stake holder analysis of tesla motors

Page 1 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline

Assessment 1 Information

Subject Code: MBA501 Subject Name: Dynamic Strategy and Disruptive Innovation Assessment Title: Stakeholder Analysis and Strategy Development Report Assessment Type: Report 2500 Words (+/-10%) Weighting: 35 % Total Marks: 35 Submission: Turnitin Due Date: Week 7

Your Task Develop a stakeholder analysis and strategy development report. Assessment Description

You are required to research Tesla Motors and develop a Stakeholder Analysis and Strategy Development Report. As a starting point, listen to the BBC interview with Tesla CEO Elon Musk; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0871VJfvD1c

The report should include an Executive Summary, Table of Content, and cover the following key focus areas.

A. Introduction to Tesla Motors This section should include an introduction to Tesla Motors. Need to capture the vision and mission of the company with recent developments, challenges, and industry trends. Essential to provide a concise summary and an analysis of facts.

B. Tesla Stakeholder View of the Organisation

Prepare a diagram with Tesla as the central organisation surrounded by the company’s stakeholder groups using the stakeholder view model.

For each stakeholder group identified in the stakeholder view model, research Tesla further and prepare a list identifying and describing the specific stakeholders within each stakeholder group.

C. Stakeholder Analysis for four selected stakeholder groups

Select four specific stakeholders and analyse their behaviour and motives.

Tip: choose a stakeholder from each of the different four stakeholder categories discussed in MBA 501 workshops to avoid repeating yourself in sections D and E.

Page 2 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline

D. Stakeholder category identification and generic strategic programs for each of the four selected stakeholders

Identify the stakeholder category that each of the four stakeholders belongs to and list the generic strategic programs available for managing each stakeholder. E. Recommended strategic program for each of the four selected stakeholder

groups including reasons for recommendations

Recommend a specific strategic program for each of the four identified stakeholders that are consistent with one of the generic programs identified in section D.

Assessment Instructions

o Need to capture recent developments with regards to Tesla Motors and the industry.

o Incorporate academically oriented articles and books into the analysis.

o Minimum five academically oriented articles and books apart from industry reports, credible online news sources, business magazines, websites, etc.

o Concepts relevant for this assignment are in workshops 1-5

o Need to follow a report format

 The Executive summary and table of content will not be included in the word count

o Study the attached assessment rubric carefully

o Watch the assignment briefing webinar conducted by the Subject Coordinator – refer subject welcome message from the Coordinator for the date and time

Page 3 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline

Important Study Information Academic Integrity Policy KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy. What is academic integrity and misconduct? What are the penalties for academic misconduct? What are the late penalties? How can I appeal my grade? Click here for answers to these questions: http://www.kbs.edu.au/current-students/student-policies/. Word Limits for Written Assessments Submissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded. Study Assistance Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Click here for this information.

Page 4 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline

Assessment Marking Guide

Criteria Below 50% Pass 50% - 64% Credit 65%-74% Distinction 75% - 84% High Distinction above 85% Introduction and the stakeholder view (7.0)

Analytical rather than descriptive

Basic introduction to the company. Insufficient

capturing of trends and challenges. Lacks analysis.

The stakeholder view is incomplete.

Basic introduction to the company. Covered trends and challenges but basic analysis/

glossed over. Basic stakeholder view framework. Overall,

descriptive than analytical.

Covered all the necessary points sufficiently. A certain degree of analysis visible. Captured and analysed the vision, mission,

trends, and challenges adequately. Good stakeholder diagram and description. Some

research evident.

Covered all the necessary points well. Good analysis; went beyond descriptions. Integrated literature and concepts well. Good review of vision, mission, trends, and

challenges. Complete stakeholder diagram.

Presented a holistic introduction. Very good analysis of the vision, mission, trends, and challenges.

Very good coverage of stakeholders; comprehensive yet concise descriptions. Presented

the stakeholder diagram very well.

Stakeholder Analysis (8.0)

Critical analysis and engagement of

concepts

Insufficient coverage of key concepts associated with stakeholder analysis. The

analysis is superficial or non- existent.

A basic analysis of stakeholders. Engaged some of the concepts

associated with stakeholder analysis but the analysis lacks

depth and detail.

Integration of stakeholder analysis related concepts to

some extent. Sufficient analysis. Integrated journal articles,

prescribed text, other books, verified websites, etc. to some

extent.

Covered most of the concepts associated with stakeholder

analysis. Provided strong justification and engaged

scholarly views and arguments to enhance the depth of the review.

Integrated journal articles, prescribed text, other books, verified websites, etc. into the

analysis.

Provided a comprehensive analysis of stakeholders while

engaging all the concepts associated with stakeholder

analysis. Engaged literature and scholarly views to strengthen the

arguments and justifications. Integrated journal articles,

prescribed text, other books, verified websites, etc. into the

analysis. Very well.

Category identification and generic strategy programs (8.0)

Critical analysis and engagement of generic

strategy programs

The insufficient justification for stakeholder categorisation. Lack of discussion about

generic strategy programs.

A basic justification for stakeholder categorisation. The categorisation is in line with the analysis to some extent. A basic indication of the generic strategy programs; insufficient integration

with the case study company.

Provided enough justification for stakeholder categorisation. The categorisation is in line with the analysis. Engaged literature to some extent to strengthen the

arguments. Discussed and integrated the generic strategy

programs to the case study company. Integrated journal

articles, prescribed text, other books, verified websites, etc. into

the analysis to some extent.

Provided sound justification for stakeholder categorisation. Good

analysis of generic strategy options in the context of the case

study company and engaged literature and scholarly views to

strengthen the arguments. Integrated journal articles,

prescribed text, other books, verified websites, etc. into the

analysis.

Comprehensive analysis of generic strategy options in the

context of the case study company. Very good justification

for stakeholder categorisation and supported the arguments

with scholarly views. Integrated journal articles, prescribed text, other books, verified websites, etc. into the analysis very well.

Recommendations (6.0)

Comprehensive, strategic and in line with the stakeholder model

Recommendations are missing or incomplete

Recommendations are very general in nature – there is a

disconnect between the analysis, categorisation and the

recommendations. Either few or long list without sufficient

justification.

The recommendations are broadly in line with the

stakeholder analysis and categorisation. Sufficient

justification for the recommendations and integrated

the generic strategy options sufficiently. Some research

evident.

Recommendations are in line with the stakeholder analysis and stakeholder categorisation. The recommendations flow from the generic strategy option analysis. Need to justify further. Engaged

literature when justifying the recommendations.

Comprehensive recommendations that cover the chosen stakeholders well. The

recommendations are entirely in line with the analysis and

categorisation. The recommendations are emerging from the generic strategy options and provided a good justification. Engaged literature well to justify.

Page 5 Kaplan Business School Assessment Outline

Structure (6.0)

Organisation, report structure, flow,

adherence to KBS referencing guidelines

and writing style

Sketchy executive summary. Did not follow the KBS

referencing guidelines and report writing conventions

sufficiently. Need to improve grammar, spelling, and the

flow of the report.

Followed KBS referencing guidelines to some extent.

Appropriate executive summary but need to improve. There is

disconnect between some sections. Appropriate flow and

followed report writing conventions to some extent.

Reasonably good writing style.

Followed KBS referencing guidelines well. Followed report writing conventions sufficiently. The structure and the flow are

good. Adequate focus on spelling, grammar, and the

writing style.

The report structure and the flow are very good. The different

sections of the report connect logically. Followed KBS

referencing guidelines well. Good writing style; grammar, spelling

and academically oriented writing.

Maintained a very good flow; the sections in the report connect logically and seamlessly. Very

good executive summary. Followed KBS referencing

guidelines well. Very good writing style; spelling, paragraph

construction, grammar, and academically oriented writing.