Assume the role of consultant to McDonald’s. CEO Chris Kempczinsky has asked you for an analysis of the case situation and your recommendations moving forward.

MGMT 4001 20F Assignment guidance Dr. R. Baltazar The purpose of the case assignment is to provide you with practical insight into course material and improve your analytical and decision-making skills in strategy formulation. The assignment should be submitted in no more than 2,500 words of text, plus a maximum of 3 pages worth of optional exhibits. Exhibits must consist of student analyzed work, rather than mere reproductions of reading or lecture material. They must clearly support, and be referenced within, the text to be considered valid components of the report. They may be inserted within the pages of the section or appended to the document. The only materials you should use in preparing the assignment is the case itself and the reading and lecture material assigned to date. External research tends to contaminate analysis and is not condoned. Submissions will be checked for breaches of academic integrity and such breaches will be met with zero tolerance. Please consult the course schedule for the assignment deadline. Late assignments will be accepted until 12 hours following the deadline with a 20% penalty. Case McDonald’s Corporation (available in Connect) Your assignment Assume the role of consultant to McDonald’s. CEO Chris Kempczinsky has asked you for an analysis of the case situation and your recommendations moving forward.

1. (10%) Identify the central decision(s) and issue(s) facing the firm.

2. (60%) Perform an analysis of the external, internal, strategy, and performance related situation facing

Kempczinsky and the firm. In doing so, use the appropriate course concepts, tools, and frameworks

you have been assigned to date. Clearly indicate the topics you consider relevant with headings and, if

necessary, define them briefly before applying them to the case. Make explicit the case evidence and

support information you relied on in making assessments and drawing conclusions

3. (20%) Identify and assess Kempczinsky’s main decision alternatives.

4. (10%) Make and justify your recommendation(s) using course related concepts and tools. Include a

brief implementation plan.

Grading Rubric The assignment will be evaluated based on coverage of the assigned questions and the relevant course material, the quality and soundness of responses to the questions, and the clarity of the report. The grading rubric is provided below.

MGMT 4001 20F Grading Rubric: Assignments and Final Exam Dr. R. Baltazar

Objective Criterion / Tasks Exceeds Expectations

80 – 100%

A- to A+

Meets Expectations

50 – 79%

D to B+

Does Not Meet Expectations

0 – 49%

F

Problem identification (10%)

Identifies and summarizes the

problem, question, or issue.

This dimension focuses on task

or issue identification,

including secondary or implicit

aspects of an issue and the

relationships between factors

that may be integral to effective

analysis.

Clearly identifies and

summarizes the main

problem(s) or decision(s).

Identifies secondary or

implicit issues. If applicable,

notes relationships between

factors in the situation and

how they relate to each other.

Identifies and summarizes the

main problem, but nuances

and critical details are absent

or glossed over.

Does not attempt to or fails to

identify and summarize the

main problem accurately.

Situation Analysis (60)

Undertakes appropriate

quantitative or qualitative

analysis. This dimension

focuses on the appropriate use

of quantitative or qualitative

analysis of information to

clarify issues and facilitate

decision-making.

Provides a comprehensive and

rigorous analysis of the

situation based on course

concepts, tools, and

techniques that apply to the

situation.

Quantitative or qualitative

analysis is appropriate,

accurate, and thorough.

Analysis is used to clarify the

issues and facilitate effective

decision-making.

Where appropriate, evaluates

the quality of the evidence

provided, where applicable

making distinctions among

facts, opinions, and values

Provides some analysis of the

situation based on applicable

course material.

Quantitative or qualitative

analysis is appropriate but

incomplete or partially

inaccurate.

Analysis has limited ability to

help clarify the issues and

facilitate effective decision-

making.

Provides limited evaluation of

the quality of the evidence

from the case.

Provides limited or no

analysis of the situation based

on applicable course material.

Quantitative or qualitative

analysis conducted is

inappropriate, inaccurate,

superficial, or nonexistent.

Analysis does not help clarify

the issues or facilitate

effective decision-making.

Provides no evaluation of the

quality of the evidence cited

from the case.

Options Analysis (20)

Integrates the issues using

reasonable options. This

dimension focuses on the

treatment of diverse

perspectives and the assessment

of contrary views and evidence.

For every problem, identifies

all key options and provides a

comprehensive analysis of

their pros and cons

For every problem, clearly

identifies key decision-

making criteria based on

previous analyses

Identifies some key options

with good analysis of their

pros and cons

Clearly identifies some

decision-making criteria

Identifies an incomplete set of

options or fails to adequately

discuss their pros and cons

Fails to clearly identify key

decision-making criteria

Recommendation (10)

Identifies and recommends a

logical conclusion, their

implications, and

consequences. This dimension

focuses on integrating previous

dimensions and extending them

to draw logical conclusions that

solve the problem.

Applies a mechanically sound

decision matrix to arrive at

recommendations

Clearly identifies key

recommendations and how

they address the main problem

Provides a sound

implementation plan

Does not apply a mechanically

sound decision matrix to

arrive at recommendations

Provides some links between

recommendations made and

findings from previous

analyses

Provides a reasonable

implementation plan

Fails to identify key

recommendations and how

they address the main problem

Fails to adequately link the

recommendations made to

findings from previous

analyses

Provides a poor or no

implementation plan