Assessment 2: Assessing Corporate Entrepreneurial Health:
The company chosen is Myer
• Due Date: 17th of September 9:00am
• Required Length: 1800 words
• Format: Individual Written Report
• Marks Allocated: 40%
• Textbook: Morris MH, Kurakto DF & Covin, JG (2011), Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3rd Edition, Mason OH: Cengage Learning.
• all references should adhere to the the APA (6th) Referencing Style.
Rationale:
In order to pursue sustainable competitive advantage, managers must continually assess the levels of innovative and entrepreneurial activity occurring within the company, and the climate and structures the company creates and sustains that support innovation and entrepreneurship.
The brief:
Analysis Framework:
Chapters 3 and 13 of your prescribed text provide relevant theories and detail two validated and widely used measuring instruments for measuring Entrepreneurial Intensity. These are:
1. Entrepreneurial intensity: This assesses the frequency and innovativeness of new products, services and processes within the company, along with three elements of management decision-making: innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness. Combining these allows a company to be placed on the ‘entrepreneurial grid’ (chapter 3, Figure 3-5) and compared to other companies in its industry.
2. Corporate Entrepreneurship Climate: This assesses how well the culture and structures that the company has created support innovation and entrepreneurship. It involves five factors: Management Support; Work Discretion; Rewards / Reinforcement; Time Availability; and Organizational Boundaries as well as some specific climate variables that may apply.
Chapter 13 explains how these two frameworks have been transformed into validated survey instruments. However, the survey design also provides a useful framework for analysing a company using ‘desk research’ – that is information that has been collected about the company from existing sources, including the company itself.
Additionally, the prescribed text provides other models that may be used to assess the Entrepreneurial Health of your chosen company.
Research approach:
Explore whatever sources you can find, both internal (self-reported by the company) and external (reported by third parties, including industry experts, customers and employees) that provide reliable information about the company’s entrepreneurial intensity or climate for corporate entrepreneurship.
You are encouraged to share your research in the interests of expanding the set of information you will gather for the group assignment. Remember that a good report depends more on the quality of analysis and the ability to organize it into a logical report structure than it does on the data reported.
Things to consider:
• Have you considered industry benchmarks for entrepreneurial intensity?
(e.g. the fashion industry would have high frequency compared with domestic appliances industry – think Zara versus Dyson)
• Have you accounted for differences in perspectives on the same framework?
(e.g. it is likely that company reported information may be challenged by external sources)
• Have you synthesised the responses into meaningful interpretations?
(what are the implications of your findings?)
• Have you followed a systematic approach in presenting your findings?
(a systematic approach makes your report easier to follow and shows clear thinking and a disciplined approach which is less likely to omit key factors)

Introduction and Company Overview
Purpose of the report and Company overview. This should include how the company describes itself in terms of mission / vision / purpose, with particular attention to any mention of innovation and entrepreneurship.
Theoretical Concepts:
A brief introduction to and overview of key theoretical concepts and definitions that will enable the reader to understand the report. Keep it short and simple and don’t make it read like a text book. It is important to introduce the concept of various antecedents at different levels of analysis and how these inform the state of entrepreneurial health in the organisation. Explain the conceptual difference and connection between Entrepreneurial Intensity and the Climate for Corporate Entrepreneurship and any other models you refer to.
You can also refer to theories and models within the analysis section.
Research approach;
Briefly describe the approach taken to discovering data about your chosen company. Include major categories of sources including:
• Self-reporting: What the company discloses about itself, such as annual reports, web site, press releases etc.
• External commentary: What external parties report about the company, such as industry reports, journal articles, expert commentators. Customer and employee forums may also be of value.
Aim to show that you have used reliable sources and methods.
Data Analysis and Discussion
Part A: Assess the entrepreneurial intensity of your chosen company.
Using data you have collected from your research, make an informed judgement about the entrepreneurial intensity of the company. Remember to consider frequency of entrepreneurship, degree of newness and the company’s attitude to innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness. If possible, position the company on the Entrepreneurial Grid, alongside major competitors.
Part B: Assess the Corporate Entrepreneurship Climate (CEC) of your chosen company.
Using data you have collected from your research, make an informed judgement about the climate for corporate entrepreneurship within the company. Refer to the five factors of the CECI instrument (Chapter 13, Table 13-2) and any other models that help to interpret and diagnose the CEC within the company.
Other theories and models may be referred to in this section also.
Conclusion
Summarise the main issues and interpret the relative findings of your research and analysis. Synthesise all of the above sections into a cohesive whole that identifies the main strengths and weaknesses of the company with respect to Entrepreneurial Health and draws an overall conclusion about the implications for the future performance of the company.
PLEASE NOTE: you do not have to make any recommendations; this assignment is only about analysing and assessing the entrepreneurial health of the company.
Report Format
All three assignments must be presented in the format of management reports that comply with the following:
• Format: Microsoft Word.
• Font: 12 point, Times New Roman.
• Text [Including references]: 1.5 line spacing, left-justified.
• Page Layout: 1-inch (2.54cm) margins on all sides with page numbers in the bottom right corner and no header/footer.
• A front cover page that contains the report’s title, author(s), submission date and word count.
• An executive summary of no longer than one page.
• A table of contents (TOC). Main and sub-sections must be numbered and linked to page numbers.
• The report must be paginated.
• The report must be spell-checked.
• All Figures/Tables/Graphs must be sequentially numbered and captioned.
• All Figures/Tables/Graphs must be referred to and discussed from within body of text.
• In-text citation of sources must be done correctly with the prescribed style.
• A reference list must be provided and comply with prescribed style.
• Appendices must be sequentially numbered and appropriately captioned.
• Each report must have an introduction and end with a conclusion.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2
1. INTRODUCTION AND COMPANY OVERVIEW 4
1.1 [Sub-heading] 4
1.2 [Sub-heading] 4
2. THEORETICAL CONCEPTS 4
3. RESEARCH APPROACH 4
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 4
4.1 Part A: Entrepreneurial Intensity 4
a) [Sub-sub heading] 4
b) [Sub-sub heading] 4
4.2 Part B: Climate for Corporate Entrepreneurship 4
5. CONCLUSION 4
REFERENCES 5
APPENDICES 6
Appendix A: Title 6
Appendix B: Title 6
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Risk and Innovation (Source: Morris, Kuratko & Covin, 2011, p69) 4

Introduction and Company Overview
[Sub-heading]
[Sub-heading]
Theoretical Concepts
For example….
Figure 1 illustrates the degree of risk to a company of adopting different types of innovation.

Figure 1: Risk and Innovation (Source: Morris, Kuratko & Covin, 2011, p69)
Research Approach
Data Analysis and Discussion
Part A: Entrepreneurial Intensity
[Sub-sub heading]
[Sub-sub heading]
Part B: Climate for Corporate Entrepreneurship
Conclusion
References
Morris MH, Kurakto DF & Covin, JG (2011), Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3rd Edition, Mason OH: Cengage Learning.
Appendices
Appendix A: Title
Appendix B: Title
Marking Rubric : Assignment 2 – Individual Report – Entrepreneurial Health Audit:
CRITERIA Excellent (10-9 marks) Very good (8-7 marks) Good (6-5 marks) Fair/Poor (4-3 marks) Very Poor (2-0 marks)
PROFESSIONALISM Meets the criteria of a management report e.g. cover page, executive summary, introduction, conclusion
(10% of total mark) ? Very professional; introduction sets the scene exceptionally well; purpose of report very clear; conclusion summarises the key findings of the report. ? Professionally done; introduction sets the scene very well; purpose of report is clear; conclusion summarises the report well. Of acceptable standard; introduction sets the scene reasonably well; purpose of report is clear; conclusion includes most key findings. ? Not professionally presented; introduction has several gaps and purpose of report unclear; conclusion is inconclusive. Some parts incomplete or missing; some parts nonsensical.
THEORETICAL CONCEPTS Overview of key theoretical concepts and definitions (10% of total mark) Exceptionally well done. Very effective in bringing even novice readers up to speed with theory. Very well done. Effective in bringing even novice readers up to speed with theory. Well done. Succeed in bringing even novice readers up to speed with theory. Poorly done. Confuse novice readers w.r.t. theory. ? No attempt made to explain theory or key terminologies.
RESEARCH APPROACH Approach taken to identifying and using data sources. (10% of total mark) Exceptionally clear and systematic approach using a wide variety of credible sources, balanced between internal and external. Clear and systematic approach using a good range of credible sources, balanced between internal and external. Reasonably clear and systematic approach using a range of sources with reasonable balance between internal and external. Reasonable approach, but may not be systematic, may use less credible sources or lack balance between internal and external. Limited or no explanation of research approach or uses very poor quality sources.
DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION: EI Level & quality of data analysis and assimilation & presentation of findings (25% of total mark) Excellent and comprehensive analysis of all relevant components, combined with insightful and clear to understand discussion and presentation of findings. Very good analysis of all relevant components, combined with useful and clear to understand discussion. Findings very well presented. Good analysis of most or all relevant components, combined with good discussion. Findings presented in acceptable manner. Poor analysis of most components, with little discussion of findings. Findings poorly presented. No or very little analysis performed. Findings not presented or presented in such a manner that does not make sense.
DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION: CEC Level & quality of data analysis and assimilation & presentation of findings (25% of total mark) Excellent and comprehensive analysis of all relevant components, combined with insightful and clear to understand discussion and presentation of findings. Very good analysis of all relevant components, combined with useful and clear to understand discussion. Findings very well presented. Good analysis of most or all relevant components, combined with good discussion. Findings presented in acceptable manner. Poor analysis of most components, with little discussion of findings. Findings poorly presented. No or very little analysis performed. Findings not presented or presented in such a manner that does not make sense.
CONCLUSION Validity of overall conclusions drawn from prior analysis. (10% of total mark) Clear, concise and logical conclusions drawn from prior analysis that clearly provide exceptional value for management Clear, concise and logical conclusions drawn from prior analysis that clearly provide value for management Conclusions drawn from prior analysis provide some value for management, but may not be entirely clear, consistent or concise. Overall conclusion falls short of adding value due to one or more of: vagueness, lack of consistency with analysis, lack of clarity. Overall conclusion is missing, not linked to research and analysis or is nonsensical.
STRUCTURE Effective and professional structure and language, including appropriate use of referencing (10% of total mark) Excellent structure that emphasizes quality of work. Excellent grammar & spelling and use of references. Clear structure, applied consistently across the report. Good grammar & spelling and use of references. Overall structure clear and useful, but structure within ideas can be improved. Good grammar & spelling and use of references. Generally well structured. Some grammar & spelling errors and use of references. Unclear or messy structure. Obvious spelling & grammar errors and use of references.
Examiner: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Marks: