** URGENT** Research Analysis Paper (16-20 pages in 4 and a half days) (Please read the attached instructions)

Strategic Analysis (80%)

Category (Weight)

Missing

Poor

Limited Proficiency

Average

Proficiency

Very

Good

Excellent

Score

External Analysis - General

(10%)

Concepts are missing.

Did not use concepts explaining the external environment either using the PEST or other appropriate concept.

Analysis did not identify and evaluate major trends in the general external environment utilizing PESTEL or other appropriate concept.

Analysis identified and evaluated some of the major trends in the general external environment utilizing PESTEL or other appropriate concept.

Analysis identified and evaluated most of the major trends in the general external environment utilizing PESTEL or other appropriate concept.

Analysis thoroughly identified major trends in the general external environment utilizing PESTEL or other appropriate concept.

External Analysis – Industry & competitive analysis

(10%)

Concepts are missing.

Either did not use 5 Forces and other concepts or poorly understand the industry.

Analysis did not identify and evaluate major trends in the industry (i.e., specific external environment) utilizing Five Forces Model. It is unclear if they understood the model.

Analysis did not identify and evaluate the industry’s competitive environment. Analysis utilized few of the appropriate concepts such Industry characteristics, and Demand.

Analysis identified and evaluated some of the major trends and issues in the industry utilizing Five Forces Model. Understood pieces of the model as it related to the industry. Analysis identified and evaluated some of the industry’s competitive environment. Analysis utilized few of the appropriate concepts such Industry characteristics, and Demand.

Analysis identified and evaluated most of the major trends and issues utilizing Five Forces Model. Understood the model to some degree. Analysis identified and evaluated most of the industry’s competitive environment. Analysis utilized few of the appropriate concepts such Industry characteristics, Competitive dynamics and Demand.

Analysis thoroughly identified major trends in the industry (i.e., specific external environment) utilizing Five Forces Model. It is clear that they understand the model Analysis thoroughly identified of the industry’s competitive environment. Analysis utilized few of the appropriate concepts such Industry characteristics, Competitive dynamics and Demand.

Internal Analysis

(25%)

Concepts are missing.

Analysis did not use the appropriate concepts to identify resources and abilities of the firm.

Analysis did not identify many of the components of an internal analysis or major trends in the company’s abilities and behavior. It is unclear if they understood the company’s resources and abilities. Limited application of concepts.

Analysis identified and evaluated some components of the internal analysis, but mainly reported information rather than analysis of the trends and issues in the industry. Data was superficial and they lacked quality and breadth.

Analysis identified and evaluated most of the major trends and issues utilizing a majority of the internal models. Ability to integrate and synthesize the breadth of data. Analysis began to show depth and quality.

Analysis indicates a comprehensive understanding of the internal operations and the ability to utilize the models to build a good thesis of the internal abilities of the firm. It is clear that they understand and could apply the concepts and model.

Strategies of the Firm

(10 %)

Concepts are missing.

Analysis did not use the appropriate concepts to identify the strategies.

Analysis did not correctly identify the firm’s strategies.

Analysis superficially identified and evaluated some of components involved in the current strategy choices of the firm. Limited understanding of the different levels of strategy in a firm.

Analysis correctly identified and evaluated most of firm’s current and past strategy choices and integrated the choices with the abilities of the firm. Limited understanding of the pros and cons of strategies chosen.

Analysis indicates a thorough understanding of the firm’s current and past strategy choices. Accurately demonstrated an understanding of how abilities and external environment help or hinder the strategic choices.

Income Statement and Balance Sheet Analysis

(8%)

Concepts are missing.

Just attached a Balance Sheet and Income statement with very little discussion.

Analysis did not identify and evaluate major trends or changes in the income statement and balance sheet.

Analysis identified and some of the major trends in the income statement and balance sheet. Analysis was minor.

Analysis identified and evaluated most of the major trends in the Income Statement and Balance Sheet Another Firm was used for comparison.

Analysis thoroughly identified major trends and evaluated reasons for changes or the lack of changes. Industry was used as a comparison. Demonstrated that they understood why changes occurred.

Ratio Analysis & Industry Comparison Share Price and Business Unit Analysis

(8%)

Concepts are missing.

Many missing ratios and little analysis.

Analysis did not fully identify and evaluate the firm’s ratios. Analysis identified the share price, but did not account for Business unit analysis.

Analysis identified and some of the major trends in the Ratios. Analysis identified trend in share price.

Analysis identified and evaluated most of the major trends in the Ratios. Another Firm was used for comparison. Analysis considered multiple indicators for share price movement or lack. Discussion of analyst’s opinion was included.

Analysis thoroughly identified major trends and evaluated reasons for changes or the lack of changes. Industry was used as a comparison. Demonstrated that they understood why changes occurred and what the numbers meant to the firm. Analysis clearly identified what was happening in the share prices and what was happening in the strategic business units.

SWOT Analysis & Recommendation

(10%)

Concepts are missing.

Very poorly constructed and non logical recommendation.

Superficial SWOT analysis with limited ties with data and analysis. Limited recommendations indicated.

A SWOT analysis that incorporates some elements of the internal and external analysis. Some recommendations that relate to the to the analysis. The analysis provided a weak discussion of strengths and weakness, opinion and/or recommendation.

A strong SWOT analysis which identifies and ties the sections of the report together. Some consistency of the recommendations with the analysis of the report. The analysis provided an adequate rationale for the findings from the data and analysis presented.

Excellent SWOT, which ties together the analysis of the data and implications developed in the report. Creative solutions and recommendations that tied in heavily with the analysis of the report. The analysis provided well-reasoned supporting arguments in the discussion of strengths and weakness, opinion, and/or recommendation..

Quality of Data and Analysis

(12%)

Very little data or one source of data.

Limited data sources. Very poor data and logic.

Report provided little specific industry and firm data. Few observations. Narrow scope. The analysis did not provide a strengths and weakness or opinion and/or recommendation. Limited data sources used and logic is not complete. Lack of understanding of the material. Many logic errors that made following the logic of the write-up difficult.

0-15

Some data, but very superficial. Few observations and little if any interpretation. Identified few abilities and opportunities and threats. The logic was incomplete and had some major holes. Limited understanding of the models. Some logic errors and resulting argument was weak.

15-20

Some non-obvious observations, sometimes interpreted well. Good Data and observations, but needs more analysis. Identified some elements of the SWOT. The analysis provided adequate rationale for the these. Few logic holes with the beginnings of comprehensive understanding of the firm. Strong argument.

21-26

Excellent data and well researched, Many issues observed in depth. Reasonable interpretations of observations. Identified a number of abilities and external factors.. The analysis used well-reasoned supporting arguments. Strong understanding of the concepts and the organization. Virtually no logic errors and resulting excellent arguments.

27-30

Grammar/spel-ling Use of exhibits and bibliography, presentation

(7%)

No exhibits included. Disorganized and not clearly labeled sections

Many errors that interfered with understanding the write-up.

Many errors, but the write-up was generally understandable. Few exhibits included, but only general reference made to the exhibits. Some organization (headings, labels, table of contents, framing paragraphs)

Some errors, but the write-up was very understandable. Appropriate exhibits included each of which was referred at an appropriate point in the write-up. Good organization (headings, labels, table of contents, framing and summary paragraphs )

Very few errors and very understandable. Included exhibits that were very well designed and each was skillfully used in reinforcing the arguments in the write-up. Good organization (headings, labels, table of contents, framing and summary paragraphs )

Total