Innovation and IT in supply chains

Instructions on Assessment:

The assessment for this module is comprised of two parts. You MUST complete both parts.

Part 1:

The first part is a group presentation, which accounts for 25% of the module mark. These presentations will be based on case studies, which will be provided to you two weeks prior to the actual presentation day. Presentations will take place during the seminars in the second half of the semester.

Part 2:

The second part is an individual assignment, which accounts for 75% of the module mark. In this part of the assessment you have to write a 3000 word long report investigating the company B&Q (please do your own research about the company). With regard to the case organization (B&Q) please explain and discuss the following (you MUST do both tasks):

Task 1:

Differentiate between the epistemology of possession perspective and the epistemology of practice perspectives of knowledge. Please explain these different perspectives by using underpinning academic theories and examples.

Based on the information you researched on B&Q, please apply the epistemologies of possession and practice perspectives of knowledge to the case organization’s supply chain when pursuing innovation.

(Useful reading to get you started: (Grant, 1996a); (Grant, 1996b); (Spender and Grant, 1996); (Brown and Duguid, 1998); (Brown and Duguid, 2001); (Cook and Brown, 1999); (Blackler, 1995); (Gourlay, 2006); (Nonaka, 1994); (Nonaka and Toyama, 2003); (Tsoukas, 1996) (Gittell and Weiss, 2004) (Powell, 1990) (Hitt et al., 2007) (Oosterhuis et al., 2000)).

Word limit: 1350 words

Marks: 35 / 100 marks

Task 2:

“Product, process and organizational innovation are socially and politically mediated processes”. Please explain what this statement might mean for managers working for the case organization (B&Q). Please use academic theories and case company related examples to develop your arguments.

(Useful reading to get you started: (Swan and Clark, 1992); (Swan and Scarbrough, 2005); (Hardy and Dougherty, 1997); (Dougherty et al., 2000) (Jackson, 2006) (Jackson, 2001) (Von Bertalanffy, 1972)).

Word limit: 1350 words

Marks: 35 / 100 marks

Abstract, introduction and conclusion:

Word limit: 300 words

Marks: 20 / 100 marks

Presentation: Structure of your report, English language proficiency, Referencing.

Marks: 10 / 100 marks

(Some basic instruction if required here)

Important note about ARNA regulations

The regulations specify that students must complete every assessment component contributing to the modules on their programme.  This applies to all forms of assessment as defined in the module descriptor.  Please note that:

• if any assessment component is not completed, students will be failed in the module even if the module pass mark has been achieved;
• if the requirements for referral specified in section 5 of ARNA¹ are met, a resit opportunity will be given;
• if unable to complete an assessment component because of extenuating circumstances, students should follow the procedure described in the Student Guide to Extenuating Circumstances¹.

This change was approved by Academic Board on 12 October 2009 in consultation with the Students’ Union.  Students should consult their Programme Leader or Guidance Tutor if they have any queries. Independent advice and support is also available from the Students’ Union Advice & Representation Centre (su.advice@northumbria.ac.uk) or from a student adviser in Student Services.

¹ARNA and the Student Guide to Extenuating Circumstances Affecting Assessed Work are available from http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/sd/central/ar/lts/assess/assproc/assdocstud/

Word Count

The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment.  The word count does not include title page, contents page, glossary, tables, figures, illustrations, reference list, bibliography and appendices.

Summarising and compressing the information in your assignment into the word limit is one of the skills that students are expected to acquire, and demonstrate as part of the assignment process.

Word limits and penalties for assignments

If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply.  However, if the word limit exceeds the +10% limit, 10% of the mark provisionally awarded to the assignment will be deducted.  For example: if the assignment is worth 70% but is above the word limit by more than 10%, a penalty of 7% will be imposed, giving a final mark of 63%.

Time limits and penalties for presentations

The time allocated for the presentation must be adhered to.  At the end of this time, the presentation will be stopped and will be marked based on what has been delivered within the time limit.

Submission of Assessment:

All assignments must be submitted via the Undergraduate Programme Office.  Each assignment must be accompanied by an Assessed Work Form which must be completed in full.  The assignment will not be accepted by the Undergraduate Programme Office unless the form is completed correctly.

You must also submit the final version of part 2 of your assessment to the turn-it-in link. This link is available through the e-learning portal. Please refer to the assessment section of this module. Failure to submit your work electronically to turn-it-in will automatically result in a mark of ZERO.

Marked assignments will be returned to students.  It is advisable to retain a copy of your assignment for you own records.  Your mark will be returned on the Assessed Work Form via the Undergraduate Programme Office.

Referencing your work

The APA method of referencing uses the author’s name and the date of the publication. In-text citations give brief details of the work you are referring to in your text. References are listed at the end of the text in alphabetical order by the author’s name.  The general format of an electronic journal reference in the APA style is shown below:

Coutu, D. (2009). Why Teams Don’t Work. Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 98-105. Retrieved 29^th April 2012 from EBSCO http://searchebscohost.com

Author/s name and initials are listed first, followed by year of publication in brackets.  Then there is the title of article and the journal where the article appears, which is in italics.  Then state the volume and issue number (in brackets) along with the pages where article can be located. Finally add the date the article was retrieved and then the name of the database, followed by the web address. Wherever possible use the homepage URL rather than the full and extended web address.

For further information on why it is important to reference accurately go to the Referencing and Plagiarism topic in Skills Plus available from the Library website:

www.northumbria.ac.uk/skillsplus

You will find other useful help guides on Skills Plus to help you with the skills involved in writing your assessments and preparing for exams.

For further information on the APA style of referencing see the Concise Rules of the APA Style and the APA website http://www.apastyle.org/

Plagiarism and Cheating

Your attention is drawn to the University’s stated position on plagiarism. THE WORK OF OTHERS, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE ASSIGNMENT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO ITS SOURCE (a full bibliography and/or a list of references must be submitted as prescribed in the assessment brief).

Please note that this is intended to be an individual piece of work.  Action will be taken where a student is suspected of having cheated or engaged in any dishonest practice.  Students are referred to the University regulations on plagiarism and other forms of academic irregularity.  Students must not copy or collude with one another or present any information that they themselves have not generated.

 (Some basic instruction if required here

For further information on Plagiarism, see the Referencing and Plagiarism topic on Skills Plus.

www.northumbria.ac.uk/skillsplus

 (Some basic instruction if required here)

Mapping to Programme Goals and Objectives:

This assessment will contribute directly to the following Undergraduate programme goals and objectives.  (Insert an ‘X’ in boxes where applicable, referring to Undergraduate Programme Specification Appendix X for mapping details)

1. Knowledgeable about the theory and practice of international business and management

Objectives:

Students will be able to:

x	1.	Acquire knowledge of functional areas of business and management.
x	2.	Acquire knowledge of specialist areas of business.
	3.	Apply their knowledge to business and management contexts.
x	4.	Conduct contemporary research into business and management.

 

2. Skilful in the use of professional and managerial techniques and processes

Objectives:

Students will be able to

x	1.	Provide evidence of self reflection as a means of informing personal development planning.
x	2.	Demonstrate effective interpersonal communication skills and the ability to work in a team.
x	3.	Demonstrate critical thinking skills .
x	4.	Demonstrate problem solving skills.

 

3. Aware of ethical issues impacting on business and professional practice

Objectives:

Students will be able to:

	1.	Identify an ethical dilemma in a business situation
	2.	Suggest ethical solutions to this dilemma

 

4. Employable as graduates

Objectives:

Students will be able to:

x

1.

In the context of securing graduate employment demonstrate the skills of self presentation.

Assessment Criteria (NBS)

General Assessment Criteria

Trait	0 – 29	30 – 39	40 – 49	50 – 59	60 – 69	70 – 79	80 – 100
Knowledge and Understanding	Poor grasp of topic concepts or of awareness of what concepts are.	Minimal awareness of subject area.	Knowledge is adequate but limited and/or superficial.	Sound comprehension of topic.	Knowledge base is up-to-date and relevant, but also may be broad or deep.	Knowledge and understanding is comprehensive both as to breadth and depth.	Exceptional scholarship for subject.
Structure and Alignment	Failure to apply relevant skills.  Work is inarticulate and/or incomprehensible.	Communication of knowledge frequently inarticulate and/or irrelevant.	In the most part, description/ assertion rather than argument or logical reasoning is used.  Insufficient focus is evident in work presented.	Reasoning and argument are generally relevant but not necessarily extensive.  Awareness of concepts and critical appreciation are apparent, but the ability to conceptualise, and/or to apply theory is slightly limited.	Higher order critical appreciation skills are displayed.  A significant ability to apply theory, concepts, ideas and their inter-relationship is illustrated.	A mature ability to critically appreciate concepts and their inter-relationship is demonstrated.  Clear evidence of independent thought.  Presentation of work is fluent, focused and accurate.	Outstanding ability to apply, in the right measure, the skills necessary to achieve highly sophisticated and fluent challenges to received wisdom.

Module Specific Assessment Criteria

Assessment criteria for Task 1 of Part 2:

Trait	0 – 29	30 – 39	40 – 49	50 – 59	60 – 69	70 – 79	80 – 100
Knowledge and Understanding	Poor grasp of topic concepts or of awareness of what concepts are in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Minimal awareness of subject area in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Knowledge is adequate but limited and/or superficial in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Sound comprehension of topic in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Knowledge base is up-to-date and relevant, but also may be broad or deep in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Knowledge and understanding is comprehensive both as to breadth and depth in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Exceptional scholarship for subject in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.
Structure and Alignment	Failure to apply relevant skills.  Work is inarticulate and/or incomprehensible in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Communication of knowledge frequently inarticulate and/or irrelevant in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	In the most part, description/ assertion rather than argument or logical reasoning is used.  Insufficient focus is evident in work presented in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Reasoning and argument are generally relevant but not necessarily extensive.  Awareness of concepts and critical appreciation are apparent, but the ability to conceptualise, and/or to apply theory is slightly limited in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Higher order critical appreciation skills are displayed.  A significant ability to apply theory, concepts, ideas and their inter-relationship is illustrated in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	A mature ability to critically appreciate concepts and their inter-relationship is demonstrated.  Clear evidence of independent thought.  Presentation of work is fluent, focused and accurate in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Outstanding ability to apply, in the right measure, the skills necessary to achieve highly sophisticated and fluent challenges to received wisdom in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 1 of Part 2 of the assessment.

Assessment criteria for Task 2 of Part 2:

Trait	0 – 29	30 – 39	40 – 49	50 – 59	60 – 69	70 – 79	80 – 100
Knowledge and Understanding	Poor grasp of topic concepts or of awareness of what concepts are in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Minimal awareness of subject area in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Knowledge is adequate but limited and/or superficial in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Sound comprehension of topic in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Knowledge base is up-to-date and relevant, but also may be broad or deep in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Knowledge and understanding is comprehensive both as to breadth and depth in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Exceptional scholarship for subject in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.
Structure and Alignment	Failure to apply relevant skills.  Work is inarticulate and/or incomprehensible in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Communication of knowledge frequently inarticulate and/or irrelevant in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	In the most part, description/ assertion rather than argument or logical reasoning is used.  Insufficient focus is evident in work presented in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Reasoning and argument are generally relevant but not necessarily extensive.  Awareness of concepts and critical appreciation are apparent, but the ability to conceptualise, and/or to apply theory is slightly limited in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Higher order critical appreciation skills are displayed.  A significant ability to apply theory, concepts, ideas and their inter-relationship is illustrated in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	A mature ability to critically appreciate concepts and their inter-relationship is demonstrated.  Clear evidence of independent thought.  Presentation of work is fluent, focused and accurate in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.	Outstanding ability to apply, in the right measure, the skills necessary to achieve highly sophisticated and fluent challenges to received wisdom in relation to the concepts referred to in Task 2 of Part 2 of the assessment.

Assessment criteria group presentation:

Note:    For those assessments or partial assessments based on calculation, multiple choice etc.  Marks will be gained on an accumulative basis.  In these cases, marks allocated to each section will be made clear.

Students must retain an electronic copy of this assignment and it must be made available within 24 hours of them requesting it be submitted.

Reference list;

BLACKLER, F. (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16, 6, pp. 16-36.

BROWN, J. S. & DUGUID, P. (1998) Organizing Knowledge. California Management Review, 40, 3, pp. 90-111.

BROWN, J. S. & DUGUID, P. (2001) Knowledge and organization: A social practice perspective. Organizational Science, 12, 2, pp. 198-213.

COOK, S. D. N. & BROWN, J. S. (1999) Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10, 4, pp. 381-400.

DOUGHERTY, D., BORRELLI, L., MUNIR, K. & O’SULLIVAN, A. (2000) Systems of organizational sensemaking for sustained innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17, 3, pp. 321–355.

GITTELL, J. H. & WEISS, L. (2004) Coordination networks within and across organizations: A multi-level framework. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1, pp. 127-153.

GOURLAY, S. (2006) Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka’s theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 7, pp. 1415-1436.

GRANT, R. (1996a) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7, pp. 375–387.

GRANT, R. (1996b) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp. 109-122.

HARDY, C. & DOUGHERTY, D. (1997) Powering product innovation. European Management Journal, 15, 1, pp. 16-27.

HITT, M. A., BEAMISH, P. W., JACKSON, S. E. & MATHIEU, J. E. (2007) Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 6, pp. 1385-1399.

JACKSON, M. C. (2001) Critical systems thinking and practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 128, 2, pp. 233-244.

JACKSON, M. C. (2006) Creative holism: A critical systems approach to complex problem situations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23, pp. 647^657.

NONAKA, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 1, pp. 14-37.

NONAKA, I. & TOYAMA, R. (2003) The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, pp. 2-10.

OOSTERHUIS, M., MOLLEMANN, E. & VAN DER VAART, T. (2000) Multilevel issues in supply chain management. IN KOTZAB, H., SEURING, S., MUELLER, M. & REINER, G. (Eds.) Research methodologies in supply chain management. Heidelberg, Physica Verlag, pp. 283-298.

POWELL, W. W. (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. IN STAW, B. M. & CUMMINGS, L. L. (Eds.) In research in organizational behavior (Volume 12). Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, pp. 295–336.

SPENDER, J. C. & GRANT, R. M. (1996) Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp. 5-9.

STONEMAN, P. (2010) Soft innovation: Economics, design, and the creative industries Oxford, Oxford University Press.

SWAN, J. & SCARBROUGH, H. (2005) The politics of networked innovation. Human Relations, 58, 7, pp. 913-943.

SWAN, J. A. & CLARK, P. (1992) Organizational decision-making in the appropriation of technological innovation: Cognitive and political dimensions. European Work & Organizational Psychologist, 2, 2, pp. 103.

TSOUKAS, H. (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp. 11-25.

VON BERTALANFFY, L. (1972) The history and status of general systems theory. The Academy of Management Journal, 15, 4, pp. 407-426.