Assignment: Case Study
Description Marks out of Wtg (%) Due date
Case Study 1 (2000 words) 40 40 10 December 2017
Please
see the case titled ‘Home Pharmaceuticals’ in the assignment forum on
study desk. This case is applicable to both Case Study Assignment and
the examination. You are required to analyse this case and answer the
questions below.
Important instructions:
A. The format of
presenting the case study answers is indicated in the assignment
questions below. Please note that neither a report format nor essay
format is required; just follow the format and instructions in the
assignment questions below. A general introduction and conclusion to the
case study should not be included.
B. Word count: The word count is
2000 words. A word count between 1800 and 2200 (10% +/- 1 800) is
acceptable. If the word count is exceeded, only the first 2200 words
will be marked and this will obviously have a negative impact on your
mark for the assignment. The word count excludes the title page, words
in the figures and tables and the List of References. In-text references
are included in the word count.
C. Theory support: As indicated in
the case study questions below, you are required to support your views
with theory. To ensure depth and credibility of your work, you need to
demonstrate that you read widely on the topic by including the views of a
wide range of theory sources. Theory sources include scholarly journal
articles researched through the USQ Library databases. The prescribed
text (Grant et al. 2014) as well as the course readings must also be
included as theory support. On postgraduate level it is expected that
research include about fifteen journal articles (excluding the course
readings and text).
D. References: Please note that information
obtained from the case study should not be referenced as the case study
is the base source of information for your assignment. Do not use the
course Study Book (or any other study books) as a reference source. All
ideas and data presented in-text, must be referenced according to the
Harvard AGPS method. The full reference of each source must be presented
in the List of References at the end of your document. Please see the
USQ Library website for help on how to use the Harvard AGPS method:
http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide
E.
Marking criteria sheet: It is important that you read through the
marking criteria when preparing your assignment to note the criteria
that assignments will be evaluated against. Please insert a copy of this
criteria sheet at the end of your document. Please insert a page break
at the end of your assignment before copying the marking criteria sheet
on the next page.
F. Submission: Only one document in Microsoft Word
(.doc or .docx) can be submitted. Please make sure that you submit the
correct file and the final version of your assignment. It creates
unnecessary problems if you submit the wrong file and we have to reset
your submission page.
G. It is extremely important that you submit
your assignment by the due date. We are learning about strategic
planning in this course and your ability to plan your time to ensure
that you meet the due dates is an important aspect of this course.
Please see the USQ policy on assignment submission, Point 4.2.4 ‘Late
submission of assignments’
http://policy.usq.edu.au/documents/14749PL#4.2_Assignments . This
policy, that outlines penalties for late submission, will be applied in
this course. Requests for extension to the due date can only be
considered if the guidelines in the policy are followed.
H. If you
have questions about the assignment, please post them on Case Study
Discussion Forum on Study Desk. Even if you don’t have questions, it is
important that you follow the discussions on this forum to make sure
that you are on the right track with your responses to the case study
questions.
Assignment questions:
After reading and analysing the
case Home Pharmaceuticals carefully, please respond to the following
questions. Use the headings and subheadings as shown below to present
your answers.
Title page
The USQ Cover sheet should not be
included. The first page of your assignment must be a title page where
the following information must be included:
• Assignment title
• Full name and student number
•
Actual word count (not the required word count but the actual number of
words in your assignment (excluding the title page, List of References,
and words in tables/figures).
• Email address or contact phone
number (If there is a problem with your assignment, it is useful to have
your details so that I can contact you directly).
Please present the title page as a separate page.
1. Summarise the Industry and Market Information (+/- 300 words)
Based
on the information provided in the case, summarise the industry and
market background for Home Pharmaceuticals. Present this in your own
words and outline aspects such as the industry in general, current
industry trends, competition in the industry, the state of the global
market, state of the Australian market, and any other fact that might be
relevant background that can be used in preparing future strategies.
2. Industry analysis: PESTEL Analysis (+/- 400 words)
2.1 Introduction
Explain
what the PESTEL tool is used for and how it assists in strategy
development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your text but
also other theory sources to add depth to your explanation. It is
important that you explain the link to strategy development here.
2.2 Figure 1: PESTEL analysis
Draw
the PESTEL framework as presented in your text, (Grant et al. 2014,
p.115) and populate each block with data from the case, using bullet
points. The six elements as well as the middle block, the industry
environment, must be populated. Make sure that the reader understands
what the case study fact is that you are identifying, one word in a
bullet point may not be sufficient. For instance, for the element
‘Political conditions’, you have to ask yourself what the political
situation in the country is and how this affects the pharmaceutical
industry. Australia is a politically stable country that directly
transpires to ease of doing business, government support as well as low
levels of corruption. Australia’s government is based on federal
parliamentary democracy, with religious tolerance, freedom of speech and
association. How do these facts affect the pharmaceutical industry?
Bullet points in the Political conditions block can include, for
instance: ‘*stable political situation supporting businesses’. As you
can see, more than one word in the bullet point is presented to clarify
the point.
For each element, identify a number of issues. The level
of analysis of your case will be demonstrated in the population of each
of the blocks.
Remember that the number of words included in the
framework are not included in the word count. Here you can demonstrate
the depth of your case analysis by including as many as possible
relevant bullet points. I strongly suggest that you make good use of the
frameworks!
2.3 Element narrative
From the bullet points
identified for each of the elements in the framework, identify the top
three (3) issues/environmental conditions that impact on the
organisation. These three can include individual bullet points or a
combination of the bullet points from one or more elements.
Explain
how these environmental conditions might influence the organisation
(Home Pharmaceuticals) in future and impact on future strategic
planning. Also note the impact of these environmental conditions on
suppliers, competitors and customers and how this impacts on future
strategic planning.
Here you need to add theory to support your views
(please see Point C & D above in the ‘Important Instructions
section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the
views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own
views rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
3. Industry Analysis: Porter’s Five Forces (+/- 400 words)
3.1 Introduction
Explain
what Porter’s Five Forces Framework is used for and how it assists in
strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your
text but also other theory sources to add depth to your discussion.
3.2 Figure 2: Porter’s five forces framework (extended version)
Draw
‘Porter’s Five Forces Framework Extended with Complements’ as presented
in your text, (Grant et al. 2014, p.134) and populate each block with
data from the case, using bullet points. Make sure that the reader
understands what the case study fact is that you are identifying, one
word in a bullet point may not be sufficient. Don’t forget the
Complements block!
Read Grant et al. (2014, pp. 121 – 134) for
information about what each force entails. Note that the case study
facts should be included here. It is very important that you are
specific about the case study here, applying the theory to the case.
Identify in the framework who the potential entrants, buyer and
suppliers are, also what the substitutes are. You need to consider here
the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, the switching costs for
suppliers, buyers and substitutes but also the threat of new entrants
and substitutes.
Remember that the number of words included in the
framework are not included in the word count. Here you can demonstrate
the depth of your case analysis by including as many as possible
relevant bullet points. I strongly suggest that you make good use of the
frameworks!
3.3 Forces narrative
From the bullet points
identified for each of the factors in the framework, identify the top
three (3) issues/industry conditions that impact on the organisation.
These three can include individual bullet points or a combination of the
bullet points from one or more of the factors.
Explain how the micro
environmental conditions (industry conditions) might influence the
organisation (Home Pharmaceuticals) in future and impact on future
strategic planning. Here you need to add theory to support your views
(please see Point C & D above in the ‘Important Instructions’
section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the
views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own
views rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
4. Industry Analysis: Key Success Factors (KSFs) (+/- 400 words)
4.1 Table 1: Key Success Factors
Draw
up a KSF Table similar to Table 4.2 (Grant et al. 2014, p.145) for the
pharmaceutical industry. Identify the external forces impacting on the
pharmaceutical industry, list the likely industry responses as a whole
(how the whole industry is currently responding to these forces) and
then list Key Success Factors for the industry. Pay special attention to
how you formulate these success factors (see Table 4.2 for examples) as
they will be carried over and used in the examination to develop a
range of strategies going forward.
4.2 KSF narrative
Theory
discussion: Explain what KSFs are, how KSFs are identified for an
industry, and how they are used in strategy development. Use theory to
support your explanations. Your text (Grant et al. 2014, pp.143-4)
explains the basic principles about how key success factors are
identified. Do not copy Figure 4.8 (Grant et al. 2014, p.144) or the
information from the text into your discussion. Here you need to add
theory from at least three (3) journal articles to provide depth to your
discussion.
5. Discuss the value of the rational models (such as
PESTEL, Five Forces and KSFs) in contemporary strategic planning. (+/-
500 words)
Theory discussion: The Module 2 Readings address the use
of strategic tools in modern strategic planning. In this section,
discuss the value and role of rational models in practice. Conclude with
your personal view about the issue, whether these strategic tools
should be used or not in strategy development.
In Section 2.3.2
Strategic Tools and their Use in Practice of your Study Book (Module 2,
p.11) the use of ‘technical rational’ models is addressed. Please do not
copy information from the study book into your answer in this section.
It is important that you read the views of the authors of the readings
(Module 2 Readings) and develop your own opinion about the usefulness of
these models in practice. In this section, additional theory sources
are not required, only the relevant Module 2 readings should be used as
theory to support your discussion. Remember to apply in-text referencing
of these readings (and of course full references in the List of
References) when you present the views obtained from these sources.
6. List of References
Include
here a list of full references of all the in-text references that you
included in your discussions. The case study should not be referenced
here but your text and readings that you referenced should appear here.
Only list those sources that you referred to in your written work. Make
sure that you follow the correct Harvard AGPS method of referencing.
Please see the USQ Library website for help on how to use the Harvard
AGPS method:
http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide
. The Communication Skills Handbook by Summers and Smith (any of the
editions) is also a very valuable source of information for referencing
and assessment writing in general.
Marking Criteria Sheet (see next 3 pages)
The
marking criteria below will be used to evaluate your assignment
against. Please make sure that you read through the criteria sheet to
see the expectations on various grade levels per section of the Case
Study questions.
Please insert a copy of the full criteria sheet
(three pages) into your assignment. This should be done by inserting a
page-break after the List of References, then copy-and-paste each of the
3 pages into your own document to display as presented below. To ensure
that the three pages are copied correctly into your assignment, please
insert a page break after each page as shown in the criteria sheet
below. Thank you for your help in this!
Please post questions about Case Study in the Study Desk forum titled ‘Case Study Discussion Forum’.
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION
85% and up TOTAL
SUMMARISE
INDUSTRY AND MARKET INFORMATION Lacks a demonstrated understanding of
the question. Differentiation between industry and market is not clear.
Not all issues relevant to question are identified. Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
High degree of copy and paste from case.
Phrases/sentences
from case directly copied to this section. Basic to fair understanding
of question. Some attempt to differentiate between industry and market.
May not have identified all the issues relevant to the question.
Included some irrelevant material.
Some degree of copy and paste from case. Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the answer to the question.
Clear distinction between industry and market information.
Good selection of information presented in a structured way. Strong understanding of the question.
Answers all parts of the question; included a broad selection of relevant industry and market information.
Well-constructed answer, summary is clear and reinforces important key issues. Unequivocal understanding of question.
Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
No irrelevant content.
Excellent development and flow of summary.
MARK / 4 2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
PESTEL ANALYSIS: INTRODUCTION
No introduction or introduction without theory support. Prescribed text
not used. Introduction does not explain the link with strategy
development. Basic introduction, only text used as theory support.
Prescribed text not effectively used. Basic explanation of link with
strategy development. Sound introduction, some original sources used as
theory support. Sound explanation of link with strategy development.
Clear introduction demonstrating research of the topic. Link with
strategy development is well researched and presented clearly. Original
sources of theory applied. Excellent introduction, concise, clear and
demonstrating a deep level of understanding of the topic. A range of
original sources of theory applied
PESTEL ANALYSIS: FRAMEWORK No
framework presented or presented incorrectly. No case facts only theory
as bullet points. Elements not populated with case data. Irrelevant data
included.
Elements populated with only theory, no case study data.
Poor selection of case data. Misunderstood the requirements.
Insufficient case analysis. Framework is presented with bullet points
from case data but covers only some issues, analysis is incomplete.
Elements
populated insufficiently. Mostly theory, insufficient case study data.
Basic level of case analysis. Framework is presented with relevant
bullet points with case data; most of the important issues are included.
Elements
are sufficiently populated with theory and case data, satisfactory
level of case analysis. Framework is populated with relevant and
significant case study data demonstrating a deep level of case analysis.
Excellent population of the framework with important and relevant case
study data. Original material is the result of in depth investigation.
Excellent analysis of sources.
PESTEL ANALYSIS: NARRATIVE Lacks a
demonstrated understanding of the question. Assignment instructions
ignored. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered.
Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of discussion.
No
references. No integration of theory and application. No theory, only
application. Only theory, no application. Course materials and/or
prescribed text not used. Only textbook no other research. High degree
of paraphrasing or direct quotes. Included irrelevant sources (web
pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory
component. Basic to fair understanding of question. May not have
answered all the issues relevant to the question. Might have some
patches of irrelevant material.
Some evidence of structure and progression of discussion.
Included
some additional references although integration of all or some of these
references need improvement. Citations were mostly from the text.
Included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from
magazines) to support theory component. Sound understanding of the
question demonstrated in the answer to the question. All issues were
addressed.
Good structure and progression of discussion.
Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.
Sources
of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory
component. Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of
the question, including discussions for each of the elements.
Very good structure, clear arguments and progression of discussion.
Clear
evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the
discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of
sources. Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent analysis of
relevant issues pertaining to the question.
Excellent critical analysis and discussion.
Original
material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent critical
analysis of sources. References are relevant and clearly integrated.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 - 9
[please insert a page break here when you copy this over to your assignment]
CRITERIA
FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION
85% and up TOTAL
FIVE
FORCES: INTRODUCTION No introduction or introduction without theory
support. Prescribed text not used. Introduction does not explain the
link with strategy development. Basic introduction, only text used as
theory support. Prescribed text not effectively used. Basic explanation
of link with strategy development. Sound introduction, some original
sources used as theory support. Sound explanation of link with strategy
development.
Clear introduction demonstrating research of the topic.
Link with strategy development is well researched and presented
clearly. Original sources of theory applied. Excellent introduction,
concise, clear and demonstrating a deep level of understanding of the
topic. A range of original sources of theory applied.
FIVE FORCES:
FRAMEWORK No framework presented or presented incorrectly. No case facts
only theory as bullet points. Elements not populated with case data.
Irrelevant data included.
Elements populated with only theory, no
case study data. Poor selection of case data. Misunderstood the
requirements. Insufficient case analysis. Framework is presented with
bullet points from case data but covers only some issues, analysis is
incomplete.
Elements populated insufficiently. Mostly theory,
insufficient case study data. Basic level of case analysis. Framework is
presented with relevant bullet points with case data; most of the
important issues are included.
Elements are sufficiently populated
with theory and case data, satisfactory level of case analysis.
Framework is populated with relevant and significant case study data
demonstrating a deep level of case analysis. Excellent population of the
framework with important and relevant case study data. Original
material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent analysis of
sources.
FIVE FORCES: NARRATIVE Lacks a demonstrated understanding of
the question. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered.
Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of discussion.
No
references. No integration of theory and application. No theory, only
application. Only theory, no application. Course materials and/or
prescribed text not used. Only textbook no other research. High degree
of paraphrasing or direct quotes. Included irrelevant sources (web
pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory
component. Basic to fair understanding of question. May not have
answered all the issues relevant to the question. Might have some
patches of irrelevant material.
Some evidence of structure and progression of discussion.
Included
some additional references although integration of all or some of these
references need improvement. Citations were mostly from the text.
Included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from
magazines) to support theory component. Sound understanding of the
question demonstrated in the answer to the question. All issues were
addressed.
Good structure and progression of theme.
Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.
Sources
of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory
component. Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of
the question, including discussions for each of the elements.
Very good structure, clear arguments and progression of discussion.
Clear
evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the
discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of
sources. Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent analysis of
relevant issues pertaining to the question.
Excellent critical analysis and discussion.
Original
material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent critical
analysis of sources. References are relevant and clearly integrated.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 - 9
KSF FRAMEWORK
No framework presented or presented incorrectly. No case facts only
theory as bullet points. Elements not populated with case data.
Irrelevant data included. Elements populated with only theory, no case
study data. Poor selection of case data. Misunderstood the requirements.
Insufficient case analysis. Framework is presented with bullet points
from case data but covers only some issues, analysis is incomplete.
Elements populated insufficiently. Mostly theory, insufficient case
study data. Basic level of case analysis. Framework is presented with
relevant bullet points with case data; most of the important issues are
included. Elements are sufficiently populated with theory and case data,
satisfactory level of case analysis. Framework is populated with
relevant and significant case study data demonstrating a deep level of
case analysis.
Excellent population of the framework with important
and relevant case study data. Original material is the result of in
depth investigation. Excellent analysis of sources.
[please insert a page break here when you copy this over to your assignment]
CRITERIA
FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION
85% and up TOTAL
KSF:
NARRATIVE Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Not all
issues relevant to question have been answered. Included mostly
irrelevant material.
Direct copy and paste from text. Include figure from text.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of discussion.
No
references. No theory. Less than 3 journal articles for theory support.
Only textbook no other research. High degree of paraphrasing or direct
quotes. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles
from magazines) to support theory. Basic to fair understanding of
question. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question.
Might have some patches of irrelevant material.
Writing is very
close to text although paraphrased. Information from figure presented in
written format. Some evidence of structure and progression of
discussion.
Included one journal article and prescribed text for
theory support. Citations were mostly from the text. Include some
irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to
support theory. Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the
answer to the question. All issues were addressed.
Good structure and progression of discussion.
Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.
Included the required 3 journal articles and text as sources for theory support.
Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of the
question, including discussions for each part of the question. Very good
structure, clear arguments and progression of discussion.
Clear
evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the
discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of
sources.
Included more than the required number of journal articles
and text for theory support. Unequivocal understanding of question.
Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to each part of the
question.
Excellent critical analysis and discussion.
Original
material is the result of in-depth investigation. Excellent critical
analysis of sources. References are relevant and clearly integrated and
exceed the required number of sources.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 - 9
VALUE
OF RATIONAL MODELS Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question.
Study book materials copied. No evidence that the readings for Module 2
were studied. Did not conclude with a clear opinion about the value of
the models. Arguments not supported with theory from the readings. No
theory references (readings). Unsupported personal opinions. Basic to
fair understanding of question. Evidence that some of the readings were
studied.
Some valid arguments offered, supported by theory.
Concluded
with opinion about the value of the models. Some arguments supported by
theory from readings. Sound understanding of the question. Evidence
that all of the relevant readings for Module 2 were studied.
Valid arguments built on the views presented in the readings. Good theory support.
Concluded
with a valid opinion about the value of the models. All arguments
supported by theory from the readings. Strong understanding of the
question. Clear critical opinion justified from the theory.
Very good arguments built on the views presented in the readings. Very good theory support.
Very
good conclusion about the value of the models, supported by theory from
the readings. Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent critical
opinion justified from the theory.
Excellent arguments, clear evidence of understanding of the issues addressed in the readings.
Excellent conclusions, supported by theory from the readings.
MARK /5 2.5 2.5 - 3 3 – 3.5 3.5 - 4 4 - 5
RESEARCH/
REFERENCING/ PRESENTATION No research of topics. No scholarly journal
articles. Only company websites or general websites.
Did not conform to Harvard referencing.
Not
adhering to assignment requirements. No title page. Did not follow the
required structure. Excessive spelling, grammatical errors; poor syntax.
Poorly presented; A lot of typing errors.
Over or under 10% of word
limit Included some scholarly journal articles although insufficient
number of relevant journal articles. Citations were mostly from the
text.
Harvard referencing techniques varies.
Some instances in
which the assignment requirements and structure were not followed. Fair
understanding of rules of grammar and construction. Some spelling
/typing errors. Within word count. Satisfactory number of scholarly
journal articles. Sufficient research.
Only minor errors in Harvard
referencing – in-text or List of references. Adhere to assignment
requirements and structure. Sound level of fluency in writing; (may have
one or two awkward sentences). No obvious errors in grammar or syntax.
Well presented. Clear evidence of wider reading.
Meets Harvard referencing protocols.
Clear and fluent writing. Professional presentation.
Uses dynamic, unique material beside relatively standard material to develop theoretical concepts. Excellent research.
Accurate Harvard referencing no errors.
Well-constructed and crafted piece of work. A pleasure to read. Professional presentation.
MARK / 4 2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
TOTAL/40:
CLICK HERE TO ORDER 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS AT PrimeWritersBay.com
