project

BUSM 30002 D (Winter 2021: Wednesday Class) | Global Business Environment

International Business Assignment 1

Conducting Business with a Major Canadian Trading Partner

This assignment asks you to apply the subject matters that you are exposed to in the Global Business Environment course to an international business situation. The assignment is intended to help you develop the skills needed to conduct secondary research, analyze problems, and provide coherent, persuasive and professionally presented recommendations. The assignment is targeted at dealing with a country selection challenge.

NOTE: ASSIGNMENT 2 CAN NOT BE COMPLETED UNLESS ASSIGNMENT 1 HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

YOU SHOULD TREAT THIS PAPER AS IF THE REPORT YOU ARE WRITNG IS FROM AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT TO A SENIOR EXECUTIVE IN THE FIRM IN QUESTION. A VERY SIMPLE TEST OF WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF SUCH A REPORT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE READER WANTS TO CONTINUE READING THE PAPER. THIS IS PRINCIPALLY A FUNCTION OF CONTENT, BUT THE DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO READ A REPORT IS ALSO INFLUENCED STRONGLY BY ITS READABILTY (E.G. PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION, FORMAT, GRAMMAR, SPELLING, WORD CHOICE, LOGICAL FLOW OF IDEAS).

Assignment

Working by yourself or with one other student, conduct research to identify a Canadian company THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY PRESENT IN AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES (United Kingdom, Mexico, South Korea, Germany or Japan). You are to choose two of the countries from the above referenced list (as long as your company is not in the two you select) to be the focus of your assignment. The company should clearly be strategically positioned in the B to B “online” services sector, it should be a SME (annual revenue of up to 100 Million). These firms can be in the software service sector, they can be companies that produce goods and services off line but sell them online, or they can be firms that produce and sell their products, services online. The companies must be in the B to B space, not the B to C space.

You are expected to do independent secondary research on the company, and the industry/business environment that the company is specifically associated with, in order to support/defend your analysis.

You are to do a review of two of the countries, based on the PEST (EL) analytical model. The ultimate objective is to select the best country for consideration of market entry for your firm, given the current realities of the countries in question, the industry your firm is targeting in the countries in question, and the specific characteristics of the firm in question. IT IS EXPECTED THAT YOUR PEST(EL) ANALYSIS WILL LOOK AT THE TWO COUNTRIES THROUGH THE LENS OF THE “INDUSTRY” IN THOSE COUNTRIES THAT YOUR FIRM IS ASSOCIATED WITH, KEEPING IN MIND THE STRATEGIC INTERESTS OF YOUR FIRM.

Please note that the Library has prepared a research guide specifically addressing this assignment. Use it!

Your final “PROFESSIONAL” deliverable for assignment #1 will be a report that includes the following:

1. Cover Page

2. Table of Contents

3. An executive summary of the paper (maximum half a page).

4. A PEST (EL) of the two countries in question that leads to a credible and defensible rationale for country selection, evidencing a good knowledge of the company in question, the industry it is in, and the countries in question.

5. This analysis should naturally lead you to the selection of decision criteria (next section) that will allow you to make a recommendation amongst the countries under consideration. The decision criteria must be reasonable and credible in the context of the company and industry in question.

6. Your recommendation will be supported by a decision matrix (See Appendix A for a discussion of how a decision matrix should be introduced and discussed).

7. Clear recommendation with a well-argued summary rationale as to why the company should proceed to consider market entry with one of the countries, as opposed to the other not selected.

8. Your final report is to be written in the 3rd person. It will be judged on the factual information it contains, the clarity of your arguments (see Appendix B) for more clarity on the “flow” of argumentation expected, the incorporation of key concepts from the course in your narrative, the depth of your analysis and the professionalism expected of a formal memo prepared by an outside consultant to the firm in question. In this regard a discussion of the history of the company is redundant, as it is assumed that the company executive knows far more about the company than the external consultant.

Formatting for the Assignment

· Each paper is to be between 7 and 10 pages (maximum of 10) (12 pt. font, 2.54 cm margins) plus title page, table of contents, references, endnotes, and appendices. If the report is longer than ten pages, only the first ten pages will be read and graded.

· The title page must contain all the names of your group, your respective student numbers, and the name of your company.

· A table of contents will be included, that is linked to the “Heading” titles in your paper.

· Do not forget to number the pages in your report.

· The report is to be in a narrative format, NOT a bullet point format.

· In preparing your final submission you must abide by Sheridan policies and procedures governing academic integrity.

· “Turn it in” will be used and any score of more than 20%, will result in a discussion with the Professor.

· Be sure to use APA style referencing whenever you incorporate ideas and content that are not your own. In text citation is expected.

· Relevant figures and tables are to be included as appendices, with one exception (see below). References and appendices are not included when determining whether your submission exceeds the maximum page length.

· The exception for inclusion of a table in the body of the report is that the decision matrix table is to be included in the main body of the report.

Deliverable Due Dates

Assignment #1 proposal is due to Slate by February 5 in the Slate folder provided.

Assignment #1 final paper is due to Slate by March 1 in the Slate folder provided.

Deliverable Rubric

The Grading Rubric for the final Assignment #1 paper is provided below.

Criteria	Below Average	Average	Above Average	Suggested Weighting
Executive Summary	Executive summary is not clear, does not define what the issue is, why it is important to the client, or articulate the conclusion of the paper. Talks about the process of the research rather than the results/recommendation of the research. Goes on for more than half a page.	Executive summary is somewhat clear in that there has been an effort to articulate the issue, explain why it is important to the client and provides the final results/recommendation of the research. However, tends to be wordy, wanders into non-essential issues and goes over half a page.	Executive summary is clear, with a strong linkage between the issue, why the issue is important and the final results/recommendation of the research. Logical and concise presentation. Not a repeat of the recommendation section.	5
Analysis of situation related to country/industry selection using designated analytical tools.	Little or no analysis shown. Group/individual simply restated the information from the original source material. There was no consistency/equivalency of information provided amongst the countries/industry under consideration.	Group/individual attempted some level of analytical interpretation of information, resulting in a reasonable summary of facts, with some linkage to the company’s strategic interests. There was some effort to provide consistency/equivalency of information provided amongst the countries/industry under consideration.	Group/individual demonstrated significant interpretation/analysis of the information acquired by commenting on trends and other relevant items, resulting in a reasonably clear and focused discussion, linked to the company’s strategic interests. The countries/industry were compared based on comparable/equivalent information.	25
Decision Criteria/Matrix	Group/individual did not provide any decision criteria that were realistic and practical in the context of the country/industry selection, or were related to the analysis section. Clearly confused between the use of PESTEL categories and PESTEL criteria. Provided little or no rationale for the various weightings of the criteria used. Failed to provide a brief explanation of scoring in each matrix box. Presentation of the decision matrix itself was unprofessional.	Group/individual attempted some effort at identifying and justifying decision criteria that relate to the analysis section. They did not confuse PESTEL categories with PESTEL criteria. Provided some rationale for the various weightings of the decision criteria. Provided some explanation of scoring in each box, but was not related to the criteria or was not comparable/equivalent across all countries. Application of the use of a decision matrix met average standards	Group/individual demonstrated significant effort in identifying and justifying decision criteria that are clearly related to the analysis section They did not confuse PESTEL categories with PESTEL criteria. Provided a clear reasonable and logical rationale for the various weightings of the decision criteria. Provided an explanation of scoring in each box that was consistent with the criteria chosen and was comparable/equivalent across all countries. Application of the use of a decision matrix was above average.	20
Recommendation	Recommendation given is unrelated to the previous discussion in paper. New information is added that has not been dealt with before.	The recommendation given is clearly related to the previous discussion. No new information is provided, but discussion is not overly persuasive in summarizing the rationale for the conclusion.	The recommendation provided is clearly related to the previous discussion. No new information is provided, and the discussion is clearly persuasive in summarizing the rationale for the conclusion.	5
Quality, accuracy and originality in research	Little or no use of high quality research sources. Poor or no accuracy/evidence in referencing sources in text. No use or poor use of APA.	Limited use of high quality research sources (MINIMUM OF 15 CREDIBLE SOURCES) Inconsistency with referencing sources in text. Use APA is evident, but still needs improvement.	Good use of high quality research sources. (MINIMUM OF 25 CREDIBLE SOURCES) High quality of referencing sources in text Use of APA well done.	25
Report Structure, Language, Grammar and Spelling	Poor use of business language. Multiple and consistent grammar and/or spelling errors. No focused structure to the report. No headings. UNPROFESSIONAL PAPER	Good use of business language. Moderate but consistent grammar and/or spelling errors. Some structure but information requires connection of ideas. More use of headings. COMPONENTS OF A PROFESSIONAL PAPER ARE THERE, BUT NOT YET A FINISHED PRODUCT	Strong use of business language with no grammar and/or spelling errors. Headings with sub-headings are well organized. Strong structure with clear flow of multiple ideas throughout report. PROFESSIONAL REPORT	20

Appendix A – Decision Matrix Discussion

Provide an introduction that explains the rationale (based on your analysis section) for the criteria you have chosen, as well as a definition of each criteria. NOTE: P, E, S, T, E and L are “categories” of analysis. They are not criteria! You must choose criteria that you previously analysed that are within these categories for your decision matrix.

Example: The “E” category discussion in the analysis section resulted in the identification of “Days to Start a Business” (i.e. how long does it take to go through the regulatory requirements of the country in question to establish a legitimate business entity).

Additionally, the weighting you assign to each criteria needs to be explained.

Example: the criteria “Days to Start a Business” is weighted at 10% as the firm in question has the option to start working remotely, as their service is done online, before opening a new office in any of the countries.

Decision Criteria (level of importance in decision)	Country 1	Country 2
Decision Criteria 1 (10%) Days to Start Business	2 (0.2) It takes nearly 90 days on average to start a business in this country.	4.5 (0.4) Starting a business in this country averages 10 days.
Decision Criteria 2 (40%)	3(1.2)	2(.8)
Decision Criteria 3 (30%)	0	4(1.2)
Decision Criteria 4 (20%)	5 (1.0)	5 (1.0)
Totals	2.4	3.4

Appendix B: Expected flow of argumentation in the paper.

It is expected that the document you deliver will follow the following line of thought and argumentation.

Executive Summary

· evidences to your client why this paper is of importance to them, and identifies the focus of your attention, keeping in mind the strategic interest of your client, and identifies the outcome of the analysis.

Analysis

· Introduce the analytical tool (be it PEST, CAGE, Five forces, OT from SWOT), and then begin the discussion of the broad areas of analysis that you have chosen to investigate. Illustrative examples of the argumentation logic and format are provided below.

Political

· Political data points leading to an analysis that evidences linkage of the data points to your client’s interests.

· Summary paragraph

Economic

· Economic data points leading to an analysis that evidences linkage of the data points to your client’s interests.

· Summary paragraph

· Repeat for all components of the analytical tools being used

· Summarize the “analysis” section. This is the area where you create the link from the analytical to the decision matrix. Key words here must come from the analysis, and in turn be used in the criteria section.

Decision Criteria section

· In the decision criteria section, you define your criteria specifically, as well as explain the weighting of each.

Decision matrix

· Each box in the matrix is meant to be a very precise precis of the relevant part of the analysis section that relates to the country and criteria being talked about. No new information is to be added in the matrix. In many ways it is a visual summary of your analysis section.

Recommendation

· Summation of the decision matrix that is linked to the strategic interests of your client.

Bibliography

· APA compliant

1