Faculty of

Technology, Engineering and the Environment

In-Course Assessment

Brief

Postgraduate Programme
Academic Year 2012-13
Module:

Procurement and Operations

Management

Assessment Title:

Procurement Case Study Strategic Sourcing

Assessment Identifier:

CWRK001

School:

Engineering Design and Manufacturing Systems

Module Co-ordinator:

Christine Lloyd / Ian Baker

Assessment Details
and Deadlines:

See ECMS My Course on the intranet.

Brief Assessment
Details

CWK 1.1 Group Presentation 30% of Marks.

Residual materials produced from manufacturing processes of
the business.
Identification of pricing policy using recognised
establishments.
Selection of a business partner in pricing and logistic support,
address the current issues appropriate to current legislation
and practice.
CWK 1.2 Individual Report, 70% of Marks.

If you should fail this module you will be permitted to be re-assessed on up to three
occasions. If you fail to attend or to submit work for re-assessment at the next opportunity
you will be deemed to have exhausted one of the opportunities.

IMPORTANT STATEMENT
Plagiarism: the presentation of the work of another (from whatever source: book,
journal, internet etc) as if it were ones own independent work. This can be
anywhere on a continuum ranging from sloppy paraphrasing to verbatim
transcription without crediting sources.
You are advised to refer to the Student Handbook on matters of cheating and plagiarism
as they relate to coursework, group assignments, class tests and examinations. Both
cheating and plagiarism are totally unacceptable and the University maintains a strict
policy against them. It is YOUR responsibility to be aware of this policy and to act
accordingly.
The University requires that the following statement is included in all module documents.
You are reminded of the University Disciplinary Procedures which refer to cheating.
Except where the assessment of an assignment is group-based, the final piece of work
which is submitted must be your own work. Close similarity between assignments is
likely to lead to an investigation for cheating. It is not advisable to show your
completed work to your colleagues or to share and exchange disks.
You must also ensure that you acknowledge all sources you have used. Work which is
discovered to be the result of collusion or plagiarism will be dealt with under the
Universitys Disciplinary Procedures, and the penalty may involve the loss of academic
credits.
If you have any doubts about the extent to which you are allowed to collaborate with
your colleagues, or the conventions for acknowledging the source you have used, you
should first of all consult module documentation and, if still unclear, your module tutor.
By submitting coursework, either physically or electronically, you are confirming that it is
your own work and that you are agreeing to the following statement:
I have read and understand the Universitys guidance on plagiarism and cheating. By
submitting any work for assessment, I confirm that the assignment is my own work (or,
in the case of a group submission, that it is the result of joint work undertaken by
members of the group that I represent) and that it contains no unreferenced material
from another source. I confirm that I have kept a copy of this assignment and will
provide this copy to the University if required. I understand that I and/or members of
my group may be subject to disciplinary action if an allegation of academic misconduct
is upheld in relation to this assessment.
Students should be aware that, at the discretion of the module co-ordinator, coursework
may be submitted to an electronic detection system in order to help ascertain if any
plagiarised material is present.

CWK 1.1 Learning Outcomes to be Assessed:

Critically appraise current practices and offer alternative strategies to meet the
operational and strategic requirements for an effective resource management system.
Evaluate the impact of capital investment and other project appraisal techniques on
decision making.
Assessment Details:
Procurement Case Study: Residual materials from the manufacturing processes with the
business.
This will be a GROUP PRESENTATION using MS Powerpoint or similar presentation software.
Background:
Company A is a major 1st Tier Automotive Supplier of metal pressings and assemblies ,
producing over 1 million parts per annum to a single Global OEM. The frequency of parts
supply to the customer is currently; an articulated lorry/trailer (25-30 feet) full of parts making a
delivery to the customer every 14 minutes. Supply of parts must be maintained as penalties will
be levied, currently 30-50K per minute of line stoppage, (2006). Company A works 24 hours
per day, Monday to Friday, the relevant parts being produced through this timeline, production
and deliveries must not STOP!
By introducing these parts, the main material used is steel coil, approximately 1500 tonnes is
used per month, the scrap material is produced is approximately 733 tonnes per month and is
commonly known as slugs and cuttings, generally ranging in size from 1 cm in diameter to
150mm x 50mm cutting.
This type of clean scrap is much sought after by recyclers, which is due to the form of material
can be well distributed in its load and compacted ideal for use in foundries.
A general term in the market for this type of material is 8A another grade designated is 8B or a
type that you prefer which has a recycle value, but these can be much less easy to load and
compact so therefore less valuable, the grades are a negotiable commodity and value.
The steel market over the years has not been very buoyant but due to the increased demand in
China and India in mid 2002 the price of steel escalated to unprecedented levels, scrap steel
was now being sold at a price that could have bought prime coil some 5 years earlier, the
mindset had been changed, there is money in scrap, and it has led to the customer now asking
for a portion of the scrap sale price.
The scrap produced when coil, strip or blanks are utilised in a press using particular forming
tools to produce brackets, forms, struts etc.
The scrap produced generally drops through the tools/machines onto a scrap conveyor belt,
which takes all the scrap waste to what is known as the Scrap House, this contains 2 large & 1
smaller trailers.
The Scrap House is situated adjacent to the main factory where the scrap conveyors feed the
scrap into the awaiting scrap trailers. When the scrap volume in trailer 1 reaches the optimum
level the belt will then automatically switch to trailer 2 and again fill until it reaches the optimum
level.

The collection of full trailers has developed over a number of years as to when a full trailer
needs to be replaced, generally there must be at least 1 empty and the emergency trailer
always available to fill on site.
Collection times are 2-3 collections per day during normal daylight hours. The third emergency
trailer of a smaller size is contained in a strategic position within the Scrap House.
The scrap steel is taken off-site to the recyclers to be weighed, which could be a 30-40 mile trip.
Trailers for transportation are built to comply with any Road Traffic Act legislation, rear twin axle
twin wheeled, some 7+ metres in length capable of holding 40-50 tonnes.
On reaching the recycler the scrap is then weighed by the recycler and the company is advised
of the amount that has been removed from the factory and a receipt note is issued to the
company, this taking 6-24 hours.
The scrap is sold by the tonne and monthly negotiations take place as to the price it is being
bought at.
Your task: You are a Team of Buyers each having a role or task to complete and are to present
your findings to the Purchasing Director using MS Powerpoint or similar presentation software:

Protect Company A from:

Extreme price fluctuations
Pilfering of the scrap
Risk of RTA (Road Traffic Act) fines
High costs of implementation
Incorrect weights advised from off-site weighing

Develop:
A pricing policy
Identify a recognised pricing point
Streamline/reduce the processing time
Action plan for the project

Written report to include the following:

Overview of the current scenario and the current problems being encountered.
Plan to include optimisation of operations
Frame work for pricing policy
Recognise pricing point of product (what the market sustains)
Vendor Rating system (Supplier selection)
Inventory control methods to be deployed
Implementation plan for new framework of the system
Peer reviewed references and upto date

Assessment Criteria:
See Tables for CWK 1.1 and 1.2

Table of Assessment Criteria and Associated Grading Criteria CWK 1.1

Assessment
Criteria

1. Group Presentation

2. Individual Participation

Weighting:
Grading
Criteria

15%
No real effort on developing a
pricing policy

15%
No participation

Attempted a pricing policy

Developed a pricing policy
A pricing policy and
recognised pricing point
A pricing policy and
recognised pricing point and
streamline/reduce the
processing time
A pricing policy and
recognised pricing point and
streamline/reduce the
processing time and
excellent presentation
Develop:
A pricing policy
Identify a recognised pricing
point
Streamline/reduce the
processing time.
Action plan for the project

Participated but no contribution

Participated with little contribution
Participated and contributed

0 29%
30 39%
40 49%
50 59%
60 69%

70+%

Checklist

Good participation

Excellent contribution and defence

Table of Assessment Criteria and Associated Grading Criteria, CWK 1.2: iIndividual Report
Assessment Criteria

Weighting
Grading Criteria
0-29%

30-39%

Plan

Supplier Selection

Interaction

Written Communication

30%
No real effort on developing
a strategy, no participation.
No diagrams/tables used.
Limited number of sources
used. No analysis has
been undertaken

30%
No real effort on developing
a Supplier selection or
vendor rating system.

30%
No real effort on developing
a strategy, no participation.
No diagrams/tables used.
Limited number of sources
used. No analysis
undertaken

Attempted a plan and a

strategy, little research and
a limited plan of interaction
and used of criteria, Q, C,
D, M, E and F.

A poor effort at developing

a Supplier selection or
vendor rating system

Little research, limited plan

of used of criteria, Q, C, D,
M, E & F

10%
Some attempt to structure
the report. No
tables/diagrams used. No
indication of academic
language has been used.
Report is descriptive, no
analysis has been
undertaken. Poor quality
sources (eg Wikipedia and
commercial internet sites).
Over reliance on lecturer
slides and notes. Limited
number of sources, no
citation list of references.
Evidence of plagiarism.
Basic structure of a report
used with inappropriate
content used in the
headings. Few
diagrams/tables uses, cut
and pasted, and no
appropriate sign posting.
No indication that academic
language has been used.
Report is descriptive. No
analysis has been
undertaken. Poor quality
sources taken from the
internet or only lecturers
notes. Limited number of
sources used. No citation
or list of references.

40-49%

Partly developed plan and

strategy based on limited
research and the used of Q,
C, D, M, E & F, and partly
developed a plan of
integration.

Good effort at developing a

Supplier selection or vendor
rating system

50-59%

Good plan and strategy

based on limited research
and the used of Q, C, D, M,
E & F, and partly developed
a plan of integration.

60-69%

Good and detailed plan and

strategy based on limited
research and the used of Q,
C, D, M, E & F, and partly
developed a plan of
integration.

70+%

Excellent plan which has

good references and a
defined strategy based on
research and the use of Q,
C, D, M, E & F, and partly
developed a plan of
integration.

Detailed effort at
developing a Supplier
selection or vendor rating
system which shows a
logical conclusion how
suppliers have been
chosen
Detailed effort at
developing a Supplier
selection or vendor rating
system which has been
developed and compared
against other systems, this
shows a logical conclusion
how suppliers have been
chosen
Very detailed effort at
developing a Supplier
selection or vendor rating
system which has been
developed and compared
against other systems, but
the system has been
developed with a for criteria
and shows a logical
conclusion how suppliers

Partly developed a plan and

strategy based on limited
research and the use of
criteria, Q, C, D, M. E. and
F., partly developed a plan
of integration, limited
interaction.

Evidence of plagiarism.
Correct structure but with
some inappropriate content
used in the headings.
Diagrams/tables used, cut
and pasted and no
appropriate signposting.
Basic use of academic
language. Has attempted
analysis but there are errors
in understanding

have been chosen

i Please note that references taken from Wikipedia will be penalised. Select references from
academic sources only.