Assignment

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-referencingguide 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.

2.1

Industry analysis: PESTEL Analysis (+/- 450 words) 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 strategic planning. In the middle block, the Industry competitors, the rivalry 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 Factors

Table 1: Key Success

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 intext 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 AGPS method: http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide .

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

SUMMARISE INDUSTRY AND MARKET INFORMATION

FAIL Less than 50%

PASS 50%–64%

CREDIT 65%–74%

DISTINCTIO N 75%–84%

HIGH DISTINCTIO N 85% and up

Lacks a demonstrated understandin g of the question and

Basic to fair understandin g of question.

May not

Sound understandin g of the question demonstrate

Strong understanding of the question.

Answers all

Unequivocal understanding of question.

Excellent analysis of

TOTA L

differentiatio n between industry and market is not clear.

Not all issues relevant to question have been answered.

Misunderstoo d the case study focus.

Included mostly irrelevant material.

have answered all the issues relevant to the question.

Included some irrelevant material.

PESTEL ANALYSIS: INTRODUCTIO N

PESTEL

relevant issues pertaining to the question.

No irrelevant content.

Some degree of copy and paste from case.

Good selection of information presented in a structured way.

Wellconstructed answer, argument is clear and reinforces important key issues.

Excellent development and flow of argument.

<2

2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2.6

2.6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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

Framework

Framework is

Excellent

High degree of copy and paste from case.

MARK / 4

d in the answer to the question.

Clear distinction between industry and market information.

parts of the question; included a broad selection of relevant industry and market information.

ANALYSIS: FRAMEWORK

framework 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.

Misunderstoo d the requirements.

Insufficient case analysis.

PESTEL ANALYSIS: NARRATIVE

Lacks a demonstrated understandin g of the question. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered.

Misunderstoo d the case study focus.

Included

is 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.

Basic to fair understandin g of question.

May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question.

Might have some patches of irrelevant

is 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.

populated with relevant and significant case study data demonstrating a deep level of case analysis.

population of the framework with important and relevant case study data.

Original material is the result of in depth investigation.

Excellent analysis of sources.

Sound understandin g of the question demonstrate d in the answer to the question.

All issues were addressed.

Good structure and

Strong understanding of the question.

Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.

Very good structure,

Unequivocal understanding of question.

Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.

Excellent critical analysis and discussion.

mostly irrelevant material.

Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of argument.

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 books, articles from magazines) to

material.

Some evidence of structure and progression of argument.

Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references need improvemen t. Citations were mostly from the text.

Included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory component.

progression of theme.

Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.

Sources of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component.

clear arguments and progression of argument.

Clear evidence of wider reading.

References are well integrated into the discussions.

Good balance of text, journals, etc.

Critical analysis of sources.

Original material is the result of in depth investigation.

Excellent critical analysis of sources.

References are relevant and clearly integrated.

support theory component.

MARK/9

<4.5

CRITERIA

FAIL Less than 50%

FIVE FORCES: INTRODUCTI ON

FIVE FORCES: FRAMEWORK

4.5 – 5.8

5.8 – 6.7

6.7 – 7.6

DISTINCTIO N 75%–84%

7.6 – 9

HIGH DISTINCTIO N 85% and up

PASS 50%–64%

CREDIT 65%–74%

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 developmen t.

Clear introduction demonstratin g research of the topic.

Link with strategy development is well researched and presented clearly.

Original sources of theory applied.

Excellent introduction, concise, clear and demonstratin g a deep level of understanding of the topic.

A range of original sources of theory applied.

No framework presented or presented incorrectly.

No case facts only theory as bullet points.

Elements not populated with case data.

Irrelevant

Framework is presented with bullet points from case data but covers only some issues, analysis is incomplete.

Elements populated insufficiently.

Mostly theory, insufficient case study data.

Framework is presented with relevant bullet points with case data; most of the important issues are included.

Elements are sufficiently

Framework is populated with relevant and significant case study data demonstratin g a deep level of case analysis.

Excellent population of the framework with important and relevant case study data.

Original material is the result of in depth investigation.

Excellent

TOTA L

data included.

Elements populated with only theory, no case study data. Poor selection of case data.

Misundersto od the requirements . Insufficient case analysis.

FIVE FORCES: NARRATIVE

Lacks a demonstrate d understandin g of the question.

Not all issues relevant to question have been answered.

Misundersto od the case study focus.

Included mostly irrelevant material.

Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of argument.

No

Basic level of case analysis.

Basic to fair understanding of question.

May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. Might have some patches of irrelevant material.

Some evidence of structure and progression of argument.

Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references need improvement.

Citations were

populated with theory and case data, satisfactory level of case analysis.

Sound understandi ng of the question demonstrate d in the answer to the question.

All issues were addressed.

Good structure and progression of theme.

Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.

Sources of

analysis of sources.

Strong understanding of the question.

Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.

Very good structure, clear arguments and progression of argument.

Clear evidence of wider reading.

References are well integrated into the

Unequivocal understanding of question.

Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.

Excellent critical analysis and discussion.

Original material is the result of in depth investigation.

Excellent critical analysis of sources.

References are relevant and clearly

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 books, articles from magazines) to support theory component.

mostly from the text. Included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory component.

theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component.

discussions.

Good balance of text, journals, etc.

Critical analysis of sources.

integrated.

MARK/9

<4.5

4.5 – 5.8

5.8 – 6.7

6.7 – 7.6

7.6 – 9

KSF: INTRODUCTI ON

No introduction or introduction without

Basic introduction, only text used as theory support.

Sound introduction , some original sources used

Clear introduction demonstratin g research of the topic.

Excellent introduction, concise, clear and demonstratin

theory support.

Prescribed text not used.

Introduction does not explain the link with strategy development .

KSF FRAMEWORK

CRITERIA

No framework 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.

Misundersto od the requirements . Insufficient case analysis.

FAIL Less than

Prescribed text not effectively used. Basic explanation of link with strategy development.

as theory support.

Sound explanation of link with strategy developmen t.

Framework is 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.

Framework is 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.

PASS

CREDIT

Link with strategy development is well researched and presented clearly.

Original sources of theory applied.

Framework is populated with relevant and significant case study data demonstratin g a deep level of case analysis.

DISTINCTIO N

g a deep level of understanding of the topic.

A range of original sources of theory applied.

Excellent 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 DISTINCTIO

TOTA

KSF: NARRATIVE

50%

50%–64%

65%–74%

75%–84%

Lacks a demonstrated understandin g of the question. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered.

Misundersto od the case study focus.

Included mostly irrelevant material.

Basic to fair understandi ng of question.

May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question.

Might have some patches of irrelevant material.

Some evidence of structure and progression of argument.

Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the answer to the question.

All issues were addressed.

Good structure and progression of theme.

Strong understanding of the question.

Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.

Very good structure, clear arguments and progression of argument.

Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of argument.

No references.

No integration of theory and application.

No theory, only application.

Only theory, no application.

Course materials and/or

Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references need improvemen t. Citations were mostly from the text.

Included some

Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.

Sources of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component.

Clear evidence of wider reading.

References are well integrated into the discussions.

Good balance of text, journals, etc.

Critical analysis of sources.

N 85% and up Unequivocal understanding of question.

Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.

Excellent critical analysis and discussion.

Original material is the result of in depth investigation.

Excellent critical analysis of sources.

References are relevant and clearly integrated.

L

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 magazines) to support theory component.

irrelevant sources (web pages, study 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 understandin g of the question.Stu dy 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 models.

Arguments

Basic to fair understandi ng of question.

Evidence that some of the readings were studied.

Some valid arguments offered, supported by theory.

Sound understanding of the question.

Evidence that all of the readings for Module 2 were studied.

Valid arguments built on the views presented in the readings. Good theory support.

Concluded with opinion about the value of the models.

Concluded with a valid opinion about the value of the models. All

Strong understanding of the question.

Clear critical opinion justified from the theory.

Very good arguments built on the views presented in the readings.

Very good theory support.

Unequivocal understanding of question.

Excellent critical opinion justified from the theory.

Excellent arguments, clear evidence of understanding of the issues addressed in the readings.

Very good conclusion

Excellent conclusions, supported by

not supported with theory from the readings. No theory references (readings).

Unsupported personal opinions.

Some arguments supported by theory from readings.

arguments supported by theory from the readings.

about the value of the models, 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/ REFERENCIN G/ PRESENTATIO N

No research of topics. No scholarly journal articles. Only company websites.

Did not conform to Harvard referencing.

Included some scholarly journal articles although insufficient number is insufficient.

Citations were mostly from the text.

Harvard referencing techniques varies.

Satisfactory number of scholarly journal articles.

Sufficient research.

Only minor errors in Harvard referencing – in-text or List of referencesAdhe re to assignment requirements and structure.

Sound level of fluency in writing; (may have one or two awkward sentences). No obvious errors in grammar or syntax. Well presented.

Within word count

Clear evidence of wider reading.

Meets Harvard referencing protocols.

Uses dynamic, unique material beside relatively standard material to develop theoretical concepts.

Excellent research.

Accurate Harvard referencing no errors.

Not adhering to assignment requirements . No title page. Did not follow the required structure.

Excessive spelling, grammatical errors; poor syntax.

Poorly presented; A lot of typing errors.

Some instances in which the assignment requirement s and structure were not followed.

Fair understandi ng of rules of grammar and

Clear and fluent writing.

Professional presentation.

Within word count.

Wellconstructed and crafted piece of work. A pleasure to read.

Professional presentation.

Within word count.

MARK / 4 TOTAL/40:

Over or under 10% of word limit

construction . Some spelling /typing errors.

Within word count.

<2

2 – 2.6

2.6 – 3

3- 3.4

3.4- 4