RECENT ASSIGNMENT

Assignment: Case Study
Description Marks out of Wtg (%) Due date
Case Study 1 (2000 words) 40 40 29 August 2017
Please see the case titled ‘Home Pharmaceuticals’ in the assignment forum on study desk. This case is applicable to both Case Study Assignment and the examination. You are required to analyse this case and answer the questions below.
Important instructions:
A. 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.
B. Word count: The word count is 2000 words. A word count between 1800 and 2200 (10% +/- 1 800) is acceptable. If the word count is exceeded, only the first 2200 words will be marked and this will obviously have a negative impact on your mark for the assignment. 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.
C. 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). Research on the case study context (Pharmaceuticals industry) is not included in the expected fifteen journal articles. It is not required that you investigate the case study context in detail, focus your research on the theory topics.
D. 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. Do not use the course Study Book (or any other study books) as a reference source. All ideas and data presented in-text, must be referenced according to the Harvard AGPS method. 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
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. It is extremely important that you submit your assignment by the due date. We are learning about strategic planning in this course and your ability to plan your time to ensure that you meet the due dates is an important aspect of this course. 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 . This policy, that outlines penalties for late submission, will be applied in this course. Requests for extension to the due date can only be considered if the guidelines in the policy are followed.
H. 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 Home Pharmaceuticals 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: not the required word count but the actual number of words in your assignment (excluding the title page, List of References, and words in tables/figures).
• 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 directly).
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 Home Pharmaceuticals. 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 (+/- 400 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 explanation. It is important that you clearly explain the link to strategy development here.
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.
Remember that the number of words included in the framework are not included in the word count. Here you can demonstrate the depth of your case analysis by including as many as possible relevant bullet points. I strongly suggest that you make good use of the frameworks!
2.3 Element narrative
From the elements in the framework, identify the top three (3) issues/environmental conditions that impact on the case. These three can include individual bullet points from the elements or a combination of the bullet points from one or more elements.
Explain how these environmental conditions might influence the organisation (Home Pharmaceuticals) in future and impact on future strategic planning. Also note the impact of these 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. Industry Analysis: Porter’s Five Forces (+/- 400 words)
3.1 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. Don’t forget the Complements block!
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. It is very important that you are specific about the case study here, applying the theory to the case. Identify in the framework who the potential entrants, buyer and suppliers are, also what the substitutes are. You need to consider here the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, the switching costs for suppliers, buyers and substitutes but also the threat of new entrants and substitutes.
Remember that the number of words included in the framework are not included in the word count. Here you can demonstrate the depth of your case analysis by including as many as possible relevant bullet points. I strongly suggest that you make good use of the frameworks!
3.3 Forces narrative
From the bullet points identified for each of the factors in the framework, identify the top three (3) issues/industry conditions that impact on the organisation. These three can include individual bullet points or a combination of the bullet points from one or more of the factors.
Explain how the micro environmental conditions (industry conditions) might influence the organisation (Home Pharmaceuticals) in future and impact 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.
4. Industry Analysis: Key Success Factors (KSFs) (+/- 400 words)
4.1 Table 1: Key Success Factors
Draw up a KSF Table similar to Table 4.2 (Grant et al. 2014, p.145) for the pharmaceutical industry. Identify the external forces impacting on the pharmaceutical 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. Pay special attention to how you formulate these success factors (see Table 4.2 for examples) as they will be carried over and used in the examination to develop a range of strategies going forward.
4.2 KSF narrative
Theory discussion: Explain what KSFs are, how KSFs are identified for an industry, and how they are used in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Your text (Grant et al. 2014, pp.143-4) explains the basic principles about how key success factors are identified. Do not copy Figure 4.8 (Grant et al. 2014, p.144) or the information from the text into your discussion. Here you need to add theory from at least three (3) journal articles to provide depth to your discussion.
5. Discuss the value of the rational models (such as PESTEL, Five Forces and KSFs) in contemporary strategic planning. (+/- 500 words)
Theory discussion: 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 of these readings (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. Only list those sources that you referred to in your written work. 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 (three pages) 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. To ensure that the three pages are copied correctly into your assignment, please insert a page break after each page as shown in the criteria sheet below. Thank you for your help in this!
Please post questions about Case Study in the Study Desk forum titled ‘Case Study Discussion Forum’.
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION
85% and up TOTAL
SUMMARISE INDUSTRY AND MARKET INFORMATION Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Differentiation between industry and market is not clear.
Not all issues relevant to question are identified. Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
High degree of copy and paste from case.
Phrases/sentences from case directly copied to this section. Basic to fair understanding of question. Some attempt to differentiate between industry and market.
May not have identified all the issues relevant to the question.
Included some irrelevant material.
Some degree of copy and paste from case. Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the answer to the question.
Clear distinction between industry and market information.
Good selection of information presented in a structured way. Strong understanding of the question.
Answers all parts of the question; included a broad selection of relevant industry and market information.
Well-constructed answer, summary is clear and reinforces important key issues. Unequivocal understanding of question.
Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
No irrelevant content.
Excellent development and flow of summary.
MARK / 4 2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
PESTEL ANALYSIS: INTRODUCTION
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
PESTEL ANALYSIS: FRAMEWORK 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. Misunderstood the requirements. Insufficient case analysis. 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. Framework is populated with relevant and significant case study data demonstrating 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 analysis of sources.
PESTEL ANALYSIS: NARRATIVE Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Assignment instructions ignored. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered. Misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of discussion.
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 support theory component. 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 discussion.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references need improvement. Citations were mostly from the text. Included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory component. Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the answer to the question. All issues were addressed.
Good structure and progression of discussion.
Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.
Sources of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component. 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 discussion.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of sources. 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.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 - 9
[please insert a page break here when you copy this over to your assignment]
CRITERIA
FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION
85% and up TOTAL
FIVE FORCES: INTRODUCTION 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.

FIVE FORCES: FRAMEWORK 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. Misunderstood the requirements. Insufficient case analysis. 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. Framework is populated with relevant and significant case study data demonstrating 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 analysis of sources.
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.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of discussion.
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 support theory component. 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 discussion.
Included some additional references although integration of all or some of these references need improvement. Citations were mostly from the text. Included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory component. Sound understanding of the question demonstrated 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 theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component. 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 discussion.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of sources. 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.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 - 9
KSF FRAMEWORK
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. Misunderstood the requirements. Insufficient case analysis. 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. Framework is populated with relevant and significant case study data demonstrating 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 analysis of sources.
[please insert a page break here when you copy this over to your assignment]

CRITERIA
FAIL
Less than 50% PASS
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION
85% and up TOTAL
KSF: NARRATIVE Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Not all issues relevant to question have been answered. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Direct copy and paste from text. Include figure from text.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of discussion.
No references. No theory. Less than 3 journal articles for theory support. 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. Basic to fair understanding of question. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question. Might have some patches of irrelevant material.
Writing is very close to text although paraphrased. Information from figure presented in written format. Some evidence of structure and progression of discussion.
Included one journal article and prescribed text for theory support. Citations were mostly from the text. Include some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support theory. Sound understanding of the question demonstrated in the answer to the question. All issues were addressed.
Good structure and progression of discussion.
Original material obtained and integrated in most instances.
Included the required 3 journal articles and text as sources for theory support.
Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each part of the question. Very good structure, clear arguments and progression of discussion.
Clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of sources.
Included more than the required number of journal articles and text for theory support. Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to each part of 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 and exceed the required number of sources.
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 models. Arguments not supported with theory from the readings. No theory references (readings). Unsupported personal opinions. Basic to fair understanding of question. Evidence that some of the readings were studied.
Some valid arguments offered, supported by theory.
Concluded with opinion about the value of the models. Some arguments supported by theory from readings. Sound understanding of the question. Evidence that all of the relevant readings for Module 2 were studied.
Valid arguments built on the views presented in the readings. Good theory support.
Concluded with a valid opinion about the value of the models. All arguments supported by theory from the readings. 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.
Very good conclusion about the value of the models, supported by theory from the readings. Unequivocal understanding of question. Excellent critical opinion justified from the theory.
Excellent arguments, clear evidence of understanding of the issues addressed in the readings.
Excellent conclusions, supported by 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 or general websites.
Did not conform to Harvard referencing.
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.
Over or under 10% of word limit Included some scholarly journal articles although insufficient number of relevant journal articles. Citations were mostly from the text.
Harvard referencing techniques varies.
Some instances in which the assignment requirements and structure were not followed. Fair understanding of rules of grammar and construction. Some spelling /typing errors. Within word count. Satisfactory number of scholarly journal articles. Sufficient research.
Only minor errors in Harvard referencing – in-text or List of references. Adhere 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. Clear evidence of wider reading.
Meets Harvard referencing protocols.
Clear and fluent writing. Professional presentation.
Uses dynamic, unique material beside relatively standard material to develop theoretical concepts. Excellent research.
Accurate Harvard referencing no errors.
Well-constructed and crafted piece of work. A pleasure to read. Professional presentation.
MARK / 4 2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
TOTAL/40: