BBABM311 SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT (5 ECTS)

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 1 BBABM311 SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT (5 ECTS) Academic year 2025/26 Semester/Term Summer I Participation in all assessment activities stated in this document is required. The minimum pass grade for the course is 70. Deadlines are always in Geneva time. MINOR ASSESSMENTS Task 1.1 : Forum Assessment type : Forum Due : 12 June 14:00 CEST Weight : 5% Description : Describe a simple real-life supply chain for a company that you choose and identify its main steps. Task 1.2 : Forum Assessment type : Forum Due : 19 June 14:00 CEST Weight : 5% Description : Participate in a forum discussion by analyzing a recent case such as Tesla’s demand forecasting miss, explaining what the company expected, what actually happened, and why the forecast proved inaccurate. Your forum posts must meet the following requirements : Submit a post (150-215 words) and respond to at least one peer (75-110 words). ASSESSMENT 1 (MIDTERM) Task 1.3 : Case Study Assessment type : Written assignment Due : 29 June 14:00 CEST Weight : 30% Description : Read the provided case carefully and answer the questions. INSTRUCTIONS Case Study: Decathlon Supply Chain Operations Company Overview Decathlon is a global sporting goods retailer headquartered in France, operating over 1,700 stores in more than 70 countries. The company generates annual revenues of over €15 billion and offers a wide range of affordable sports products under its own brands. Decathlon’s business model is vertically integrated, with strong control over product design, sourcing, and distribution, allowing it to offer competitive prices while maintaining quality.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 1 Supply Chain Structure Suppliers: A mix of owned production facilities and external manufacturers, primarily located in Asia and Europe. Manufacturing: Decathlon designs most of its products in-house and outsources production, while keeping strategic control over key categories. Distribution Centers: Regional distribution centers across Europe, Asia, and other key markets, supplying both stores and e-commerce channels. Transportation: Combination of sea freight (for cost efficiency), road transport (for regional distribution), and limited air freight (for urgent replenishment). Retail & Online Fulfilment: Stores act as both retail outlets and fulfilment points for online orders (click & collect and home delivery). Business Model Challenges Customer Expectations: Customers expect a wide product range, low prices, and fast availability both in-store and online. Managing availability across many product categories is complex. Product Variety: Decathlon offers thousands of SKUs across multiple sports, creating challenges in inventory planning and space allocation. Demand Variability: Demand varies by season (e.g., winter vs. summer sports), geography, and trends in sports participation. Inventory Management: Overstock in slow-moving products ties up capital, while stockouts in popular items lead to lost sales. Sustainability Pressure: Increasing expectations to reduce carbon emissions in transport and improve product sustainability. Technology: Decathlon uses integrated IT systems but is exploring further digitalization, including data analytics for demand planning and supply chain optimization. Financial Snapshot (Approx.): Revenue: ~€15 billion Net Profit Margin: ~6–7% Inventory Turnover: Moderate (varies by category) E-commerce Share: Growing rapidly Strategic Objectives Improve product availability across stores and online channels Reduce excess inventory and improve turnover Enhance supply chain sustainability (lower emissions, eco-design products) Strengthen omnichannel capabilities Increase efficiency in logistics and distribution Case Questions • How should Decathlon balance the trade-off between inventory holding costs and product availability in its online operations? • Compare the suitability of anticipatory vs. responsive models for Decathlon retail model. Which would you recommend and why? • What are the potential advantages and risks of postponement strategies? • Propose strategies for managing working capital efficiently in Decathlon’s supply chain. • Recommend working capital management practices for ensuring sustainability and profitability.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 1 FORMAT Your submission must meet the following formatting requirements: Written Assignment • Number of files for submission : 1 • Required file format for submission : PDF o Word count : 1,900 ±10% (excluding references and appendices) All refencing and citations require Harvard referencing style . Students must avoid plagiarism and use the Harvard Referencing Guide and Turnitin to ensure that their sources are correctly cited. Plagiarism includes the use of artificial intelligence tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Grammarly, or similar) when output is copied and pasted from these sites. Students should also note that they must submit new and original work for every attempt. Submitting the same work for multiple assessments is considered an academic offence and may result in disciplinary action. For further guidance, please refer to the Academic Policies and Procedures Manual and the Student Good Practice Manual in AI Literacy available on the Student Services page for further details. Go to the next page.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Forum Fail 0 - 59% B orderline fail 60 - 69 % Fair 70 - 79% Good 80 - 89% Exceptional 90 - 100% Posts reflect insufficient mastery of content, with frequent inaccuracies and misunderstanding of key concepts. Contributions rarely link to course materials or peers’ posts, failing to support discussion. Engagement with others is minimal or irrelevant. Posts are often late, limiting interaction. Tone, clarity, and professional conventions are frequently neglected. Posts demonstrate limited achievement, with partial understanding and superficial or inconsistent application of concepts. Links to course materials and peer contributions are weak, and discussions lack depth. Engagement with others is minimal, often restricted to brief or repetitive responses. Posts are mostly on time but rarely stimulate extended peer interaction. Professional conventions are inconsistently applied, with occasional lapses in tone, clarity, or respect. Posts show sound understanding of content, generally applying concepts and terminology accurately, though with some minor gaps or inconsistencies. Connections to course materials and peers’ posts are clear and contribute to discussion, but critical engagement is limited. Engagement with others is constructive, typically through elaboration or clarification of ideas. Posts are timely, supporting meaningful interaction. Professional conventions are generally adhered to, with clear, respectful communication. Posts demonstrate high - quality understanding, with consistent, accurate use of concepts and terminology. Ideas are strongly connected to course materials and professional contexts, providing insightful or applied examples. Engagement with peers is meaningful, often extending discussion through critical questioning, elaboration, or reflection. Posts are consistently timely and enhance forum dialogue. Conventions are well followed, with professional, clear, and respectful communication throughout. Posts exhibit exceptional mastery and critical insight, with precise, sophisticated, and nuanced use of concepts and terminology. Contributions make strong connections to course materials, research, and professional practice, offering original perspectives or critical analysis. Engagement with peers is proactive, challenging, and expanding discussion in substantial ways. Posts are consistently timely and foster a rich, collaborative forum environment. Professional conventions are exemplary, with polished, articulate, and highly respectful communication. Written Assignment Fail 0 - 59% B orderline fail 60 - 69 % Fair 70 - 79% Good 80 - 89% Exceptional 90 - 100% Purpose , Understanding & Content 25% Purpose is unclear or absent. The work demonstrates serious misunderstandings or confusion regarding key concepts. Content lacks relevance or depth, and arguments are either missing or unsupported by evidence. An attempt is made to address the task, but the purpose is vague or inconsistently applied. Some relevant concepts are included, but analysis is weak or descriptive. Key ideas may be misapplied or underdeveloped. The purpose is mostly clear and appropriate to the level. Demonstrates a competent grasp of the topic, though some gaps in understanding may remain. Arguments are generally supported, with limited but relevant insight. Clear, coherent and well - supported purpose. Demonstrates strong conceptual understanding and the ability to apply knowledge with increasing independence. Arguments are logical and appropriately evidenced. Purpose is focused and intellectually engaging. Demonstrates excellent understanding and thoughtful application of complex ideas. Content is accurate, nuanced, and supported by robust evidence. Analytical insight is sustained throughout. Organisation & Coherence Lacks logical progression. Paragraphs or sections are disconnected or poorly ordered. Basic structure is present but inconsistently applied. Sections may be repetitive or misaligned. Organisational structure is sound, with clear sections. Flow may be occasionally awkward, Well-organised and coherent. Each section contributes to a logical progression of ideas. Structure is sophisticated and purposeful, guiding the reader through a well-crafted argument.

ASSESSMENT BRIEF 1 20% No clear introduction or conclusion. Difficult to follow. Transitions are weak, and flow is uneven. but the reader can generally follow the argument. Transitions are smooth, and the structure enhances clarity. Transitions are seamless, and the organisation enhances impact. Introduction and conclusion are incisive and effective. Communication & Expression 15% Communication is ineffective, with frequent language or structural errors that obscure meaning. Tone is inappropriate for academic work. Meaning is occasionally unclear due to language issues or lack of fluency. Academic tone is inconsistently applied. Written or spoken delivery lacks confidence or clarity. Communication is mostly clear and appropriate, though occasional language issues or stylistic lapses may affect readability. Generally suitable academic tone. Clear and fluent academic communication with only minor errors. Style is professional and well-suited to the discipline. Oral delivery is confident and articulate. Language is precise, fluent, and engaging. Tone and style are highly appropriate, demonstrating command of academic discourse. Oral or written communication is confident, polished, and compelling. Authenticity, Critical Thinking & Integration 20% No critical thinking or originality is evident. Work relies on description or unexamined ideas. Ideas are not connected or developed. No synthesis or evaluation. Some attempt at original thought, but arguments are basic and underdeveloped. Little engagement with opposing perspectives. Connections between ideas are weak. Shows evidence of critical thinking and evaluation. Some original insights and attempts to synthesise ideas are present but not fully developed or consistently maintained. Demonstrates thoughtful, analytical engagement. Critical perspectives are explored, and independent judgement is evident. Good integration of ideas from various sources. Original, reflective, and critically sophisticated. Demonstrates synthesis across concepts, sources, or frameworks. Offers compelling, well-argued insights supported by evidence and evaluation. Use of Sources & Referencing 20% Uses few or no appropriate sources. Citations may be absent or incorrectly formatted. Work may contain plagiarism or demonstrate poor academic integrity. Some attempt to use sources, but integration is weak or inappropriate. Referencing is inconsistent and may include significant formatting errors. Relevant sources are used, but not always effectively integrated. Citation style is mostly accurate, though some inconsistencies may be present. Limited engagement with the source material. Uses a good range of credible, relevant sources. Referencing is accurate and enhances the credibility of arguments. Shows clear understanding of academic practice. Sources are expertly chosen, critically evaluated, and integrated seamlessly. Referencing is precise and fully compliant with academic conventions. Demonstrates deep engagement with scholarly material.