XJTLU Entrepreneur College (Taicang)

School of Intelligient
IFB211TC Yunlu Zhang Yunlu.Zhang@xjtlu.edu.cn
Finance and Business

2nd SEMESTER 2023/24 ASSESSED COURSEWORK

BSC INTELLIGENT SUPPLY CHAIN WITH CONTEMPORARY

ENTREPRENEURIALISM

VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS

Assessment One: Group Presentation

Deadline for submission: 5PM on Monday 25th March 2024 (Beijing time).

INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS

1. This coursework comprises 50% of the module mark and the total marks available are 100.
2. Working in groups of four, students are required to make a presentation on the following topic:“A
proposed solution how the company (pick a company in the real business world) upgrade its core
competences along value chain”.
3. The scheduling of the presentation will be communicated to students in due course.
4. There is no resit opportunity for this coursework component.

1
 IFB211TC Value Chain Analysis

Group Presentation Brief

Task: Working in groups of five, prepare a 20 minute presentation that propose a solution how the
company (pick a company in the real business world) upgrade its core competences along value chain.

Content of presentation: While the exact content of the presentation has not been pre-determined, you
understand that it is interested in knowing more about the following:
✓ Select a specific company from the real business world that you will be analyzing. Provide a brief
overview of the company and its industry.
✓ What is the company’s current position in the market? What are its main products or services?
✓ Identify the main activities within the chosen company’s value chain.
✓ Analyze each activity in the value chain and assess how it contributes to the company’s core
competences.
✓ Identify any potential gaps or opportunities for the company within its value chain.
✓ Based on your analysis, propose a clear and concise solution for upgrading the company’s core
competences along the value chain.

Information sources: The following resources will be made available to you via the Learning Mall
Online.
⚫ McKinsey Global Institute (2019) Globalization in Transition: The Future of Trade and Value
Chains. McKinsey Global Institute.
⚫ McKinsey Global Institute (2020) Risk, Resilience and Rebalancing in Global Value Chains.
McKinsey Global Institute.
⚫ World Bank (2020), World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of
Global Value Chains. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank,
Washington, DC

Additional resources:

The following links may also be of help to you:

⚫ GlobalEdge™ (https://globaledge.msu.edu/). Click on the ‘Global Insights’ tab, and then ‘By
Industry’ and check the pages labelled ‘Introduction’ and ‘Background’. Other areas of
GlobalEdge™ may be useful as well, so make sure to look around.

⚫ Deloitte:
 https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/strategy-operations/topics/supply-
chain.html# (see the reports on this page, and also on the ‘Industry’ and ‘Insights’ tabs).
 https://www.pwc.com/us/en/library/fit-for-growth/supply-chain-resiliency.html

⚫ McKinsey&Company:
 https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview
 https://www.mckinsey.com/

2
 (see the ‘Industries’ tab; or click on the ‘Functions’ tab, then ‘Operations’ and ‘Risk’; or
click on ‘Featured Insights’ then ‘The next normal beyond coronavirus’ (or use the search
icon at the top of this landing page and search using the same criteria suggested above).

⚫ PwC
 https://www.pwc.com/us/en/library.html
 https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries.html (check out PwC’s ‘Insights’ reports)

⚫ KPMG
 https://home.kpmg/us/en/home/industries.html
 https://www.kpmg.us/insights.html

⚫ EY (previously Ernst and Young)

 https://www.ey.com/en_us (then use the search box at the top of the page).
 https://www.ey.com/en_us/covid-19 (some relevant reports may be found here).

⚫ OECD:
 https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/global-value-chains.htm

To access some of these sites you may need to use internet at XJTLU if you are in Mainland China. Also,
you may need to register in order to download reports. Registration and downloading from these sites is
generally free and without charge. You can also cancel your registration once you no longer need it

Group Presentation Grading Scheme

Group ID Number:
Countries being analysed:
Grading criteria and grading scheme:
Category and Weighting Marks

Presentation flow, structure, timing and use of visual aids (out of 20)
Seamless flow, excellent progression, polished handovers, very good timing, high competence in use of all media, 14-20
suggesting excellent preparation.
Very good flow with good interaction between members, good timing, competence in use of media, suggesting 13-13.5
sound preparation.
Fairly good flow, some good links between presenters, fairly good timing, indications of competence in use of media, 11-12.5
suggesting some preparation.
Some individuals show competence in use of media and have prepared somewhat. Satisfactory timing. 10-10.5
Lack of flow, no real progression between presenters, very poor timing, members show lack of competence in use of 0-9.5
media, evidence of little or no preparation.
Effective Group Work (out of 20)
Well balanced contributions, showing all members fully aware of all content, evidencing research contributed to by 14-20
all, excellent preparation by all, excellent pulling together of individual contributions, excellent division of labour.
Group co-ordinated, picking up on ideas from each other, evidence of most group members having pulled their 13-13.5
weight in researching and putting the presentation together. Very good division of labour.
Group mostly co-ordinated, evidence that some individuals have not pulled their weight in research or preparation. 11-12.5
Good division of labour.

3
 Some evidence of group ownership of presentation but carried by only some individuals. Satisfactory division of 10-10.5
labour.
A series of individual presentations with no sense of whole. Poor division of labour. 0-9.5
Comprehension and relevance (out of 20)
Demonstrates student has an excellent understanding of the key concepts, principles and theoretical frameworks of 15-20
a topic area of the concepts presented in the course; presents an idea, plan or proposal that uses applicable facts
and principles from the course that address a development need.
Demonstrates student has a good or basic understanding of the key concepts, principles and theoretical frameworks 12-15
of the concepts presented in the course; presents an idea, plan or proposal that some applicable facts and/or
principles from the course that address a development need.
Demonstrates student has somewhat of an understanding of concepts, principles and/or theoretical frameworks of 8-12
the concepts presented in the course; presents an idea, plan or proposal that uses some applicable facts and
principles, but misses some important elements to support the main idea and/or development need.
Demonstrates student has little or no understanding of the concepts, principles or theoretical frameworks of the 0-8
concepts presented in the course; presents an idea, plan or proposal that uses some (or no) applicable facts and
principles, but misses some or all of the elements needed to support the main idea and/or development need.
Content, data and information (out of 20)
Many excellent ideas, comprehensive and useful, coherently and logically developed, showing creativity, focussed on 28-40
the task at hand, key concepts well highlighted. All content highly relevant, and relevance is explained.
On the whole some excellent ideas, no major omissions, mostly logically and coherently developed, with some 25.5-27.5
creativity, mainly focussed on task at hand and key concepts highlighted. Content mostly relevant, and relevance is
explained in most instances.
Although showing some of the criteria above there may be some deficiencies in one or more areas. Some of the 22-25
content of questionable relevance, or the relevance could be communicated better.
Some ideas presented, but several deficiencies in coverage, logical development, creativity, focus or highlighting of 20-21
key concepts. A lot of content not relevant, or the relevance is poorly explained.
Ideas muddled, lacking in coherence and focus, no attempt made to highlight key concepts. Almost all content 0-19
irrelevant or relevance not explained.
Persuasiveness of recommendations (out of 10)
Highly persuasive recommendations, convincingly based on data and information provided. Plenty of evidence of 7-10
understanding and insight.
Persuasive recommendations, convincingly supported by most of the data and information provided. Evidence of 6.5-7
understanding and insight.
Fairly persuasive recommendations, fairly well supported by the data and information provided. Some evidence of 5.5-6
understanding and insight.
Not entirely persuasive recommendations. Some disconnect with the data and information provided. Not much 5
evidence of understanding or insight.
Unpersuasive recommendations. Little connection with data and information provided. Little or no evidence of 0-4
understanding or insight.
Overall Impact (out of 10)
Persuasive, kept attention of audience, audience fully involved through eye contact and enthusiasm, timing, clarity 7-10
and volume of voice contributing fully to quality of presentation. Questions answered very effectively.
A sound presentation, audience interest maintained throughout, competence by all presenters in timing, clarity and 6.5-7
volume. Questions answered effectively.
Presentation acceptable but impact of presenters is variable. Questions not always answered effectively. 5.5-6
Presentation undermined by general lack of impact. Questions not answered well. 5
Group confidence appears low, lacking in impact. Questions very poorly answered. 0-4

Group Presentations – Presentation Guidelines

The following guidelines may assist you in the design and delivery of the presentation, since they will be used to
evaluate your work:

Structure: Does the presentation have a discernible structure? Is there an introduction, followed by the main body
of arguments and evidence, and a summary of the principal findings together with a conclusion? Is an outline of the
presentation put forward at the beginning? Is each speaker’s role explained? Does each element of the presentation
flow logically and smoothly from the preceding segment? Do the presenters ask periodically whether elaboration is
required? Are clear links drawn between points in the arguments presented? Does the presentation start and finish
on time?

4
Division of labour: Does each member of the group take an active part in the actual presentation? Is the division
of labour appropriate (for example, with each presenter dealing with discrete elements of the presentation)?
Use of visual aids: Does the group make good use of audio-visual equipment and technology? Are slides presented
at appropriate junctures during the talk? Are the slides cluttered or clearly structured and legible? Do they
illuminate or confuse the issues? Can they be read and interpreted by the audience? Are handouts used? How
usefully do the handouts support the presentation?

Verbal behaviour: Can the speakers be heard by all members of the audience? Does the speech flow? Is the speech
ill-prepared, with pauses and/or periods of confusion? (Rehearsal will help overcome such problems). Do presenters
use clear and concise language, or use unexplained jargon and opaque terminology? Do they speak too quickly or
too slowly, perhaps in monotone? Do they pause periodically to emphasise specific points, or do they read too
quickly and directly from prepared notes?

Non-verbal behaviour: Do the presenters maintain or avoid eye contact with the audience? Do they make too
frequent reference to notes, or have their head buried in notes? Do they remain entirely static throughout their
presentation? Do they use their hands (gesticulate) to emphasise their meaning?

Timing: Does the presentation last for the intended 30 minutes? Does each member appear to speak for an equal
amount of time? Is the presentation rushed or drawn-out?

Content: Does the group clearly identify what the content of the presentation will be? Do they explain how the talk
will be segmented? Do the presenters demonstrate that they fully understand the material presented?

Relevance of content: Do the presenters talk on the given topic, or have they chosen to redefine the task at hand?
Do they explain any technical terminology they use? Do they keep the presentation relevant to the stated objectives,
or do they digress frequently? Is the content presented relevant to the task at hand?

Selection of information: Is there evidence that the group has gone beyond elementary sources of information?
How widely have they researched their chosen countries? Do they understand the relevance of the information
being presented? Have they included recent journal articles in their arguments/evidence? Is the depth of analysis
appropriate? Do the presenters outline contradictory aspects and views on the subject? How convincing are the
conclusions and recommendations made? Are these adequately supported by the evidence presented?

Questions: Do the presenters field questions competently and with authority?

++ END OF DOCUMENT ++