Conducting Business with a Major Canadian Trading Partner

This assignment asks you to apply the subject matters that you are exposed to in the Global Business Environment course to an international business situation. The assignment is intended to help you develop the skills needed to conduct secondary research, analyze problems, and provide coherent and persuasive recommendations. The assignment is targeted at dealing with a mode of entry challenge.

NOTE: IF YOU HAVE NOT COMPLETED ASSIGNMENT #1, YOU CAN NOT SUBMIT ASSIGNMENT #2

YOU SHOULD TREAT THIS PAPER AS IF IT WAS A REPORT YOU WERE WRITNG AS AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT TO A SENIOR EXECUTIVE IN THE FIRM IN QUESTION.  A VERY SIMPLE TEST OF WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF SUCH A REPORT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE READER WANTS TO CONTINUE READING THE PAPER. THIS IS PRINCIPALLY A FUNCTION OF CONTENT, BUT THE DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO READ A REPORT IS ALSO INFLUENCED STRONGLY BY ITS READABILTY (E.G. PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION, FORMAT, GRAMMAR, SPELLING, WORD CHOICE, LOGICAL FLOW OF IDEAS).

Assignment

Working by yourself or with one other student, take the country that you recommended in your Assignment #1 that your firm should consider for entry and prepare an analysis of two alternative forms of mode of entry.

Your final “PROFESSIONAL deliverable for the assignment will be a report that includes the following:

  1. Cover page
  2. Table of contents
  3. An executive summary of the paper (maximum half a page).
  4. An analysis, based on the analytical tools (PESTEL, FIVE FORCES) discussed in class, is to be used to create a credible, defensible and professional rationale for mode of entry; evidencing a good knowledge of the company in question, the industry it is in, the country in question and the modes of entry under consideration.
  5. The analysis section should naturally lead you to the selection of decision criteria that will allow you to make a recommendation amongst the modes of entry under consideration. The decision criteria must be reasonable and credible in the context of the company and industry in question.
    1. Decision criteria are NOT to be quantitative in nature…they are to be qualitative in nature. For example, the following criteria (or similar to these criteria) are NOT to be used, regardless of how you define them.
      1. Cost of entry
      2. Capital cost
  • Market share
  1. Market penetration
  2. Initial start up costs
  3. Initial capital investment
  1. Your recommendation may be supported by a decision matrix (See Appendix A for an illustration of a decision matrix), or a narrative defense of your recommendation.
  2. A well-argued summary recommendation as to why the company should proceed with the chosen mode of entry, as opposed to the one not selected.
  3. Your final report is to be written in the 3rd It will be judged on the factual information it contains based on your research, the clarity of your arguments, the incorporation of key concepts from the course in your narrative, the depth of your analysis and the professionalism expected of a formal memo prepared by an outside consultant to the firm in question.   In this regard a discussion of the history of the company is redundant, as it is assumed that the company executive knows far more about the company than the external consultant.

 

 

Formatting for the Assignment

  • The body of each paper is to be between 7 and 10 pages (maximum of 10) (12 pt. font, 2.54 cm margins) plus title page, references, endnotes, and appendices. If the body of the report is longer than ten pages, only the first ten pages will be read and graded.
  • The title page must contain all the names of your group, and your respective student numbers.
  • A table of contents will be included.
  • Do not forget to number the pages in your report.
  • The report is to be in a narrative format, NOT a bullet point format.
  • In preparing your final submission you must abide by Sheridan policies and procedures governing academic integrity.
  • “Turn it in” will be used and any score of more than 20%, will result in a discussion with the Professor.
  • Be sure to use APA style referencing whenever you incorporate ideas and content that are not your own.
  • Relevant figures and tables can be included as appendices. References and appendices are not included when determining whether your submission exceeds the maximum page length.
  • The decision matrix table, if you choose to use one, is to be included in the main body of the report.

 

 

 Deliverable Due Date

 

Assignment #2 is due to Slate by April 9 in the Slate folder provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deliverable Rubric

The Grading Rubric for this assignment is provided below.

 

CriteriaBelow AverageAverage

 

Above AverageWeighting
Executive Summary Executive summary is not clear, does not define what the issue is, nor articulate the conclusion of the paper.

 

Talks about the process of the research rather than the results/recommendation of the research.

 

Goes on for more than half a page.

Executive summary is somewhat clear in that there has been an effort to articulate the issue, and the final results/recommendation of the research.

 

However, tends to be wordy, wanders into non-essential issues and goes over half a page.

Executive summary is clear, with a strong linkage between the issue and the final results/recommendation of the research.

 

Logical and concise presentation.

 

Not a repeat of the recommendation section.

5

 

 

Analysis of situation related to mode of entry selection using designated analytical tools.Little or no analysis shown. Group/individual simply restated the information from the original source material.

 

There was no consistency/equivalency of information provided re the various modes of entry considered.

 

Group/individual attempted some level of analytical interpretation of information, resulting in a reasonable summary of facts with some linkage to the company’s strategic interest.

 

There some effort to provide consistency/equivalency of information provided re the various modes of entry considered and related issues.

 

 

Group/individual demonstrated significant interpretation/analysis of the information acquired by commenting on trends and other relevant items, resulting in a reasonably clear and focused discussion, linked to the company’s strategic interest.

 

The mode of entry and related issues were compared based on comparable/equivalent information.

 

 

25
Linkage between Analysis and Decision CriteriaLittle to no association between the analytical discussion and the decision criteria selected and discussed.Some association between the analytical discussion and the decision criteria selected and discussed.Clear association between the analytical discussion and the decision criteria selected and discussed.5
Decision CriteriaGroup/individual did not provide any decision criteria that were realistic and practical in the context of the  mode of entry issue. Application of the use of a decision matrix was less than desired.

 

Clearly confused between the use of analytical categories and criteria within those criteria.

 

Provided little or no rationale for the various weightings of the criteria used.

 

If a decision matrix was used failed to provide a brief explanation of scoring in each matrix box.

Group/individual attempted some effort at identifying justifying decision criteria.

 

They did not confuse the analytical categories and criteria within those categories.

 

Provided some rationale for the various weightings of the decision criteria.

 

If a decision matrix was used provided some explanation of scoring in each box, but was not related to the criteria or was not comparable/equivalent across all all modes of entry discussed.

 

 

Group/individual demonstrated significant effort in identifying and justifying decision criteria.

 

They did not confuse the analytical categories and criteria within those categories.

 

Provided a clear reasonable and logical rationale for the various weightings of the decision criteria.

 

If a decision matrix was used provided an explanation of scoring in each box that was consistent with the criteria chosen and was comparable/equivalent across all  modes of entry discussed.

 

 

15
 Recommendation Recommendation given is unrelated to the previous discussion in paper.

 

New information is added that has not been dealt with before

The recommendation given is clearly related to the previous discussion.

 

No new information is provided, but discussion is not  overly persuasive in summarizing the rationale for the conclusion.

 The recommendation provided is clearly related to the previous discussion.

 

No new information is provided, and the discussion  is clearly persuasive in summarizing the rationale for the conclusion.

5
Quality, accuracy and originality in researchLittle or no use of high quality research sources.

 

Poor or no accuracy/evidence in referencing sources in text.

 

No use or poor use of APA.

Limited use of high quality research sources

 

(MINIMUM OF 15 CREDIBLE SOURCES)

 

Inconsistency with referencing sources in text.

 

Use APA is evident, but still needs improvement.

Good use of high quality research sources. (MINIMUM OF 25 CREDIBLE SOURCES)

 

High quality of referencing sources in text

 

Use of APA well done.

25
Report Structure, Language, Grammar and Spelling Poor use of business language.

 

Multiple and consistent grammar and/or spelling errors.

 

No focused structure to the report. No headings.

 

UNPROFESSIONAL PAPER

Good  use of business language.

 

Moderate but consistent grammar and/or spelling errors.

 

Some structure but information requires connection of ideas. More use of headings.

 

COMPONENTS OF A PROFESSIONAL PAPER ARE THERE, BUT NOT YET A FINISHED PRODUCT

Strong use of business language with no grammar and/or spelling errors.

 

Headings with sub-headings are well organized.

 

Strong structure with clear flow of multiple ideas throughout report.

 

PROFESSIONAL REPORT

20

 

 

 

Appendix A – Sample Decision Matrix

Decision Criteria (level of importance in decision)Option 1Option 2
Decision Criteria 1 (50%) 4(2)

(…..narrative…)

5(2.5)

(…..narrative…)

Decision Criteria 2 (30%) 3(.9)2(.6)
Decision Criteria 3 (10%) 04(.4)
Decision Criteria 4 (10%) 5 (.5)5 (.5)
Totals3.44.0