Instructions
You will complete a formal, in-depth case analysis that requires you to utilize the entire strategic management process. This is an individual assignment. Contact your instructor with any questions.
Assume you have been asked by a firm to analyze its external/internal and competitive environment and make strategic recommendations. You will be expected to make exhibits to support your analysis and recommendations. The case analysis should encompass approximately 35-50 pages plus the exhibits and cover page.
Cover page should include:
Company Name
Your Name
Date of Submission
Matrices should
be part of the analysis body not as exhibits/attachments
Completed case should include:
Executive Summary
Existing mission, objectives, and strategies
A new mission statement
Analysis of firm structure – (identify type)
SWOT (TOWS) Analysis
Five Forces Analysis
Confrontation Matrix
Impact-Probability Matrix
Positioning Map
EFE Matrix
IFE Matrix
IE Matrix
SFAS Matrix
Competitive Profile Matrix
Assessment of firm functional areas (HR, R&D, Mktg, Finance, Operations, Mgmt, etc.)
BCG Matrix
GE/McKinsey Matrix
Industry Life Cycle (ILC) Analysis
SPACE Matrix
Grand Strategies Matrix
QSPM Matrix
List alternative strategies, giving advantages/disadvantages)
Recommend specific strategies and long-term objectives
Current Firm Ratios (GPM, NPM, Quick ratio, Current ratio, D2E, ROI, ROA, ROE, ROCI, EBITA, EPS)
Prepare Pro-Formal Financial Statements
MY COMPANY: TESLA
Capstone Research Paper Rubric
Capstone Research Paper Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 1
Executive Summary
Existing mission, objectives, and strategies
A new mission statement
Analysis of firm structure – (identify type)
SWOT (TOWS) Analysis
Five Forces Analysis
30 to >25.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
25 to >15.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
15 to >5.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accuracy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
5 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 2
Confrontation Matrix
Impact-Probability Matrix
Positioning Map
EFE Matrix
IFE Matrix
IE Matrix
SFAS Matrix
Competitive Profile Matrix
40 to >35.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
35 to >25.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
25 to >15.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accuracy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
15 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3
Assessment of firm functional areas (HR, R&D, Mktg, Finance, Operations, Mgmt, etc.)
BCG Matrix
GE/McKinsey Matrix
Industry Life Cycle (ILC) Analysis
SPACE Matrix
Grand Strategies Matrix
40 to >35.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
35 to >25.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
25 to >15.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accuracy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
15 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 4
QSPM Matrix
List alternative strategies, giving advantages/disadvantages)
Recommend specific strategies and long-term objectives
Current Firm Ratios (GPM, NPM, Quick ratio, Current ratio, D2E, ROI, ROA, ROE, ROCI, EBITA, EPS)
Prepare Pro-Formal Financial Statements
50 to >45.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
45 to >35.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
35 to >25.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accuracy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
25 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 5
Recommend specific strategies and long-term objectives
Current Firm Ratios (GPM, NPM, Quick ratio, Current ratio, D2E, ROI, ROA, ROE, ROCI, EBITA, EPS)
Prepare Pro-Formal Financial Statements
40 to >35.0 pts
Advanced
Organization is logical and appropriate to assignment; analysis is well-developed and appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
35 to >25.0 pts
Proficient
Minor issues with organization; analysis is appropriately divided; evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated.
25 to >15.0 pts
Marginal
Significant issues with organization; analysis is not appropriately divided or developed; evidence lacks relevance, accuracy, completeness, or is not well integrated.
15 to >0 pts
Deficient
Work related to this criterion deficient or missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Conclusions and related outcomes (implications and consequences)
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.
3 pts
Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information, including opposing viewpoints; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
2 pts
Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit the desired conclusion); some related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
1 pts
Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are oversimplified.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Evidence
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.
3 pts
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning.
2 pts
Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/ evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning.
1 pts
Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/ evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Explanation of Issues
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding.
3 pts
Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.
2 pts
Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/ or backgrounds unknown.
1 pts
Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Influence of Context and Assumptions
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others’ assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.
3 pts
Identifies own and others’ assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position.
2 pts
Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others’ assumptions than one’s own (or vice versa).
1 pts
Shows an emerging awareness of present assumptions (sometimes labels assertions as assumptions). Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking: Student’s position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis)
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Specific position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue. Limits of position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) are acknowledged. Others’ points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis).
3 pts
Specific position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) takes into account the complexities of an issue. Others’ points of view are acknowledged within position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis).
2 pts
Specific position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.
1 pts
Specific position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) is stated, but is simplistic and obvious.
0 pts
Does not meet benchmark level performance.
—
