ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY
Due date: Time: Value: Length: Based on:
Sunday, 27 May 2018
23:59 hours (Australian Eastern Standard Time)
2000 words ± 10%
Learning outcomes 1-3
Electronically through MyLO Assignment submission folder
Before attempting this assignment:
Ensure the ‘Assessment’ section in this Unit Outline is read and understood. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the lecturer.
Students should refer to the ‘Guide to Assessment’ file under the Content tab on the unit MyLO site for guidelines on assignment presentation.
Ensure you understand the assignment question(s) and/or tasks. Once again, consult your lecturer should you be unsure of any matters.
Note: All students are required to submit this assignment to be eligible to undertake the final unit examination.
Task description & requirements
Complete the following task based on the attached case study Honeycutt Warehouse and Shipping Corporation (Wisner et al., 2019), knowledge learned in this unit and other relevant information.
Explain in details the tools, programmes or partnerships that Honeycutt Warehouse and Shipping Corporation can use to improve logistics sustainability.
See the Essay/report assessment criteria sheet on the following page for information about the criteria and the standards by which your work will be judged.
Department of Maritime and Logistics Management – JNB522 Business Logistics 18
Case: Honeycutt Warehouse and Shipping Corporation
Source: Wisner, JD, Tan, K-C & Leong, GK 2019, Principles of supply chain management – a balanced approach, 5th edn, Cengage, Boston, MA.
Department of Maritime and Logistics Management – JNB522 Business Logistics 19
Unit code: JNB522 Assessor: Vera Zhang
Unit title: Business Logistics
Mark: / 25
Assignment 3 Marking Rubric
Explain the tools, programmes or partnerships to improve logistics sustainability
Clearly explain with justification the potential tools/ programmes/ partnerships to improve logistics sustainability with external resources thoroughly researched and effectively applied
Well explain with justification the potential tools/ programmes/ partnerships to improve logistics sustainability with external resources mostly researched and applied
Mostly explain with justification the potential tools/ programmes/ partnerships to improve logistics sustainability with external resources reasonably researched and applied
Partially/Shallowly explain with justification the potential tools/ programmes/ partnerships to improve logistics sustainability with limited or external resources
Fail to identify and analyse the potential tools/ programmes/ partnerships to improve logistics sustainability with effective external resources overlooked or misunderstood
Quality of research
All relevant concepts etc clearly explained
Evidence of wide reading & independent research
Main concepts etc covered and clearly explained
Range of resources used with discrimination
Main concepts etc covered but some not clearly explained
Reasonable use of some quality resources
A number of important concepts etc overlooked or insufficiently described
Limited use of some quality resources
Majority of key concepts not addressed or misunderstood
Little/no evidence of use of resources
Quality of Communication
Logical structure with coherent, concise well developed argument
Correct use of grammar and technically error- free
Acknowledged all sources
Faultless application of prescribed style
Well organised structure with argument, mostly logical, concise and coherent
Mostly correct use of grammar and error-free
Acknowledge main sources
Mostly accurate referencing
Prescribed style applied mostly correct
Well organised structure and argument, generally logical, concise and coherent
Some mistakes in the use of grammar and technical errors
Acknowledge some sources
Reasonably accurate referencing
Prescribed style basically applied with numerous errors
Generally organised structure and in some areas argument illogical and unclear
Numerous grammar mistakes and technical errors
Acknowledge few sources
Significantly inconsistent referencing
Inconsistent application of prescribed style
Poor structure and argument generally illogical and unclear
Difficult to read due to grammatical and technical errors
Sources poorly acknowledged
Incorrect referencing style
Incorrect prescribed style
* Please note that the criteria listed above are not necessarily of equal weighting, nor are they all-inclusive; they give an indication of your performance.