Q Module 1: Harvard Case Assignment (Supply Chain Hub in Global Humanitarian Logistics) (available thru the Harvard Coursebook that you have to purchase) Case: Supply Chain Hubs in Global Humanitarian Logistics by (Links to an external site.)Jon M. Stauffer, Alfonso Pedraza Martinez, and Luk N. Van Wassenhove (the case is not linked here - it is included in your Harvard Coursepack) Citation: Stauffer, J.M., Martinez, A.P., and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2017). Supply Chain Hubs in Global Humanitarian Logistics. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD. 17 Pages. IN1316-PDF-ENG. Decentralized supply chains - with a greater number of hubs and depot locations - are designed to be more responsive to disasters around the globe by getting primary relief items such as food, water and medicines to beneficiaries quickly. This case explores the centralized vs. decentralized tradeoff for the secondary support supply chain of an international humanitarian organization (IHO). Using data from a real organization (unnamed), it asks whether supply chains for secondary support items should be the same as those for primary relief goods, and how earmarked funds impact the supply chain configuration. It presents information on donations, secondary support demand and response in mega disasters, and optimized data and simulation results. These allow for extensive data analytics, interpretation, and Excel modeling skills to be utilized, as well as students' intuition. The following is an article - not a case - of the same concepts from the same authors. If you read the introduction and conclusion you may get some insight into the case for this module. Stauffer Martinez Wassenhove Temp Hubs-1.pdf Actions Learning Objective 1. Understanding the trade-offs between centralized and decentralized humanitarian supply chains; 2. The impact of earmarked funding on humanitarian supply chains and decision making; 3. Differences between humanitarian and commercial supply chains; 4. Variations in humanitarian demand: the supply chain for food and water may differ from that of 4WD support vehicles and building supplies. Prompt: Assignment description: Each student will answer the following four questions. Students should limit their responses to information they ‘gleen’ from the readings as well as any relevant current events (don’t spend a lot of time finding current events – 99% of the ‘details’ / information will be in the readings. If you do additional research – which is always encouraged (in every course) - seek out research sources through the Steely librarians (online) as well as consider performing extensive research online with regard to the questions. In addition, a number of universities have information sources which may be helpful (and free). Students are not expected to pay for information. If you are having difficulty seeking information, contact the instructor for assistance. Once again, all the relevant information is available in the Harvard Coursebook collection that you purchased. You should not need to seek outside (of the Harvard Coursebook) information. Students should plan on writing at least 1000 words (250 per question; approx. 15 lines of text) This assignment is due no later than 23:59 EST on Sunday of Week 1 and must be submitted via Canvas. Questions to answer: (use questions #’s or heading to separate your answers) 1. Should supply chain for secondary support items be the same as the supply chain for the primary beneficiary demand? 2. How centralized versus decentralized should the secondary support supply chain be for 4WD vehicles? 3. How does earmarked funding impact the supply chain configuration decision? 4. How do you connect the learning from the case to the learning from the Core reading? Pick a topic (i.e. types of supply chains, frameworks, etc.) and dive into details. Instructions: 1. All posts should be done by 23:59 EST Sunday of Week 1. 2. References and 'proper' academic style citing of the references are required. Points will be lost by a lack of references or the improper citation of references. Points will not be gained by proper use of references or citations. They are expected to be utilized. The references most likely will be from one of the articles in the Harvard 1. Remember: Interactions are in writing – business style or essay style are acceptable. 2. A majority of your text in bullets is not acceptable. Grading Rubric Your assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric. Rubric Assignment Rubric Assignment Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommand of Learning Materials 55 to >49.0 pts Excellent • Shows thoughtful, analytical interpretation of module materials and/or case content. • Demonstrates significant original thought that goes beyond the obvious. • Explicitly references module or case materials relevant to analysis. 49 to >42.0 pts Acceptable • Relies primarily on summarizing module materials and/or case content. • Demonstrates some original thought. • Does not explicitly reference module or case materials relevant to analysis. 42 to >0 pts Not So Good • Little or no connection to relevant module learning materials or case content. • Demonstrates no original thinking. 55 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResponse to Assigned Task 55 to >49.0 pts Excellent • Addresses all aspects of the assignment prompt or case question(s) fully, in appropriate depth and detail. 49 to >42.0 pts Acceptable • Addresses most aspects of the assignment prompt or case question(s) but misses a small part. OR • Addresses all aspects of the assignment prompt or case question(s) but lacks appropriate depth or detail. 42 to >0 pts Not So Good • Non-responsive to significant aspects of the assignment prompt or case question(s). OR • Content not relevant to the assignment prompt or case question(s). 55 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Quality 40 to >36.0 pts Excellent • Clear, concise, and compelling. • Well organized thoughts. • Appropriate paragraph format. • No grammatical or mechanical errors. • Follows all assignment format instructions (e.g., document length). 36 to >30.0 pts Acceptable • Very minor difficulty in understanding content. • Somewhat disorganized thoughts. • Lack of appropriate paragraphing. • Minor grammatical or mechanical errors. • Some assignment format instructions not followed. 30 to >0 pts Not So Good • Significant difficulty in understanding content. • Extremely disorganized thoughts. • No paragraphing. • Multiple grammatical or mechanical errors. • No assignment format instructions followed. 40 pts Total Points: 150 PreviousNext