Summary
For this individual assignment, you will adopt the role of a strategy consultant. A strategy consultant is someone that businesses hire to provide knowledgeable insights and actionable, forward-looking recommendations that will help the business improve competitiveness and risk-adjusted returns. Essentially, they are paid for their expertise, diligence, and insights.
You are being hired by a Micromatic company to provide strategic consulting services. This assignment calls upon you to apply key concepts you learned this term about strategy and competitive advantage. Your observations must be thorough, your analysis must be insightful, and your recommendations must be specific, well-articulated, and well-defended.
For this consulting engagement, you will have access to your client company’s written Report to the Board, which provides a summary of their decisions and results over the past 8 quarters. You will also have access to the Instructor Report spreadsheet, which provides comprehensive data on all teams in the industry. You will utilize both of these as you conduct analyses and generate recommendations for your consulting client.
Scoring Criteria
See the assignment rubric for specific scoring criteria.
Late submissions will be accepted, subject to course-standard late penalties, until the assignment closing date.
Please note that all students are expected to provide their own unique and original work for this assignment. All submissions will be analyzed using plagiarism software. Students will receive a zero score for any assignment sections that lack originality (i.e., they are substantially similar to text from other sources but lack citation), and if willful plagiarism or other academic misconduct has apparently occurred, the case will be referred to the OSU Office of Student Affairs for review.
Client Assignments and Reports
Your client assignment is based on your industry and team number. When ready – the day after the Reports to the Board have been submitted – your client assignment and their Report will appear here. Download the report for your client (and be sure to download the correct one!). This is a critical input for your consulting case study.
Refer to the following list for client assignments based on your team’s industry:
Porter Team 1 – Report to the Board download- Review this team if YOUR team was in the Sun Tzu division.
Sun Tzu Team 7 – Report to the Board download- Review this team’s report if YOUR team was in the Porter division.
Other Critical Resources
You require the following critical information sources for your analysis. These will appear here when ready:
Instructor Report. Download the Industry Report for your client’s industry (not your own):
Porter Industry Instructor Report download(Excel)
Sun Tzu Industry Instructor Report download(Excel)
Instructions
Write a report that complies with the formatting and style requirements listed below, and includes all of the report sections listed further below. Submit your report as a DOC, DOCX, or PDF file.
You may collaborate with other students on this assignment. However, every student must write their own report and every submission must be original and unique. Any text that is copy/pasted from another source will be disregarded for scoring purposes (resulting in a zero score), in accordance with basic academic integrity standards.
Formatting and Style Requirements
For full credit, make sure your report complies with all the following formatting and style requirements
Include a distinctive (i.e., larger font and/or bolded) heading above each section of the report.
Always use complete sentences.
Do not use bullet points except for marking lists. Bullet points should be used judiciously and only with a clear purpose.
After you have drafted your report, remove the text from the assignment prompts. That text needlessly clutters up your report and triggers the plagiarism detection software.
Be clear. State your ideas in simple and unambiguous terms. Strive to make your prose highly “readable.”
Use appropriate tone and style for high-level business communication. Do not be overly casual or personal. Be precise, careful, and analytical. Avoid using impressionistic phrases like “I think …” and “I believe …”
Limit distracting errors. Edit your composition carefully before you submit it!
Report Sections
Section: Executive Summary
Provide a brief narrative synopsis of the report. Recommended length: 2-3 paragraphs
A good executive summary allows the reader to quickly understand the nature of the report and learn its key facts and conclusions. You are a strategy consultant, hired by the Board of Directors of a Micromatic company to provide a report with astute analysis and recommendations.
Provide them with a synopsis of the report:
Provide brief descriptions of the purpose of the report and the key observations it contains.
Describe briefly the key conclusions of the report, how those conclusions derive naturally from the facts of the case and the principles of strategic management, and the “big picture” ramifications of those conclusions.
Strong suggestion: always write the Executive Summary LAST.
Section: Relative Strengths and Weaknesses of the Client Firm
Provide an internal analysis of the client firm. From your analysis, identify and describe two qualifying strengths and two qualifying weaknesses of the client firm.
An internal analysis is an evaluation of a firm’s resources and capabilities and how they differ from competitors in the industry. When a firm possesses resources or capabilities that other firms lack, those may represent an identifiable “strength.” When a firm lacks resources or capabilities that competing firms have, that lack may represent an identifiable weakness.
For this section, identify and describe two qualifying strengths and two qualifying weaknesses of your client firm. To “qualify,” the strengths and weaknesses that you identify must be strategic, relative, and quantifiable. More information on those criteria is provided as follows:
“Strategic” strengths derive from tangible resources, intangible resources, and/or capabilities that are valuable, rare, and costly to imitate. Conversely, a strategic weakness is a lack (total or in part) of a valuable resource or capability. Please note that mere decisions (such as pricing decisions or generic strategy adoption) do NOT qualify as strategic strengths, because they are easy to imitate. Nor do metric outcomes (such as high net income, high sales, and low COGS levels) qualify as strategic strengths, because they are not, by definition, resources or capabilities.
“Relative” means “in comparison to competitors.” A relative strength is an aspect of the firm that is superior to most competitors, and a relative weakness is an aspect of the firm that is inferior to most competitors.
“Quantifiable” means that the strength or weakness is measurable. For this exercise, the strength or weakness you identify must relate to a quantitative metric from within the simulation. You must provide table data to quantify and illustrate the strength or weakness.
Once you understand the requirements (strategic, relative, quantifiable), review the client firm’s Report to the Board and the industry Instructor Report to identify two qualifying strengths and two qualifying weaknesses for the firm. For EACH of those identified strengths and weaknesses, provide all the following:
State the strategic strength or weakness in clear and succinct terms.
Locate and provide a screen capture or copy/paste of table data from the Instructor Report that supports your determination. The data should illustrate in quantifiable terms how your client company is, in fact, strong or weak relative to competitors. Make sure the data is relevant, clear (not grainy), and appropriately sized.
Provide a brief written explanation of how the table data illustrate the strength or weakness. (Pro tip: never force your reader to “interpret” data themselves. Always provide a written explanation to accompany tables, charts, or other infographics).
Explain clearly and thoroughly how the strength or weakness identified qualifies as “strategic.”
Section: BCG Matrix Analysis
Review the conditions of each category in the BCG Matrix tool for corporate portfolio management. Then, analyze your client firm and its industry to determine which classification best describes your client firm.
For this section, provide all the following:
State your determination.
Define that classification in your own words. Demonstrate that you understand the definition of the term.
Justify your determination. Explain what factors support your determination, locate table data from within the simulation that illustrates one or more of those factors, and include a screen capture or copy/paste of those data (with a clear, not grainy, and appropriately sized image) in this section.
Section: Strategic Recommendation 1
Generate and discuss one forward-looking strategic recommendation for your client. Tell your client what should they do next to maximize their success.
Your main job, as a strategy consultant, is to help the client company plot the way forward. Provide your client company with an actionable strategic recommendation to guide them toward a successful future.
Your recommendation should be strategic, involving tradeoffs with significant costs and/or risks, and it should be specific to the firm, deriving from your previous analysis of the firm’s relative strengths, weaknesses, and/or BCG classification.
For your recommendation, provide the following:
State your recommendation.
Discuss how the recommendation could be implemented and what, specifically, would be the expected result.
Explain how your recommendation is appropriate and advantageous for your client, given the client’s specific strengths, weaknesses, and/or BCG classification.
Discuss the strategic tradeoffs of your recommendation. Identify and briefly describe the major costs the company would incur and which strategies the company would be choosing NOT to pursue if they adopt your recommendation.
Justify your recommendation. Explain, clearly and cogently, how the positives outweigh the negatives.
Section: Strategic Recommendation 2
Generate and discuss a second forward-looking strategic recommendation for your client.
For your recommendation, provide the following:
State your recommendation.
Discuss how the recommendation could be implemented and what, specifically, would be the expected result.
Explain how your recommendation is appropriate and advantageous for your client, given the client’s specific strengths, weaknesses, and/or BCG classification.
Discuss the strategic tradeoffs of your recommendation. Identify and briefly describe the major costs the company would incur and which strategies the company would be choosing NOT to pursue if they adopt your recommendation.
Justify your recommendation. Explain, clearly and cogently, how the positives outweigh the negatives.
Rubric
Consulting Case Summer 2021
Consulting Case Summer 2021
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExecutive Summary – Description
Descriptions and definitions are clear and addresses the prompt thoroughly and completely.
2 to >1.33 pts
Thorough and Complete
1.33 to >0.67 pts
Adequate and Clear
0.67 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExecutive Summary – Writing Quality
The prose is clear, tone and style are appropriate for high-level business communication, and distracting errors are minimal.
2 to >1.33 pts
Good
1.33 to >0.67 pts
Developing
0.67 to >0.0 pts
Problematic
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrength 1 – Statement
Statements and determinations are clear, address the prompt completely, and represent correct usage of course terms and concepts where applicable.
1 to >0.75 pts
Clear, Complete, and Correct
0.75 to >0.5 pts
Mostly Complete, Clear, Correct
0.5 to >0.0 pts
Developing
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrength 1 – Data
The data image provided is relevant, appropriately sized, clearly visible.
1 pts
Relevant, Clear, and Appropriately Sized
0.67 pts
Image is Clear, Appropriately Sized, Relevance Unclear
0.5 pts
Relevance is Clear, Image is Unclear or Not Well Sized
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrength 1 – Explanation of Relativeness and Quantifiability of S/W, utilizing Data
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrength 1 – Explanation of Strategic Nature of S/W
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrength 2 – Statement
Statements and determinations are clear, address the prompt completely, and represent correct usage of course terms and concepts where applicable.
1 to >0.75 pts
Clear, Complete, and Correct
0.75 to >0.5 pts
Mostly Complete, Clear, Correct
0.5 to >0.0 pts
Developing
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrength 2 – Data
The data image provided is relevant, appropriately sized, clearly visible.
1 pts
Relevant, Clear, and Appropriately Sized
0.67 pts
Image is Clear, Appropriately Sized, Relevance Unclear
0.5 pts
Relevance is Clear, Image is Unclear or Not Well Sized
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrength 2 – Explanation of Relativeness and Quantifiability of S/W, utilizing Data
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrength 2 – Explanation of Strategic Nature of S/W
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWeakness 1 – Statement
Statements and determinations are clear, address the prompt completely, and represent correct usage of course terms and concepts where applicable.
1 to >0.75 pts
Clear, Complete, and Correct
0.75 to >0.5 pts
Mostly Complete, Clear, Correct
0.5 to >0.0 pts
Developing
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWeakness 1 – Data
The data image provided is relevant, appropriately sized, clearly visible.
1 pts
Relevant, Clear, and Appropriately Sized
0.67 pts
Image is Clear, Appropriately Sized, Relevance Unclear
0.5 pts
Relevance is Clear, Image is Unclear or Not Well Sized
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWeakness 1 – Explanation of Relativeness and Quantifiability of S/W, utilizing Data
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWeakness 1 – Explanation of Strategic Nature of S/W
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWeakness 2 – Statement
Statements and determinations are clear, address the prompt completely, and represent correct usage of course terms and concepts where applicable.
1 to >0.75 pts
Clear, Complete, and Correct
0.75 to >0.5 pts
Mostly Complete, Clear, Correct
0.5 to >0.0 pts
Developing
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWeakness 2 – Data
The data image provided is relevant, appropriately sized, clearly visible.
1 pts
Relevant, Clear, and Appropriately Sized
0.67 pts
Image is Clear, Appropriately Sized, Relevance Unclear
0.5 pts
Relevance is Clear, Image is Unclear or Not Well Sized
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWeakness 2 – Explanation of Relativeness and Quantifiability of S/W, utilizing Data
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWeakness 2 – Explanation of Strategic Nature of S/W
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBCG – Statement and Definition
Descriptions and definitions are clear, provide sufficient detail, and utilize course terms and concepts correctly where applicable.
1 to >0.75 pts
Clear, Complete, and Correct
0.75 to >0.5 pts
Mostly Complete, Clear, Correct
0.5 to >0.0 pts
Developing
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBCG – Justification
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
3 to >2.25 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
2.25 to >1.88 pts
Good
1.88 to >1.13 pts
Adequate
1.13 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrategic Rec 1 – Statement
Statements and determinations are clear, address the prompt completely, and represent correct usage of course terms and concepts where applicable.
1 to >0.75 pts
Clear, Complete, and Correct
0.75 to >0.5 pts
Mostly Complete, Clear, Correct
0.5 to >0.0 pts
Developing
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrategic Rec 1 – Discussion of implementation
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
1 to >0.75 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
0.75 to >0.63 pts
Good
0.63 to >0.38 pts
Adequate
0.38 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrategic Rec 1 – Explanation of appropriateness and advantage
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrategic Rec 1 – Discussion of tradeoffs and justification
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrategic Rec 2 – Statement
Statements and determinations are clear, address the prompt completely, and represent correct usage of course terms and concepts where applicable.
1 to >0.75 pts
Clear, Complete, and Correct
0.75 to >0.5 pts
Mostly Complete, Clear, Correct
0.5 to >0.0 pts
Developing
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrategic Rec 2 – Discussion of implementation
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
1 to >0.75 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
0.75 to >0.63 pts
Good
0.63 to >0.38 pts
Adequate
0.38 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
1 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrategic Rec 2 – Explanation of appropriateness and advantage
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStrategic Rec 2 – Discussion of tradeoffs and justification
Explanations, discussions, and justifications are detailed, coherent, detailed, and build upon empirical facts and principles of the course where required.
2 to >1.5 pts
Capstone Quality
Detailed, coherent, and built upon empirical facts and principles where required.
1.5 to >1.25 pts
Good
1.25 to >0.75 pts
Adequate
0.75 to >0.0 pts
Cursory or Unclear
0 pts
No Marks
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOVERALL – Writing Quality
The prose is clear, tone and style are appropriate for high-level business communication, and distracting errors are minimal.
3 to >2.0 pts
Good
2 to >1.0 pts
Developing
1 to >0.0 pts
Problematic
0 pts
No Marks
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOVERALL – Formatting requirements met
All listed formatting requirements have been met
3 to >2.25 pts
Completely
2.25 to >1.25 pts
Mostly, Minor Issues
1.25 to >0.0 pts
Multiple Issues
0 pts
No Marks
3 pts
Total Points: 50
