Case Analysis - BMW

1

Strategy module case analysis assignment description for COM 200 Description: Report providing analysis, diagnosis and recommendations for a business case, including application of pertinent concepts/frameworks/tools covered in the strategy module. Submission method: Submit .pdf file via Brightspace by the deadline noted for your section (i.e., prior to the beginning of the class in which the case will be discussed). Submissions will not be permitted after the class discussion of the case so please be mindful of the deadline. Assignment instructions: The Case Method slide deck (discussed in class) provides instructions for case analysis and includes an evaluation rubric comprising 5 criteria. These instructions are reiterated and further elaborated here, as follows: Formatting instructions:

- 4 page limit, single-spaced, inclusive. Please insert page numbers in your document. - Font size: 10 point minimum, 12 point maximum. - Standard 1” (2.54cm) margins. - Font type: Any legible font type is ok. - Use organizing conventions (topic headings, bullet points, numbered lists, etc.) as

appropriate. Figures/tables/charts are not required but may make sense in some instances depending on the type of information you wish to present.

- Either first- or third-person voice is ok.

Content instructions:

- The written analysis should comprise three sections: 1) identification of the key issues/problems that will be the focus of your analysis (1 page or less), 2) analysis of the issues identified in section one (1-2 pp.), 3) recommendations focused on the problems identified and analyzed (1-2 pp.).

- No title page/introduction/background/executive summary is necessary. Begin by identifying the problems/issues that you will focus on.

- Limit your sources to: 1) the case, 2) any readings assigned for the strategy module, 3) any lecture content from the strategy module. Do NOT use sources other than these.

- Use parenthetical citations within the text to explicitly signal when you are applying concepts/tools/frameworks we covered in the module. Since formal references are NOT required, as would be the case for a research paper, there are no special formatting

2

requirements for the parenthetical citations. But here is an example of what they might look like:

“Big Wheel burger implements a focused-differentiation business level strategy (Session 4 lecture - Types of Business Level Strategies) as is evidenced by their focus on product quality, local sourcing and sustainable production, and their focus on a relatively narrow Victoria-based market segment that values these product attributes. Their community-based, sustainable approach distinguishes them from other quick service restaurants and provides them with reputational assets that constitute core competencies, which provide them distinctive sources of sustained competitive advantage (Hitt, Ireland and Hoskisson, 2020 - Chapter 3).”

Evaluation rubric (as elaborated in class):

Case Evaluation Rubric

1. Internal consistency, organization, and overall communication style? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Has the student used organizing conventions (e.g., topic headings/subheadings, bullet points and/or numbered lists, diagrams,

tables, variations in font style, page #s) that make it easier for the reader to identify and follow the various components of their

analysis?

Is the paper efficiently written with proper spelling and grammar? Is the paper stylistically sound?

Has the student focused on the key issues and avoided tangential discussion not closely related to the issues at hand?

Are arguments made clearly and concisely, avoiding redundant, wordy or complicated sentences?

Has the student closely followed the directions laid out in the syllabus and provided in class (e.g., suggested

structure/organization; use of appropriate font size, spacing, margins; staying within page limits; refraining from use of

external sources beyond the case, assigned readings and lectures)?

not

applicable

not

applicable

2. Clear problem/issue definition? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Has the student clearly and concisely identified early in the paper the key problems/issues on which their analysis will focus?

Do the problems/issues identified correspond to those mentioned in the case? (are problems/issues that were prominently

mentioned in the case missing?)

Are the problems/issues stated in specific enough terms such that actionable solutions may be developed (i.e., are problems

stated too broadly?)

3. Adequate analysis & diagnosis of problem(s)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Analysis vs. Description: Has the student provided substantial “value added” and new insights in their analysis or simply

restated information that is already provided in the case?

Symptoms vs. Causes: Has the student attempted to breakdown the problems/issues and identify their underlying causes, or

have they simply provided a list with no real attempt to ascertain why the problems have arisen?

4. Adequate use of analytical concepts/tools/frameworks from this course? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Has the student been explicit in their use of concepts/tools/frameworks (e.g., through using brief citations)? not

applicable

not

applicable

Has the student achieved a balance between breadth and depth? Or is their application either too expansive (and shallow) or

too narrow?

Has the student made full use of the readings and lectures, or focused only on a narrow range of readings/lectures?

Does the application demonstrate adequate understanding of the concepts/tools/frameworks? Are they applied correctly, or

does the application suggest otherwise?

Does the application provide value-added insights into strategic issues in the case, or is the use of tools/concepts/frameworks

too mechanical with few insights into the strategic implications of the analysis? Is the reader left wondering: “so what?”

5. Detailed, compelling, implementation-focused recommendations? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Is there correspondence between the problems/issues identified in the problem ID/assessment section of the case and the

recommendations provided? (i.e., do the recommendations seem unrelated to the problems identified earlier?)

Are problems/issues that were prominently mentioned in the case addressed specifically in the recommendations?

Do the recommendations appear to address the underlying causes of the problems? Do they seem to flow naturally from the

analysis or are they disconnected from it?

Are the recommendations internally consistent? Do they mesh nicely and make sense together as a total ‘package’? I.e., are

they feasible given the information provided in the case?

Are the recommendations implementation focused? Are they specific? Or do they leave the reader wondering “how?”

Poor Acceptable Outstanding