Assignment: Case Study Description
Marks out of
Wtg (%)
Due date
Case Study (2000 words)
40
40
29 August 2016
Please see the case titled ‘Sharp Shape Fitness Club’ in the assignment forum on study desk. This case is applicable to both the Case Study and the examination at the end of the semester. You are required to analyse this case and answer the questions below.
Important instructions: 1. The format of presenting the case study answers is indicated in the assignment questions
below. Please note that neither a report format nor essay format is required; just follow the format and instructions in the assignment questions below. A general introduction and conclusion to the case study should not be included.
2.
Word count: The word count is 2,000 A word count between 1,800 and 2,200 (10% +/2,000) is acceptable. If the word count is exceeded, only the first2,200 words will be marked. The word count excludes the title page, words in the figures and tables and the List of References. In-text references are included in the word count.
3.
Theory support: As indicated in the case study questions below, you are required to support your views with theory. To ensure depth and credibility of your work, you need to demonstrate that you read widely on the theory topic by including the views of a wide range of theory sources. Theory sources include scholarly journal articles researched through the USQ Library databases. The prescribed text (Grant et al. 2014) as well as the course readings must also be included as theory support. On postgraduate level it is expected that research include about fifteen journal articles (excluding the course readings and text).
4. References: Please note that information obtained from the case study should not be
referenced as the case study is the base source of information for your assignment. If you use information from the course Study Book, you should find the original source (see List of references at the end of each module) and reference the original source of theory. All ideas and data presented in-text, must be referenced according to the Harvard AGPS The full reference of each source must be presented in the List of References at the end of your document. Please see the USQ Library website for help on how to use the Harvard AGPS method: http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide
5.
Marking criteria sheet: It is important that you read through the marking criteria when preparing your assignment to note the criteria that assignments will be evaluated against. Please insert a copy of this criteria sheet at the end of your document. Please insert a page break at the end of your assignment before copying the marking criteria sheet on the next page.
6. Submission: Only one document in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) can be submitted. Please make sure that you submit the correct file and the final version of your assignment. It creates unnecessary problems if you submit the wrong file and we have to reset your submission page.
7. The due date is Monday,8am AEST, 29 August 2016. Penalties will be applied for
late submission. Please see the USQ policy on assignment submission, Point 4.2.4 ‘Late submission of assignments’ http://policy.usq.edu.au/documents/14749PL#4.2_Assignments. Extension to the due date can only be considered if the guidelines in the policy are followed.
8. If you have questions about the assignment, please post them on Case Study Discussion Forum on Study Desk. Even if you don’t have questions, it is important that you follow the discussions on this forum to make sure that you are on the right track with your responses to the case study questions.
Assignment questions: After reading and analysing the case Sharp Shape Fitness Club carefully, please respond to the following questions. Use the headings and subheadings as shown below to present your answers.
Title page The USQ Cover sheet should not be included. The first page of your assignment must be a title page where the following information must be included:
Assignment title
Full name and student number
Actual word count
Email address or contact phone number (If there is a problem with your assignment, it is useful to have your details so that I can contact you).
Please present the title page as a separate page. 1. Summarise the Industry and Market Information (+/- 300 words) Based on the information provided in the case, summarise the industry and market background for Sharp Shape Fitness Club. Present this in your own words and outline aspects such as the industry in general, current industry trends, competition in the industry, the state of the global market, state of the Australian market, and any other fact that might be relevant background that can be used in preparing future strategies.
2.
Industry analysis: PESTEL Analysis (+/- 450 words)
2.1
Introduction
Explain what the PESTEL tool is used for and how it assists in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations.
Use your text but also other theory sources to add depth to your
discussion.
2.2
Figure 1: PESTEL analysis
Draw the PESTEL framework as presented in your text, (Grant et al. 2014, p.115) and populate each block with data from the case, using bullet points. The six elements as well as the middle block, the industry environment, must be populated. Make sure that the reader understands what the case study fact is that you are identifying, one word in a bullet point may not be sufficient. For each element, identify a number of issues. The level of analysis of your case will be demonstrated in the population of each of the blocks.
2.3
Element narrative
In this section, each of the elements that you populated with case study facts must be discussed. Explain how the environmental conditions might influence the organisation (Sharp Shape Fitness Club) in future and impact on future strategic planning. The overall industry environment (the middle block of PESTEL) must also be discussed in terms of the impact of the environmental conditions on suppliers, competitors and customers and how this impacts on future strategic planning. Here you need to add theory to support your views (please see Point C & D above in the ‘Important Instructions section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own views rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
3. 3.1
Industry Analysis: Porter’s Five Forces (+/- 450 words) Introduction
Explain what Porter’s Five Forces Framework is used for and how it assists in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your text but also other theory sources to add depth to your discussion.
3.2
Figure 2: Porter’s five forces framework (extended version)
Draw ‘Porter’s Five Forces Framework Extended with Complements’ as presented in your text, (Grant et al. 2014, p.134) and populate each block with data from the case, using bullet points. Make sure that the reader understands what the case study fact is that you are identifying, one word in a bullet point may not be sufficient. Read Grant et al. (2014, pp. 121 – 134) for information about what each force entails. Note that the case study facts should be included here. For each element, identify a number of issues if applicable. The level of analysis of your case will be demonstrated in the population of each of the blocks.
3.3
Forces narrative
In this section, each of
the
forces
that
you populated with case
study
facts
must be discussed. Explain
how
the
micro environmental conditions
(industry
conditions)
might
influence
the
organisation
(Sharp
Shape Fitness Club) in future and impact on
future
planning. middle
strategic In
the
block,
the
Industry competitors, rivalry
the among
existing firms must be discussed. Here you need to add theory to support your views (please see Point C & D above in the ‘Important Instructions section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own views rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
4. Industry Analysis: Key Success Factors (KSFs) (+/- 450 words) 4.1
Introduction
Explain what KSFs are and how they are used in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your text but also other theory sources to add depth to your discussion.
4.2
Table 1: Key Success Factors
Draw up a KSF Table similar to Table 4.2 (Grant et al. 2014, p.145) for the Health and Fitness Industry. Identify the external forces impacting on this industry, list the likely industry responses as a whole (how the whole industry is currently responding to these forces) and then list Key Success Factors for the industry. These are the characteristics that companies in this industry should have if they want to be successful and competitive. Pay special attention to how you formulate these success factors (see Table 4.2 in Grant et al. 2014 p.145 for examples) as they play an important role in developing a range of strategies going forward.
4.3
KSF narrative
From the list of KSFs that you identified in the table, choose five (5) of the most important key success factors for the industry. Explain why you have chosen each of these KSFs as most important in the industry; why are these factors critical in the Health and Fitness industry? Here you need to add theory to support your views (please see Point C & D above in the ‘Important Instructions section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own views rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
5. Discuss the value of the rational models (such as PESTEL, Five Forces and KSFs) in contemporary strategic planning. (+/- 350 words) The Module 2 Readings address the use of strategic tools in modern strategic planning.
In this
section, discuss the value and role of rational models in practice. Conclude with your personal view about the issue, whether these strategic tools should be used or not in strategy development. In Section 2.3.2 Strategic Tools and their Use in Practice of your Study Book (Module 2, p.11) the use of ‘technical rational’ models is addressed. Please do not copy information from the study book into your answer in this section. It is important that you read the views of the authors of the readings (Module 2 Readings) and develop your own opinion about the usefulness of these models in practice. In this section, additional theory sources are not required, only the relevant Module 2 readings should be used as theory to support your discussion. Remember to apply in-text referencing (and of course full references in the List of References) when you present the views obtained from these sources.
6.
List of References
Include here a list of full references of all the in-text references that you included in your discussions. The case study should not be referenced here but your text and readings that you referenced should appear here. Make sure that you follow the correct Harvard AGPS method of referencing. Please see the
USQ
Library
website
for
help
on
how
to
use
the
Harvard
method: http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide .
AGPS The
Communication Skills Handbook by Summers and Smith (any of the editions) is also a very valuable source of information for referencing and assessment writing in general. Marking Criteria Sheet (see next 3 pages) The marking criteria below will be used to evaluate your assignment against. Please make sure that you read through the criteria sheet to see the expectations on various grade levels per section of the Case Study questions. Please insert a copy of the full criteria sheet into your assignment. This should be done by inserting a page-break after the List of References, then copy-and-paste each of the 3 pages into your own document to display as presented below. Thank you for your help in this! Please post questions about the Case Study in the Study Desk forum titled ‘Case Study Discussion Forum’.
CRITERIA
FAIL Less than 50%
Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question and differentiation between industry and market is not clear.
PASS 50%–64%
Basic to fair understanding of question.
Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the answer to the question.
Answers all
Excellent
broad
analysis of
Clear
selection of
relevant issues
distinction
relevant
pertaining to
between
industry and
the question.
Included some
industry and
market
irrelevant
market
information.
material.
information.
focus. Included
Some degree
Good selection
constructed
mostly
of copy and
of information
answer,
irrelevant
paste from
presented in a
argument is
material.
case.
structured
clear and
way.
reinforces
May not have answered all
Not all issues
relevant to the
relevant to
question.
question have been answered.
High degree of
parts of the
Well-
No irrelevant content. Excellent development and flow of argument.
important key
copy and paste
issues.
from case.
PESTEL ANALYSIS: FRAMEWORK
Strong understanding of the question.
included a
the case study
PESTEL ANALYSIS: INTRODUCTION
HIGH DISTINCTION 85% and up
question;
Misunderstood
MARK / 4
DISTINCTION 75%–84%
Unequivocal understanding of question.
the issues SUMMARISE INDUSTRY AND MARKET INFORMATION
CREDIT 65%–74%
<2
2 – 2.6
2.6 – 3
3- 3.4
3.4- 4
No introduction or introduction without theory support. Prescribed text not used. Introduction does not explain the link with strategy development.
Basic introduction, only text used as theory support. Prescribed text not effectively used. Basic explanation of link with strategy development.
Sound introduction, some original sources used as theory support. Sound explanation of link with strategy development.
Clear introduction demonstrating research of the topic. Link with strategy development is well researched and presented clearly. Original sources of theory applied.
Excellent introduction, concise, clear and demonstrating a deep level of understanding of the topic. A range of original sources of theory applied
No framework presented or presented incorrectly. No
Framework is presented with bullet points from case data
Framework is presented with relevant bullet points with
Framework is populated with relevant and significant
Excellent population of the framework with important
TOTA
case facts only theory as bullet points. Elements not populated with case data. Irrelevant data included. Elements populated with only theory, no case study data. Poor selection of case data. Misunderstood the requirements.
but covers only some issues, analysis is incomplete. Elements populated insufficiently. Mostly theory, insufficient case study data. Basic level of case analysis.
case data; most of the important issues are included. Elements are sufficiently populated with theory and
case study data demonstrating a deep level of case analysis.
case data, satisfactory
and relevant case study data. Original material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent analysis of sources.
level of case analysis.
Insufficient case analysis. PESTEL ANALYSIS: NARRATIVE
Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the 0question. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered. Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Basic to fair understanding of question. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. Might have some patches of irrelevant material.
Poor structure:
and
no paragraphs, no logical progression of argument.
Some evidence of structure
Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the answer to the question. All issues were addressed. Good structure and progression of
Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.
Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
Very good
and discussion.
structure,
theme.
clear
progression of
Original
and
argument.
material
progression of
obtained and
argument.
Included some additional
integrated in
arguments
Excellent critical analysis
Original material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent
Clear evidence
critical analysis
instances.
of wider
of sources.
most
No references.
references
No integration
although
reading.
References are
of theory and
integration of
Sources of
References are
relevant and
application. No
all or some of
theory include
well integrated
clearly
theory, only
these
scholarly
into the
integrated.
application.
references
journal articles
discussions.
Only theory, no
need
to support the
Good balance
application. Course materials and/or prescribed text not used. Only textbook no other research. High degree of paraphrasing or direct quotes. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from
improvement. Citations were mostly from the text. Included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study
of text, theory component.
books, articles
journals, etc. Critical analysis of sources.
from magazines) to support theory component.
magazines) to support theory component. MARK/9
<4.5
CRITERIA
FAIL Less than 50%
FIVE FORCES: INTRODUCTION
FIVE FORCES: FRAMEWORK
4.5 – 5.8
5.8 – 6.7
6.7 – 7.6
7.6 – 9
HIGH DISTINCTION 85% and up
PASS 50%–64%
CREDIT 65%–74%
DISTINCTION 75%–84%
No introduction or introduction without theory support. Prescribed text not used. Introduction does not explain the link with strategy development.
Basic introduction, only text used as theory support. Prescribed text not effectively used. Basic explanation of link with strategy development.
Sound introduction, some original sources used as theory support. Sound explanation of link with strategy development.
Clear introduction demonstrating research of the topic. Link with strategy development is well researched and presented clearly. Original sources of theory applied.
Excellent introduction, concise, clear and demonstrating a deep level of understanding of the topic. A range of original sources of theory applied.
No framework presented or presented incorrectly.
Framework is presented with bullet points from case data but
Framework is presented with relevant bullet points
Framework is populated with relevant and significant
Excellent population of the framework with important
TOT
No case facts only theory as bullet points. Elements not populated with case data. Irrelevant data included. Elements populated with only theory, no case study data. Poor selection of case data. Misunderstood
covers only some issues, analysis is incomplete.
with case data; most of the important issues are included.
Elements
Elements are
populated
sufficiently
insufficiently.
populated
Mostly theory,
with theory
insufficient case
and case
study data. Basic
data,
level of case
satisfactory
analysis.
level of case
case study data demonstrating a deep level of case analysis.
and relevant case study data. Original material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent analysis of sources.
analysis.
the requirements. Insufficient case analysis. FIVE FORCES: NARRATIVE
Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered. Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Basic to fair understanding of question. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. Might have some patches of irrelevant material.
Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the answer to the question. All issues were addressed. Good
Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.
Some evidence of
structure and
Very good
structure and
progression of
structure,
progression of
theme.
clear
Poor
Excellent critical analysis and discussion.
arguments Original
Original
Included some
and
material is the
structure: no
material
additional
progression of
result of in
paragraphs,
obtained and
references
argument.
depth
no logical
integrated in
although
Clear evidence
progression of
most
integration of all
of wider
argument.
instances.
or some of these
No references. No integration of theory and
argument.
Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
reading.
references need
Sources of
References
improvement.
theory include
are well
Citations were
scholarly
integrated into
investigation. Excellent critical analysis of sources. References
application. No theory, only application. Only theory, no application. Course materials and/or prescribed text not used. Only textbook no other research. High degree of paraphrasing or direct quotes. Included
mostly from the
the
text. Included some irrelevant
journal
sources (web
articles to
pages, study
support the
books, articles
theory
from magazines)
component.
to support theory
discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical
are relevant and clearly integrated.
analysis of sources.
component.
irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory component. MARK/9
KSF: INTRODUCTION
KSF
<4.5 No introduction or introduction without theory support. Prescribed text not used. Introduction does not explain the link with strategy development.
No framework
4.5 – 5.8
5.8 – 6.7
6.7 – 7.6
7.6 – 9
Basic introduction, only text used as theory support. Prescribed text not effectively used. Basic explanation of link with strategy development.
Sound introduction, some original sources used as theory support. Sound explanation of link with strategy development.
Clear introduction demonstrating research of the topic. Link with strategy development is well researched and presented clearly. Original sources of theory applied.
Excellent introduction, concise, clear and demonstrating a deep level of understanding of the topic. A range of original sources of theory applied.
Framework is
Framework is
Framework is
Excellent
FRAMEWORK
CRITERIA
KSF: NARRATIVE
presented or presented incorrectly. No case facts only theory as bullet points. Elements not populated with case data. Irrelevant data included. Elements populated with only theory, no case study data. Poor selection of case data. Misunderstood the requirements. Insufficient case analysis.
presented with bullet points from case data but covers only some issues, analysis is incomplete. Elements populated insufficiently. Mostly theory, insufficient case study data. Basic level of case analysis.
FAIL Less than 50%
PASS 50%–64%
CREDIT 65%–74%
DISTINCTION 75%–84%
Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered. Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Basic to fair understanding of question. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. Might have some patches of irrelevant material.
Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the answer to the question. All issues were addressed. and progression
Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.
of theme.
Very good
Some evidence of structure and progression of
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of argument.
argument. Included some additional references although integration of
presented with relevant bullet points with case data; most of the important issues are included. Elements are sufficiently populated with theory and case data, satisfactory level of case analysis.
Good structure
Original material obtained and integrated in most instances. Sources of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component.
populated with relevant and significant case study data demonstrating a deep level of case analysis.
structure, clear
population of the framework with important and relevant case study data. Original material is the result of in depth investigation. Excellent analysis of sources.
HIGH DISTINCTION 85% and up
Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question. Excellent critical analysis and discussion.
arguments
Original
and
material is the
progression of
result of in
argument.
depth
Clear evidence of wider reading. References
investigation. Excellent critical analysis of
TOTA
No references. No integration of theory and application. No theory, only application. Only theory, no application. Course materials and/or prescribed text not used. Only textbook no other research. High degree of paraphrasing or direct quotes. Included irrelevant sources (web pages, study
all or some of these references need
are well
improvement.
integrated into
Citations were
the
mostly from
discussions.
the text.
Good balance
Included some
of text,
irrelevant
journals, etc.
sources (web
Critical
pages, study
sources. References are relevant and clearly integrated.
analysis of
books, articles
sources.
from magazines) to support theory component.
books, articles from magazines) to support theory component. MARK/9
<4.5
4.5 – 5.8
5.8 – 6.7
6.7 – 7.6
7.6 – 9
VALUE OF RATIONAL MODELS
Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question.Study book materials copied. No evidence that the readings for Module 2 were studied. Did not conclude with a clear opinion about the value of the
Basic to fair understanding of question. Evidence that some of the readings were studied.
Sound understanding of the question. Evidence that all of the readings for Module 2 were studied.
Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent critical opinion justified from the theory.
Some valid
Valid arguments
Strong understanding of the question. Clear critical opinion justified from the theory.
arguments
built on the views
Very good
arguments,
offered,
presented in the
arguments
clear evidence
readings. Good
built on the
of
theory support.
views
understanding
presented in
of the issues
the readings.
addressed in
supported by theory. Concluded
Concluded with a
Excellent
Very good models. Arguments not supported with theory from the readings. No theory references (readings). Unsupported personal opinions.
theory
with opinion about the
valid opinion
support.
value of the
about the value
Very good
models.
of the models. All
conclusion
Some
arguments
about the
arguments
supported by
value of the
supported by
theory from the
models,
theory from
readings.
supported by
readings.
the readings. Excellent conclusions, supported by theory from the readings.
theory from the readings.
MARK /5
<2.5
2.5 – 3
3 – 3.5
3.5 – 4
4–5
RESEARCH/ REFERENCING/ PRESENTATION
No research of topics. No scholarly journal articles. Only company websites.
Satisfactory number of scholarly journal articles. Sufficient research.
Clear evidence of wider reading.
Only minor errors
protocols.
Harvard
Included some scholarly journal articles although insufficient number is insufficient. Citations were mostly from the text.
referencing.
Harvard
Professional
Uses dynamic, unique material beside relatively standard material to develop theoretical concepts. Excellent research.
presentation.
Accurate
Did not conform to
Not adhering to assignment requirements.
referencing techniques varies.
in Harvard referencing – intext or List of referencesAdhere to assignment
Meets Harvard referencing
Clear and fluent writing.
requirements and
Within word
structure. Sound
count.
Harvard referencing no errors.
No title page.
Some
level of fluency in
Did not follow
instances in
writing; (may
Well-
the required
which the
have one or two
constructed
structure.
assignment
awkward
and crafted
Excessive
requirements
sentences). No
piece of work.
spelling,
and structure
obvious errors in
A pleasure to
grammatical
were not
grammar or
read.
errors; poor
followed. Fair
syntax. Well
Professional
syntax. Poorly
understanding
presented. Within
presentation.
presented; A
of rules of
word count
Within word
lot of typing
grammar and
errors.
construction.
Over or under 10% of word limit
Some spelling /typing errors. Within word
count.
count. MARK / 4 TOTAL/40:
<2
2 – 2.6
2.6 – 3
3- 3.4
3.4- 4