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.