IBUS3310 Company Analysis Report
You need to develop a foreign operation report for a corporation of your choice. You need to carry out a critical analysis of a corporation demonstrating a holistic understanding of the corporate’ foreign operation as well as demonstrating your skills in strategic analysis and planning of foreign operation based on specific internal and external situations to the corporation (using extensive secondary research and applying course concepts and theory to assist with your critical analysis). Course theory, concepts and frameworks must be applied in your analysis as well as in supporting your recommendations.
Report structure should include the following sections (students may add in subheadings):
• Title page
• Table of contents
• Executive Summary
• 1.0 Introduction (Background, Purpose & Scope of the report including brief overview of the Corporation)
• 2.0 Body sections:
• 2.1 Explain (a minimum of) two foreign operation methods that your chosen corporation is currently using in at least two different counties the corporation is operating in.
• 2.2 Critically analyse the development and performance of these foreign operations.
• 3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations. Provide actionable recommendations on how to further develop and improve the corporation’s foreign operations in your chosen countries.
• Reference list
• Appendices (if needed)
A minimum of 10 authoritative, relevant references must be included spread across all body sections and recommendation section of the report from both academic literature and secondary market sources.
The word count limit is 3000 words plus or minus 10 percent. The following are not included in word count:
• Reference list and Question Titles
• Appendices – provided these have been used only when necessary. If appendices are used excessively, or contain material which should clearly be included in the main body of the essay/report, it is at the markers’ discretion to include these in the word count.
• Tables/graphs- provided these have been imported from elsewhere (correctly referenced) and not produced by the student.
• Tables and graphs- if they have been produced by the student.
• Content pages and front page of the report
• In text referencing style (Harvard or APA)
• Executive Summary of the report.
As well as the essay/report itself, the following are included in word counts:
Citations/quotations- this includes the material paraphrased/quoted itself as well as the name, date and page information.
Marking rubric. Individuals will be marked within the ranges shown for each criterion.
Coverage of the relevant issues Little or faulty coverage of relevant points. Lacks clarity on important aspects of
chosen foreign operation
methods. (0-12) Adequate understanding demonstrated of important issues relating to foreign operation method implementation. Some supporting evidence provided of the individual’s position.
(13-15) Solid understanding and detail of important issues regarding foreign operation method implementation.
Good supporting evidence. (16-19) Substantial understanding of the most important aspects of foreign
operation method implementation and frequent evidence of originality relating to foreign operation methods.
(20- 21) Excellent understanding of key concepts and consistent evidence of substantial originality and insight relating to foreign operation method implementation. Highly convincing arguments. (22-25)
Depth of critical analysis Crucial omissions in information provided. Misinterpretation clearly evident. Argument is weak or non- existent. Little data provided. Superficial or no application of course concepts to support relevant arguments.
(0-14) Some original observations with credible support, but some assertions poorly supported. Superficial application of course concepts and methods to support the argument.
(15-19) Addresses the question/topic well overall. Some minor omissions in
information/support. Data is mostly interpreted correctly. Some evidence of critical analysis. Argument is cohesive and backed up with evidence. Logical analysis, and at times, authentic application of course concepts, theories and methods. (20-23) Few omissions in information presented. Data is interpreted well. Argument is strong and backed up with relevant evidence. Good evidence of critical analysis. Some novel observations and original thinking. Competent critical and frequently original analysis and original/novel application of course concepts, theories and methods. (24-25) Substantial relevant information is included in the argument. Data is well selected and interpreted correctly. Extensive critical appraisal of evidence and argument. Original and/or novel observations clearly demonstrated. Excellent critical and consistently original analysis; sophisticated and consistent original/novel application of course concepts, theories and methods. (26-30)
Evidence of research Few quality sources applied to the topic. Major sources and inputs missed. Almost all references are web sites, many superficial. Minimal evidence of research. Not all references are authoritative and relevant and minimum number of 10 references have not been included. (0-12) Some quality sources but only few signs of in- depth search for ideas on the topic. Some effective arguments. . Most references are authoritative and relevant and over 10 references have been included. (13- 15) Well researched. Has important relevant sources relating to the key elements of the topic. Most references are authoritative and relevant and over 10 references have been included. (16-19) Detailed sources and evidence of original ideas generated from research on the topic. All sources are highly authoritative and relevant and credible. Over 10 references in total. (20- 21) Extensive evidence of quality and credible sources. Over the min of 10 references as required. Some unexpected relevant material presented in support of arguments. Use of research to demonstrate an ability to present novel arguments, think critically and/or challenge assumptions. Evidence-based approach promotes an ability to question assumptions through arguments and quality data (22-25)
quality Poorly articulated arguments lacking coordination and cohesion between critical
reflection sections. Difficult to understand. Poor reader engagement. Some flaws in structure or following the report format. Poor or little in text referencing and reference list followed APA or Harvard (0-9) Adequate articulation of the points.
Coordination and cohesion evident in parts but noticeable areas for improvement required. Sound structure and presentation and mostly followed the required report format. Sound in text referencing and reference list followed APA or Harvard with no or minor errors (10- 13) Well-articulated arguments and supporting points. Clearly expressed ideas. Good reader engagement. Good structure and presentation and mostly followed the required report format. Good in text referencing and reference list followed APA or Harvard with possibly minor errors (14-15) Strong and sustained engagement with reader, with high levels of clarity. Includes some interesting/thought provoking and/or novel elements. Very good structure and presentation and followed the required report format. Very good in text referencing and reference list followed APA or Harvard
(16-17) Sophisticated communication of ideas. Very well-planned and executed series of cumulatively convincing arguments. Interesting/thought-provoking, and/or novel elements throughout that genuinely engage reader. Outstanding structure and presentation and followed the required report format. No spelling, grammar, or related errors. Outstanding in text referencing and reference list followed APA or Harvard without errors