OPM61 TASK 1: International Logistics \u2013 Referral Assignment 2021-22 Submission Date: 10am on 12th August 2022
\nIntroduction
\nThis assignment requires you to prepare a 2000-word report on a specific trade route (lane). You will research the development of a specific trade lane and associated infrastructure. You will locate key information sources and examine key economic forces that have shaped, and continue to shape, the development of your chosen trade route (lane).
\nThe task
\n1. Introduction – identify the trade route which will be the focus of your study, explaining the reasons for your choice.
\n2. Methodology:
\n\u2022 Identify sources of detailed statistics on volumes and types of cargo transported.
\n\u2022 Identify information sources on existing physical and technological infrastructure and future developments.
\n3. A description of the geography of your chosen trade route and the economic regions that it connects, including the main ports and airports.
\n4. An assessment of the composition and volume of trade along the route, assembled from secondary sources, e.g. port\/airport websites, economic statistics (imports and exports).
\n5. The macro forces that have shaped the development of the trade route, and the forces which may shape its future development.
\n6. A description of important infrastructure that facilitates the trade route, including any current or planned infrastructure (physical and technological) projects.
\n7. A brief forecast of how the trade route may develop in the future.
\nPresentation and submission
\nYour report will be structured with a cover sheet, contents page, page numbers and section headings. You will use business language and include maps, charts and diagrams as appropriate.
\nYour evaluation and analysis of the trade route will rely on evidence from secondary sources identified in your methodology. All information sources must be cited by author (date) in the report, with full references provided at the end of the report using the Harvard referencing system, as detailed in the School Referencing Handbook.
\nInformation sources
\nModule reading list and the online library.
\nVideo from Kogan Page on \u201cGlobalisation and its impact on supply chains\u201d [accessed
\n5\/10\/18]: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=H-R5SAPyMZY
\nPlease see reading list and sources cited in lectures, e.g. Manners-Bell on the development of trade in emerging markets, and Johnson, Scholes and Whittington on macro environmental analysis and scenario planning.
\nAssignment Specific Assessment criteria
\n\u2022 Coverage of the task, as specified above (60% of marks).
\n\u2022 The presentation of your report including structure, appropriate use of diagrams and charts, business language, citations and references (20% of marks).
\n\u2022 The credibility of your forecast (task 7 above), which depends on the range of information sources consulted and the quality of your analysis (20% of marks).
\nPlease also see the General Masters Assessment Criteria attached.
\nWeighting
\nTask 1 is weighted at 40% of the marks for the module. The finance case study (Task 2) is weighted at 60%.<\/p>\n
General Master\u2019s Level Assessment Criteria
\nModule assessment Masters\u2019 level courses use a numerical marking scheme under which the following grades can be achieved within a module:
\n– High Distinction (80-100%)
\n– Distinction \u2013 (70 \u2013 79%)
\n– Merit \u2013 (60 \u2013 69%)
\n– Pass \u2013 (50 \u2013 59%)
\n– Fail and Refer \u2013 (40 \u2013 49%) this is a provisional failure which can be overturned if you provide additional satisfactory evidence of achievement of the module learning outcomes required in order to achieve a pass standard. – Fail and no Referral \u2013 (Below 39%)
\nGrading criteria
\nThe following grading criteria, based on the University\u2019s postgraduate marking\/ grading descriptors, indicate the marks and classifications to be awarded for various standards of written work. Your work will be marked in percentages, with the exception of those few modules that just need Pass\/fail As each subject has its own emphases and as assignments may vary in their approach (e.g. essays, reports, projects etc.) so descriptions offered here are inevitably generalised and will need to be interpreted and adapted to the specifics of each assignment. Sometimes you will be issued with supplementary grading criteria which are specific to the particular task you have been set.
\nHigh Distinction (80-100%)
\nAn outstanding response to the task: all learning outcomes\/assessment criteria have been achieved to an exceptionally high level. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics beyond that expected for work at the given level of study within the discipline:
\n\u2022 Exceptional display of understanding, exploration, insight and\/or research
\n\u2022 Potential for publication\/exhibition and\/or ability to undertake further research
\n\u2022 All specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate, have been strictly adhered to
\n\u2022 The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including any subject-specific conventions2 where appropriate, are exemplary throughout
\n\u2022 Evidence of effective communication of work to specialist and non-specialist audiences
\n\u2022 Stimulating and rigorous arguments that are likely to be at the limits of what may be expected at this level
\n\u2022 The work has been approached and\/or executed\/performed in an original way
\n\u2022 Inspirational, innovative and authoritative – evidence of intellectual rigour, independence of judgement and insightful contextualisation, including relevant theory\/literature\/artefacts\/performance
\n\u2022 Clear evidence of extensive study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence
\n\u2022 Evidence of very high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal
\n\u2022 Outstanding problem solving skills \u2013 suggests alternative approaches
\n\u2022 Ability to address complex issues both systematically and creatively – challenges established knowledge
\nDistinction (70-79%)
\nAn excellent response to the task: all learning outcomes\/assessment criteria have been achieved to a high standard and many at an exceptionally high level. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:
\n\u2022 In-depth understanding, exploration, insight and\/or research
\n\u2022 Potential for publication\/exhibition and\/or ability to undertake further research
\n\u2022 All specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate, have been adhered to
\n\u2022 The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including any subject-specific conventions4 where appropriate, are excellent throughout
\n\u2022 Evidence of effective communication of work to specialist and non-specialist audiences
\n\u2022 Convincing arguments that are likely to be at the limits of what may be expected at this level
\n\u2022 The work has been approached and\/or executed\/ performed in an original way
\n\u2022 Insightful contextualisation, including relevant theory\/literature\/artefacts\/ performance
\n\u2022 Clear evidence of extensive study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence
\n\u2022 Evidence of high to very high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal
\n\u2022 Excellent problem solving skills \u2013 suggests alternative approaches
\n\u2022 Ability to address complex issues effectively \u2013 challenges established knowledge
\nMerit (60-69%)
\nA good to very good response to the task: all learning outcomes\/assessment criteria have been met fully at a good or very good standard. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:
\n\u2022 Good to very good understanding and exploration, some insight and\/or thorough research
\n\u2022 Some capacity to undertake further research
\n\u2022 No significant inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors
\n\u2022 The specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate, have been adhered to
\n\u2022 The work is well organised, coherent and the standard of presentation including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, is at least good
\n\u2022 Evidence of effective communication of work
\n\u2022 Ability to present structured, clear and concise arguments
\n\u2022 The work has been approached and\/or executed\/performed in a comprehensive way with some degree of originality
\n\u2022 Appropriate contextualisation, including relevant theory\/literature\/artefacts\/performance
\n\u2022 Evidence of extensive study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence
\n\u2022 Evidence of high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal
\n\u2022 Good or at least competent problem solving skills \u2013 suggests alternative approaches
\n\u2022 Ability to address complex issues competently \u2013 explores established knowledge
\nPass (50-59%)
\nAn adequate to sound response to the task: all learning outcomes\/ assessment criteria have been met. The work demonstrates most or all of the following characteristics in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline:
\n\u2022 Sound understanding and exploration, some insight and\/or appropriate research
\n\u2022 Some minor inaccuracies and\/or misunderstandings \u2013 small but not significant errors
\n\u2022 Some minor aberrations from the specifications for the assessment task, including word limit where appropriate
\n\u2022 The work is suitably organised and the standard of presentation, including any subject-specific conventions where appropriate, is at least sound
\n\u2022 Ability to develop an argument but can lack fluency
\n\u2022 The work has been approached and\/or executed\/performed in a standard way with limited evidence of originality
\n\u2022 Some contextualisation but with a heavy reliance on a limited number of sources and, in general, the breadth and depth of sources and research are lacking
\n\u2022 Evidence of study and demonstration of ability to reach appropriate decisions based on incomplete or complex evidence
\n\u2022 Some, but limited evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal
\n\u2022 Some evidence of problem solving skills
\n\u2022 Some evidence of ability to address complex issues adequately
\nFail (40-49%)
\nAn unsatisfactory response to the task: one or more of the learning outcomes\/ assessment criteria have not been met. The work may display some strength but these are outweighed by several weak features in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline, such as:
\n\u2022 Limited understanding and\/or exploration of major ideas with very little insight and\/or minimal research
\n\u2022 Some significant inaccuracies and\/or misunderstandings \u2013 gaps in understanding and\/or knowledge
\n\u2022 Insufficient attention paid to some of the assessment criteria and some significant aberrations from the specifications for the assessment task
\n\u2022 The work is too descriptive, somewhat disorganised and unclear and the standard of presentation, including any subject-specific conventions9 where appropriate, is poor
\n\u2022 Development of an argument is limited and often flawed
\n\u2022 The work has been approached and\/or executed\/performed in poor way
\n\u2022 The context provided takes the form of description lacking any breadth, depth and accuracy
\n\u2022 Limited or inappropriate research and demonstrated ability to reach decisions
\n\u2022 Insufficient evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal
\n\u2022 Little evidence of problem solving skills
\n\u2022 A struggle to address complex issues
\nFail (0-39%)
\nAn unsatisfactory response to the task: most of the learning outcomes\/ assessment criteria have not been met. The work fails to meet the requirements in relation to those expected at the given level of study within the discipline, exemplified by:
\n\u2022 Very limited understanding and\/or exploration of major ideas with little or no insight and\/or minimal research
\n\u2022 Several significant inaccuracies and\/or misunderstandings \u2013 minimal or no evidence of knowledge and understanding of the subject
\n\u2022 Insufficient attention paid to several of the assessment criteria and some serious deviations from the specifications for the assessment task
\n\u2022 The work is mainly descriptive, poorly structured and the standard of presentation, including any subject-specific conventions11 where appropriate, is poor
\n\u2022 The work lacks supporting evidence or argument
\n\u2022 The work has been approached and\/or executed\/performed in a very poor way
\n\u2022 Failure to contextualise from sources
\n\u2022 Little or no evidence of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal
\n\u2022 Little or no evidence of problem solving skills
\n\u2022 Failure to address complex issues<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
OPM61 TASK 1: International Logistics \u2013 Referral Assignment 2021-22 Submission Date: 10am on 12th August 2022 Introduction This assignment requires you to prepare a 2000-word report on a specific trade\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[236],"tags":[1345],"class_list":["post-27469","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australian-essay-writers","tag-opm61-task-1-international-logistics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27469"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27469\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27470,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27469\/revisions\/27470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}