Individual AssessmentMicroeconomics Assignment
Cover page
| Unit Details |
Name | Business Acumen |
| Code | HI5000 | |
| Year, Trimester | 2023, T1 |
| Assessment Details |
Name | Journal Article Review |
| Due Date and Week | 02/ 06 / 2023, Week 11 |
| Individual Student Details |
Student Number |
| First Name | |
| Family Name |
| Submission Declaration |
Integrity Declaration | I have read and understand academic integrity policies and practices and my assessment does not violate these. |
| Full Name | ||
| Submission Date |
Instructions
| Academic Integrity Information |
Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding academic integrity. All assessment must comply with academic integrity guidelines. Important academic integrity breaches include plagiarism, collusion, copying, impersonation, contract cheating, data fabrication and falsification. Please learn about academic integrity and consult your teachers with any questions. Violating academic integrity is serious and punishable by penalties that range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment. |
| Format Instructions |
• Most assessments must be in MS Word format with no spacing, 11-pt Calibri font and at least 2cm margins on all four sides with appropriate section headings and page numbers. • You must name your file with the Unit Code and Student ID (e.g. “HI5000 – GWA1995”). • Check that you submit the correct document as special consideration is not granted if you make a mistake. • Student ID needs to be indicated on the cover page. |
| Penalties | • All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date and time along with a completed Assessment Cover Page. Late penalties apply. • Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Holmes Institute Adapted Harvard Referencing. Penalties are associated with incorrect citation and referencing. |
Scenario Analysis
The purpose of this assessment is to assure learner capability to: identify issues, gather data, analyse
the forces at play in two of the five mini cases below and recommend appropriate courses of action.
Below you will find five business scenarios explained in mini cases.
You are required to select any two of the mini cases and craft your analysis based on the
tools/topics/skills you have been taught in HI5000, lectures 3 to 8. Think carefully about;
entrepreneurship, risk analysis, external environment analysis, leadership, digital business & artificial
intelligence, empowerment, development of core business processes, career choice, foreign direct
investment and ethical standards. Word count should be 1000 to 1200 words for EACH mini case.
Scenario 1 – Inadequate Communication/Coordination
Persist PLC (Persist) has been established for five years. It has succeeded, as a manufacturer of
affordable domestic furniture, and has captured a small but significant market share of the retail
market.
Persist is, and has always has been, managed by a tightly-knit four-person team consisting of: Peter
(sales manager), Rick (production manager), Russel (despatch manager), and Simon (production
foreman). The firm employs some 120 people and prides itself on being seen as very responsive to
its customers’ needs. This responsiveness comes at a high price and leaves little time for internal
communication and much-needed coordination.
The following is an extract that mirrors a fairly common occurrence at Persist.
Customer (PQR retail store): “Peter, you haven’t delivered my order yet. It’s late again!”
Peter (Sales manager at Persist): “I’ll look into it right away”.
Peter phones Rick (production manager): “Rick, where is the order for PQR?”
Production Manager (Rick): “I told Russel not to be late again. Let me check”.
Rick phones Russel (despatch manager): “Russel, why haven’t you delivered the order to ABC yet?”
Despatch Manager (Russel): “I’m still waiting for Simon to send it over to our warehouse”
Rick phone Simon (production foreman): “Simon, where is that order for PQR that the need
urgently?”
Foreman (Simon): “You didn’t tell me it was more urgent than the UST order, and they’ve been on
my case since last week. I haven’t even started PQR’s.”
Rick: “Oh come on Simon, can’t anyone get a job done on time in this place? What do you guys think
you get paid for?”
Evaluate the verbal communication, specifically try to isolate and evaluate any dysfunctional
statements. Assess how you would advise this firm to deliver on time for its clients, build a better
reputation and be more profitable.
Scenario 2 – Inadequate Business Processes
Resilience PLC (Resilience) is a component design and supply company which is at the cutting edge
of the high-tech IT industry. It is managed by Ian (sales), Connie (production) and Ivan (research and
development). The firm has been operating for 15 years and has endured significant peaks and
valleys. Resilience thrives on innovation and diversity. One might say, “… there is never a dull
moment”.
The following dialogue represents the start to a typical day in the life of Resilience.
Customer (RUV Institute of IT Innovations): “Ian, I want to re-order more of model C. I need the
same design as last time but twice as many quantities of model C.
Sales Manager of PLC (Ian): “Fabulous, I’ll get the team onto it”.
Ian phones Connie (production manager) “Connie, can we do more of those model C parts for RUV?
They want to double the quantity”
Production manager (Connie): “Can’t do. Unfortunately, our supplier changed their specs and the
material is no good for model Cs. Ivan hasn’t yet sent the specifications to our new potential supplier
though”
Assess where there may be a deficiency in the manufacturing/raw material inventory of Resilience.
Would it have been reasonable for Connie the production manager to have expected Ian the sales
manager to have been more proactive by enquiring of Customer RUV at the time of their last order
delivery whether they would be ordering any more model C product in the near future or not, so as
to ensure that Resilience had components at the ready. Recommend what changes would be needed
in order for the manufacturing process to be more responsive in future.
Scenario 3 – Strategic Priorities
Resistant PLC is an investment property management firm of two years standing. It is run by a
managing director (Ray) and a financial director (Neville), and supported by a team of administrative
officers. It has a reputation for being trust-worthy and risk-averse. In a volatile property market,
Resistant PLC has been slow to expand its market share and finds itself increasingly losing clients to
more agile competitors.
In typically reflective ‘Monday morning’ fashion, Ray and Neville began their week with indecision
about the next strategic step for their business:
Managing Director (Ray): “Neville, have you thought about the proposal I put to you last week? Are
you ready to move ahead with it now?”
Financial Director (Neville): “Not yet Ray, I’m head down on the end of year audit and haven’t had
time to think about the future, as usual”
Ray: “Why is it that we always seem to be looking in the rear-view mirror? We need to drive this
business forward”
Neville: “Well, it’s imperative that we do things perfectly before trying anything new. Do you agree?”
Assess what obstacles are holding the business back. If you were asked to advise the owners of the
business organizations what observations would you make?
Scenario 4 – A Question of Ethics
Semaj-Eworc Inc. (SEI) expanded into the Indo Pacific Region in search of increased profit resulting
from anticipated opportunities for greater economies of scale in an area of the world with the
greatest long-term growth potential.
SEI established a ‘greenfield’ operation in Hong Kong. From this power base executives weighed up
their competitors after developing networking relationships, which ultimately led to discussions
about potentially acquiring a controlling interest in each of several domestic competitors.
Hopes, held by the domestic competitors, for a major cash windfall were dashed when SEI offered
only a fraction of the amount the domestic shareholders were expecting. SEI’s ultimate response
was, ‘…accept our offer and keep your jobs or we will set up in opposition and drive you out of
business’.
Those domestic competitors who capitulated faced an avalanche of restructuring to implement SEI’s
established (foreign) policies and procedures. The restructuring exercise included retrenchment of
relatives of senior executives, elimination of domestic influence on investment choices, activation of
a merit-based promotion system, new guidelines regarding gender neutrality in recruitment, pursuit
of more stringent quality standards, and replacement of the local auditor with one of the global Big 4
firms.
Explain what potential societal benefits might accrue as a result of the SEI take-overs. And what the
disruptions to the old ways of working might mean to the local community. Comment on the ethical
behaviour of SEI.
Scenario 5 – In Search of Economies of Scale and Scope
Davro Insurance, a leading European insurance company operating several subsidiaries in Asia, had
been experiencing unacceptably high operating costs there (i.e. in the Asia subsidiaries). The
regional CEO formed a strategy committee to investigate and search for economies of scale. Head
office in Europe sent a consultant to assist the review.
The outcome of the strategic review was a proposal to centralize all 15 Asian countries’ back office
operations into one mega regional operation centre. This centre was to handle all underwriting and
claims functions across the 15 Asian countries from one centralised physical location, in Malaysia.
The new centre would be responsible for new:
1. policy lodgement, underwriting, acceptance and client/agent communication
2. claims lodgement, verification, payment and client/agent communication
Departmental heads and their families of the 15 country operations were relocated to a corporate
village next to the new centralised operations centre. Systems were developed so that regardless of
where the policy originated it would be processed in the centralise operation centre by whichever
employees had capacity.
Initially the operation met expectations. Systems and processes met time, delivery and decision
quality standards, and financial cost was driven down. However, after an initial honeymoon period,
relationships and standards began to slip and costs increased quite sharply. The following problems
were observed:
1. Underwriting and claims personnel favoured their own home-country nationals when
processing documentation
2. Whereas initially there had been a sense of equivalence and camaraderie among the
different nationalities, as time passed old rivalries and cultural differences began to
surface, e.g. one culture being hostile to staff from another culture, or being overly
accommodating, or appearing to be more efficient than others, or just being difficult.
Eventually, all quality standards and relationships slipped so badly that the entire centralised
operation was closed down and Davro reverted to the original decentralized model.
Explain how the head office consultant and the CEO’s strategy committee could get it so wrong? Can
you suggest a ‘3rd alternative’ – combining the best of both a centralized and a decentralized
structure, but without the conflicts?
Assignment Structure Required
Front Cover Page: Official Holmes Institute Cover Sheet for Group Assignment, fully completed and
accurate in all respects.
Title Page, clearly stating which TWO scenarios you selected to demonstrate that you know how to
apply the model).
Section 1a. Title of your first chosen Scenario and your Reason for choosing it
Section 1b. Identification and evaluation of the business acumen issues in the chosen case that
require attention
Section 1c. Your recommendations
Section 2a. Title of your second chosen Scenario and your Reason for choosing it
Section 2b. Identification and evaluation of the business acumen issues in the chosen case that
require attention
Section 2c. Your recommendations
| Marking Rubric | |||||
| Excellent | Very Good | Good | Slightly deficient | Unsatisfactory | |
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Structure of the report Max 5 marks |
The report | The report | The report | The report | The report |
| structure is fully compliant in all respects |
structure is mostly compliant |
structure is compliant but contains minor shortcomings |
structure is somewhat deficient |
structure is non compliant or unsatisfactory |
|
| Section 1a. Title | Strong evidence | Evidence of | Acceptable | Present but | Not present |
| of Scenario and | of Business | Business Acumen | reasons are | deficient | |
| Reason for your | Acumen in | in choosing this | provided | ||
| choice | choosing this | scenario | |||
| Max 5 marks | scenario | ||||
| Section 1b | Strong evidence | Good evidence of | Acceptable | Issues identified | Issues identified |
| Identification of | of understanding | Business Acumen | evidence of | are only | are not |
| Business Acumen | of Business | issues in this | Business Acumen | somewhat | adequately |
| issues in the | Acumen issues in | scenario | issues in this | relevant to | relevant to |
| chosen case Max 5 marks |
this scenario | scenario | Business Acumen | Business Acumen | |
| Section 1c Recommendation s |
Recommendation s are excellent |
Recommendation s are very good |
Recommendation s are good |
Recommendation s are slightly deficient |
Recommendation s are unsatisfactory |
| Section 2a. Title | Strong evidence | Evidence of | Acceptable | Present but | Not present |
| of Scenario and | of Business | Business Acumen | reasons are | deficient | |
| Reason for your | Acumen in | in choosing this | provided | ||
| choice Max 5 marks |
choosing this scenario |
scenario | |||
| Section 2b | Strong evidence | Good evidence of | Acceptable | Issues identified | Issues identified |
| Identification of | of understanding | Business Acumen | evidence of | are only | are not |
| Business Acumen | of Business | issues in this | Business Acumen | somewhat | adequately |
| issues in the | Acumen issues in | scenario | issues in this | relevant to | relevant to |
| chosen case Max 5 marks |
this scenario | scenario | Business Acumen | Business Acumen | |
| Section 2c Recommendation s |
Recommendation s are excellent |
Recommendation s are very good |
Recommendation s are good |
Recommendation s are slightly deficient |
Recommendation s are unsatisfactory |
| Overall | This submission is | This submission is | This submission is | This submission is | This submission is |
| Impression | considered | considered | considered | considered | considered |
| Max 5 marks | Virtuoso and | worthy of a | worthy of a credit | somewhat | unsatisfactory |
| worthy of a high distinction |
distinction | or pass | deficient |
Penalties may reduce your actual mark, as follows:
1. Late submissions -5% per day.
2. No cover sheet OR inaccuracies on the cover sheet -10%
3. Inaccuracies in referencing OR incomplete referencing OR not in Holmes-adapted-Harvard style -10%
4. No appendix at end indicating which student wrote which section, or incomplete details entered in
appendix -10%
5. Submission is not all in one single document -10%
Assessment Citation and Referencing Rules
Holmes has implemented a revised Harvard approach to referencing. The following rules apply:
1. Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources that provide full-text access to the
source’s content for lecturers and markers.
2. The reference list must be located on a separate page at the end of the essay and titled:
“References”.
3. The reference list must include the details of all the in-text citations, arranged A-Z
alphabetically by author surname with each reference numbered (1 to 10, etc.) and each
reference MUST include a hyperlink to the full text of the cited reference source.
For example:
8. Hawking, P., McCarthy, B. & Stein, A. 2004. Second Wave ERP Education, Journal of
Information Systems Education, Fall, http://jise.org/Volume15/n3/JISEv15n3p327.pdf
4. All assignments must include in-text citations to the listed references. These must include
the surname of the author/s or name of the authoring body, year of publication, page
number of the content, and paragraph where the content can be found. For example, “The
company decided to implement an enterprise-wide data warehouse business intelligence
strategy (Hawking et al., 2004, p3(4)).”
Non-Adherence to Referencing Rules
Where students do not follow the above rules, penalties apply:
• students who submit assignments that do not comply with all aspects of the rules, a 10%
penalty will be applied.
• Students who comply with rules BUT contain ‘fake’ citations will be reported for academic
misconduct.