Solved by: AllAcademicHelp.com
Previous answers to this question 27: 16 7 3 0 1
MBA641: Strategic Project Management Assessment 3 Case Study – DeGrandis Sporting Goods
September 26th, 2018 by admin
Assessment InformationCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The materialin this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protectionunder the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86 098 181 947 is aregistered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.Assessment InformationSubject Code: MBA641Subject Name: Strategic Project ManagementAssessment Title: Performance Evaluation Video PresentationWeighting: 40%Total Marks:Time Limit:Due Date:4015 minutesMonday of Week 13, 11:55pm AEST.Assessment Description.You are required to read a case study based on a fictional company and prepare a PerformanceEvaluation Video Presentation based on the information contained in the case study.The case study will be provided to you in due course.You will be required to include a minimum of 15 references in your Performance Evaluation VideoPresentation at least 5 of which must come from academic journals or textbooks.COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any furtherreproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.Criteria F (Fail)0%-49%P (Pass)50%-64%CR (Credit)65%-74%D (Distinction)75% – 84%HD (High Distinction)85%-100%MarkAssessment Content (Subject Specific) OUT OF 30 MARKSPerformance Evaluation VideoPresentationStrategy & EthicsBrief and inaccurate analysisindicating poorunderstanding strategicproject managementconcepts.Demonstrated understandingof strategic projectmanagement concepts.Mostly accurate analysisbased upon appropriatelyidentified strategic goals andethical standards.Meaningful analysis basedupon accurately identifiedstrategic goals and ethicalstandards indicating strongunderstanding of strategicproject managementconcepts.Comprehensiveunderstanding of strategicproject managementconcepts evident from highlyaccurate analysisincorporating all relevantstrategic goals and ethicalstandards.Demonstrated advanced levelunderstanding of strategicproject management concepts.Analysis is penetrating andinsightful with findings that gobeyond fundamental strategicgoals and ethical standardsoutlined in the case study./7Performance Evaluation VideoPresentationProject PerformanceScorecard (PPS)Project PerformanceScorecard (PPS) eitherunclear or not used at allindicating poorunderstanding of projectperformance evaluationmodel.Demonstrated understandingof project performanceevaluation model. ProjectPerformance Scorecard(PPS) is reasonably clearand incorporates theessential features of thebasic model.Project PerformanceScorecard (PPS) correctlyused to accurately score andexplain PPS Dimensionsindicating strongunderstanding of projectperformance evaluationmodel.Comprehensiveunderstanding of projectperformance evaluationmodel evident from highlyaccurate scoring andexplanation of PPSDimensions in ProjectPerformance Scorecard(PPS)Demonstrated advanced levelunderstanding of projectperformance evaluation model.Project Performance Scorecard(PPS) is clear, easy to interpretand incorporates features thatgo beyond the basic model./7Performance Evaluation VideoPresentationConclusionsConclusions demonstratepoor understanding ofstrategic projectmanagement concepts.Explanations forconclusions not providedor unclear or illogical.Conclusions demonstratereasonable understanding ofstrategic project managementconcepts. Meaningfulexplanations for appropriateconclusions provided inmostly comprehensiblelanguage.Conclusions demonstratesolid understanding ofstrategic projectmanagement concepts.Relevant explanations forlogical conclusions providedin comprehensible language.Conclusions demonstratecomprehensive understandingof strategic projectmanagement concepts.Proficient explanations foreffective conclusions providedin clear language.Conclusions demonstrateadvance level understanding ofstrategic project managementconcepts. Detailed explanationsfor insightful conclusionsprovided in clear and conciselanguage./7Performance Evaluation VideoPresentationRecommendationsRecommendationsdemonstrate poorunderstanding of strategicproject managementconcepts. Explanations forrecommendations notprovided or unclear orillogical.Recommendationsdemonstrate reasonableunderstanding of strategicproject managementconcepts. Meaningfulexplanations for appropriaterecommendations provided inmostly comprehensiblelanguage.Recommendationsdemonstrate solidunderstanding of strategicproject managementconcepts. Relevantexplanations for logicalrecommendations providedin comprehensible language.Recommendationsdemonstrate comprehensiveunderstanding of strategicproject management concepts.Proficient explanations foreffective recommendationsprovided in clear language.Recommendations demonstrateadvance level understanding ofstrategic project managementconcepts. Detailed explanationsfor innovative recommendationsprovided in clear and conciselanguage./9Structure Format and Presentation OUT OF 10 MARKSCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any furtherreproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd ABN 86098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.Assessment Marking RubricAnswer clearly and logicallypresentedSerious lack of organization.Content of slides or notespages does not refer back toor relate to main arguments.Writing is formulaic, i.e. “inconclusion,” “anotherexample is….”Writing style could be moreeffective. Organization is hardto follow; there is littleprogression of ideas. Little orno transitions between slides.Need to more effectivelyweave main argumentsthroughout.Slides are generally wellorganized. Better transitionsneeded. The progression ofideas could be morethoughtful. Slides and noterelate back to main argumentsto prove argument.Ideas & arguments are wellstructured. Thoughtfulprogression of ideas anddetails. Sound transitionsbetween slides and notespages. Major arguments areeffectively made.Ideas & arguments areeffectively structured. Thoughtfulprogression of ideas and details.Excellent transitions betweenslides and notes. Concludingcomments leave the readerthinking. Major arguments areeffectively woven throughouteverybody slides, with ideasalways related back to mainarguments./2Appropriate theory andresearch used to answerquestion posedThe critique does not haveappropriate structure and lacksdirection. No significantobservations made fromappropriate theory andresearch. Poor writing andexpression of arguments.Reasonable critique whichexamines the relevant issuesand makes reasonableobservations made fromappropriate theory andresearch. Reasonable writingand expression of arguments.Good critique examines therelevant issues and makesgood observations fromappropriate theory andresearch. Good writing andexpression of arguments.A very good critique, considersall the relevant issues andmakes important observationsfrom appropriate theory andresearch. Very good writingand expression of arguments.Fully considers all the relevantissues and makes significantobservations from appropriatetheory and research. Excellentwriting and expression ofarguments./2Correct academic writing styleused, including correctspelling, grammar andpunctuationNeeds more sentence variety.Little or no thought given todiction. Tone or language isconversational. Contains muchinformal language. Uses “I” or“you.” Contains manyexamples of unclear orawkward phrasing.Needs more sentence variety.Attention needed with diction.Contains informal language orconversational tone, or uses “I”or “you.” Unclear or awkwardsentence phrasing.Sentence variety is adequate.Tone is appropriate. Diction isclear, but could be moreeffective. Language isacademic, and writing is clearand effective. Very little or nounclear or awkward phrasing.Sentence variety is effective andgood. Tone is appropriate andconsistent. Diction/ vocabulary isappropriate and effective.Language is academic. Writingis clear and concise.Sentence variety is effective andsophisticated. Tone isappropriate and consistent.Diction/ vocabulary issophisticated and effective.Language is academicallysound. Writing is clear, concise,and strong./2Format of answer consistentwith question requirements andKBS guidelinesNo efforts made to followsubmission and editing,spacing, etc requirements.Meets most editing, spacing,fonts, and other editingrequirements. Somerequirements not met.Meets editing, spacing, fonts,and other editingrequirements.Meets almost all editing,spacing, fonts, and otherediting requirements.Meets all editing, spacing, fonts,and other editing requirements./2In-text referencing andreference list follows Harvardstyle and consistent with KBSguidelinesInappropriate referencing.Not in-line with requirementsof Harvard style andconsistent with KBSguidelines.Reasonably appropriatereferencing, generally in-linewith requirements of Harvardstyle and consistent with KBSguidelines.Good referencing, largely inlinewith requirements ofHarvard style and consistentwith KBS guidelines.Very good referencing, 100%in-line with requirements ofHarvard style and consistentwith KBS guidelines.Excellent/appropriatereferencing, 100% in-line withrequirements of Harvard styleand consistent with KBSguidelines./1Video presentation is within + /– 10% of time requirementVideo presentation iswithin + / – more than 15%of time requirementVideo presentation iswithin + / – 15% of timerequirementVideo presentation is within + /– 10% of time requirementVideo presentation is within + /– 5% of time requirementVideo presentation iswithin + / – 0% oftime requirement/1Comments: /30/10/401 | P a g eMBA641: Strategic Project ManagementAssessment 3 Case Study – DeGrandis Sporting GoodsDeGrandis Sporting Goods is a large Australian retailer of exercise and sportingequipment. The company sells a number of well-known international brandsincluding, ASICS, Adidas, Nike, Puma and, to a much lesser extent, thecompany’s own private label product range, called DeGrandis.The board of directors have recently approved a new strategic plan developed bycompany CEO Fergus DeGrandis that includes doubling revenues from the saleof the DeGrandis private label product range within three years by establishing astrong network of reliable Chinese sporting goods suppliers. The board ofdirectors did make one significant addition to Fergus’s proposed plan beforeapproving it: the DeGrandis private label product range must only include productsof exceedingly high quality so as to earn the company the reputation of being theretailer of the highest quality sporting goods sold in Australia.Within the DeGrandis Sporting Goods project portfolio, three new projects havebeen implemented since the approval of the new strategic plan:1. Project A – DeGrandis Running ShoesProject A introduced the DeGrandis private label running shoe to the company’sproduct range. Although the project ran over budget, the project team successfullydeveloped a new sole cushioning technology and delivered a brand new shoewithin the project timeframe. Customers love the new shoes – they are outsellingrival international brands – and sales have increased company revenues by over$5 million. The editor of online running shoe reviewer Shoe News has given therunning shoes a 5 out of 5 star rating.But not everybody is so thrilled with the project’s outcomes. The board of directorsis unhappy that the project team did not consult them about the Chineseorganisation selected to manufacture and supply the shoes. Had the directorsknown that the Chinese supplier uses child labour in their factory they would nothave approved the supply agreement because engaging partners that rely onchild labour is prohibited under the company’s Code of Conduct. The consultantsare managed by regional managers in each city.2 | P a g e2. Project B – Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) PartnershipThe primary objective of Project B was for DeGrandis Sporting Goods to becomean official supplier of sporting equipment to the Australian Olympic Team. At theoutset all key stakeholders were identified and consulted and a comprehensive listof project requirements was developed based on stakeholder needs. Apart fromthe project running six months over the scheduled project timeframe, every otherproject requirement was successfully met. The new partnership was establishedand sales are estimated to have increased by over $3 million.The project was considered a resounding success until it emerged that the projectsponsor, a member of the DeGrandis senior executive team, had paid a highranking AOC official an incentive payment to approve the partnership. The presslearned of the bribe and the incident became a public scandal. DeGrandisSporting Goods suffered reputational damage as the company’s Code of Conductexpressly prohibits the payment of bribes to generate business. An extensivemarketing campaign originally developed to promote the partnership has beencancelled because it would only draw more attention to the bribery scandal.3. Project C – Ladybird Sporting ApparelProject C successfully introduced the environmentally friendly and internationallyknown Ladybird brand of sporting apparel to the DeGrandis Sporting Goodsproduct range. Although fundamental project requirements such as projecttimeframe and budget were met, the new line of clothing was not properly markettested prior to the product line launch. It turns out that customers consider theLadybird clothing range to be inferior in quality and customer complaints haveincreased as a result.DeGrandis Sporting Goods have ceased ordering new stock from Ladybird due topoor sales and increasing customer dissatisfaction.In your Performance Evaluation Video Presentation you must evaluate theperformance of each of the three projects and provide the following for each:a) Commentary on project alignment with strategic goals and ethical standardsb) A Project Performance Scorecard (PPS) Snapshotc) Conclusionsd) RecommendationsA PowerPoint template is provided for you to use in your video presentation if youwish. There is no requirement to use the PowerPoint template.
Do you need any assistance with this question?Send us your paper details nowWe’ll find the best professional writer for you!
READY TO PLACE AN ORDER