You will complete a formal, in-depth case analysis that requires you to utilize the entire strategic management process. This is an individual assignment. Contact your instructor with any questions.
Assume you have been asked by a firm to analyze its external/internal and competitive environment and make strategic recommendations. You will be expected to make exhibits to support your analysis and recommendations. The case analysis should encompass approximately 30 pages + plus the exhibits and cover page.
Cover page should include:
Company Name
Your Name
Date of Submission
Matrices should
be part of the analysis body not as exhibits/attachments
Completed case should include:
Executive Summary
Existing mission, objectives, and strategies
A new mission statement
Analysis of firm structure – (identify type)
SWOT (TOWS) Analysis
Five Forces Analysis
Confrontation Matrix
Impact-Probability Matrix
Positioning Map
EFE Matrix
IFE Matrix
IE Matrix
SFAS Matrix
Competitive Profile Matrix
Assessment of firm functional areas (HR, R&D, Mktg, Finance, Operations, Mgmt, etc.)
BCG Matrix
GE/McKinsey Matrix
Industry Life Cycle (ILC) Analysis
SPACE Matrix
Grand Strategies Matrix
QSPM Matrix
List alternative strategies, giving advantages/disadvantages)
Recommend specific strategies and long-term objectives
Current Firm Ratios (GPM, NPM, Quick ratio, Current ratio, D2E, ROI, ROA, ROE, ROCI, EBITA, EPS)
Prepare Pro-Formal Financial Statements
Evaluation
The grading rubric outlining the performance expectations for this assignment is located below.
Submission
To submit your assignment, select Submit Assignment, follow prompts to upload or add your work, add any comments for your instructor in the comments box (optional), and then click Submit Assignment.
Rubric
Capstone Research Paper Rubric
Capstone Research Paper Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 1
Executive Summary
Existing mission, objectives, and strategies
A new mission statement
Analysis of firm structure – (identify type)
SWOT (TOWS) Analysis
Five Forces Analysis
30 to >25.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
25 to >15.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
15 to >5.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accuracy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
5 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 2
Confrontation Matrix
Impact-Probability Matrix
Positioning Map
EFE Matrix
IFE Matrix
IE Matrix
SFAS Matrix
Competitive Profile Matrix
40 to >35.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
35 to >25.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
25 to >15.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accuracy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
15 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3
Assessment of firm functional areas (HR, R&D, Mktg, Finance, Operations, Mgmt, etc.)
BCG Matrix
GE/McKinsey Matrix
Industry Life Cycle (ILC) Analysis
SPACE Matrix
Grand Strategies Matrix
40 to >35.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
35 to >25.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
25 to >15.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accuracy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
15 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 4
QSPM Matrix
List alternative strategies, giving advantages/disadvantages)
Recommend specific strategies and long-term objectives
Current Firm Ratios (GPM, NPM, Quick ratio, Current ratio, D2E, ROI, ROA, ROE, ROCI, EBITA, EPS)
Prepare Pro-Formal Financial Statements
50 to >45.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
45 to >35.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
35 to >25.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accu
racy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
25 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 5
Recommend specific strategies and long-term objectives
Current Firm Ratios (GPM, NPM, Quick ratio, Current ratio, D2E, ROI, ROA, ROE, ROCI, EBITA, EPS)
Prepare Pro-Formal Financial Statements
40 to >35.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
35 to >25.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
25 to >15.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accuracy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
15 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Conclusions and related outcomes (implications and consequences)
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.
3 pts
Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information, including opposing viewpoints; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
2 pts
Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit the desired conclusion); some related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
1 pts
Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are oversimplified.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Evidence
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.
3 pts
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning.
2 pts
Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/ evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning.
1 pts
Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/ evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Explanation of Issues
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding.
3 pts
Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.
2 pts
Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/ or backgrounds unknown.
1 pts
Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Influence of Context and Assumptions
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others’ assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.
3 pts
Identifies own and others’ assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position.
2 pts
Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others’ assumptions than one’s own (or vice versa).
1 pts
Shows an emerging awareness of present assumptions (sometimes labels assertions as assumptions). Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Student’s position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis)
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Specific position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue. Limits of position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) are acknowledged. Others’ points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis).
3 pts
Specific position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) takes into account the complexities of an issue. Others’ points of view are acknowledged within position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis).
2 pts
Specific position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.
1 pts
Specific position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) is stated, but is simplistic and obvious.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—