Enterprise Systems and

Project Management
7ME531

Coursework 1 Assessment Brief

Evaluation of an ERP system
Module Leader- John Thorley

Sensitivity: Internal
 Contents
Module Leader .........................................................................................................................................3
Key dates and details ...............................................................................................................................3
Description of the assessment.................................................................................................................3
Assessment Content ................................................................................................................................4
Anonymous Marking................................................................................................................................7
Assessment Regulations ..........................................................................................................................7

Sensitivity: Internal
 Module Leader
• John Thorley
• Email - J.thorley@derby.ac.uk
• Internal phone number 01332 593233
• Office hours Tuesday 1.00pm – 2.00pm Wednesday 1.00pm – 2.00pm

Key dates and details

Assessment Type: Individual Journal style paper

Assessment weighting: 30%
Word count 6 pages total
Learning Outcome: 1
Submission Method: Turnitin
Submission Date: 23:59 UK time, 9th November
Provisional Feedback Release Date: 23.59 UK time, 30th November

Description of the assessment

On successful completion of the assignment, the student should be able to:-

1. Evaluate the role and benefits of enterprise systems and the appropriate approach or
methodology for adopting these systems, in relation to the improvement of business
processes across a firm and its supply-chain.

Course work 1 (30%) Learning outcome 1

An individual journal style paper (Max 6 pages) which will develop your research skills, citing and
referencing and writing skills at level 7.

Sensitivity: Internal
 Assessment Content

The Brief (Write a Conference / Journal paper)

Option 1 (work-based)

Interrogate your own working environment and evaluate the role of enterprise systems
identifying strengths and weaknesses as well as areas for improvement of business
processes. Consider factors associated with re-engineering and the cost / benefits of such
interventions. How would ERP transform or has transformed your business? Write a short
paper with literature review to support your presentation.

Option 2 (Academic)

Discuss the role of ERP in organisations. If you had a choice between customising an
ERP application to meet the organisation processes and modifying organisational
processes to meet the ERP functionality (Vanilla option), which would you choose?
Present a discussion for both options identifying the benefits, limitations, justification, and
approaches for each option. Support you approach with evidence from a literature review
and research. Write a short paper with literature review to support your presentation.

Marking Criteria

Short Paper 50% - (6 pages Max)

Title
Abstract 10%
Introduction 10%
Literature review 25%

Sensitivity: Internal
 Discussion 25%
Conclusion 10%
References 20%

Sensitivity: Internal
Assignment brief Poor (35-%) Unsatisfactory (45%) Good PASS (55 MERIT (65%) DISTINCTION Outstanding Exceptional DIST
(75%) DIST (85%) (95%)

Abstract written There is no abstract There is an abstract, but The abstract is good The abstract is very The abstract is The abstract is The abstract is
clear and concise. at all it does not convey the and has some good and is reflective excellent and outstanding at exceptional for
paper at all relevance of the paper very well- journal level publication level
(10 MARKS) articulated

Introduction clear There is no There is an introduction, The introduction is The introduction is The The The introduction is
and concise. introduction at all but it does not introduce good and has some very good and is introduction is introduction is exceptional for
(10 MARKS) the paper correctly relevance reflective of the paper excellent and outstanding at publication level
very well- journal level
articulated

Literature There is no There is a literature The literature The literature review The literature The literature The literature review is
Review robust literature review at review but it does not review is good and is very good and is review is review is exceptional for
with varied all contribute towards the has some relevance relevant and from excellent and outstanding at publication level
sources subject area sound and varied very well- journal level
sources articulated
(25 marks)

Discussion is relevant There is no There is a discussion but The discussion is The discussion is very The discussion is The discussion The discussion is
and appropriate discussion at all it does not contribute good and has some good and is relevant excellent and is outstanding exceptional for
towards the subject area relevance and informs the very well- at journal level publication level
(25 MARKS) subject area articulated

Conclusion There is no There is a conclusion but The conclusion is The conclusion is very The conclusion The conclusion The conclusion is
conclusion at all. it does not contribute good and relates good and is clearly is excellent and is outstanding exceptional for
(10MARKS) towards the subject area somewhat to the draws from the paper very well- at journal level publication level
paper material material articulated

References and There is no citing The citing and The citing and
The citing and
citations to Harvard and referencing at There is no citing or no The citing and The citing and referencing are referencing are at
referencing are
standard. all referencing or it is referencing are a referencing are a very of an publishing standard
of an excellent
confused good standard good standard outstanding
(20 Marks) standard
standard
 Anonymous Marking
Submissions in Turnitin and Blackboard

You must submit your work using your student number to identify yourself, not your name. You
must not use your name in the text of the work at any point. When you submit your work in Turnitin
you must submit your student number within the assignment document and in the Submission title
field in Turnitin.

Assessment Regulations
The University’s regulations, policies and procedures for students define the framework within
which teaching and assessment are conducted. Please make sure you are familiar with these
regulations, policies and procedures.

Assessment Criteria

The grading scale applies to Levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the University Credit Framework. The descriptors
are typical characteristics of the standard of work associated with each grade and are given in details
by level. Please refer to the 3Rs document for a comprehensive view of this scale.
http://www.derby.ac.uk/academic-regulations

PLAGIARISM

An “academic offence” is committed when a student tries to gain improper advantage for her/himself,
or not following the Academic Regulations, concerning any part of the assessment process. Please
refer to the 3Rs statement:

http://www.derby.ac.uk/academic-regulations

READING LINK TO ASPIRE

Sensitivity: Internal
 Performance Criteria
The grading scale applies to Level 7 in the University Credit Framework is associated with each grade
as shown below:

Grade Descriptors
These are typical characteristics of the quality of work associated with each grade. The
% mark descriptors are illustrative only and for guidance only. They are not comprehensive, and
will need contextualisation within individual courses to reflect the academic discipline
concerned.

90-100% Excellent
Meets all criteria in 80-89% range below, plus demonstrates exceptional ability and insight, indicating
the highest level of technical competence; work is virtually flawless and has potential to influence the
forefront of the subject and may be of publishable/exhibitable quality. Relevant generic skills are
demonstrated at the highest possible standard.

Exceptional achievement distinguishable even amongst the best quality work and deserving of the
highest possible marks within the Distinction grade.

80-89% Excellent

High to very high standard work with most of the following features: authoritative subject knowledge; a
high level of critical analysis and evaluation; incisive original thinking; commendable
originality; exceptionally well researched, with a very high level of technical competence; high quality
presentation; impressive clarity of ideas; excellent coherence and logic. Work is close to the forefront
of the subject and may be close to publishable or exhibitable quality. Relevant generic skills are
demonstrated at a very high level. Referencing is consistently used, complete and accurate. Only
trivial or very minor errors.

Very high quality work worthy of a high Distinction grade mark.

70-79% Excellent

Authoritative, current subject knowledge; excellent critical analysis and evaluation – including dealing
with ambiguity in the data; significant originality; well researched with a high level of technical
competence – work is accurate and extensively supported by appropriate evidence; excellent
presentation; commendable clarity of ideas; thoughtful and effective presentation; very strong sense
of coherence and logic; relevant generic skills are demonstrated at a high level; referencing is excellent–
consistently used, complete and accurate; a small number of misunderstandings/minor errors only.

High quality work deserving of a Distinction grade.

Sensitivity: Internal
 60-69% Very good

Work is well-developed and coherent; demonstrates sound, current subject knowledge; a very good
level of critical analysis and evaluation; some evidence of original thinking or originality; well
researched; no significant errors in the application of concepts or appropriate techniques; a very
good standard of presentation; ideas generally clear and coherent; relevant generic skills are
demonstrated at a very good level; referencing is very good; minor errors and misunderstandings
only, possibly with some deficiencies in presentation.

Well above pass standard and worthy of a Merit grade.

50-59% Good/Satisfactory

Has achieved intended learning outcomes as evidenced by the following features. Satisfactory subject
knowledge; a fair level of critical analysis and evaluation; the work is generally sound but tends towards
the factual or derivative, and there may be minimal evidence of original thinking or originality; adequately
researched; a sound standard of presentation; ideas fairly clear and coherent; some significant errors
and misunderstandings, possibly shown by conceptual gaps or limited use of appropriate
techniques; relevant generic skills are generally at a satisfactory level; referencing is generally
accurate; some weakness in style or presentation.

Satisfactory overall – a clear pass

Unsatisfactory
40-49%
Has narrowly failed to achieve intended learning outcomes as evidenced by the following
features. Satisfactory subject knowledge to some extent; some sound aspects but some of the following
weaknesses are evident: factual errors; conceptual gaps; inadequate critical analysis and
evaluation; little evidence of originality; not well researched – limited use of appropriate
techniques; presentation does not meet the standard required; ideas unclear and/or incoherent; some
significant errors and misunderstandings; relevant generic skills unsatisfactory to some
extent; referencing may be inadequate.

Work is unsatisfactory but shows potential for achieving learning outcomes if feedback is addressed. -
Marginal fail

Very Poor
5-39%
Has failed to achieve intended learning outcomes in several critical respects. Will have some or all of
the following features to varying extent: inadequate subject knowledge; factual errors; conceptual
gaps; minimal/no awareness of relevant issues and theory; limited/no use of appropriate
techniques; standard of presentation unacceptable; ideas confused and/or incoherent – work lacks
sound development; a poor critical analysis and evaluation; no evidence of originality; inadequately
researched; some serious misunderstandings and errors; quality of relevant generic skills does not
meet the requirements of the task.

A clear fail well short of the pass standard

Sensitivity: Internal
 Nothing of Merit
1-4% Nothing of value is contained in the submitted work. The work presents information that is irrelevant
and unconnected to the task; no evident awareness of appropriate principles, theories, evidence or
techniques

NS Non-submission
No work has been submitted.

Z Academic offence notation

Applies to proven instances of academic offence.

10

Sensitivity: Internal