Level 7 International Purchasing Contexts in Digital Age Assignment – CW2
For an organisation of your choice, you are to apply the following questions.
The organisation must be international and currently operating, and your answers should reflect
research\knowledge of the organisation and associated digital supply chain tools relevant to the
questions. Where specific data is not obtainable you are to reflect what the situation or scenario could
be with rationale.
Note: This organisation must be different from the one that you used in your CW1 group.
1 Critically evaluate the scale and scope of the purchasing function within the international
organisation and the different demands placed on the purchasing function and how it
creates value. You should include an analysis of current digital tools being used by the
organisation and highlight the importance and potential impact on the purchasing
35% of marks
2 Discuss and evaluate what improvements could be made by the use of new digital
technologies to the purchasing function of the organisation. Your evaluation should
include the range of digital tools relevant to the organisation, highlight the impact of any
potential benefits and challenges and how can the risk of failures be reduced\mitigated.
40% of marks
3 Critically evaluate the digital tools discussed in section 2 above and how these can be
used to influence the purchasing functions approach to the design on a sustainable and
resilient extended supply chain strategy.
15% of marks
4 Your work should be presented in report format and in a clear and professional manner.
10% of marks
Work must be underpinned with integration and analysis of relevant theory and research using the
Harvard referencing system.
Word Limit – 2,500 (+/- 10%) excluding table\diagrams
In order to fulfil the requirements of the students Personal Development Plan (PDP) students must
include a personal reflection on the process of managing their learning on this module. This is to be
included at the end of the assignment and to be between 350 and 500 words in length
Submission Date: By 16:59 Tuesday 17th January 2023 via Turnitin
Grades will be available via Udo 3 weeks post submission date.
Below are the grade descriptors with broad indicators of where grades may sit.
The Postgraduate Marking Scale
The Postgraduate Marking Scale applies to Level 7 modules. Level 8 modules are graded as
pass or fail, and some Level 7 modules are validated to be marked as pass or fail only.
These are typical characteristics of the quality of work associated with each grade. The
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Well above pass standard and worthy of a Merit grade.
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
Satisfactory overall – a clear pass
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. –
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
Nothing of Merit
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
No work has been submitted.
Z Academic offence notation
Applies to proven instances of academic offence.
Detailed Indicative guidance on Marking Criteria
Evidence of wider
Critical evaluation Application of
Applicable to Coursework
(70% – 100%)
The output shows a
level of original
thinking & a thorough
understanding of the
subject area. High
quality sources have
been sought and
research designed and
All research analysed
and synthesized to
for market decisions.
Identified the relevant
models and theories
A critical analysis of
the relevant issues; a
argument with a
The best pieces of
work show strong
and ideas of
and clearly linking
to the main
References are of high
quality & in the correct
format. No or very few
(60% – 69%)
There is evidence of a
good understanding of
the subject area.
research has been
sought and verified.
Clear evidence of
and logical reasoning
to justify the
implementation of the
strategies are well
reasoned and clear.
A clear and
exploration of all the
main points backed
up with evidence. A
clear attempt at
critical evaluation –
try to ensure that you
put forward a
Clear evidence of
of the relevant
style with only very
Good use of
has a clear structure &
the argument is
focused making the
decisions easy to
follow. Only minor
spelling or grammatical
(50% – 59%)
Some good evidence
of course readings and
associated texts. Use
the information in the
module notes as a
springboard for wider,
Research has more
than one secondary
Some evidence of
reasoning to justify
strategies and how
these would be
The work is
descriptive at times,
however, there is an
indication of the
ability to critically
evaluate. Weigh up
issues; use your own
opinions and, more
reference to the work
Some evidence of
linking ideas and
Use of images to
Occasional errors with
(i.e. explain in your
own words) Possible
structural and/or clarity
problems. Work has
(40% – 49%)
There is minimal
evidence that the
have been completed.
Little research to use
as basis for analysis
Influences on the
not identified. Little
evidence of analysis.
Little evidence of
Poor quality which
and themes. No
models applied or
Work displays no
quality referencing and
is minimal. Sequence
of information is
difficult to follow. Some
errors with output
(1% – 39%)
There is no evidence
that the basic/core
readings have been
research to use as
basis for analysis
No evidence of
analysis. No market
No evidence of
Very poor quality
which shows no
Work displays no
information is difficult
to follow. Serious error