The document provides instructions for a final presentation project. Students are asked to create a 12-slide PowerPoint presentation assuming the role of Department Manager of Supply Chain for Jones Company. The presentation should make recommendations for how Jones Company can better integrate and align resources using a Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) approach to improve profitability. The presentation must identify specific S&OP activities and agenda items, propose metrics, and explain how the recommendations will benefit the company. Slides should be concise and bullet pointed with explanatory notes. The presentation will be graded based on a detailed rubric.

1. Please read all before bidding.
This project is not just for 12 slides, notes to the slides also
need to be including with references to the reading material.
The project must be written to the grading rubric that is
included.
Final Project: Presentation
You will create a PowerPoint presentation to be made to the
CEO, Operations Manager and Board of Directors of Jones
Company, in which you assume the role of Department Manager
of Supply Chain for the Jones Company. In this presentation
you will be making recommendations based upon the
application of S&OP planning strategies to the Jones company
supply chain.
Purpose:
The purpose of this assignment is for you to show how supply
change and logistics must align and integrate to the company's
resources and how a good manager can effectively and
efficiently make the integration and alignment in the best
interests of the company. You will create a PowerPoint
presentation to the CEO, Board and Operations Manager
explaining how it will can be done.
Instructions:
Jones Company has made a number of improvements, thanks to
your help, but they need to better integrate and align their
resources to better serve their customers and improve
profitability. As your final assignment, discuss how Jones can
use Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) to bring about more
cohesion in their operation. Prepare a 12 slide proposal that
identifies what activities should be included in their S&OP
approach, what should be discussed in their regular S&OP
meetings, and what type of metrics (performance metrics) need

2. to be developed and communicated.
Required Elements of the Presentation:
Identify what specific activities should be included in the S&OP
approach.
•Clearly explain why the activities should be included and why
it will benefit the company.
•What should be on the agenda for discussion on the regular
S&OP meetings.
•Explain why these ideas should be on the planning agenda
weekly.
•What type of metrics (performance metrics) need to be
developed and communicated.
•Explain your rationale for selecting these measures in terms of
their pros and cons, using evidence and examples and how they
affect the change you are proposing.
Required Formatting of Presentation:
Your presentation is being made to the CEO, Board of Directors
and VP for Operations and therefore should be short and
concise.
•It should flow well with one slide leading to the next logically.
The information should be presented in bullet format with
explanation in the note section only.
•The note section would contain what you would "actually say"
in the presentation. It must contain support from the class
material, facts /conclusions derived from the previous projects.
•The PowerPoint presentation consists of at least 12 slides.
Note that students may use Prezi rather than PPT. (Use “Click
Here to Add Notes” for talking points).
•Third person writing is required. Third person means that
there are no words such as “I, me, my, we, or us” (first person
writing), nor is there use of “you or your” (second person

3. writing). If uncertain how to write in the third person, view this
link:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/first-
second-and-third-person.
•Contractions are not used in business writing, so you are
expected NOT to use contractions in writing this assignment.
•The expectation is that you provide a robust use of the course
readings. No other books besides the course eBook, if the
course has one, can be used. When using a source document,
the expectation is that the information is cited and referenced
with a page or paragraph number.
Class Readings Links:
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/strategic-supply-chain-
management-2221231
https://www.executestrategy.net/blog/how-to-write-a-strategic-
plan
http://www.supplychainquarterly.com/topics/Strategy/20130306
-supply-chain-strategies-which-one-hits-the-mark/
https://youtu.be/cEyBTEOAZ48
https://www.smartsheet.com/sales-operations-planning-101
https://www.apics.org/apics-for-individuals/apics-magazine-
home/magazine-detail-page/2013/09/09/s-op-step-by-step
https://apics-
vancouver.org/images/downloads/PDM_s/s_op_to_vancouver_p
dm_26_feb_15.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTcXsKIokys&t=25s

4. Grading Rubric
Criteria
Excellent
Good
Developing
Needs Improvement
Failure
Identification of S&OP approach activities
2.5 points
Identification was made of S&OP approach activities. The list
showed insightful understanding of the S&OP approach. More
than 4 activities were selected. Selections reflect a satisfactory
level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the
case material and case study facts resulting in a demonstration
of insightful reasoning.
(2.25 - 2.5)
2.125 points
Identification was made of 3 S&OP approach activities were
selected. The list showed a good understanding of the S&OP
approach. Selection reflect a strong level of analysis, synthesis,
evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study
facts.
(2.0 - 2.24)
1.875 points

5. 3 activities were selected; list reflected a satisfactory level of
analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case
material and case study facts resulting in partially correct
conclusions that lack development or detail that demonstrates
insight into reasoning.
(1.75 - 1.99)
1.625 points
3 activities were selected; list reflected a weak level of
analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case
material; list reflects an unsatisfactory level of analysis,
synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and
case study facts, resulting in conclusions that are
underdeveloped or lack soundly reasoned conclusions.
(1.5 - 1.74)
0 points
No discussion of the activities was present; only 1 or 2
activities suggested and list reflected minimal to no level of
analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case
material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little
to no conclusions.
(0 - 1.49)
Explanation as to why the activities were selected and how they
benefit company
3 points
Presents exceptionally well-supported explanation as to why the

6. activities were selected with evidence from the
readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course material and
recognize implications and extensions of the material and
concepts.
(2.7 - 3.0)
2.55 points
Presents a well-supported explanation as to why the activities
were selected; explanation was mostly supported by evidence
from the readings and course content; ideas presented
demonstrate understanding of the material and concepts but one
or two ideas were underdeveloped or missing.
(2.4 - 2.69)
2.25 points
Satisfactory arguments were presented for the selection of the
list but there is a mix of opinion or unclear view with supported
arguments using course readings missing. Case study facts are
occasionally used but arguments would be much stronger with
use of facts.
(2.1 - 2.39)
1.95 points
List explanation is illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of
facts in case study and essential information presented in course
readings.
(1.8- 2.09)
0 points

7. List lacks meaningful explanation or support of ideas. Does not
provide facts presented in case study.
(0 - 1.79)
Identification of agenda items for regular S&OP meetings
2.5 points
Identification of agenda items was made. The list showed
insightful understanding of the S&OP. More than 4 items were
selected. Selections reflect a satisfactory level of analysis,
synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material and
case study facts resulting in a demonstration of insightful
reasoning.
(2.25 - 2.5)
2.125 points
Identification of agenda items was made. The list showed a
good understanding of the S&OP. 3 items were selected.The list
showed a good understanding of the S&OP approach. Selection
reflect a strong level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and
reasoning of the case material and case study facts but one item
was underdeveloped.
(2.0 - 2.24)
1.875 points
3 items were selected; list reflected a satisfactory level of
analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case
material and case study facts resulting in partially correct
conclusions that lack development or detail that demonstrates
insight into reasoning.

8. (1.75 - 1.99)
1.625 points
1-2 items were selected; list reflected a weak level of analysis,
synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case material; list
reflects an unsatisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation
and reasoning of the case material and case study facts,
resulting in conclusions that are underdeveloped or lack soundly
reasoned conclusions.
(1.5 - 1.74)
0 points
No discussion of the items list only was presented; only 1 or 2
items suggested and list reflected minimal to no level of
analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the case
material and case study facts, resulting in failure to draw little
to no conclusions.
(0 - 1.49)
Explanation of why agenda items should be on the planning
agenda weekly
3 points
Demonstrates exceptional understanding of requirements
responding completely to each aspect of assignment including
minor aspects of the assignment such as using third person
writing, required use of course readings, and assignment format.
(2.7 - 3.0)
2.55 points

9. Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed
one minor aspect of assignment.
(2.4 - 2.69)
2.3 points
Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements;
missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.
(2.1 - 2.39)
1.95 points
Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two
key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.
(1.8 - 2.09)
0 points
Fails to demonstrate understanding of assignment requirements.
(0 - 1.79)
Identification of the performance metrics need to be developed
and communicated
2.5 points
Identification of performance metrics was made and
communicated. The list showed insightful understanding of the
types of metrics to be developed. Selections reflect an excellent
level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of the
case material and case study facts resulting in a demonstration
of insightful reasoning.

10. (2.25 - 2.5)
2.125 points
Identification of performance metrics was made and
communicated. The list showed a good understanding of the
types of metrics to be developed and applied. Selection reflect a
strong level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of
the case material and case study facts but one item was
underdeveloped.
(2.0 - 2.24)
1.875 points
Identification of performance metrics was made and
communicated. The list showed a satisfactory understanding of
the types of metrics to be developed. Selection of the metrics
reflected a satisfactory level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation
and reasoning of the case material and case study facts resulting
in partially correct conclusions that lack development or detail
that demonstrates insight into reasoning.
(1.75 - 1.99)
1.625 points
Performance metrics discussed but not selected; list reflected a
weak level of analysis, synthesis, evaluation and reasoning of
the case material; list reflects an unsatisfactory level of
reasoning supported by case material and case study facts,
resulting in conclusions that are underdeveloped or lack soundly
reasoned conclusions.
0 points

11. No discussion of the metrics and/or list only was presented;
discussion reflected minimal to no level of analysis, synthesis,
evaluation and reasoning of the case material and case study
facts, resulting in failure to draw little to no conclusions.
(0 - 1.49)
Discussion of why these metrics warrant the proposed changes
using examples, evidence and a discussion of their pros and
cons
3 points
Presents exceptionally well-supported explanation as to why the
metrics chosen best support the proposed change with evidence
from the readings/experience; ideas go beyond the course
material and recognize implications and extensions of the
material and concepts.
(2.7 - 3.0)
2.5 points
Presents a well-supported explanation as to why the metrics
chosen best support the proposed changes; explanation was
mostly supported by evidence from the readings and course
content; ideas presented demonstrate understanding of the
material and concepts but one major concept was
underdeveloped or missing.
(2.4 - 2.69)
2.3 points
Satisfactory arguments were presented for the selection of the
support of the metrics chosen but there is a mix of opinion or

12. unclear view with supported arguments using course readings
missing. Case study facts are occasionally used but arguments
would be much stronger with use of facts.
(2.1 - 2.39)
1.95 points
Explanation is illogical and unsubstantiated; Limited use of
facts in case study and essential information presented in course
readings.
(1.8 - 2.09)
0 points
Discussion lacks meaningful explanation or support for why the
metrics were best for the changes proposed. Does not provide
facts presented in case study or class material; no attempt to
discuss the reasoning behind metric selection was made.
(0 - 1.79)
Slide Presentation and Flow
2.5 points
Presentation flows well and logically; transitions are smooth,
interesting, persuasive and enhance presentation. The slides are
bulleted, contain intext citation were appropriate and notes
explain the slides while supporting the conclusions drawn.
Reference list was included in a separate slide at the end.
(2.25 - 2.5)
2.125 points

13. Presentation flows well; smooth transitions; use of
persuasiveness was underdeveloped in some areas; slides were
bulleted and contained APA intext citations where appropriate,
notes mostly explained the slides. Reference list was included
in a separate slide at the end of the presentation.
(2.0 - 2.24)
1.875 points
Presentation mostly flowed smooth transitions used were
missing in one or two slides; no use of persuasive language;
slides were bulleted but the intext citations were missing one or
two times; notes were generally instructive of the material
presented. Reference list included in a separate slide at the end.
(1.75 - 1.99)
1.625 points
Presentation is unorganized; very few transitions and/or they
distract from presentation; persuasiveness was generally
undeveloped. Slides contained all discussion rather than the
notes. Support for the information presented was minimal.
(1.5 - 1.74)
0 points
No presentation was provided or the presentation was minimal
with only ideas listed with no development of the material
presented.
(0 - 1.49)
Attention to Instructions
3 points

14. Demonstrates exceptional understanding of requirements
responding completely to each aspect of assignment including
minor aspects of the assignment such as using third person
writing, required use of course readings, and assignment format
2.5 points
Demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements; missed
one minor aspect of assignment.
(2.4 - 2.69)
2.3 points
Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of requirements;
missed a key element or two minor aspects of assignment.
(2.1 - 2.39)
1.95 points
Fails to show a firm understanding of requirements; missed two
key elements or several minor aspects of assignment.
(1.8 - 2.09)
0 points
Fails to demonstrate any understanding of assignment
requirements and or submits the wrong assignment.
(0 - 1.79)
Writing Mechanics
2 points

15. Strictly adheres to standard usage rules of written English,
including but not limited to capitalization, punctuation, run-on
sentences, missing or extra words, stylistic errors, spelling and
grammatical errors. No errors found. No contractions or jargon
used.
(1.8 - 2.0)
1.7 points
Excellently adheres to standard usage of mechanics:
conventions of written English, including capitalization,
punctuation, and spelling. One to three errors found.
(1.6 - 1.79)
1.5 points
Satisfactorily adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics:
conventions of English, including capitalization, punctuation,
and spelling. Four to 10 errors found.
(1.4 - 1.59)
1.3 points
Minimally adheres to standard usage rules of mechanics:
conventions of written English, including capitalization,
punctuation, and spelling.
( 1.2 - 1.39)
0 points

16. Does not adhere to standard usage rules of mechanics:
conventions of written English largely incomprehensible; or
errors are too plentiful to count.
(0 - 1.19)
APA Format
2 points
No APA style or usage errors; Proper citation of source material
is used throughout paper; Reference titles follow APA with only
the first word, the first word after a colon and proper nouns
capitalized.
(1.8 - 2.0)
1.7 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference list but one or two APA
style errors noted or fails to use APA citations when appropriate
1-2 times.
(1.6 - 1.79
1.5 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; APA style errors
are noted throughout document; Fails to use APA citations when
appropriate 3 times in document.
(1.4 - 1.59)
1.3 points
Attempts in-text citations and reference lists; Fails to use APA
citation when appropriate 4-5 times; or presents only 1-2 in-text

17. citations and reference list in a paper that requires APA
citations throughout the document.
(1.2 - 1.39)
0 points
No attempt at APA style; or attempts either in-text citations or
reference list but omits the other.
(0 - 1.19)