropriate
literature, supporting a wide ranging discussion. Location trends and strategies evaluated with
original thinking evident.
Analysis of manufacturing location trends with use of some wider literature, and a reasonable
discussion. Location trends and strategies considered with limited, but original, thinking
evident.
Adequate analysis of manufacturing location trends, but some aspects incomplete or vague.
Adequate use of supporting literature. Discussion shows limited knowledge of the core theory
and principles; minor errors. Location trends and strategies considered.
Inadequate work lacking in basic knowledge and understanding of manufacturing location
trends. Discussion is confused with serious gaps in understanding. Errors in analysis. Areas of
trends and/or strategies not identified and or lacking coherence
Selection of suitable information and tools
Exceptional
work (1st)
20
Outstanding knowledge of background theory demonstrated and a very well-reasoned location
factors identified. Original critical thinking evident and all information is organised in a logical
and coherent manner.
Very good knowledge of background theory and well-reasoned location factors identified.
Original thinking evident. Information organised in logical & coherent manner.
Reasonable understanding of background theory and reasoned location factors identified.
Limited original thinking evident, but information is organised in a reasonably logical manner.
Gaps in understanding and knowledge of background theory and location factors identified.
Little evidence of original thinking and information lacks organisation.
Inadequate, lacks basic knowledge and understanding. Location factors not identified and/or
lacking coherence. Discussion confused with serious gaps in understanding.
Identification and analysis of manufacturing trends
Exceptional
work (1st)
20
10
Outstanding original discussions with all aspects of the report addressed in a logical manner.
Excellent written presentation skills: Report is professional, fluently written and highly readable.
Full and correct use of Harvard Referencing.
Very good original discussion with all aspects of the report addressed in a logical manner. Very
good written presentation skills: Report well written and highly readable. Good use of Harvard
Referencing.
Good discussion with reasonable analysis and most aspects of the report considered. Some
minor errors in topic or presentation. Report reasonably well written: A clear attempt at Harvard
Referencing.
Limited demonstration of written skills: Report is basic and readable but with poor structure.
Poor attempt at Harvard Referencing.
An incomplete or confused piece of work with no logical structure. No real understanding of
referencing.
Assessment Task:
You should choose a well-known engineering company to study. Analyse the
location(s) of your allocated company and determine factors that have driven the
company location(s), you should include factors that may have influenced this
location choice in the context of modern manufacturing trends. Incorporate into your
discussion the types of information and tools that could be used in location
decisions.
Your report should:
• Concisely, but clearly, describe the company and its’ location(s) using documentary
evidence.
•
Analyse the reasons for the company’s original location and if appropriate, moves
into new locations.
•
Identify and examine the recent trends in the location of manufacturing and discuss if
your company should consider new locations. Use case studies and/or your
experience to illustrate your points.
•
Briefly indicate the type of information that would be required and the tools that can
be used as an aid to location decisions.
Use references, case studies and/or your experience as examples in all your discussions.
Note: Some engineering companies are multi-national conglomerates, but restrict you
location discussion to one part of the business (or the word count will be impossible!)
Please note the University policy on word count:
The word count for this work is 3000, and you should aim for a length within 10% of this i.e.
+/-300 words. Any words beyond this limit will not be marked and hence will not contribute to
your grade. Any work significantly shorter than this is unlikely to meet all the assessment
criteria and you should consider carefully what else you need to include.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!