Description

• RQ is okay but the explanation on how the student arrived to is not very thought through. For instance, talk about warehousing in RQ but never mentioned before (only mentioned supply chain in general)
• RO b and c are basically the same - not sure relevance of both of them
  

• 2.1 is high-level SC management theory and possibly not focussed on the key topic of the dissertation. Also not very well written jumping from a general SC definition and then ’sustainable SC’. Also, the coffee supply chain is not explained (which is the topic of the dissertation)
• 2.2 okay but could have been summarised better
• 2.3 try to explain the technologies within the whole industry but fails as it only talks about the production stage in 2.3.1 and then switchs to 2.3.2 ‘coffee supply chain technologies’. Why production was chosen? Why putting ‘blockchain’ first? also introduces concepts without explaining them (e.g. IoT).
• the whole 2.3 talks of the list of technology - there is not enough focus on the key topic of the dissertation - warehousing.
• 2.4 not very well written - quite confusing to read 
• there is no conclusive chapter to pull everything together - what do I take from this literature review?
• very little discussions of how businesses are operating - for example through a case study (one of the original feedback was to use case studies) to support the literature review findings

• what is 3.2 population? confusing
• 3.3, 3.4 are written okay and provides a decent explanation on the systematic lit review
• 3.5 is okay and try to put a structure on the analysis approach
  

• the chapter has changed very little from the previous submission
• why this would not be included in the Lit review being a secondary research dissertation? confusing the location of this chapter within the overall structure
• very brief subchapters - too ‘bitty’ and difficult to follow and still written in ‘isolation’ (one of the original feedback)
  

• overall it feels still like a ‘literature review. one of the feedback was to structure lit review (i) coffee industry; (ii) supply chain (iii)technology; and then discuss problems and solutions in the discussion. 
• There is an attempt of focussing on coffee and warehousing but it still feels there is a lack of analysis - these chapters could be put into a literature review as they are nearly the same of literature review ones!. there is no focus on the problems to find a solution. 
• there are many examples of ‘copy' from the literature review and include nearly the same sentences in the discussion chapter. (i) 5.5.1 timestamp technology is very similar to  2.3.2 B; (ii) 5.5.4 Drones - many sentences are taken exactly as it was in literature review 2.3.2 D.
• Student changed very little from original submission
• 5.1 should talk about technology innovation etc, but it mainly talks about legal aspects
• also, it is confusing on why from regulation there are graphs about ‘coffee producers’ (table 5) not linked with the discussion 
• it is still a list of various technology (given as feedback) more than a well thought a discussion on the main dissertation topic
  
• 5.2 is so short and quite irrelevant
• 5.3 now talks about SC automation in general, whereas 5.1 talked about warehousing - why in this order? from specific to generic? very confusing. 
• 5.4 talks about benefits - where are the barriers? it must be a balanced view. Also it could have been benefitted by using tables to synthesise
• 5.5 talks about the production - not sure the relevance with the warehouse topic. Also, many of the chapters are a repetition of the literature review
• 5.6 define again supply chain like in literature review, why?
• 5.7 supply chain strategy - why is it in the discussion while was not in the literature review? and why as the last chapter of discussion? 
  

• does not explain enough how the RQ and RO are met - one of the feedback provided was that
• talks very generic and does not focus with the warehouse and technology element - what are the problems and what are the solutions
• recommendation are very weak
• limitations are also weak