Arno meant Assignment help

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