Supply Chain Strategy & Processes

Formative Assessment

Flexibility in

Student Name: Sowmyasree Nissankara Rao

Subject: Supply Chain Strategy and Processes

NESTLE

Introduction

Nestlé is a multinational food and beverage company based in Switzerland. It is one of the

biggest and most well-known companies in the sector. Henri Nestlé, a Swiss chemist, created

a wholesome infant formula in 1866, which is when the firm was founded. The groundwork

for Nestlé was laid by this innovation.

Nestlé now conducts business in more than 180 nations and offers a wide range of goods in

several categories, including infant food, bottled water, breakfast cereals, coffee,

confections, dairy products, frozen food, pet care, and more. Its well-known trademarks

include Haagen-Dazs, KitKat, Nestea, Nestlé Pure Life, Nespresso, Purina, and Nescafé.

Objectives of the Company

A set of overarching objectives serves as the foundation for Nestlé’s corporate operations

and strategy. The objectives are creating shared value, commitment to Nutrition, Health and

Wellness, Sustainable Development, Consumer Satisfaction, Innovation and Research,

Responsible Sourcing and Supplier Relationships, Employee Development and Diversity.

Product group:

Food

Operations Performance Objective (Flexibility):

Nestlé has a reputation for being adaptable when it comes to adjusting market conditions,

consumer tastes, and business developments. The business exhibits flexibility in a number of

areas of its operations:

Product range: Nestlé has a diverse product range that covers several categories, allowing

the corporation to change and adapt to growing consumer expectations. Nestlé regularly

analyses market developments and consumer preferences to introduce new goods, change

old ones, or enter new categories as appropriate. Nestlé can adapt to the shifting demands

and preferences of its customers because to its flexibility.

Research and Development (R&D) Investments: Nestlé makes large R&D (research and

development) investments to foster innovation and remain ahead of market trends. To

create and enhance its products, the company is constantly experimenting with new

ingredients, technology, and procedures. Nestlé’s emphasis on innovation gives it the

freedom to launch new goods or rework current ones to conform to changing consumer

preferences or meet particular market needs.

Manufacturing & Production: Nestlé runs a huge network of manufacturing sites all over

the world, allowing for flexibility in production and distribution. On the basis of changes in

demand or shifting market conditions, the corporation can adapt production numbers,

product formulas, and supply chains, as well as optimise them. Because of its adaptability,

Nestlé is able to efficiently meet consumer demand while preserving the quality and

freshness of its products.

Localization: Nestlé is aware of the value of taking into account regional tastes and

preferences. Due to the company’s decentralised strategy, its regional and local divisions are

able to customise products and marketing plans for particular markets. Nestlé’s regional

teams are free to modify their offerings in accordance with regional consumer demands and

cultural quirks. Nestlé can successfully engage with customers on a local or national level

thanks to its versatility.

Collaborations & Business Partnerships: To promote innovation and look into new business

opportunities, Nestlé works with outside partners such as suppliers, research organisations,

and startups. Through these relationships, Nestlé has access to cutting-edge technology,

industry knowledge, and expertise, boosting its capacity to respond quickly to shifting

customer tastes and market conditions.

Competitor

PEPSICO

Introduction

A multinational food and beverage corporation called PepsiCo is well-known for its enduring

brands and broad selection of goods. PepsiCo, which was created in 1965 as a result of the

union of Pepsi-Cola and Frito-Lay, has developed into one of the biggest and most well-

known firms in the world.

With a broad range of food and beverage products, PepsiCo operates in more than 200

countries and territories. A few of its well-known brands are Pepsi, Lay’s, Gatorade,

Tropicana, Quaker, Doritos, and Mountain Dew. These brands cover a wide range of

products, including morning cereals, sports drinks, juices, snacks, and ready-to-eat meals.

Conclusion

On Overview, both Nestle and PepsiCo show operational flexibility, market adaptability, and

sustainability initiatives. However, PepsiCo’s strong emphasis on the food and beverage

market enables them to concentrate their efforts and resources in one particular area, while

Nestle’s wider product selection gives them a little larger degree of flexibility. In the end,

each company’s flexibility is based on its distinct business models, plans, and industry

positioning.

1

ASSESSMENT BRIEF

Academic year and term: 2022/23 – Semester 3 (Spring)

Module title: Supply Chain Strategy & Processes

Module convener:

Type of assessment: Summative assessment—Individual report-3,000 words-100% weighting

Formative assessment—One page report overview

Assessment deadline:
Summative assessment: TBC

Formative assessment: 31/05/2022

Instructions for assessment

Summative assessment

There will be one summative assessment which involves a comprehensive analysis of any operations

performance objectives either a) cost, b) dependability, c) flexibility, d) speed, e)quality of a company

(of your choice) . Only focus on one of these objectives. Compare the chosen company’s performance

with the one of a competitor. This is an individual report and should be 3,000 words (10% tolerance)

excluding references, tables, figures, and appendix, and to be submitted via Moodle Turnitin.

Component Individual

or group

submission

Word

count /

length

%

Weighting

Must

Attempt

Y/N

Must Pass

Y/N

Individual report (Company

case analysis)

Individual max. 3,000

words

100% No No

Steps to be followed:

1. Choose a well-known company (e.g. Unilever, Zara, Mc Donald’s, Amazon) (or a company for which

you can easily access relevant information) and choose one product group of it.

2. Choose one of the operations performance objectives: a) cost, b) dependability, c) flexibility, d)

speed, e)quality

3. Describe the global supply chain of your chosen company by identifying its supply chain members

(upstream (e.g. suppliers) and downstream (e.g. intermediaries)). You can use online sources such as

www.bloomberg.com to identify upstream and downstream players in your chosen company’s

supply chain.

4. Critically analyse its operations performance objective (of your choice) and compare it with one of

its competitor.

Formative feedback and assessment

To receive feedback on your progress, we recommend that you submit and individual report plan, that is

a written assignment of about 500 words, to be submitted via Moodle. Write a report plan including brief

information about your chosen company, product group, and specific dimension(s) of operations

performance objective that will be analysed in your individual report. In week 2, purpose and structure

Mr Gen Zhao

2

of the assignment will be explained in detail in class in the ‘assessment clinic 1’ session. Formative

feedback will be given in specified seminar slots/assessment clinic sessions (‘assessment clinic 2’ in

week 4, and ‘assessment clinic 3’ in week 8). A summary of the feedback will also be uploaded to

Moodle.

Note that we will not provide any written or marks indicative feedback on drafts for summative

assessment at any time. Should you perceive any formative feedback such way, then please note that it

is not binding for your marking. Markers can also always change, and you have no entitlement to be

marked by the module convener or tutors.

Reading list

Recommended books and reports

Chopra S. & Meindl P. (2015) Supply Chain Management, Strategy, Planning and Operation. (6th ed.)

Pearson.

Christopher, M. (2016) Logistics and Supply Chain Management. (5th ed.), Financial Times Publishing.

Harrison, A., Van Hoek, R., & Skipworth, H. (2014) Logistics Management and Strategy: Competing

through the Supply Chain. (5th ed.) Pearson.

Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2017) Operations Management: Sustainability and Supply Chain

Management. (12th ed.) Pearson.

Neely, A. D. (2007) Business Performance Measurement: Unifying Theories and Integrating Practice.

Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

Savitz, A. W. & Weber, K. (2014) The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Companies Are Achieving

Economic, Social and Environmental Success – and How You Can Too. Indianapolis: Jossey-Bass.

Slack, N. Brandon-Jones, A., & Johnston, R. (2016) Operations Management (8th Ed). Pearson.

UN (2018) Supply Chain Sustainability Report. (2nd ed.) UN Global Compact.

(http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/supply_chain/SupplyChainRep_spread.pdf).

Recommended journal articles

Aitken J., Childerhouse, P., Christopher, M., & Towill D. (2005) Designing and managing multiple

pipelines. Journal of Business Logistics 26(2) pp. 73–96.

Andic E., Yurt, O., & Baltacioglu, T. (2012) Green supply chains: Efforts and potential applications for

the Turkish market. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 58 pp. 50–68.

Baltacioglu T., Ada E., Kaplan, M.D., Yurt, O., & Kaplan, C. (2007) A new framework for service supply

chains. Service Industries Journal 27(2) pp. 105–124.

Bourne, M., Kennerley, M., & Franco-Santos, M. (2005) Managing through measures: A study of impact

on performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 16(4) pp. 373–395.

Chavez, R., Gimenez, C., Fynes, B., Wiengarten, F., & Yu, W. (2013) Internal lean practices and

operational performance: The contingency perspective of industry clockspeed. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management 33(5) pp. 562–588.

3

Christopher, M., Mena, C., Khan, O., & Yurt, O. (2011) Approaches to managing global sourcing risk.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16(2) pp. 67–81.

Christopher, M. & Ryals, L.J. (2014) The supply chain becomes the demand chain. Journal of Business

Logistics 35(1) pp. 29–35.

Cooper, M. C., Lambert D.M., & Pagh J. D. (1997) Supply chain management: More than a new name

for logistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management 8(1), pp. 1–14.

Ellram, L.M., Tate, W.L., & Billington, C. (2004) Understanding and managing the services supply

chain. Journal of Supply Chain Management 40 pp. 17–32.

Ferdows, K. (1997) Making the most of foreign factories. Harvard Business Review 75(2), pp.73–87.

Ferdows, K. & De Meyer, A. (1990) Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: In search of

a new theory. Journal of Operations Management 9(2) pp. 168–184.

Fisher, M. (1997) What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Review 75(2) pp.

105–116.

Fisher, M., Hammond, J., Obermeyer, W., & Raman, A. (1994) Making supply meet demand in an

uncertain world. Harvard Business Review 72(3) pp. 83–92.

Gereffi, G. & Lee, J. (2012) Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains. Journal of Supply

Chain Management 48(3) pp. 24–32.

Hesping, F.H. & Schiele, H. (2015) Purchasing strategy development: A multi-level review. Journal of

Purchasing and Supply Management 21(2) pp. 138–150.

Juttner, U., Peck, H., & Christopher, M. (2003) Supply chain risk management: Outlining an agenda for

future research. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 6(4) pp.197–210.

Kaplan, R. S. & David, N. (1992) The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard

Business Review 70(1) pp. 71–79.

Van Duin, J.H.R., van Dam, T., Wiegmans, B., Tavasszy, L.A. (2016) Understanding financial viability

of urban consolidation centres: Regent street (London). Transportation Research Procedia 16 pp. 61–80.

Ward, P.T., McCreery, J.K., Ritzman, L.P., & Sharma, D. (1998) Competitive priorities in operations

management. Decision Sciences 2 pp. 1035–1046.

Wong, C.Y., Boon-itt, S., Wong, C.W.Y. (2011) The contingency effects of environmental uncertainty

on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational performance. Journal of Operations

Management, 29 pp. 604–615.

Yildirim C., Oflac S. B., & Yurt O . (2018) The doer effect of failure and recovery in multi-agent cases:

Service supply chain perspective. Journal of Service Theory and Practice 28(3) pp.274–297.

Yu, W. (2014) Cooperative purchasing in small and medium-sized enterprises. In: U., R. & R., R. (eds.)

Supply Chain Strategies, Issues and Models. Springer. pp. 193–208.

Yu, W. (2015) The effect of IT-enabled supply chain integration on performance. Production Planning

& Control 26(12) pp. 945–957.

Yu, W., Chavez, R., Feng, M., & Wiengarten, F. (2014) Integrated green supply chain management and

operational performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19(5–6) pp. 683–696.

4

Further case studies

Adıvar, B.O., Yurt, O. (2009) Line Haul Optimization for OFLT Inc: A Teaching Case Study. Journal of

Advances in Management Research. 6(2) pp. 206–219.

Yurt, O. & Karabas, I. (2016) Internationalisation process of a worldwide leading company – Get more

electronics: A teaching case study. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies 7(1) pp. 1–14.

Relevant academic journals

• Journal of Supply Chain Management

• Journal of Operations Management

• Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

• International Journal of Operations & Production Management

• International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management

• Industrial Marketing Management

• Production and Operations Management (POM)

• Manufacturing & Service Operations Management

Relevant trade journals and newspapers

• Supply Chain Management Review

• CSCMP’s Supply Chain (Quarterly)

• Global Trade

• Logistics Management

• Food Logistics

• Supply and Demand Chain Executive

• Supply Management

• Supply Chain Frontiers

• Financial Times

• Management Today

How will your work be assessed?

Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use either the marking criteria provided in the

section “Instructions for assessment” or the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix, as appropriate for

this module. When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that

you can use it to improve future assignments.

Referencing and submission

You must use the Harvard System.

The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted

via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must

not include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further

general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information at StudentZone,

http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/howtostudy/index.html.

5

Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attend your

presentation

The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website: Mitigating

Circumstances Policy

Marking and feedback process

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there

are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks

which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.

• Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback

will be provided.

• Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment

brief.

• Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking

team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback

• Step Four – Work then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm

that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair

• Step Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you.

Additional instructions for re-sit: Individual Report

The same assignment task as for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit, with further instructions

see below.

Re-sit deadlines will be published via Moodle. Visit the module’s Moodle site and check your

Roehampton email account on a regular basis. The school is not obliged to check whether you have noticed

re-sit deadlines.

You are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective

commentary in form of a 400-700 words Essay. You must resubmit your work using the specific re-sit

Turnitin link on Moodle. This additional word count can be added on top of the original word count of

this assignment, if you used the full word count.

The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid in Appendix) except that the 10% weighting

for Presentation, Logical structure, English expression, correct referencing will be awarded instead to

your additional Reflective Essay section. That is, a statement demonstrating how you learnt from the

feedback and what you did differently the second time. Also reflect how the module contents could be

beneficial as knowledge of best practices for a future management, public administration or advisory

career.

If you did not submit work at the first opportunity, you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, in

such case, your Reflection Essay section should reflect upon a) how the module’s concepts are informing

the professions and open up areas of future empirical research and b) how the module contents could be

beneficial as knowledge of best practices for your future management, public administration or advisory

career.

6

If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece

as this is a first submission at a later date, not a re-sit.

The Reflective Essay is marked based on the criteria of Criticality and Evidence-based Logic of

arguments. It is an independent writing task and no supervision will be provided for conducting the essay.

7

Appendix A: Marking rubrics for Summative assessment

Component: Individual Report (Company case analysis)

Rubric

category

(range)

Assigned mark

>>

_____________

_______

Marking

criteria

(weight out of

100)

Outstanding

100

Excellent

(80-89)

85

Very Good

(70-79)

75

Good

(60-69)

65

Adequate

(50-59)

55

Marginal

Fail (40-49)

45

Fail

(30-39)

35

Fail

(20-29)

25

Not

done

0

Criteria 1:

Analysis and

discussion

(30%)

Cannot be

improved on.

Exemplary in all

aspects.

Outstanding

analysis.

Excellent

level of

discussion/

analysis/

critical

evaluation

&/or

reflection.

Highly

developed/

focused

work.

Very good

level of

discussion/

analysis/

critical

evaluation

&/or reflection

clearly

developing

points in the

appropriate

way with

thorough

consideration

of alternatives.

Good level of

discussion/

analysis/

critical

evaluation &/or

reflection & a

few

ideas/points

could benefit

from further

development

&/or

evaluation/com

parison.

Satisfactory

level of

discussion/

analysis but

more

ideas/points

could be

addressed

/developed

further.

Basic

evidence of

analysis/ or

reflection but

some points

superficially

made so

needs further

development.

Relevant

issues poorly

identified,

discussed and

analysed.

Very poor

analysis

and

discussion.

Missing.

Wholly

incorrect

or not

attempte

d.

Criteria 2:

Application of

the theory

(30%)

Cannot be

improved on.

Research

includes

Operations

Management

journals, core

Excellent use

of theory.

Impressive

choice and

range of

appropriate

content.

Very good

use of theory.

Evidence of a

wide range of

appropriate

reading.

Research

Good use of

theory.

Evidence of a

Good range of

appropriate

reading.

Research

Satisfactory

use of theory.

Range of

appropriate

reading is

satisfactory.

Research

Adequate

use of

theory. May

benefit from

further

research.

Limited

Insufficient

use of theory.

Limited

range of

sources are

used.

Little attempt

Little

research

and use of

theory.

Very

limited

range of

Missing.

Doesn’t

meet the

basic

assessme

nt

criteria.

8

and essential

text books from

the reading list

and web sources

and grey reports.

Bibliography

and citation are

very strong.

Research

includes

Supply Chain

and

Operations

Management

journals, core

and essential

text books

from the

reading list

and web

sources and

grey reports.

includes

Supply Chain

and

Operations

Management

journals, core

and essential

text books

from the

reading list

and web

sources.

includes some

academic

journals and

text books

from the

reading list.

Scope for more

breadth though

includes

competent

attempt at

one or two

academic

journals, text

books and

online

sources.

More breadth

needed.

research

often not

including

academic

journals or

text books.

made at

researching

the topic. A

few websites

or a couple of

books cited.

sources.

Little

attempt

made at

researchin

g the topic.

For

example,

just a

website or

a text book

cited.

Criteria 3:

Conclusions

and

recommendatio

ns

(30%)

Outstandingly

clear concluding

comments

encompassing

key points made

as well as some

good practical

suggestions.

Cannot be

improved.

Excellent

clear

concluding

comments

encompassin

g key points

made.

Excellent

suggestions

are made.

Very good

concluding

comments

encompassing

key points

made. Very

good

suggestions

are made.

Good

concluding

comments

encompassing

key points

made. Good

suggestion(s)

is/are made.

Limited but

satisfactory

concluding

comments

offered.

Some basic

conclusions

drawn from

the work but

no real

summary

offered.

Limited

conclusions

drawn, and

often reader

has to find

these within

the work.

Conclusion

is some

repetitive

sentences.

Missing.

Doesn’t

meet the

basic

assessme

nt

criteria.

Criteria 4:

Presentation,

Logical

structure,

English

expression,

correct

referencing

(10%)

Exemplary in all

aspects.

Cannot be

improved on.

Professional

standard

presentation,

engaging and

powerful use of

English.

Excellent

structure to a

practised

presentation,

excellent and

engaging use

of English.

Faultless

referencing

throughout

the

assignment.

Very good

structure to a

practised

presentation,

very good use

of English.

High standard

of spelling &

grammar.

Very good

referencing

Good

structure to a

practised

presentation,

good use of

English.

Good standard

of spelling &

grammar.

Minor errors in

the referencing

Evidence of a

satisfactory

structure,

practised

presentation,

competent

English

expression.

Few errors in

spelling &

grammar.

An adequate

attempt to

structure

presentation

clear

English,

most parts of

the question

attempted.

Few spelling

&

grammatical

Some but

insufficient

evidence of

presentation,

English

lapses.

A number of

spelling and

grammatical

inaccuracies.

Failure to cite

all references

Little

structure to

the

presentatio

n and poor

use of

English.

Many

spelling &

grammatic

al errors

Poor

Missing.

Doesn’t

meet the

basic

assessme

nt

criteria.

9

throughout the

assignment.

of others. Few errors in

the

referencing

of others.

errors

Most

references

are presented

appropriately

in the main

text.

List of

references is

correct.

in the main

text.

Incomplete

reference list.

structure

Inconsisten

t use of

referencing

in the main

text

Incorrect

reference

list.