EXTERNAL PROGRAMMES

School of Management and Languages

Examiners Report

Course: Operations Management 1 / Operations Management 2

Examination Diet: June 2014 Stage: Three

Part I Overall Comments must be completed by EACH examiner

Results this diet was slightly higher than in December but not as high as in June 2013. Overall, students seemed to
struggle less with providing examples and it was pleasing to see that some students were attempting to refer to
examples from their own countries. Some of the examples given in the text class were reproduced inaccurately and
occasionally out of context or too simplified to remain relevant.
Across the centres, students struggled with providing answers that addressed all parts of the question and often
ignored the second half of the question, writing anything about a key word they picked up or only responding to
selected aspects of the question. There were also several incidents of students producing answers frequently to a
high standard to questions that had been asked on the Operations Management exams in previous diets but bore
little resemblance to the ones included in the exam papers this time. Lack of relevance was shown, for example in
question A1 where some students produced long discussion about the evolution of thinking in OM and the
development of the system prior to any discussion of POs. Performance across centres varied

Part II Section Comments

Section A Overall:
Question A1 was by far the most popular question. Most students answered this one. A3 proved to be the most
challenging question in this section, as students often failed to grasp it fully.

Question A1:
This question yielded some good quality answers regarding the discussion of the performance objectives, with most
students who passed discussing all 5 performance objectives and providing appropriate examples. However, there
was generally little discussion of the wider context and the interrelationships between the objectives or links with
strategy. Examples were not always provided and in most cases lacked accuracy and detail. Furthermore,
similarities among the examples discussed by each centre have been observed. Students did not seem to attempt
own examples, they mostly included common examples most likely used by the lecturer in order to enhance their
understanding on the various topics. These examples remembered from lectures were then simplified so much that
they lost any relationship with the performance objectives they were meant to illustrate. Among the most astonishing
examples of this was the discussion of the Lockerbie bombing as an example for dependability, which often
happened along the lines of there was a lack of dependability because the airline killed people and then they went
bankrupt.
Few students among all centres mentioned or used Polar Diagrams. Many students discussed the use of a balance
scorecard instead.

Question A2:
This question looked at different types of manufacturing and service processes but some students misjudged this
and discussed manufacturing types. Most students were able to correctly identify the process types and to illustrate
with a figure. Examples were provided quite consistently, but were often vague. Unfortunately, many students did not
discuss service types at all, but focussed solely on the first part of the question, which lead to a significant loss of
marks. . It was clear that the average student had little understanding of any process types in the context of
operations management theory (in this case, even the specific framework of the 4 Vs analysis, which was often
excluded from answers). Some answers lacked any discussion as they merely listed the names of the process types
and many limited their answers without including discussion of the differences between products and services or
their anomalies. Furthermore, few students provided in depth evaluation of the differences of various factors among
process types.
Question A3:
This question was the least popular choice in Section A. It looked at the performance improvement approach. Very
few students managed to explain the step-by-step process followed for performance improvement. Many other
processes were discussed; most popular among those was the product design process. Where some relevance was
provided we tried to allocate marks but answers were not usually absolutely correct. Consequently, Question A3
attracted low marks.

Section B Overall:
B1 was the most popular choice in this section. B3 proved the most challenging question in this section for most
students.

Question B1:
Most students were able to correctly identify the key inventory types. However, some students got rather more
creative in inventing new types of inventory. The accuracy and level of detail of the explanations varied considerably.
Better students used diagrams, but there was a consistent use of examples. Several students launched into wider
discussions of inventory policies without addressing the inventory types. At times students produced new terms for
inventory types or incorporated unrelated aspects of operations management theory. Very few answers included the
identification of buffer, cycle; pipeline etc. types of inventory, and where these were included, often basic concepts
were misunderstood. Several students misidentified pipeline inventory as physical liquid inventory traveling along a
pipeline, and buffer and anticipatory types where included were often confused or combined.
Common observation among all centres is that the decoupling inventory was not identified or discussed. Many
students discussed inventory related costs and how EOQ can be used to optimise orders. However, only few
students expanded their answers to include ABC, Pareto, or graphical representation of inventory costs.

Question B2:
This question was split into 2 sections. In section 1 types of waste identified through lean was expected. In the
second part, different approaches to eliminate waste was asked for. Often students listed specific techniques or
approaches in isolation without demonstrating any broader understanding of underlying purposes (streamlining flow,
matching supply & demand, etc.). A very basic understanding of the lean philosophy was shown in all of the answers
to this question. Several students managed to identify the wastes, but very few addressed ways to eliminate them.
Notably, several students provided answers focussed on ways to reduce waste and to increase recycling which
showed no understanding of the question being asked. Many students did not tackle part 2. Some candidates
related this question to JIT or general lean philosophy, thus they addressed the question partially as their answers
included only some of the anticipated elements and did not provide an in depth evaluation of waste types and
elimination techniques. Moreover, in some cases students discussed waste in an everyday life context rather than in
a lean philosophy related context.

Question B3:
This question looked at different improvement techniques used in quality control. Students did not comprehend this
question. Most focussed on the word quality and discussed definitions and aspects of it. The ones that picked up on
total quality, provided explanations of TQM but comparisons between techniques was rare and discussion of quality
management techniques was brief or incomprehensive.