please see attached files.- marking sheet- case study (starbucks)- assignment outline- sample report ( graded a 6)
the management issue that i have picked is Planning - strategic and contingency planning.
Microsoft Word - RUBRIC assignmentFinal.docx Item Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Introduction and Identification of Problem 4% Clear problem statement that links one problem to one of the four management functions. Contextualises this problem in the case and provides justification for examining the problem. Clearly outlines the purpose and scope of the report. Presents a clear single problem to be resolved with a link to one of the four management functions. Contextualises this problem in the case with some justification for examining the problem. Presents a clear single problem to be resolved, linked to one of the four management functions and the case. The single problem to be resolved is not clear or the problem is weakly related to one of the four management functions. There is no one clearly identified problem. Problem is not linked to one of the four management functions. 4 3.5 3 2 1.5 - 0 Analysis and discussion of issues using current research 10% Presents a balanced and considered discussion of the issue/s selected using literature and examples from the case study, in relation to the two arguments/theories selected. Both sides of the issue are presented and considered. Uses more than 5 peer reviewed references. Presents very good arguments of the issue/s selected using literature and examples from the case study, in relation to the two arguments/theories selected. Both sides of the issue are presented but not deeply analysed. Uses more than 5 peer reviewed references. Reasonable ability demonstrated in application of the two arguments/theories selected. One side of the issue is presented in detail and considered using examples from the case study. Uses 5 peer reviewed references. Limited though partially satisfactory application of ideas to the case. One side of the issue is described in the paper. Only one argument/theory discussed in detail. Uses 5 peer reviewed references. No apparent application of ideas to case. Limited discussion of the issue at hand in the paper. Only one argument/theory discussed, and/or uses less than 5 peer reviewed references*. 10 - 8.5 8 - 7 6.5 - 6 5.5 - 4.5 4 - 0 Conclusion and Recommendations 4% Provides feasible recommendation/s and conclusions for management that are comprehensive and creative, with inspired actionable outcomes that are supported. Provides feasible recommendation/s and conclusions for management, that are comprehensive or creative, that are logical, actionable and are supported. Provides recommendation/s and conclusions for management, that are logical, mostly actionable, and to some degree supported. Provides opinions or statements concerning management, but are unsupported. Recommendations and conclusions are logical but contain some errors. Does not provide any managerial insights toward resolving the issue. Poorly formed or non- existent recommendations and/or conclusion. 4 3.5 3 2 1.5 - 0 Referencing 4% All sources utilised are current, appropriate and credible. Sources strongly support the students’ arguments throughout. Referencing style is correct and consistent throughout. Most sources utilised are current, appropriate and credible. Sources support the students’ arguments throughout. Referencing style is correct and consistent throughout. Some sources utilised are current, appropriate and credible and some sources support the students’ arguments. Reference style is mostly correct and consistent. Few sources utilised are current, appropriate and credible. Sources provide limited support to the students’ arguments. Referencing style is not correct or consistent throughout. Utilises little, if any, current, appropriate and credible sources. Sources provide little, if any, support to the students’ arguments. Referencing style is not correct or consistent. 4 3.5 3 2 1.5 - 0 Overall report format 3% Excellent writing with no spelling or grammatical errors. Follows the prescribed business report structure. Within word limit. Mostly error free writing. Logical business report structure. Within word limit. Written expression has a few obvious errors but within a complete business report structure. Within word limit. Written expression has several errors and/or lacks some elements of the business report structure. Within +/-15% of word limit. Written expression has many errors; business report format is inadequate. Exceeds +/-20% of word limit. 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 - 0 Please note: The report must not exceed 1500 +/- 10% words. Any words outside of the limit will not be assessed as part of the report. Reports below 1350 or above 1650 words will not be marked as excellent in any category. *Failing to source fewer than five (5) refereed journal articles will result in lower marks (not more than a pass) for the assessment. How Starbucks’ Growth Destroyed Brand Value By John Quelch July 02, 2008 Starbucks announcement that it will close 600 stores in the US is a long-overdue admission that there are limits to growth. In February 2007, a leaked internal memo written by founder Howard Schultz showed that he recognised the problem that his own growth strategy had created: “Stores no longer have the soul of the past and reflect a chain of stores vs. the warm feeling of a neighbourhood store.” Starbucks tried to add value through innovation, offering wi-fi service, creating and selling its own music. More recently, Starbucks attempted to put the focus back on coffee, revitalising the quality of its standard beverages. But none of these moves addressed the fundamental problem: Starbucks is a mass brand attempting to command a premium price for an experience that is no longer special. Either you have to cut price (and that implies a commensurate cut in the cost structure) or you have to cut distribution to restore the exclusivity of the brand. Expect the 600 store closings to be the first of a series of downsizing announcements. Sometimes, in the world of marketing, less is more. Schultz sought, admirably, to bring good coffee and the Italian coffee house experience to the American mass market. Wall Street bought into the vision of Starbucks as the “third place” after home and work. New store openings and new product launches fuelled the stock price. But sooner or later chasing quarterly earnings growth targets undermined the Starbucks brand in three ways. First, the early adopters who valued the club-like atmosphere of relaxing over a quality cup of coffee found themselves in a minority. To grow, Starbucks increasingly appealed to grab and go customers for whom service meant speed of order delivery rather than recognition by and conversation with a barista. Starbucks introduced new store formats like Express to try to cater to this second segment without undermining the first. But many Starbucks veterans have now switched to Peets, Caribou and other more exclusive brands. Second, Starbucks introduced many new products to broaden its appeal. These new products undercut the integrity of the Starbucks brand for coffee purists. They also challenged the baristas who had to wrestle with an ever-more-complicated menu of drinks. With over half of customers customising their drinks, baristas hired for their social skills and passion for coffee, no longer had time to dialogue with customers. The brand experience declined as waiting times increased. Moreover, the price premium for a Starbucks coffee seemed less justifiable for grab and go customers as McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts improved their coffee offerings at much lower prices. Third, opening new stores and launching a blizzard of new products create only superficial growth. Such strategies take top management’s eye off of improving same store sales year-on-year. This is the heavy lifting of retailing, where a local store manager has to earn brand loyalty and increase purchase frequency in his neighbourhood one customer at a time. That store manager’s efforts are undercut when additional stores are opened nearby. Eventually, the point of saturation is reached and cannibalisation of existing store sales undermines not just brand health but also manager morale. None of this need have happened if Starbucks had stayed private and grown at a more controlled pace. To continue to be a premium-priced brand while trading as a public company is very challenging. Tiffany faces a similar problem. That’s why many luxury brands like Prada remain family businesses or are controlled by private investors. They can stay small, exclusive and premium-priced by limiting their distribution to selected stores in the major international cities. Source: Quelch, J. (2008, July 02). How Starbucks’ growth destroyed brand value. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/07/how-starbucks-growth-destroyed Assignment Details · Weight: This assignment is weighted 25% towards your final grad · Due Date: 14th September 2018 23:59 Online Submission via Course Website · Learning Outcomes Assessed: 2, 3, 5, 6 · Criteria & Marking: Students will be assessed against the Management Concepts assessment rubric. This is supplied on the course website. · 1500 words · 1.5 line spacing · fully justified · New Times Roman 12 point font OR a comparable font of similar size, (e.g. Arial 11). · Pages should be numbered. Description: This assessment item is designed to enable students to develop their skills in the following: · Identifying, researching and understanding a chosen topic · Identifying and solving problems · Report writing Students are assessed on their analytical, reflective and evaluative skills using the Management Concepts Report Rubric Guidance on this assessment item wi Recommended Report Structure: Preliminary Section: · Title page · Word count · Table of Contents Body or Content: 1. Introduction and Problem Identification: In this section, you are outlining the purpose and scope of the report. You identify the management related problem/potential problem in the case study and your proposed argument address