Page 1 of 10Graduate School of Business and Law—BUSM4738 StrategyAssessment 2: Individual case study assessment Assessment type: Case Study ReportWord limit: 2250 (+/- 10%)Due Date: Sunday of Week 5, 23:59(Melbourne time)Weighting: 30% OverviewYou are required to understand the strategy problems and opportunities for the organisation at thenetwork, corporate, business, and functional levels. You will develop a strategy for the organisation in thecase study.The purpose of this assessment is expose you to a strategic perspective on issues that concern anorganisation. Case study analysis solution development is a classic strategy course assessment task inbusiness schools. Case study assessment allows students to gain insight by understanding andexperiencing a variety of businesses across industries in a range of countries.Assessment criteriaThis assessment will measure your ability to develop an academically informed case analysis that will beassessed against its:• Overall impact of the case report: Structure, referencing, and written style (20%)• Quality of identification and analysis of External, Industry Environment Analysis and CriticalSuccess Factors (15%)• Quality of identification and analysis of Company analysis (15%)• Quality of identification and analysis of SWOT analysis (15%)• Quality of recommendations: Recommendations, solutions, strategies, and related consequences(35%).Page 2 of 10Course learning outcomesThis assessment is relevant to the following course learning outcomes: CLO1Apply business concepts to construct a strategic plan for a businessCLO2Create a sustainable competitive strategy for an ongoing business entityCLO3Develop strategies alternatives using design thinking to facilitate organisationaldecision- making and problem solvingCLO4Demonstrate an understanding of legal, ethical social, economic, and environmentalimplications of business processes Page 3 of 10Assessment detailsAvailability:The case study for this assessment will be provided on the Friday of Week 3, via an announcement fromyour facilitator.Word limit:Executive summary of 250 words, report of 2000 words, excluding words in pictures, tables, figures, andreferences.It is critical that you remember that the assessment is targeted towards senior management reading andtherefore should be clear, accurate and efficient.Submission file type:Adobe PDF or Microsoft Word.How to succeed in this assessment:The practice case studies will be available to students in Week 1. All the information needed to respondto the case is provided in the case, the text, and online materials.Students should analyse the case situation and make recommendations as to what the company and/orindividual(s) in the case should do. The analysis should address four issues:• External, Industry Environment Analysis and Critical Success Factors (15%)• Company Analysis (15%).• SWOT (15%).• Recommendations, including justifications, of how the organisation should address these keyissues (35%). The recommendations should be consistent with the analysis and address all majorissues identified in the analysis.The subject facilitator will be looking for students to identify, prioritise and address the key issuesimpacting shareholder and stakeholder value. Attention should also be given to the logic of the argumentwithin the constraints of the report — giving authenticity to the assessment task (20%).All relevant University Policies on assessment apply.This assessment will be, hence, conducted across the following section:Section 1: Overall impact of executive summary, business report, writing quality and referencingIncludes the overall favourable impact of the executive summary and the report. The executive summaryis to be a succinct explanation of the content of the report — identifying the “big issues” in the case studyand giving insight into the recommendations. The report is to have appropriate headings, be well written,clear, and referenced appropriately. The case itself should not be referenced and, hence, included in thereference list. English grammar and spelling to be at an industry standard – that is, perfect. Report withinthe word limit.Section 2: External environment analysis, industry analysis, critical success factor identificationand prioritisationPage 4 of 10Explanation of external environment elements (i.e., political, economic, social, technological, legal,environmental) and how they influence the firm and the industry. Includes the development of a Porterfive forces industry analysis. Elements extracted from the case study should be well chosen andprioritised. Elements are to be clearly explained and for the five forces analysis, a weighting is given tothe strength or weakness of the force. Critical success factors required for survival in the industry areidentified and then prioritised for the firm for the next 12 to 24 months.Section 3: Company analysisStrategy of the organisation and the business or businesses are carefully explained. The Porter genericposition (e.g., low cost, differentiation) should be accurately and carefully explained. Key stakeholdersand their values are identified, understood, and explained. Functions of finance, marketing, humanresources, operations, and information technology and if applicable R & D explained clearly. Two tothree well considered facts for each of these functions are to be identified and prioritised for explanation.Strong answers will distinguish core, high priority information from peripheral matters.Section 4: SWOT analysisAn accurate appraisal of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats is conducted. The SWOTis to be balanced with the benchmark five key points for each of S, W, O and T. This is a thinkingexercise — in that when the SWOT is balanced, it encourages students to take a 360-degree view of thecase study, rather than simply focusing on strengths and missing key issues in W, O and T.Section 5: RecommendationsRecommendations that are well thought out and written will have a positive influence on shareholderand/or stakeholder value. A particular recommendation may influence shareholder value only orstakeholder value only — but part of the assessment here is the overall internal consistency andfavourable impact of the recommendations overall. For each recommendation, students are to give insightinto the benefits and/or the costs (e.g., shareholder value, profits, free cash generation, reducedenvironmental emissions), the timeframe required to deliver, and the critical success factors areaddressed.Below is an outline of the sections that you must report on in your submissions.Section 1: Executive summaryPrepare an executive summary that succinctly explains the essence of your report, including the “big”issues in the case study impacting shareholder and stakeholder value, critical success factors and aninsight into your recommendations for the organisation.Section 2: External environment, industry analysis and critical success factorsExternal environment analysis: Explanation of external environment elements (i.e., political, economic,social, technological, legal, environmental) and how they influence the firm and the industry.• Industry analysis: Development of a Porter five forces industry analysis. Elements extracted fromthe case study should be well chosen and prioritised. Elements are clearly explained and for thefive forces analysis, a weighting given to the strength or weakness of the force.• Critical success factor identification and prioritisation: Critical success factors required forsurvival in the industry are. identified and then prioritised for the firm for the next 12 to 24 months.Page 5 of 10Section 3: Company analysis• Explain case study organisation strategy, businesses, key stakeholders, and their values. Strategyof the organisation and the business or businesses are carefully explained. The Porter genericposition (e.g., low cost, differentiation) is accurately and carefully explained. Key stakeholders andtheir values are understood and explained.• Prepare an analysis into the functions of the business. Functions of finance, marketing, humanresources, operations, and information technology and if applicable, R&D are explained clearly.Two to three well considered facts for each of these functions are to be identified and prioritised forexplanation. Strong answers will distinguish core, high priority information from peripheral matters.Section 4: SWOT analysisAn accurate appraisal of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The SWOT to bebalanced with as a benchmark five key points for each of S, W, O and T.Section 5: Recommendations• Recommendations for shareholder and stakeholder value added overall. Part of theassessment is the overall internal consistency and favourable impact of the recommendationsoverall.• Impact of individual recommendations on shareholder and/or stakeholder value. For eachrecommendation, students are to give insight into the benefits and/or the costs (e.g., shareholdervalue, profits, free cash generation, reduced environmental emissions), the time frame required todeliver, and the critical success factors are addressed.Page 6 of 10Referencing guidelinesUse RMIT Harvard referencing style for this assessment.You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.Refer to the RMIT Easy Cite referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in theappropriated style. You can also refer to the library referencing page for more tools such asEndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.Submission formatUpload as one single file via the Assignments submission page within Canvas.Academic integrity and plagiarismAcademic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledgingthe work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge and ideas.You should take extreme care that you have:• Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you havequoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in yourassessment through the appropriate referencing methods• Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source ifnecessary. This includes material taken from Internet sitesIf you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarismbecause you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriatereferencing, as if they were your own.RMIT University treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct.Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:• Failure to properly document a source• Copyright material from the internet or databases• Collusion between studentsFor further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the University website.Assessment declarationWhen you submit work electronically, you agree to the assessment declaration.Page 7 of 10 CriteriaRatingsPtsHDDCPNDNSCriterion 1Overall impact of thecase report:Structure,referencing, andwritten style (20%)The case report iswritten in clearand concisewrittenexpressions withaccurate grammarand spelling. Thestructure of thereport is accurateand welldeveloped, alwaystargeting thespecific audience.All key conceptsare well defined.The reportincludes highlyaccurate citationsand referencingusing the Harvardreferencingsystem.The case report iswritten in goodwritten expressionswith mostlyaccurate grammarand spelling. Thestructure of thereport is mostlyaccurate and welldeveloped,targeting thespecific audiencemost of the time.Key concepts aremostly defined. Thereport mostlyincludes highlyaccurate citationsand referencingusing the Harvardreferencing system.The case reporthas less clearwritten expressionswith many grammarand spelling errors.The structure of thereport is less clear.It is less clear whothe target audienceis. Some keyconcepts are notwell defined. Thereport includesconsistent errors incitations andreferencing usingthe Harvardreferencing system.The case report iswritten in basicwritten expressions.Grammar andspelling requireadditional supportfor improvement.The structure of thereport is basic. It ismostly not clearwho targetaudience is. Keyconcepts mostlyare not welldefined. The reportincludes multipleinconsistent andincorrect citationsand referencingusing the Harvardreferencing system.The case report hasundevelopedexpressions, poorgrammar, andspelling. Requiresadditional support forimprovement. Thestructure of thereport is poor, notaddressing thespecific targetaudience. Poor or nodefinitions of the keyconcepts. The reportincludes mostlyincorrect citationsand referencingusing the Harvardreferencing system.This criterion wasnot addressed.6.0 to >4.794.79 to >4.194.19 to >3.593.59 to >2.992.99 to >00 pts6ptsCriterion 2Quality ofidentification andanalysis of External,IndustryEnvironmentOutstandingdescription ofExternal, IndustryEnvironmentAnalysis and CriticalSuccess Factors.Expert-levelextraction of the keyGood descriptionof External,IndustryEnvironmentAnalysis andCritical SuccessFactors. Mostlyexpert-levelSatisfactorydescription ofExternal, IndustryEnvironmentAnalysis andCritical SuccessFactors.SatisfactoryBasic description ofExternal, IndustryEnvironmentAnalysis andCritical SuccessFactors. Lack of thekey supportingpieces ofPoor description ofExternal, IndustryEnvironmentAnalysis and CriticalSuccess Factors.Almost no supportingpieces of informationfrom the case. PoorThis criterion wasnot addressed. Page 8 of 10 Analysis and CriticalSuccess Factors(15%)supporting pieces ofinformation from thecase. Outstandingresearch to supportthe analysis: wellbeyond therecommendedreadings. Highquality of thechosen academicsources.Outstandingdemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theanalysis.extraction of thekey supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe case. Goodresearch tosupport theanalysis: beyondthe recommendedreadings. Mostlyhigh quality of thechosen academicsources. Gooddemonstration ofhow specifictheories assistand support theanalysis.extraction of thekey supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe case.Satisfactoryresearch to supportthe analysis:reliance mostly onrecommendedreadings; too manydirect quotes. Lessuse of solid andreliable academicsources to supportthe analysis.Satisfactorydemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theanalysis.information fromthe case. Basicresearch to supportthe analysis:reliance onrecommendedreadings. Minimumuse of solid andreliable academicsources to supportthe analysis. Basicdemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theanalysis.quality or noresearch conductedto support theanalysis with almostno use of theacademic sources.Poor demonstrationof how specifictheories assist andsupport the analysis.4.5 to >3.593.59 to >3.143.14 to >2.692.69 to >2.242.24 to >00 pts4.5ptsCriterion 3Quality ofidentification andanalysis of Companyanalysis (15%)Outstandingdescription of thecompany analysis.Expert-levelextraction of the keysupporting pieces ofinformation from thecase. Outstandingresearch to supportthe analysis: wellbeyond therecommendedreadings. Highquality of thechosen academicGood descriptionof the companyanalysis. Mostlyexpert-levelextraction of thekey supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe case. Goodresearch tosupport theanalysis: beyondthe recommendedreadings. Mostlyhigh quality of theSatisfactorydescription of thecompany analysis.Satisfactoryextraction of thekey supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe case.Satisfactoryresearch to supportthe analysis:reliance mostly onrecommendedreadings; too manyBasic description ofthe companyanalysis. Lack ofthe key supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe case. Basicresearch to supportthe analysis:reliance onrecommendedreadings. Minimumuse of solid andreliable academicsources to supportPoor description ofthe companyanalysis. Almost nosupporting pieces ofinformation from thecase. Poor quality orno researchconducted to supportthe analysis withalmost no use of theacademic sources.Poor demonstrationof how specifictheories assist andsupport the analysis.This criterion wasnot addressed. Page 9 of 10 sources.Outstandingdemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theanalysis.chosen academicsources. Gooddemonstration ofhow specifictheories assistand support theanalysis.direct quotes. Lessuse of solid andreliable academicsources to supportthe analysis.Satisfactorydemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theanalysis.the analysis. Basicdemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theanalysis.4.5 to >3.593.59 to >3.143.14 to >2.692.69 to >2.242.24 to >00 pts4.5ptsCriterion 4Quality ofidentification andanalysis of SWOTanalysis (15%)Outstandingdescription ofSWOT analysis.Expert-levelextraction of the keysupporting pieces ofinformation from thecase. Outstandingresearch to supportthe analysis: wellbeyond therecommendedreadings. Highquality of thechosen academicsources.Outstandingdemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theanalysis.Good descriptionof SWOTanalysis. Mostlyexpert-levelextraction of thekey supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe case. Goodresearch tosupport theanalysis: beyondthe recommendedreadings. Mostlyhigh quality of thechosen academicsources. Gooddemonstration ofhow specifictheories assistand support theanalysis.Satisfactorydescription ofSWOT analysis.Satisfactoryextraction of thekey supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe case.Satisfactoryresearch to supportthe analysis:reliance mostly onrecommendedreadings; too manydirect quotes. Lessuse of solid andreliable academicsources to supportthe analysis.Satisfactorydemonstration ofhow specificBasic description ofSWOT analysis.Lack of the keysupporting piecesof information fromthe case. Basicresearch to supportthe analysis:reliance onrecommendedreadings. Minimumuse of solid andreliable academicsources to supportthe analysis. Basicdemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theanalysis.Poor description ofSWOT analysis.Almost no supportingpieces of informationfrom the case. Poorquality or noresearch conductedto support theanalysis with almostno use of theacademic sources.Poor demonstrationof how specifictheories assist andsupport the analysis.This criterion wasnot addressed. Page 10 of 10 theories assist andsupport theanalysis.4.5 to >3.593.59 to >3.143.14 to >2.692.69 to >2.242.24 to >00 pts4.5ptsCriterion 5Quality ofrecommendations:Recommendations,solutions, strategies,and relatedconsequences (35%)Accurate andobvious use oftheories andconcepts from theanalysis to deviserecommendations,strategies,solutions, andrelatedconsequences,which areactionable,innovative, anddirectly linked backto a) External,IndustryEnvironmentAnalysis and CriticalSuccess Factors; b)Company analysisand c) SWOTanalysis.Mostly accurateand obvious useof theories andconcepts from theanalysis to deviserecommendations,strategies,solutions, andrelatedconsequences,which are mostlyactionable,innovative, anddirectly linkedback to a)External, IndustryEnvironmentAnalysis andCritical SuccessFactors; b)Company analysisand c) SWOTanalysis.Less accurate andobvious use oftheories andconcepts from theanalysis to deviserecommendations,strategies,solutions, andrelatedconsequences,which are notalways actionable,innovative, anddirectly linked backto a) External,IndustryEnvironmentAnalysis andCritical SuccessFactors; b)Company analysisand c) SWOTanalysis.Basic use oftheories andconcepts from theanalysis to deviserecommendations,strategies,solutions, andrelatedconsequences,which are mostlynot actionable,innovative, and notdirectly linked backto a) External,IndustryEnvironmentAnalysis andCritical SuccessFactors; b)Company analysisand c) SWOTanalysis.No or poor use oftheories andconcepts from theanalysis to deviserecommendations,strategies, solutions,and relatedconsequences,which are notactionable, notinnovative, and notdirectly linked backto a) External,Industry EnvironmentAnalysis and CriticalSuccess Factors; b)Company analysisand c) SWOTanalysis.This criterion was notaddressed.10.5 to >8.398.39 to >7.347.34 to >6.296.29 to >5.245.24 to >00 pts10.5ptsTotal:30 pts
