Microsoft Word - MBA501_T3_2018_Assessment_1_V1
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This 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 further reproduction 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 XXXXXXXXXXis a
egistered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.
Assessment Information
Assessment Information
Subject Code: MBA501
Subject Name: Dynamic Strategy and Disruptive Innovation
Assessment Title: Stakeholder Analysis and Strategy Development Report
Weighting: 35%
Total Marks: 35
Word Limit: 2,500 words
Assessment Description
You are required to research Tesla Motors and develop a Stakeholder Analysis and Strategy
Development Report. As a starting point, listen to the BBC interview with Tesla CEO Elon Musk;
https:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0871VJfvD1c
The report should include an Executive Summary, Table of Content, and cover the following key
focus areas.
A. Introduction to Tesla Motors
This section should include an introduction to Tesla Motors. Need to capture the vision and
mission of the company with recent developments, challenges, and industry trends.
Essential to provide a concise summary and an analysis of facts.
B. Tesla Stakeholder View of the Organisation
Prepare a diagram with Tesla as the central organisation su
ounded by the company’s
stakeholder groups using the stakeholder view model.
For each stakeholder group identified in the stakeholder view model, research Tesla
further and prepare a list identifying and describing the specific stakeholders within each
stakeholder group.
C. Stakeholder Analysis for four selected stakeholder groups
Select four specific stakeholders and analyse their behaviour and motives.
Tip: choose a stakeholder from each of the different four stakeholder categories
discussed in MBA 501 workshops to avoid repeating yourself in sections D and E.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This 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 further reproduction 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 XXXXXXXXXXis a
egistered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.
Assessment Information
D. Stakeholder category identification and generic strategic programs for each of
the four selected stakeholders
Identify the stakeholder category that each of the four stakeholders belongs to and list the
generic strategic programs available for managing each stakeholder.
E. Recommended strategic program for each of the four selected stakeholder
groups including reasons for recommendations
Recommend a specific strategic program for each of the four identified stakeholders that are
consistent with one of the generic programs identified in section D.
Important Points to consider
o Need to capture recent developments with regards to Tesla Motors and the industry.
o Incorporate academically oriented articles and books into the analysis (minimum five
academically oriented articles and books apart from industry reports, credible online
news sources, business magazines, websites, etc.)
o Concepts relevant for this assignment are in workshops 1-5
o Need to follow a report format
 The Executive summary and table of content will not be included in the word
count
o Study the attached assessment ru
ic carefully
o Watch the assignment
iefing webinar conducted by the Subject Coordinator – refer
subject welcome message from the Coordinator for the date and time
Assessment Marking Ru
ic
Criteria Below 50% Pass 50% - 64% Credit 65%-74% Distinction 75% - 84% High Distinction above 85%
Introduction and the
stakeholder view
XXXXXXXXXX)
Analytical rather than
descriptive
Basic introduction to the
company. Insufficient
capturing of trends and
challenges. Lacks analysis.
The stakeholder view is
incomplete.
Basic introduction to the
company. Covered trends and
challenges but basic analysis/
glossed over. Basic stakeholder
view framework. Overall,
descriptive than analytical.
Covered all the necessary points
sufficiently. A certain degree of
analysis visible. Captured and
analysed the vision, mission,
trends, and challenges
adequately. Good stakeholder
diagram and description. Some
esearch evident.
Covered all the necessary points
well. Good analysis; went beyond
descriptions. Integrated literature
and concepts well. Good review
of vision, mission, trends, and
challenges. Complete
stakeholder diagram.
Presented a holistic introduction.
Very good analysis of the vision,
mission, trends, and challenges.
Very good coverage of
stakeholders; comprehensive yet
concise descriptions. Presented
the stakeholder diagram very
well.
Stakeholder
Analysis
XXXXXXXXXX)
Critical analysis and
engagement of
concepts
Insufficient coverage of key
concepts associated with
stakeholder analysis. The
analysis is superficial or non-
existent.
A basic analysis of stakeholders.
Engaged some of the concepts
associated with stakeholder
analysis but the analysis lacks
depth and detail.
Integration of stakeholder
analysis related concepts to
some extent. Sufficient analysis.
Integrated journal articles,
prescribed text, other books,
verified websites, etc. to some
extent.
Covered most of the concepts
associated with stakeholder
analysis. Provided strong
justification and engaged
scholarly views and arguments to
enhance the depth of the review.
Integrated journal articles,
prescribed text, other books,
verified websites, etc. into the
analysis.
Provided a comprehensive
analysis of stakeholders while
engaging all the concepts
associated with stakeholder
analysis. Engaged literature and
scholarly views to strengthen the
arguments and justifications.
Integrated journal articles,
prescribed text, other books,
verified websites, etc. into the
analysis. Very well.
Category
identification and
generic strategy
programs
XXXXXXXXXX)
Critical analysis and
engagement of generic
strategy programs
The insufficient justification for
stakeholder categorisation.
Lack of discussion about
generic strategy programs.
A basic justification for
stakeholder categorisation. The
categorisation is in line with the
analysis to some extent. A basic
indication of the generic strategy
programs; insufficient integration
with the case study company.
Provided enough justification for
stakeholder categorisation. The
categorisation is in line with the
analysis. Engaged literature to
some extent to strengthen the
arguments. Discussed and
integrated the generic strategy
programs to the case study
company. Integrated journal
articles, prescribed text, other
ooks, verified websites, etc. into
the analysis to some extent.
Provided sound justification for
stakeholder categorisation. Good
analysis of generic strategy
options in the context of the case
study company and engaged
literature and scholarly views to
strengthen the arguments.
Integrated journal articles,
prescribed text, other books,
verified websites, etc. into the
analysis.
Comprehensive analysis of
generic strategy options in the
context of the case study
company. Very good justification
for stakeholder categorisation
and supported the arguments
with scholarly views. Integrated
journal articles, prescribed text,
other books, verified websites,
etc. into the analysis very well.
Recommendations
XXXXXXXXXX)
Comprehensive,
strategic and in line with
the stakeholder model
Recommendations are missing
or incomplete
Recommendations are very
general in nature – there is a
disconnect between the analysis,
categorisation and the
ecommendations. Either few or
long list without sufficient
justification.
The recommendations are
oadly in line with the
stakeholder analysis and
categorisation. Sufficient
justification for the
ecommendations and integrated
the generic strategy options
sufficiently. Some research
evident.
Recommendations are in line
with the stakeholder analysis and
stakeholder categorisation. The
ecommendations flow from the
generic strategy option analysis.
Need to justify further. Engaged
literature when justifying the
ecommendations.
Comprehensive
ecommendations that cover the
chosen stakeholders well. The
ecommendations are entirely in
line with the analysis and
categorisation. The
ecommendations are emerging
from the generic strategy options
and provided a good justification.
Engaged literature well to justify.
Structure
(6.0)
Organisation, report
structure, flow,
adherence to KBS
eferencing guidelines
and writing style
Sketchy executive summary.
Did not follow the KBS
eferencing guidelines and
eport writing conventions
sufficiently. Need to improve
grammar, spelling, and the
flow of the report.
Followed KBS referencing
guidelines to some extent.
Appropriate executive summary
ut need to improve. There is
disconnect between some
sections. Appropriate flow and
followed report writing
conventions to some extent.
Reasonably good writing style.
Followed KBS referencing
guidelines well. Followed report
writing conventions sufficiently.
The structure and the flow are
good. Adequate focus on
spelling, grammar, and the
writing style.
The report structure and the flow
are very good. The different
sections of the report connect
logically