My Best Assignment Help - Assignment help services for Students in australia, canada and NZ and many more countries. www.mybestassignmenthelp.com +447418337330;+918607726273

1. PGBM133 Managing Sustainability and Operational
Excellence
Module Leader: Neil Coade
Canvas & JIRA Deadline: Tuesday 9th March 2021 by 2 pm
Any work submitted is subject to the University’s Misconduct Regulations
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Upon successful completion of this module, students will have demonstrated:
Knowledge

2. K1. A critical understanding of some of the tools and techniques which underpin existing
principles and practice, and then make recommendations in order to improve sustainability and
operational excellence.
K2. Detailed understanding of the operation processes by which organizations achieve
sustainability and operational excellence in the markets.
K3. Appreciation of the rationale of major decisions that organizations make in order to satisfy
sustainability and operational excellence needs in a range of diverse contents.
Skills
S1. The ability to select, critically evaluate, and apply a range of approaches to enhance
sustainability and operational excellence in business.
S2. The competence to identify and demonstrate resourceful decisions and solutions, towards
sustainability and operational excellence management in various business sectors.
S3. The ability to Interpret, record, and analyze data relating to sustainability and operational
excellence management in business.
All learning outcomes are assessed using the following assignment.
COURSEWORK ASSIGNMENT
Contribution to unit assessment: 100% weighting
Subject: Individual analysis of ‘Executive Holloware’ case study (Appendix A)
Assignment guidance notes:
1. The assignment must be presented in a form that complies with the basic conventions of a
report format (see Guide to Basic Study Skills).
• An electronic copy must be submitted to Turnitin via “Canvas” by the hand in date.
3. Word count 4000 (+/- 10%)
Report Presentation
1. Front Sheet – Name / Student Number / Programme / Module / Date
• Table of Contents
• Introduction

3. • Main Body of Report – Critical evaluation and analysis of relevant theory and practice
related to the case study (all assignment questions are compulsory).
• Conclusions
• References – 10 to 20
• Appendix – not included in word count
Business Report Structure – 4000 words +/- 10% Size 12 font, spacing 1.5, include a word
count.
The criteria for grading the assignment:
• The assignment will be graded for individuals on the basis of the specific criteria outlined
in the Generic Assessment Criteria (Postgraduate) on the following page (Appendix B)
• The “Presentation” element of the Generic Assessment Criteria (Postgraduate) will also
be used (additional to the above assignment guidance notes) to assess the report structure.
Appendix A
Case Study – Executive Holloware
Source: R Johnston, S Chambers, C Harland and N Slack Cases in Operations Management, FT
Prentice Hall; 3rd Ed, 2003.
‘We must get to the bottom of this quality problem,’ said Hugh Preston, Managing Director of
Executive Holloware Ltd, at one of his regular monthly meetings with senior managers in June
2002.
‘I’ve just seen some figures from Jean Lipson’s accountants and it appears that it may be costing
us more than £12 000 each month – and that’s only reworking costs and customer returns,
heaven only knows what the total cost might be. I’ve asked Paul Stone from Quality Assurance
to look at this problem and report back to me by the end of July. I hope you’ll all give him every
assistance in sorting this one out’.
Quality had always been of importance at executives since many of its products were aimed at
the top end of the market and commanded high prices. Its most important product line was its
hand made, silver-plated Georgian tea sets retailing at anything from

4. £400 upwards. Other products included hand made, silver-plated candelabra, small items of
giftware (silver-plated), and tea sets made from pewter and stainless steel.
The executive had been founded in 1948 in Birmingham and began by manufacturing a wide
range of cutlery and tableware items. The company had gradually narrowed its range and by
2002 had become one of the leading UK suppliers of top-quality holloware as well as continuing
to produce items for the less expensive end of the holloware market.
Turnover in 2001 exceeded £18 million, although pre-tax profits of only £160000 had been very
disappointing compared with the company’s profit performance over the previous 10 years.
The Chairman’s report for the year had sought to explain this poor profit situation: ‘The results
are, of course, a disappointment but are largely a result of production inefficiencies during this
period of transferring our traditional craft methods to batch production, light engineering-type
system. We are confident that the new methods will give us the necessary competitive edge and
help us return to, and exceed, our previous levels of profitability.’
Paul Stone, the Quality Assurance Manager, decided to approach his brief in two ways. Firstly,
his department would undertake a quality survey on a sampling basis to assess
the scale of the problem and, secondly, he would talk to people in the company who were either
directly or indirectly concerned with quality. He decided to concentrate his efforts, in the first
instance, on silver-plated teapots since they were by far the most important item made at
Executive.
Quality control at Executive
The Quality Assurance Department’s task was to ensure that goods leaving the factory were of
the required quality. In addition, the department dealt with customer complaints. Internal quality
assurance was performed on a batch sampling basis (10 percent for most items) of goods leaving
the final polishing process (see Figure 42.1). In the case of teapots, they were inspected for both
dimensional accuracy and surface finish (scratches and bruises). Batches rejected on a sampling
basis were subjected to 100 percent inspection and rejects either renovated or scrapped
(depending on the nature of the defect). Certain items, for example, candelabra and top-quality
tea sets, were subjected to 100 percent inspection as a matter of course.
The Quality Assurance Department was, from time to time, involved in investigating quality
problems arising during production or with bought-in components, teapot handles for example.
The majority of these investigations arose as a result of complaints from the Buffing and
Polishing Department about the number of scratched or bruised items they were having to deal
with.

5. Paul Stone’s quality survey
Paul first checked through sales records for the last 12 months and found that out of every 100
teapots sold, around five were returned by the retailers with complaints about bruising,
scratching, or slightly misshapen pots. Paul then checked through the final inspection records for
the last 100 teapots which showed that five had been rejected at that
stage. All five had scratches and one also had a bruise above the spout. Paul decided to take a
random sample of 100 teapots at various stages in the production system and assess their
`quality’ in terms of dimensional accuracy and surface condition. The results of his survey are
shown in Table 42.1.
Having completed the survey, Paul decided to discuss his findings with Andrew Keegan, the new
Production Director at Executive. Andrew Keegan’s reaction to the figures was as follows:
‘Well, Paul, on the face of it, it looks as though I should have asked you to do a survey like this
when I first arrived – there certainly does seem to be a serious problem, particularly on
scratching. I know that nickel silver’s not the easiest material to deal with but I’m surprised at
the scale of the problem. What I find difficult to swallow is the fact that most of these scratches
and bruises are being removed by reworking so why did they get through the system in the first
place? I think we’d both better have a word with Jim Dyer, the Senior Shop Foreman.’
Knowing Jim’s reluctance to speak too frankly when Andrew Keegan was around, Paul decided
that he had better have a chat with Jim by himself if he was going to get any useful information
on the quality angle. He met Jim later that day in his office. Paul explained the results of his
survey and asked for Jim’s opinion. Jim said:
‘I don’t doubt that your people have done a good job Paul, but you know the problems as well as
I do. First of all, how do you decide what is a scratch and what is not a scratch?
Even after 20 years, I’m not sure how consistent I am on that one. Then of course there’s
Keegan breathing down my neck all the time about the output – I mean he can’t have it both’
ways, can he? What’s more, the workers in the shop can’t spend all day worrying about every
little scratch – what would their pay packets look like at the end of the week if they did? I think
it’d be quite a good idea if you had a chat with Alan Jones in the Buffing Shop. He had a go at
me only last week about this one!’
Paul decided to take up Jim Dyer’s suggestion and managed to speak to Alan Jones a couple of
days later. He told Alan he was particularly interested in his views on the scratching and bruising
problems. Alan was only too willing to tell him!

6. ‘You probably know that I had a bit of a barny with Jim Dyer over this last week. It was about
one batch of teapots we got from the assembly which was in a dreadful state. Apart from some
deep scratches, half of them were bruised and should never have been let out of the shop. Jim
seemed to feel I was being too fussy but, quite honestly, if we’ve got to sort out rubbish like that,
we’ll never earn a living wage – I don’t think the assembly workers care anymore. When I
worked up there we used to do our own buffing and polishing and problems like this never arose,
but with the new set-up, the sooner they get them out and on the worksheet, the better seems to
be the attitude. They don’t seem to care if we send half of them back – it gives them more work
to do.’
Paul decided that before he could put his report together he needed to see John Wells, the Sales
Director, and Jean Lipson in Finance. He managed to see John Wells the following week and
asked him about the customer complaints situation. John told him: ‘Frankly, you probably know
as much about this as I do since it’s your people who investigate the complaints. As you know,
most complaints come from the shops – very few from the public, although this may not be a fair
picture as the shops may not be passing on customer complaints.
In the case of Georgian tea sets, I’m sure that we’re very often accepting responsibility for
scratching that isn’t our fault – but it’s difficult to prove that of course. The trouble is that the tea
sets usually need to go back to Buffing and then Replating, which must cost a great deal. One
thing I find funny is that we’ve had very few complaints about the new range – probably because
they’re fighting each other to get hold of them as they’re selling like hotcakes, apparently. The
thing that worries me most at the moment is that the backlog of work in the factory is
lengthening my delivery times.’
Paul met with Jean Lipson, the Finance Director, that afternoon and asked for her opinion on the
whole quality problem. Jean told him: ‘I raised this with the MD because it’s something that
worried me for a long time. The trouble, as I see it, is that we really don’t know what’s going on.
For example, it’s almost impossible to sort out reworking from normal work, and even if you
manage to do that, it’s only guesswork as to the costs of reworking. I know that Andrew Keegan
seems to think that a lot of the overtime in the Buffing Shop must be due to reworking and he’d
like to cut it down.’
Following this chat, Paul decided it was about time he sat down and started work on his report if
he was to meet the MD’s deadline. The situation certainly didn’t seem so straightforward as he
had assumed it might be!
*** This case is based on a real
organization and was written by Kevan Scholes and adapted by Robert Johnston. The author gra
tefully acknowledges the financial assistance of the Nuffield Foundation who supported the
writing of this case study. All rights reserved to the author. Copyright © H.K.Scholes 2002***

7. Assignment Questions:
Consider yourself as Paul Stone, you have been asked by the Managing Director to prepare a
4000-word report for the Board of Directors to explain how you would introduce a companywide
Operations improvement strategy to include Sustainability & Growth for Executive Holloware.
The response must also include the tools and techniques that you have covered in your module
workshops.
Your assignment report should consist of:
1. An introduction that explains the focus of the assignment.
• The main body which identifies the challenges that Executive Holloware observed in
terms of sustainability & growth
• The main body develops and explains how you would introduce a companywide
Operations improvement strategy in Executive Holloware.
• The main body that attempts to convince the Board of Directors (shareholders) along
with the stakeholders that they have made a genuine commitment to ‘Sustainability’ and
‘Growth’
• A conclusion briefly reiterating the focus of the assignment and summarising the
improvements you have identified along with recommendations for Executive Holloware.
Generic Assessment Criteria – Postgraduate
These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working
Categories
Grade Relevance Knowledge
Analysi
s
Argumen
t and
Structure
Critical
Evaluati
on
Presentati
on
Referen
ce to
Literatu
re
86 – 100%
The work
examined is
exemplary
and
provides
clear
evidence of
a complete
grasp of the

8. knowledge,
understandi
ng, and
skills
appropriate
to the level
of the
qualification
. There is
also
unequivocal
evidence
showing
that all the
learning
outcomes
and
responsibilit
ies
appropriate
to that Level
are fully
satisfied. At
this level, it
is expected
that the
work will be
exemplary
in all the
categories
cited above.
It will
demonstrate
a
particularly
compelling
evaluation,
originality,
and
elegance of
argument,
interpretatio
n, or
discourse.
76-
85
The work
examined is

9. % excellent
and
demonstrate
s
comprehens
ive
knowledge,
understandi
ng, and
skills
appropriate
to the level
of the
qualification
. There is
also
excellent
evidence
showing
that all the
learning
outcomes
and
responsibilit
ies
appropriate
to that level
are fully
satisfied. At
this level, it
is expected
that the
work will be
excellent in
the majority
of the
categories
cited above
or by
demonstrati
ng
particularly
compelling
evaluation
and
elegance of

10. argument,
interpretatio
n, or
discourse
and some
evidence of
originality.
70
–
75
%
The work
examined is
of a high
standard and
there is
evidence of
comprehens
ive
knowledge,
understandi
ng, and
skills
appropriate
to the level
of the
qualification
. There is
clearly
articulated
evidence
demonstrati
ng that all
the learning
outcomes
and
responsibilit
ies
appropriate
to that level
are satisfied.
At this
level, it is
expected
that the
standard of
the work
will be high
in the
majority of

11. the
categories
cited above
or by
demonstrati
ng
particularly
compelling
evaluation
and
elegance of
argument,
interpretatio
n, or
discourse.
60
–
69
%
Directly
relevant to
the
requirement
s of the
assessment
A
substantial
knowledge
of relevant
material,
showing a
clear grasp
of themes,
questions,
and issues
therein
Comprehens
ive analysis
– clear and
orderly
presentation
Well
supporte
d, the
focussed
argumen
t which
is clear
and
logically
structure
d.
Contains
distinctiv
e or
independe
nt
thinking,
and
begins to
formulate
an
independe
nt
position
in relation
to theory
and/or
practice.
Well
written,
with
standard
spelling
and
grammar,
in a
readable
style with
acceptabl
e format
Critical
appraisal
of up-to-
date and/or
appropriat
e
literature.
Recognitio
n of
different
perspectiv
es. Very
good use
of a wide
range of
sophisticat
ed source
material.
50 – 59%
Some
attempt to
address
the
requireme
nts of the
assessme
nt: may
drift away
from this
in less
focused
passages
Adequate
knowledge
of a fair
range of
relevant
material,
with
intermitten
t evidence
of an
appreciati
on of its
significanc
Significa
nt
analytica
l
treatmen
t which
has a
clear
purpose
Generall
y
coherent
and
logically
structure
d, using
an
appropria
te mode
of
argument
and/or
May
contain
some
distinctiv
e or
independ
ent
thinking;
may
begin to
formulat
e an
independ
Compete
ntly
written,
with only
minor
lapses
from
standard
grammar,
with
acceptabl
e format
Uses a
good
variety
of
literatur
e which
includes
recent
texts
and/or
appropri
ate
literatur

12. e theoretic
al
model(s)
ent
position
in
relation
to theory
and/or
practice.
e,
includin
g a
substanti
ve
amount
beyond
library
texts.
Compet
ent use
of
source
material.
40 – 49%
Some
correlatio
n with the
requireme
nts of the
assessme
nt but
there are
instances
of
irrelevanc
e
Basic
understand
ing of the
subject but
addressing
a limited
range of
material
Some
analytica
l
treatmen
t, but
may be
prone to
descripti
on, or to
the
narrative
, which
lacks
clear
analytica
l
purpose
Some
attempt
to
construct
a
coherent
argument
, but may
suffer the
loss of
focus
and
consisten
cy, with
issues at
stake
stated
only
vaguely,
or
theoretic
al
model(s)
couched
in
simplisti
c terms
Sound
work
which
expresse
s a
coherent
position
only in
broad
terms
and in
uncritical
conformi
ty to one
or more
standard
views of
the topic
A simple
basic
style but
with
significan
t
deficienci
es in
expressio
n or
format
that may
pose
obstacles
for the
reader
Evidenc
e of use
of
appropri
ate
literatur
e which
goes
beyond
that
referred
to by the
tutor.
Frequent
ly only
uses a
single
source
to
support
a point.
35 – 39%
Relevanc
e to the
requireme
nts of the
assessme
A limited
understand
ing of a
narrow
range of
Largely
descripti
ve or
narrative
, with
A basic
argument
is
evident,
but
Some
evidence
of a view
starting
to be
Numerou
s
deficienci
es in
expressio
Barely
adequate
use of
literatur
e. Over

13. nt may be
very
intermitte
nt and
may be
reduced
to its
vaguest
and least
challengi
ng terms
material little
evidence
of
analysis
mainly
supporte
d by
assertion
and there
may be a
lack of
clarity
and
coherenc
e
formed
but
mainly
derivativ
e.
n and
presentati
on; the
writer
may
achieve
clarity (if
at all)
only by
using a
simplistic
or
repetitiou
s style
reliance
on
material
provided
by the
tutor.
The
evidence
provided
shows that
the
majority of
the
learning
outcomes
and
responsibili
ties
appropriate
to that
Level are
satisfied –
for
compensati
on
considerati
on.
30 – 34%
The work
examined
provides
insufficient
evidence of
the
knowledge,
understandi
ng, and
skills
appropriate

14. to the level
of the
qualificatio
n. The
evidence
provided
shows that
some of the
learning
outcomes
and
responsibili
ties
appropriate
to that
Level are
satisfied.
The work
will be
weak in
some of the
indicators.
15-29%
The work
examined
is
unacceptab
le and
provides
little
evidence of
the
knowledge,
understandi
ng, and
skills
appropriate
to the level
of the
qualificatio
n. The
evidence
shows that
few of the
learning
outcomes
and

15. responsibili
ties
appropriate
to that
Level are
satisfied.
The work
will be
weak in
several of
the
indicators.
0-
14%
The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge,
understanding, and skills appropriate to the level of the qualification. The evidence fails to
show that any of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are
satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority of all of the indicators.
Visit At: BUSM4739 MARKETING FOR MANAGERS VALUE PROPOSITION REPORT
https://mybestassignmenthelp.com/busm4739-marketing-for-managers/