Customer Experience / Business Management / Marketing
2,500 words
Customer Experience Strategy Analysis in the Global Quick-Service Restaurant Industry
This MSc assessment requires students to produce a 2,500-word business report critically analysing the customer experience (CX) strategy of a major organisation operating within the global quick-service restaurant industry. Students must select one company from Starbucks, McDonald’s or Chipotle Mexican Grill and focus their analysis on the organisation's customer experience strategy within one clearly identified country. The report is written from the perspective of a CX consultant and is intended for the chosen company's Board of Directors. The assessment first requires students to explain the concept and strategic importance of customer experience and evaluate how CX contributes to business success. This includes examining the mutually beneficial relationship between the organisation and its customers, assessing the impact of CX on business and financial performance, and using company-specific examples to demonstrate how customer experience can create competitive advantage. A major part of the report focuses on the organisation's ability to deliver a seamless omnichannel customer journey. Students must develop a research-informed customer persona covering customer profile, goals, pain points and motivations, and then construct a detailed customer journey map addressing stages, needs, activities, feelings, pain points and opportunities for improvement. The effectiveness of the organisation's existing customer journey must then be critically evaluated and practical areas for improvement identified. Students must also evaluate three customer experience metrics, examining their benefits, limitations and relevance to the selected brand. The final part of the report critically evaluates the organisation's customer-centric culture in the context of increasing digitalisation, with specific consideration of CX leadership, CX governance and one additional critical success factor such as people, organisational structure, strategy, process or innovation. The report must be presented in an academic business-report format with an automatic table of contents, page numbering, consistent formatting and 1.5 line spacing. Academic sources, figures, diagrams and independent research must be appropriately cited using the Harvard Referencing System. Important for the public library: because the brief allows three different companies and any country, keep the Reference Library title generic unless the uploaded past work is specifically based on one brand. If the actual completed assignment is on Starbucks, McDonald’s or Chipotle, I can give you a more specific title and key topics for that exact work.
Read Model Answer →
Operations and Supply Chain Management
1,800 words
Strategic Sourcing and Supply Chain Resilience Under Global Uncertainty — A Firm-Level Critical Evaluation
This type of postgraduate coursework asks students to take a single real firm — a British company, or a multinational with substantial UK operations — and critically evaluate how its sourcing and supply chain strategy has adapted to a decade of sustained disruption: the pandemic, geopolitical conflict, tariff volatility, and departure from the European single market. The analytical scope is broad but the depth expectation is narrow. Students choose one or two themes rather than surveying all of them: insourcing versus outsourcing and location decisions; single versus multi-sourcing across supplier segments or regions; how supplier selection and monitoring criteria have shifted toward reliability and geographic proximity; alignment between sourcing decisions and wider corporate objectives; supplier and customer relationship management under cross-border friction; inventory tactics such as stockpiling and safety stock repositioning; digital adoption for visibility and compliance; sustainable sourcing under cost pressure; or risk management around currency, customs and compliance. The evidence base is deliberately mixed. Alongside academic literature, students are expected to draw on annual reports, shareholder briefings, company statements, practitioner journals and recent news coverage — with a minimum spread of credible sources across both categories, and some of the non-academic material drawn from the most recent year so the analysis reflects current firm behaviour rather than historical commentary. At least one theoretical framework from the module or the wider literature must be applied to the firm's decisions, and at least one recent documented practice must be examined with specific sourcing. Two requirements distinguish strong submissions. The first is criticality: the brief explicitly separates evaluation from description, and marks weight critical analysis most heavily. Reporting what a firm did is not the task; assessing whether it was the right response, and what opportunities and risks it created, is. The second is the recommendation — at least one specific, actionable proposal with steps, anticipated obstacles, expected outcomes, and a clear line back to the firm's own stated goals. A generic suggestion to "diversify suppliers" fails this test; a costed, sequenced proposal grounded in the firm's actual constraints does not. Word-count conventions are stricter than students often expect: in-text references, tables, illustrations and front matter typically count, while appendices and the reference list do not. Our support on assessments of this type is guidance-based. Typical areas of help include: narrowing a firm and theme so the analysis fits the word limit, explaining the difference between description and critical evaluation with worked examples, clarifying how a theoretical framework should structure an argument rather than sit decoratively in a paragraph, checking source mix and Harvard referencing consistency, and reviewing a completed draft against the published assessment weightings.
Read Model Answer →