PG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 1 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 Enterprise Systems (ECM01KM) Spring 2017 Individual Assignment Hand out Date: Week 2 Duration: 11 weeks Submission Date: Week 13 Total Marks: 100 Objective: The assignment constitutes 70% of the module mark. Assessment focuses on research issues related to Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP). Each student submits a detailed report as per the task specifications through Moodle. The assignment has two sections (Part A and Part B) each focusing on ERP concepts: in Part A, students are required to write a scholarly research article; part B focuses on solving the tasks based on independent research and the case study provided followed by preparing a report on the industry visit. Learning Outcomes: 1. Identify business functions and processes that may be integrated using ERP and select appropriate data infrastructure, tools and techniques for the implementation of an ERP system 2. Evaluate strategies for the implementation of an ERP system and propose techniques to monitor and evaluate effectiveness 3. Discuss and evaluate ERP systems and their components in relation to management information, supply chain and financial management 4. Critically review the issues and challenges in ERPPG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 2 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 Work proposal (10 Marks) Submit a work proposal for this assignment by the end of week 7 which must include: a) Understanding of deliverables – a detail description of deliverables. b) Timeline for the completion of all tasks. The work proposal must be submitted in a word file through the link available in Moodle. The proposal can also include draft answers; however not mandatory. Part A Write a research article after conducting an exploratory study on ERP implementation in the Middle East Region. You are required to focus on at least one of the learning outcomes of this module. Task 1: Prepare a research article (minimum 3 pages) in IEEE format and a poster presentation as per the poster template provided to you. (55 marks) The article can be a survey paper or a concept paper covering at least one of the learning outcomes of this module but in the area of ERP implementation pertaining to Middle East region. Mention which learning outcome(s) is/are covered in your research on your poster. As a Post Graduate student, you are required to spend time on research and study. Apply the research skills (such as ability to formulate research questions; technical and analytical skills to solve those questions, ability to communicate results) to prepare your article. It is expected that a Post Graduate student demonstrates the research abilities to expand his/her knowledge on advancements, issues and challenges in the field of ERP. Importantly, to achieve the above goal, you are expected to learn with much greater independence and need to do a significant background reading on the chosen topic. The date, venue and specifications of the poster presentation will be communicated to you. No marks will be awarded for Part A if poster presentation is not done.PG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 3 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 Split-up marks for Part A is provided at the end. However the range of marks that can be scored based on the overall work is shown in the evaluation sheet. Part B Note: You have been provided with the case study 'Enterprise information systems project implementation: A case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce'. Tasks 2 and 3 are required to be answered based on this case study and your research. The word count should be between 1000 and 1200. Mention the count of words at the end of each task's solution. Task 2: Rolls-Royce integrated various business functions and processes with an ERP system. Critically analyze those business functions and processes. (15 marks) Task 3: Critically evaluate the issues and challenges faced by Rolls-Royce during the implementation of the ERP. (15 marks) Task 4: Prepare a report on the industry visit comprising brief introduction about the company and an executive summary of critical reflections and observations of your experience. The word count should be between 700 and 800. Mention the count of words at the end of the report. (5 marks)PG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 4 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 Guidelines Follow the guidelines mentioned below for your assignment. i. Students are expected to do a critical analysis of the tasks and present their analysis by drawing on relevant theoretical concepts. Marks will be awarded based on the ability of students to undertake the task in a logical manner by drawing on appropriate concepts and theoretical frameworks/literatures. ii. Report should be typed in word which should have the following. a. Part A: Research article (double column: IEEE format) b. Part B: Task 2 to Task 4 (single column) (12 point, Times New Roman, 1.5 line spacing, Justified, CU Harvard referencing style) iii. All tasks should be in a single word document file. (A sample will be shown during the class hours) iv. Use page numbers v. Assignment should be typed in your own words. vi. Copy paste from the Internet is strictly not acceptable. vii. References should be included and cited appropriately. viii. Attach the evidences (if any). The purpose of assignment is to do some research work so you can consult books in Library or use internet or computer magazines or any other source. We are obliged to establish assessment criteria and then mark you upon how well (or otherwise) you meet those criteria. In turn, our assessment of you will be scrutinized by the external examiners, so we must be able to defend the marks we award. We will be far more impressed by a student who demonstrates their active participation, interest and understanding of the module subject matter than by a meticulously presented submission. Work submitted up to 1 week (5 working days) after the due date for submission will lose 10% of the obtained mark (after internal moderation). Work submitted after this, but up to 2 weeks (10 working days) late will lose 20% of the overallPG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 5 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 obtained mark. Work tendered for submission more than 2 weeks (10 working days) after the due date will not be accepted and an absence will be recorded for the assessment concerned. This will count as a failed attempt and may result in you failing the module overall. Plagiarism Policy Please refer to the plagiarism policy in the PG student handbook. As per MEC policy, any form of violation of academic integrity will invite severe penalty. Plagiarised documents, in part or in whole, submitted by the students will be subject to this policy. A. First offence of plagiarism a. A student will be allowed to re-submit the assignment once, within a maximum period of one week. However, a penalty of deduction of 25% of the marks obtained for the resubmitted work will be imposed. b. Mark deduction: When the work is resubmitted, the marking will be undertaken according to the marking criteria. In compliance with this policy, the 25% deduction is then made on the marks obtained. For example, in an assessment that carries a maximum of 50 marks, suppose a student were to obtain 30 marks for the resubmitted work, the final marks for that assessment will be 22.5 (after deducting 25% of the marks actually obtained for the resubmitted work). c. Period of resubmission: The student will have to resubmit the work one week from the date he or she is advised to resubmit. For example, if the formal advice to resubmit was communicated to the student on a Sunday (latest by 5 pm), the student will have to resubmit the work latest by next Sunday 5 pm. d. If the re-submitted work is also detected to be plagiarized, then the work will be awarded a zero. e. Resubmission of the work beyond the maximum period of one week will not be accepted and the work will be awarded a zero. B. Any further offence of plagiarism a. If any student is again caught in an act of plagiarism during his/her course of study (either in the same module, same semester or in any other semester), the student will directly be awarded zero for thePG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 6 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 work in which plagiarism is detected. In such cases, the student will not be allowed to re-submit the work. C. Guidelines a. Type 1: In case plagiarism is detected in any component or part submission (submitted at different times) of one assessment (assignment), the deduction in marks will be applicable for the whole assessment (assignment), even if only the component or part submission alone needs to be resubmitted. b. Type 2: In case plagiarism is detected in a group assessment, all students of the group will be considered as having committed an act of plagiarism irrespective of whether plagiarism is on account of the act of all or a few or only one member. The policy will then be applied to all students. c. Type 3: Combination of Type 1 and Type 2: In case plagiarism is detected in any component or part submission (submitted at different times) of a group assessment (assignment), the deduction in marks will be applicable for the whole assessment (assignment), even if only the component or part submission alone needs to be resubmitted. All students of the group would be considered as having committed an act of plagiarism irrespective of whether plagiarism is on account of the act of all or a few or only one member. The policy will then be applied to all the students of the group. d. Type 4: Variation of Type 1 and Type 2: In cases where the assessment consists of components or part submissions that could be a group assessment component (e.g. group assignment) and an individual assessment component (e.g. individual reflection), the following will be applicable: 1. If plagiarism is detected in the group assessment component, all students of the group will be considered as having committed an act of plagiarism, irrespective of whether plagiarism is on account of the act of all or a few or only one member. The policy will then be applied to all students of the group. In such cases the group assessment component will be resubmitted as per the policy. 2. If plagiarism is detected in the individual assessment component, the individual assessment component will be resubmitted as per the policy. The policy will then be applied to that student alone. 3. In both cases (a) and/or (b), the deduction in marks will be applicable for the whole assessment (assignment). D. Amount of similar material a. The total amount of similar material in any form of student work from all sources put together should not exceed 30% (including direct quotations).PG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 7 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 b. The total amount of quoted material (direct quotations) in any form of student work from all sources put together should not exceed 10%. c. The total amount of similar material in any form of student work from a single source should not exceed 7 percent. However, cases having a similarity of less than 7 percent in such cases may still be investigated by the faculty depending on the seriousness of the case. d. If faculty member find enough merit in the case of a student work with a similarity (with a single source) of more than 7 percent as not a case of plagiarism, the faculty member should provide detailed comments/remarks to justify the case.PG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 8 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 Evaluation sheet Student name: ________________________________ ID: _______________________________ Marks 0 2-4 5-8 9-10 Marks obtained Work Propos al No submission Proposal is incomplete (Missing subdivision a. or b. in required format) Good Proposal with relevant information in the required format Complete and excellent proposal. Excellent presentation, logically structured, using correct grammar and spelling Marks [0-12] [13-29] [30-48] [49- 55] Task #1 Incomplete research. No evidence of doing research. Poster presented with a few contents. Very short paper. Topic chosen is not within the context of Middle East region. Learning outcome met partially. Satisfactory level of research carried out. Good research topic chosen with satisfactory contents along with supporting aspects. Satisfactory Poster design. Defended few questions. Learning outcome partially met. Overall good efforts. Good research topic chosen with good contents along with supporting aspects. Evidence of performing good research. Poster design is good. Performed well in Q/A. Learning outcome met. Excellent poster presentation and design. Provided a comprehensive, detailed investigation and an innovative approach for the topic chosen. An excellent research work demonstrated. Defended all questions. There is scope for publication. Learning outcome met. Marks [0-1] [2-4] [5-8] [9-12] [13-15] Task #2 Incomplete or based on assumptions only. No evidence of reading and analyzing the case study. Overall answer is less descriptive. Adequate details provided about the Rolls-Royce's business functions and processes based on the case study but not all. A complete list provided for RollsRoyce's business functions and processes based on the case study but not enough investigation which business function or process needs to be integrated with ERP. Overall good efforts. Good level of investigation for RollsRoyce's business functions and processes based on the case study. Citation and referencing done using CU Harvard style. Provided a comprehensive and detailed investigation for RollsRoyce's business functions and processes based on the case study. A concrete idea provided which business function or process needs to be integrated with ERP. Overall an excellent research work demonstrated. Excellent presentation, logically structured, using correct grammar and spelling, excellent crossreferencing and links to supporting evidence. Followed CU Harvard referencing style. The answer is complete in all respects. Marks [0-1] [2-4] [5-8] [9-12] [13-15]PG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 9 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 Task #3 Analyzing issues and challenges are limited. No evidence of reading and analyzing the case study. Overall answer is less analytical and descriptive. Adequate details provided but very generic. The overall answer is not in the context of Rolls-Royce's case study. Issues / challenges explored partially. Good details provided. Critically reviewed the issues and challenges of ERP implementation. Evidence of reading and analysing case study. All Factors explored. Good Critical review of the issues and challenges of an ERP implementation. Overall good efforts with proper citation and referencing. Answer is prepared in the context of Rolls Royce's situation. All Factors explored. Critical review of the issues and challenges of an ERP implementation done excellently. Excellent presentation, logically structured, using correct grammar and spelling, excellent crossreferencing and links to supporting evidence. Followed CU Harvard referencing style. The answer is complete in all respects. Marks [0] [1-2] [3-4] [5] Task #4 No report submission Satisfactory report. Details and/or explanation limited. Good report but needs improvement. Excellent report, logically structured, using correct grammar and spelling. Report is complete in all respects. Total Penalty Final marksPG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 10 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 Split-up marks for PART A Maximum Marks Marks Part A: Research article:  (a) Quality, originality and relevance of research article (5M)  (b) Evidence of independent research and critical thinking (3M)  (c) Depth of understanding of problem context (2M)  (d) Literature review (5M)  (e) Concise objectives of research problem (3M)  (f) Achieving objectives (5M)  (g) Overall structure and writing (5M)  (h) IEEE format (2M)  (i) Citations and referencing (5M) 35 Part A: Poster presentation:  (a) Contents: Innovative / Creative (5M)  (b) Design: Organization (3M), grammar and spelling (4M)  (c) Presentation: Presentation skill (5M), Q&A (3M) 20PG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 11 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 Each criterion will be graded as follows: Evidence of research Critical evaluation Overall Marks Range Shows evidence of Shows clear evidence of reflective thinking about the issues Work of a 70- extensive investigation presents a clear and relevant argument. Substantial originality of very high of relevant concepts, innovation and thinking. standard 100 technologies and issues. Clearly defined argument/ problem definition and source for lucid argumentation. Shows evidence of Shows reasonable evidence of reflective thinking about the issues Work of investigation of relevant with adequate evaluation. Demonstration of detailed analysis and good concepts, technologies clear expectations are set based on literature. Good logic and quality 60-69 and issues. coherence of argumentation. Presentation of data, arguments and decisions in a useful form. Accurate data and conclusions of the analysis. Reasonable level of Adequate evaluation, lacking in depth of reflective thinking with Acceptable 50-59 investigation. Adequate respect to major points. Demonstration of adequate ability to and application of conduct critical analysis. adequate theoretical framework work and research methods.PG-ES-ECM01KM-Spring-17-CW2 Page 12 of 12 ECM01KM - Spring 2017 Less adequate research Largely descriptive, with little reflective thinking. Work with 45-49 into the relevant some merit concepts, technologies but at the and issues. Satisfactory lower end conceptualization of the only just area of study. achieving what is required. 40-44 Poor research. Clear signs of understanding, but presentation, reflection and The work is Inadequate, inaccurate analysis are poor. only just or irrelevant treatment acceptable of the task in its specifications. Poor present application of form. theoretical framework and research methods. 0-39 Lack of evidence of No discernible reflection or evaluation. Inability to deal with the The work is research or weak chosen research question in a critical manner. deemed report. weak and inadequate.