Please find the attached instructions
Microsoft Word - MBA501_T3_2018_Assessment_1_V1 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Assessment Information Assessment Information Subject Code: MBA501 Subject Name: Dynamic Strategy and Disruptive Innovation Assessment Title: Stakeholder Analysis and Strategy Development Report Weighting: 35% Total Marks: 35 Word Limit: 2,500 words 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. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B. Assessment Information 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. Important Points to consider o Need to capture recent developments with regards to Tesla Motors and the industry. o Incorporate academically oriented articles and books into the analysis (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 Assessment Marking Rubric 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. 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