Case Study: Free Range food W5 – AMBA 610 - Organization Theory and Design Team Project Rubric (on-line sections) Assignment: Read the Free Range Foods case posted by your professor in the Week 5 discussion area.
Free Range Foods Case -- Read This First
Free Range’s roots go back to the mid-1980s, when local farms were disappearing all around the rural US. Euell Gibbons, a Free Range executive, convinced its founder there was a business opportunity in selling organic dairy products while paying attention to environmental concerns. Social responsibility has been at the core of the company from the start. In Gibbons’ view, making sure that the planet and its resources would continue to be available, and even flourish, for future generations to enjoy was the main goal; profits were merely the means that would help further this goal.
Free Range is willing to pay more for organic ingredients and is strongly committed to eco-friendly operations. After calculating how much energy it needs to run its plant, for instance, Free Range made an equivalent investment in environmental projects like reforestation. The company no longer puts plastic lids on its cottage cheese, saving about a million pounds of plastic a year, and its packaging carries messages about global warming, farmland protection, and genetically modified foods…In fact, its sales continue to increase by roughly 20% every year, making it a major player among U.S. cottage cheese brands. Now the company is considering going international, bringing its products and values to France, the United Kingdom, and beyond.
There is an individual activity assignment for this case, as well as a team presentation project based on this case. See the main topic postings in this discussion for instructions on completing these two assignments. Note that for the team presentation assignment, there is an option for hybrid sections.
W5 – AMBA 610 - Organization Theory and Design Team Project Rubric (on-line sections)
Assignment: Read the Free Range Foods case posted by your professor in the Week 5 discussion area.
Objective 7: Analyze the challenges of managing and innovating organizations to adapt in a changing global and technological environment.
Competency: Problem-Solving
Teams should address the following questions in a Power Point Presentation of no more than 8 slides (not counting title page and references).
a) Analyze the pros and cons of how at least two globalization strategies might apply to
Free Range Foods
b) Identify the factors Free Range should review before deciding to go international.
c) Make a recommendation for Free Range on how it should restructure to take its operations global
d) How can Free Range manage to maintain its "eco-friendly operations” internationally?
In addition to your PowerPoint presentation, include a "script" of no more than 10 double-spaced pages. The script is a written version of what you would say in your presentation. You should key your talking points to your slides. Use graphics to illustrate your points, but do not use any animation, video, sound or fade-ins/outs in your PowerPoint. Be sure to provide references for all facts, including those you obtain from the case. You must format your references in accordance with APA Guidelines, as described in the Hacker text, and include a reference list. Teams should present their analysis on the designated class day and post their slides and scripts in their team group area entitled "Final Free Range Foods Project for Grading" on the date specified by your professor. Each team member is required to post his or her individual contribution to the team's project in the team group area. The actual contribution must be posted, so the faculty member can review it. If you do not post your individual contribution, you may not get credit for the assignment. Posting a narrative summary of what you contributed is not sufficient. You must post the actual contribution.
Content (80 points) | ||||
Qualities & Criteria | Exceeds Expectations | Meets Expectations | Below Expectations | Unsatisfactory |
Question 1 - Analysis: What are the pros and cons of how the team’s chosen strategies might apply to Free Range?
| · The team provided clear and solid theoretical and logical analysis of. pros and cons of how their chosen strategies might apply to Free Range . · The team’s analysis and findings are clear, original, supported, and focused. | · The team provided adequate arguments and support for the pros and cons of how their chosen strategies might apply to Free Range . · The team’s analysis and findings are generally clear, original and relevant, but may lack some clarity or need more information and/or support. | · The team failed to provide fully satisfactory arguments and support for the pros and cons of how their chosen strategies might apply to Free Range . · The team’s analysis and findings are largely irrelevant, repetitious, and/or have little significance. | · The team failed to provide satisfactory arguments and support for the pros and cons of how their chosen strategies might apply to Free Range . · The team’s analysis and findings are irrelevant, repetitious, and/or have no real significance. |
Question 2 - Decision: What factors should Free Range review before deciding to go international?
| · The team presented clear and convincing arguments and supported the arguments with relevant theory and facts. · The team made a clear and definite recommendation and provided solid theoretical and logical support. · Ideas are clear, original, supported, and focused. | · The team adequately presented arguments and supported the arguments with relevant theory and facts. · The team made a reasonably clear and definite recommendation and provided some relevant theoretical and logical support. · Ideas are generally clear, original and relevant, but may lack some clarity or need more information and/or support. | · The team failed to present satisfactory arguments. Arguments were not well supported with relevant theory and facts. · The team did not make a reasonably clear and definite recommendation nor did they provide relevant theoretical and logical support. · The ideas presented are irrelevant, repetitious, and/or have little significance. | · The team failed to present any arguments or did not supported their arguments with relevant theory and facts. · The team did not make any recommendation or their recommendations were neither relevant nor logical. · The ideas presented are irrelevant, repetitious, and/or have no significance. |
Question 3 - Recommendation: Make a recommendation for Free Range on how it should restructure to take its operations global. | · The team provides clear, original, supported, focused, and specific recommendations; and provides solid theoretical and logical support for the recommendations from the readings and additional research.
| · The team provides reasonably clear, original, supported, focused, and specific recommendations; and provides sufficient relevant theoretical and logical support for the recommendations from the readings and additional research. | · The team does not provide reasonably clear and definite recommendations supported by sufficient relevant logic and theory.
| · The team does not provide any recommendations, or their recommendations were not logical or relevant.
|
Question 4 - Strategy and Tactics: How can Free Range manage to maintain its "eco-friendly operations" internationally? | · The team presented a clear and focused plan for Free Range to maintain its "eco-friendly operations" internationally. · Ideas are clear, original, and focused.
| · The team made a reasonably clear and definite recommendation for Free Range to maintain its"eco-friendly operations" internationally. · Ideas are generally clear, original and relevant, but may lack some clarity or need more information and/or support. | · The team did not provide a reasonably clear and definite recommendation for Free Range to maintain its "eco-friendly operations" internationally. · The ideas presented are irrelevant, repetitious, and/or have little significance. | · The team does not provide any recommendations, or their recommendations were not logical or relevant.
|
Total Content Grade | 80 - 72 | 71-64 | 64-56 | Under 56 |
Team Content Grade |
|
|
|
|
Form | ||||
Script (10) | · Graduate level writing is reflected throughout the script, including accurate spelling, punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure. · Citations are properly used (APA format) · All sources are identified and cited properly in the text and the reference list · Page limit requirements are met. | · Writing is acceptable, · Fewer than 5 errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and/or sentence structure · Few errors in the proper use of citations (APA format) · All sources are identified and cited properly in the text and the reference list. · Number of pages does not exceed 10% of page limit requirements. | · Writing does not meet graduate standards. · Unacceptable number of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure · Citations and/or reference list are not properly used.(APA format) · Paper exceeds page limit requirements by more than 10%. | · Writing does not meet graduate standards. · Unacceptable number of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure · Citations and/or reference list are not properly used.(APA format) · Paper exceeds page limit requirements by more than 10%. |
Quality of slides (10)
| · Slides were readable, concise, well organized, professional, and highlighted important data and conclusions, and contained NO typos or grammatical errors. · Information presented included several supporting details and/or examples. Ideas and conclusions were presented clearly. · Slides contain proper APA format. | · Slides were professional, well organized, and highlighted important data and conclusions. · Fewer than 2 slides were too busy. · Fewer than 3 typos or grammatical errors. · Slides contain proper APA format.
| · Slides were not well organized and did not highlight important data and conclusions. · The presentation appeared to be hastily prepared. · More than 2 slides were too busy · Slides contained more than 3 citation identification or format errors.
| · Slides were poorly organized and failed to highlight important data and conclusions. · The presentation appeared to be hastily prepared. · Several slides were too busy · Slides contained several citation identification or format errors.
|
Total Form Grade | 20 - 18 | 17 - 15 | 15 -14 | Under 14 |
Team Form Grade |
|
|
|
|
Total Team Grade |
|
|
|
|
Comments:
10 years ago
Purchase the answer to view it
free_range_foods.doc- free_range_foods.ppt
