Case Study Analysis - 3000 words

CRITERION

A Excellent . >70%

B+ Good 65- 68%

B Good 60-64%

C Satisfactory 50-58%

REFER/FAIL <48%

Presentation & style 10%

1

5%

Presentation

Polished and imaginative approach. Clarity of message and information. Excellent formatting, use of white space, numbering & bullets. Excellent use of graphs and diagrams to support argument.

Carefully and logically

organised with clear message and visual effect. Good use of white space, numbering & bullets. Good use of graphs and diagrams to support argument.

Shows organisation and coherence. Visual aspect of presentation is good with adequate use of white space, numbering & bullets. Good use of graphs and diagrams to support argument.

Shows some attempt to organise in a logical manner but lacks structure or visual impact. Patchy, inappropriate or absent use of graphs and diagrams to support argument.

Disorganised/

Incoherent. Not all material is relevant. Presence of irrelevant material. Poor or absent use of graphs and diagrams to support argument.

2

5%

Clarity of expression (incl. accuracy, spelling, grammar, punctuation)

Fluent writing style appropriate to a Business Report.

Language fluent

Language fluent

Meaning apparent, but language not always fluent

Meaning unclear and/or grammar and/or spelling contain frequent errors

Content and knowledge 70%

3

Structure of the market: sector, competitors, consumers, company. Analysis of global/regional competitive forces, based on strategic and financial analysis of firms. Good understanding of the effect of historical and cultural issues on a company’s ability to compete.

Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of how market power is shared. What the drivers are of this structure.

Excellent grasp of the implications of the issues of scale. Excellent understanding of the issues of how historical and current culture and structure affect a company’s ability to complete. Excellent use of financial and strategic analysis to support this discussion.

Excellent reading and citations.

Good knowledge of how market power is shared. What the drivers are of this structure. Good grasp of the implications of the issues of scale. Good understanding of the issues of how historical and current culture and structure affect a company’s ability to complete. Good use of financial and strategic analysis to support this discussion.

Good reading and citations.

Mostly good knowledge of how market power is shared. What the drivers are of this structure. Mostly good grasp of the implications of the issues of scale. Good understanding of the issues of how historical and current culture and structure affect a company’s ability to complete. Mostly good use of financial and strategic analysis to support this discussion.

Good reading and citations.

Patchy knowledge and discussion of how market power is shared. What the drivers are of this structure. Mediocre discussion of the implications of the issues of scale. Mediocre discussion of the issues of how historical and current culture and structure affect a company’s ability to complete. Patchy use of financial and strategic analysis to support this discussion.

Patchy/ limited reading and citations.

Poor or absent knowledge and discussion of how market power is shared and what the drivers are of this structure. Poor or absent discussion of the implications of the issues of scale. Poor or absent discussion of the issues of how historical and current culture and structure affect a company’s ability to complete. Poor or absent use of financial and strategic analysis to support this discussion.

Poor or very limited reading and citations.

Overall thinking & analysis 20%

6

20%

Intelligent and informed commentary on industry analysis. Good information drawn from financial, strategic, and cultural sources, with an understanding of how these affect the ability to compete.

Excellent commentary on the questions, drawing meaning from financial, strategic and cultural sources.

Good commentary on the questions, drawing meaning from financial, strategic and cultural sources.

Reasonable commentary on the questions, with reasonable intelligence extracted from financial, strategic and cultural sources.

Limited and mediocre commentary on the questions, with limited intelligence extracted from financial, strategic and cultural sources.

Very little, poor quality commentary on the questions, with very little intelligence extracted from financial, strategic and cultural sources. Presentation of data in place of intelligent discussion.