Why E-Commerce Returns Create Bottlenecks in the UAE: A Supp…

attached docs for your reference it guide you to the assignment (2) outline and the requirement. please go over the attachment and the below instructions.1) What the writer must deliver (non-negotiables)

Write a Case Study Analysis Report (~2500 words) that:

• uses ONE framework only as the single lens (do not compare frameworks; do not list multiple frameworks),
• explains ONE real local UAE case (not hypothetical),
• and applies the framework step-by-step to show:
• how it maps to the case,
• where misalignment/weakness is,
• what the framework explains well.

Also required:

• Include a section on what the framework explains well vs what it doesnt.
• Include Reflection & insights that is NOT a solutions section (reflection = assumptions, fit, limits, adaptation).
• Use the structure: Introduction & case context Chosen framework (theory) Application Analysis Reflection & insights References.

2) Lock the case (real + local) before writing

The writer must choose one UAE e-commerce platform and one product category.

Pick one platform (choose one and stick to it):

• Amazon UAE (Amazon.ae)
• Noon

Define the case boundary (must be explicit):

• From: customer initiates a return (return request, label, pickup request)
• To: final disposition decision + refund completed (restock/refurbish/liquidate/reject + refund/credit issued)

Evidence the writer must gather (minimum pack):

1. Returns policy page (eligibility, time window, condition rules)
2. Screenshots of the return steps (initiation pickup/drop-off tracking status refund status)
3. At least 2 pieces of pain evidence (e.g., customer reviews about refund delays, disputes, missed pickups)
4. One real return journey timeline (dates + what happened at each step), ideally the students own experience
5. Any UAE-specific context trigger (sale event, seasonal peak, Ramadan/Eid shopping)

3) Choose ONE framework (recommended)

Use Supply Chain Complexity / Dependency Mapping as the single framework lens.

What the writer must do in the theory section:

• Define the framework clearly using academic sources.
• Explain core ideas in simple language:
• supply chains as interconnected nodes,
• material vs information dependencies,
• high-dependency nodes create fragility,
• small disruptions can cause large downstream effects,
• dependency/power dynamics can help explain why coordination doesnt improve.

Important: Present this as one coherent framework. Do not add Lean/TOC/Agile/Digital SCM as additional frameworks.

4) The CORE writing steps (main marks come from this)

The report must walk through the framework step-by-step and apply it to the case.

Step 0 Case brief (150250 words)

Describe:

• what is happening (returns creating delays, cost leakage, value loss),
• what symptoms are observed (refund delays, status uncertainty, disputes, missed pickups, backlog),
• why it matters (customer experience, cost, inventory recovery).

Step 1 Define system boundary and key nodes

Write the boundary explicitly and list the nodes (tailored to the platform):

• Customer
• Platform returns portal and customer support
• Seller/merchant (if marketplace model)
• Courier/3PL pickup or drop-off network
• Returns receiving hub
• Inspection and grading station
• Disposition decision owner (restock/refurb/liquidation/reject)
• Inventory system and resale channel
• Finance/refund processing

Deliverable: a short paragraph + a simple node diagram or bullet map.

Step 2 Map critical dependencies (material vs information)

Separate the flows:

• Material dependencies: pickup, transport, receiving, movement to inspection, movement to resale/refurb channel.
• Information dependencies: authorization, label issuance, tracking updates, inspection result recorded, dispute decision, refund authorization.

Deliverable: a table like:

• Dependency Upstream input Downstream activity blocked if missing/late.

Step 3 Identify high-dependency nodes and structural fragility

Select 35 fragility nodes and explain why they create queueing and delay, for example:

• Inspection/verification (everything waits on pass/fail/grade)
• Refund authorization (rules and approvals)
• Pickup capacity (missed pickups cause rework loops)
• Exception handling (missing parts, damage disputes, eligibility rejections)

Deliverable: Fragility nodes table:

• Node Why fragile What failure looks like Impact.

Step 4 Explain how disruption propagates (chain reaction)

Include a clear propagation narrative, e.g.:

• Sale peak return surge receiving backlog inspection queue grows refund queue grows customer contacts increase support workload rises resolutions slow further more dissatisfaction/escalations.

Deliverable: one bullet chain or simple diagram.

Step 5 Power/dependency insight (optional, but strong)

If included, keep it inside the same dependency lens:

• Customers depend heavily on platform policy and decisions.
• Sellers depend on platform dispute outcomes.
• Couriers can become a bottleneck during peaks.
• Fragmented decision rights cause negotiation, delays, and inconsistent outcomes.

Deliverable: short paragraph connecting power/dependency to instability.

Step 6 What the framework explains well vs what it doesnt

This must be explicit, with two sub-sections:

Explains well (examples):

• why delays repeat (dependency concentration)
• why queues form at inspection/refund nodes
• why small spikes create outsized impacts

Does not explain well (examples):

• precise cost quantification (needs cost model and internal data)
• exact performance metrics across nodes (needs operational timestamps)
• consumer behaviour drivers behind returns (may require behavioural theory)

5) Required report structure + word split

Use this structure and approximate word allocation:

1. Introduction & case context (300400)
2. Chosen framework (theory, cited) (600800)
3. Application to the case (largest section) (11001300)
4. Analysis (what it explains / where it struggles) (300450)
5. Reflection & insights (250400)
6. References + Appendices (evidence log, tables/diagrams)

6) Reflection rules (to avoid losing marks)

Reflection must not be a recommendations list.

Reflection must address:

• What the framework helped explain and why.
• Where the framework is weak for this case and why.
• Which assumptions may not hold in UAE e-commerce returns.
• What adaptation would make the framework more practically useful (conceptual adaptation, not a long fixes list).

7) Visuals/tables the writer should include

1. Node map of the returns network
2. Material vs information dependency table
3. Fragility nodes table
4. Disruption propagation chain
5. Evidence log (source what it proves where used)

8) Final quality checklist (must pass)

• Only ONE framework is used.
• One real UAE case is used and supported by evidence.
• Application section is the largest and step-by-step.
• Explains well vs doesnt is included explicitly.
• Reflection is not a solutions section.
• No invented facts or fake citations.