Assessment criteria

<40% (Fail)

40-44% (Pass)

45-49% (3rd class)

50-59% (2.2 )

60-69% (2.1)

70-79 % (1st class)

80 % and above

(1st class)

Spreadsheet (40%)

Determined by the points allocated to each component of the simulation exercise (MS Excel file). Points are allocated exclusively depending on the accuracy of the formulas used and the consistency of the results. The numerical results, being random, cannot be evaluated. It is expected that, due to the random nature of the exercise, the results will be completely   different for each submission.

Analysis and discussion of the results (40%)

No attempt made to present an

analysis of the

results. No attempt for answering the questions that

appear in the

statement of the problem.

A mere and superficial

description of the

results without

analysis. Minor

attempt to answering

the specific

questions in the statement.

Shows an attempt for analysing the numerical results of the simulation.   The answers to the questions are

somehow correct but lack depth.

Provides a more

detailed analysis of the numerical results of the simulation.

The answers to the questions are

generally correct.

Clear and detailed analysis of the

numerical results of the

simulation. The answers to the

questions are correct.

In depth analysis of

the simulation results. Use of graphical and   statistical tools to

support the discussion and the answers to the questions.

Shows a serious attempt to deploy critical analysis.

Excellent and well-

grounded analysis of

the simulation results. Use of graphical and

statistical tools to

support the discussion. The answer to all the

questions is correct and reflects a high level of  critical analysis.

Use of academic literature (10%)

No attempt is made to link the exercise with the academic literature.

Provides an informal definition of the

bottleneck in process design, but the link with the exercise is loose.

Provides a more

formal definition of bottleneck. Shows a reasonable

understanding of the concept of

bottleneck in

industrial processes and establishes a link with the results of

the simulation. The discussion has a

weak link with

academic literature.

Provides a formal

definition of bottleneck appropriate for the

context and shows a

better understanding of the concept of

bottleneck. Establishes

a link between

concepts and the results of the

simulation. The

discussion is grounded in academic literature. However, the

discussion is still

limited and the link

with a real case is still weak.

Provides a formal definition of

bottleneck appropriate for the context and

shows a good

understanding of the    concept of bottleneck. Establishes a stronger link between concepts and the results of the

simulation. The

discussion is grounded in academic literature.

Provides a realistic discussion of the

problem under analysis.

Provides a critical

discussion of the

concept and impact of bottlenecks in service  and industrial

processes and finds clear links with the results of the

simulation. Excellent

use of sources in

academic literature

provides practical

motivation and a sound discussion about the

available mechanisms for addressing

bottlenecks in the

presented exercise and in similar real-life

circumstances..

Presentation, structure, and style. of the report (10%).

Poorly formatted document. Poor grammar and

spelling errors.

A better organised document. Some grammar and spelling errors. Notables or graphical

support.

Well organised document. Minor grammar and

spell errors. Use of some graphical and or tabular support.

Very well organised

and written document. Includes well designed graphical and/or

tabular support.

Excellently written and

very well organised document with sound and informative

tabular, and graphical support.