MGM 713 (SM) Comparative Cases Assess 2-1 Proposal (10% of 30%) Submit asap in e-form Proposal 10%+ Main Case 20%=Total of Major Essay 30% MARK: % of 10% Surname, Name Topic: Regional (UAE/GCC) vs. Global Reason/Rationale: Job, Hobby, Family Business, Future Business Table of Content 1. Introduction 2. Description: Background/History: • Iceberg (Top, Inside and bottom-up views) 3. Main body of argument/ Key points: • EGSOP (Environ, Governance, Strategy, Organization and Performance) 4. Issues/problems 5. Discussion 6. Way forward 7. Conclusion 8. References, Bibliography & Appendices (data, sound, pics, etc.) (Harvard system) (MGM 713) Strategic Management Benchmark Cases (2000 words) Marks: TOTAL ( of 30%) SURNAME, Name: Topic (s): (Unit Outline) Criteria for evaluation of Comparative Cases • Clear, succinct abstract (word count not included in total) • Demonstrated understanding of appropriate concepts • The development and presentation of a critical analysis addressing the questions being explored. This includes demonstrating the applicability of relevant theory to practice. • Inclusion of references on relevant reading • Quality of referencing (refer to Harvard Citation Method). • Quality of observations and reflections on theory and practice • Appropriate conclusion developed from your argument • Quality of presentation, clarity, readability and structure • Word count Outstanding Good Basic Level of Preparation Not Satisfactory 1. Communication Well prepared, scholarly and polished presentation that engages with the audience Clear communication with deliberate and sustained attempt to engage with audience Clear but heavily reliant upon PowerPoint slides with little scholarly discussion Presentation amounts to a sequence of PowerPoint slides with no scholarly discussion. 2. Structure Clear, precise, relevant and logical Clear and logical progression of ideas Some structure in evidence but neither clear nor substantial Disorganized 3. Content Extensively researched using a wide variety of contemporary sources and authorities Evidence of research beyond course materials and web resources Some research content but limited to a handful of web pages No evidence of research whatsoever 4. Professionalism Worthy of a corporate boardroom with evident practice implications Tidy and convincing Clumsy and ill-prepared No evidence of preparation 5. References and Quality of Submits Well prepared, and scholarly Clear enough Clear but with obvious mistakes or oversights Disorganized and lack with evidence of research Comments: 1. 2. 3.
