PayCargo Supply Chain Logistics Case Study (2023)

Supply chain management is a complex field that involves the coordination of goods, services, and information from suppliers to consumers. Within this, there are a wide range of activities, including sourcing, producing, coordinating, and distributing. As the global supply chain becomes increasingly more complex, business leaders are turning to technology solutions to help automate, improve, and streamline supply chain management processes.

Challenge

The aim of this case competition is to identify and propose innovative solutions to improve the processes associated with supply chain management.

For this case competition you will:

Explore each of the case challenge areas to familiarize yourself with some select challenges in the industry.
Analyze which business processes, stakeholders, and technology systems may be impacted by the challenge areas.
Propose a supply chain management system solution in the form of a business case to address the challenge areas.

Challenge Areas:

Digitization of documents – this involves the process of converting paper documents into digital formats, such as PDFs or other electronic formats. Digitization can involve scanning paper documents and saving them electronically, as well as creating digital versions of documents directly using software.
Paperwork and complex processes related to dangerous goods - Paperwork for dangerous goods in supply chain management involves the preparation and submission of detailed documentation to authorities and other parties involved in the transport of these goods. This can include manifests, safety data sheets, certificates of origin, and other documents that provide context on the nature and appropriate processes for handling of goods. Paperwork for dangerous goods can be complex and time-consuming and may require specialized knowledge and expertise.
A single system for managing different documents - These can include contracts, invoices, packing lists, customs declarations, and other documents that are necessary for different stages of the supply chain. Without a single system for managing these documents, it can be difficult to ensure consistency, accuracy, and compliance with relevant regulations and standards.
Validating drivers and insurance at container exchange - Different organizations may have different processes and criteria for validating trucks and drivers, which can make it difficult to ensure consistency and regulatory compliance. This can lead to confusion and delays and can also increase the risk of errors or accidents. The process of validating trucks and drivers may involve manual steps, such as checking multiple documents or verifying information, which can be subject to human error. Furthermore, the information used to validate trucks and drivers, such as licenses and insurance, may be inaccurate or outdated, which can compromise the safety and security of the goods being transported.
Use of documents in multiple languages - Documents in multiple languages can be a challenge in supply chain management, as they can require additional time and resources for translation and interpretation. This can result in delays and inefficiencies and can also increase the risk of errors or misunderstandings.

Proposals should also address following areas in response to the challenges above:

Cost and resources: Digitizing processes can require considerable time, effort, and resources, including software, hardware, and personnel to manage the process. This can be a barrier for smaller organizations or those with limited budgets.
Security and privacy: Digital documents may be vulnerable to cyber-attacks or unauthorized access, which could compromise sensitive information or lead to data breaches. Ensuring the security and privacy of digital documents is essential.
Compatibility and interoperability: Different systems and software may have different formats and standards for digital documents, data, and business processes, which can make it difficult to share or exchange information across different platforms. Ensuring compatibility and interoperability is important for efficiencies with supply chain management.
Training and adoption: Many employees may be unfamiliar with digital documents and digital processes and may need training in using new systems and workflows. This can be a barrier to successful adoption and implementation of digital solutions.
Legal and regulatory considerations: Different countries and regions may have different laws and regulations regarding the use of digital documents, particularly regarding their validity and enforceability. It is important to consider these legal and regulatory requirements when implementing digital solutions in supply chain management.

Participants should also consider the implications of their proposed solutions for the overall supply chain and should develop a high-level plan for the implementation of a supply chain management system as part of their competition submission.

What is it that my team and I will need to submit?

A business case in the form of a Word document with a proposal for a supply chain management system that addresses all the challenge areas, which includes an analysis of the potential benefits, costs, and risks associated with implementation of a supply chain management system, along with a sample high-level plan for implementation by Tuesday February 28th Deadline Extended! Sunday, March 5. The submission is expected to include wireframe diagrams/mockups/graphics/business process diagrams that support the overall proposal.

Formatting requirements: double spaced lines, size 12 font, APA format without an abstract.
Content requirements (narrative of overall analysis/findings to not exceed 5 pages in length, excluding the title page, references, and the appendix):

A title page which specifies the name of the participants (does not contribute to the total page count)
An executive summary
Narrative of overall analysis/findings (wireframe diagrams/mockups/graphics/business process diagrams that support the analysis can be included here, or in the appendix. If referencing wireframe diagrams/mockups/graphics/business process diagrams in the overall analysis/findings section, please include a reference to where this can be found in the appendix. Including wireframe diagrams/mockups/graphics/business process diagrams in the narrative of the overall analysis/findings contributes to the total page count)
References (APA format, does not contribute to the total page count)
Appendix (does not contribute to the total page count)

Finalists will be notified by ~~Tuesday, March 7~~th Friday, March 10 and will be required to submit a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the team’s proposed supply chain management system solution by March 28th, in preparation for a 10–15-minute presentation in front of a judging panel at the AIS (Association for Information Systems) SCLC on March 30th.

Submit Here

What happens after you submit:

You will receive a confirmation email acknowledging your entry.
Finalists will be notified by email on ~~Tuesday, March 7~~th Friday, March 10.
Finalists will present their work in front of the judging panel at the AIS SCLC on Thursday, March 30th.

Helpful materials:

Visualization and Infographic Tools

Competition Rules

Teams are limited to 4 members.
The project submission must be entirely the work of the student team. While faculty and other individuals can help review the submission, they should not contribute to the content of the report or the solution.
Incomplete submissions will not be considered.
The contest materials must be submitted by the due dates. Late submissions will not be accepted, and no extensions will be given.

Pay Cargo Supply Chain Logistics Case Study

Prizes

First place: $2,000 per team

Second place: $1,000 per team

Third place: $500 per team

Please contact ais@fiu.edu with questions about this competition.

Judging Criteria

Quality of the analysis/solution proposed (Word document submission evaluation criteria):

Criteria	Exceeds Expectations	Meets Expectations	Needs Improvement	Inadequate
Novelty/creativity/innovativeness	4 – The team demonstrated an original and potentially unexpected approach to the analysis and/or proposal of solution(s).	3 – The team demonstrated a mostly original approach to the analysis and/or proposal of the solution(s).	2 – The team demonstrated a mostly original approach to the analysis and/or proposal of the solution(s), with several elements that were not particularly innovative.	1 - The team developed an unoriginal approach to the analysis and/or proposal of the solution(s), with few or no elements of innovation.
Insight	4 – The team provided interesting and meaningful findings and interpretations.	3 – The team provided mostly interesting and meaningful findings and interpretations.	2 – The team provided somewhat uninteresting findings and weak interpretations.	1 – The team provided uninteresting or weak findings and interpretations.
Relevance	4 – The team’s analysis relates to the problem statement and utilizes the appropriate tools and techniques.	3 – The team’s analysis mostly relates to the problem statement and utilizes mostly appropriate tools and techniques but may have some areas of irrelevance.	2 – The team’s analysis is somewhat unrelated to the problem statement, and/or utilizes inappropriate tools and techniques, with several areas of irrelevance.	1 – The team’s analysis is unrelated to the problem statement and/or utilizes inappropriate tools and techniques, with numerous areas of irrelevance.
Scope	4 – The team incorporated an adequate amount and variety of data analysis and/or research used appropriately in the solution proposal(s).	3 – The team incorporated a mostly adequate amount and variety of data analysis and/or research but may have had a few minor areas where more research or data was needed, or the data or the research was not utilized as effectively as it could have been.	2 – The team incorporated a somewhat inadequate amount or variety of data analysis and/or research, with several areas where more data or research was needed or where the data or the research was not utilized effectively.	1 – The team incorporated an inadequate amount or variety of data analysis and/or research with numerous areas where more data or research was needed or where the data or research was used ineffectively.
Utility	4 – The team drew accurate conclusions and were clear about the implications for the proposal.	3 – The team drew mostly accurate conclusions and were mostly clear about the implications for the proposal but may have had a few instances of inaccuracy or unclearness.	2 – The team drew somewhat inaccurate conclusions and/or were unclear about the implications for the proposal, with several areas of inaccuracy or unclearness.	1 – The team drew inaccurate conclusions and/or were unclear about the implications for the proposal, with numerous areas of inaccuracy or unclearness.

Quality of the presentation of the analysis and/or solution (PowerPoint + presentation):

If a team is selected as a finalist, they will be required to present and will be evaluated per the following rubric. The following rubric will be used to determine the winners of the overall competition.

Criteria	Exceeds Expectations	Meets Expectations	Needs Improvement	Inadequate
Clarity	4 – The presentation and analysis provided a well-organized, complete, and clear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached.	3 – The presentation and analysis provided a generally clear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached, but may have had a few minor areas of confusion.	2- The presentation and analysis provided a somewhat unclear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached, with several areas of confusion.	1 – The presentation and analysis provided an unclear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached, with numerous areas of confusion.
Consistency	4 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were logically and reasonably consistent with the data analysis and research conducted.	3 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were mostly logically and reasonably consistent with the data analysis and research conducted.	2 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were somewhat inconsistent with the data analysis and research conducted, with several inconsistencies.	1 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were inconsistent with the data analysis and research conducted, with numerous inconsistencies.
Quality and Effectiveness	4 – The presentation and analysis utilized suitable visuals and delivery styles that work together to create a convincing and compelling narrative.	3 – The presentation and analysis utilized mostly suitable visuals and delivery style, to create a somewhat convincing and compelling narrative.	2 – The presentation and analysis utilize somewhat unsuitable visuals and delivery style that inadequately create a convincing and compelling narrative.	1 – The presentation and analysis are of poor quality and do not effectively communicate the intended message.
Engagement	4 – Multiple team members presented. Overall, the team members exhibited command of the topic and a sense of passion and enthusiasm for the ideas presented.	3 – Multiple team members presented, but some team members may have struggled to command the topic or show passion and enthusiasm for the ideas presented.	2 – Not all team members presented, and the team struggled to command the topic or show passion and enthusiasm for the ideas presented.	1 – Not all team members presented, and the team did not show command of the topic or passion or enthusiasm for the ideas presented.
Documentation	4 – The team identified all sources of data and research and provided links to data sources and other documents, with all supporting research properly cited.	3 – The team identified sources of data and research and provided links to data sources and other documents but may have had a few minor errors in citations.	2 – The team identified most sources of data and research and provided links to some data sources and documents but had several errors in citations.	1 – The team did not identify all sources of data and research and provided few or no links to data sources or documents, with numerous errors in citations.