119.Follow the instruction to write 800words management report.

Anonymous
timer Asked: Dec 30th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $10

Question description

Follow the instruction to write 800words management report.

All the work must be original.

Turnitin report is required.

WMGM102 201806 Report and Reflection Assessment Case study: Take a risk on disruptive innovation (Kinicki et al., 2018, pp262 – 263) Disenchanted with the corporate life, young people are attracted to the promise of the buzzing startup scene in Sydney. As restless disruptors, will they stay in a city tipped with potential to be the next Silicon Valley? A young entrepreneur, Ahmed Haider, CEO and co-founder of Zookal is a typical disruptor in the education market. Zookal’s core mission is to make students’ lives easier through an online portal that provides student services, specialising in textbook rentals. Ahmed states, 'My vision was to make education more affordable and accessible to students across the world. Being a student myself I could uniquely relate to the problems we faced on a daily basis. I wanted to solve that. I’ve never considered myself to be an entrepreneur just more of a problem solver'. Now a $20m enterprise, Zookal’s founders are being forced to consider growth strategies to meet changing customer demands. Initially they focused on textbook rentals for university students to alleviate study costs. Now their value proposition extends to the high school students segment, where Zookal have diversified to provide online study tools to assist Higher School Certificate preparations. Managing a rapidly expanding business and tempted by growth opportunities offshore, Ahmed is soul searching and considering the strength of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Sydney. Whether to keep the business in Australia, where he perceives both the regulatory system and the investment market to be relatively risk adverse, or follow attractive start-up incentives from emerging Asian economies is a challenging decision. One missing element in Australia is capital availability for growth-stage businesses, although a smart idea might secure angel funding. Ahmed knows this too well. Finding it difficult to raise cash in Australia, in the US he raised $1.2 million in just one week. Over the past two years Zookal has raised 90% of its investment capital overseas from the Silicon Valley and Israel. And now his major investors are encouraging Ahmed to expand into other Asia-Pacific markets. Ahmed articulates his dilemma, 'it’s unfortunate that there is a funding gap in Australia which is forcing entrepreneurs offshore. It’s a tough decision because being an Australian you take a lot of pride in keeping the company here. But when there is tens of millions of dollars available in Silicon Valley, Asia and other parts of the world at very good valuations, it becomes a business decision'. It is one that is difficult to justify to shareholders when an Australian-based business case seems to be tied up in red-tape—leaving young entrepreneurs to question why they should take the risk of staying local. Already operating in two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria), Ahmed reflects on the increased costs associated with simple things like duplication of office space, tax costs of new staff and travel overheads. ‘It is really expensive to be working across two of the world’s top ten most expensive cities’, says Ahmed. This is worsened when the lure to internationalise the operations before saturation of the local market is ever tempting considering the incentives. Young entrepreneurs are being courted oversees by investors and governments with really friendly terms in return for tax dollars when they become big business. And with scale comes the added responsibility of managing people. Leading a team is both rewarding and difficult. Ahmed achieves this by framing all decisions in purpose. He describes how his goal has not been focused on profits, 'I turned down lots of lucrative job offers prior to starting Zookal to work without a salary for a year and do ridiculous hours. I did this because I had a purpose—my goal was to make a dent in the universe, I wanted to reach tens of millions of students and touch their lives in a positive way'. Spreading this purpose Ahmed describes how his role is to nurture this culture and he believes, 'This has always been the goal and what drives every single person at Zookal to work so hard. So that when we have 50 staff or 300 staff the purpose remains the same'. Building a business around purpose Ahmed states 'is not so much about ingraining the culture into new hires but for them to unlearn the corporate way of doing things'. With the entire founding executive team aged in their twenties, Ahmed describes how one of the challenges was hiring executives with 20 years industry experience to adapt to that culture. 'It worked out in the end', he states, not because they were forced to adopt, but because management lives the purpose 'if your actions are contradictory to your words staff pick up on it'. The potential to scale-up and internationalise the existing business is one thing, but the prospects for diversification in the Australian market is enticing. While Zookal’s core business is in textbook rentals, the innovation is in the business model. Books are delivered to students and customer loyalty is achieved through an engaging web platform. So the core business activities span the technology sector, logistics and warehousing. In a fast-moving technology sector keeping ideas fresh about provision of student services in an engaging manner has been solved through the decision to build and maintain the Zookal website in-house. Working closely with the web developers is important to ensure the technology meets the needs of the business. Faced with increasing overheads associated with transportation and storage, Ahmed’s biggest challenge has been to bring down the costs associated with transporting the textbook from the warehouse to the customer’s door. Ahmed’s approach to this challenge was typically unconventional. Rather than focusing on ways to reduce transportation costs, he sat down with a friend who was developing drone technology. Thinking towards an imagined future the two decided to form another company to commercialise drones for transportation. And so Flirtey, the drone delivery service, was born. Pending clearance from the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority for a trial and after establishing the financial viability, drone transportation might substitute ordinary road transport in the near future. Drones could deliver textbooks directly to phone GPS coordinates or a designated GPS location (for example a university campus). So why drones over other more conventional cost-reduction strategies? 'Everyone gets disrupted eventually', states Ahmed, 'the only way to stay ahead of the competition is to take bold risks and constantly innovate in every area that you operate in, sometimes even if it means disrupting yourself'. If successful in the near future Ahmed may have to decide if he will continue to manage the textbook rental business or focus his attention on expansion and diversification of the drone delivery service. Or do both. Note: All quotes in this case are from interviews with Ahmed Haider conducted in December 2013. For discussion 1) Describe the decision-making style Haider used when selecting a future investment opportunity (approximately 150 words) 2) Explain the strengths and weaknesses of this future oriented decision making style (approximately 250 words) 3) Discuss the factors or stakeholders that influenced Haider’s decisions in a future investment opportunity (approximately 250 words) (please note that the above questions are somewhat different to those from the textbook. Students are required to respond to the above questions, and NOT the questions from the textbook).
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE ASSESSMENT WMGM102 PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT DETAILS Unit Name: Assessment Task: Total Marks: Due: Principles of Management Report and Reflection 100 1pm Monday, Week 5 Unit Code: Term & Year: Weighting: WMGM102 Term 6, 2018 20% NATURE OF THE TASK This is an individual assessment task. It is comprised of two components. I. Section one is a case study analysis and 800 word report, II. Section two is a self-reflection activity, and requires a 200 word discussion of individual teamwork experiences during class. INSTRUCTIONS Section one: Case Study Analysis of the textbook case study Take a risk on Disruptive innovation (Kinicki et al, 2018, pages 262 - 263) I. Evaluative and analyse the case study and II. Write an 800 word report (excluding the reference list) in response to questions 1,2 and 3 as featured in this assessment guide. Case study discussion questions: 1) Describe the decision-making style Haider used when selecting a future investment opportunity (approximately 150 words) 2) Explain the strengths and weaknesses of this future oriented decision making style (approximately 250 words) 3) Discuss the factors or stakeholders that influenced Haider’s decisions in a future investment opportunity (approximately 250 words) Remember to include: - brief introduction and a summary (150) - headings, subheadings and numbering of these sections of the report Section two: Reflection on WMGM102 Teamwork Experience Please note, students with attendance issues will not be able to respond to this question, and will hence be penalized. Based on your teamwork experiences within this unit respond to the following questions: I. What did you personally do well in terms of your teamwork skills in WMGM102? II. What could you personally improve on, in terms of your teamwork skills for the future? HOW TO PRESENT YOUR ASSIGNMENT The marking criteria rubric has been placed in iLearn (Assessment Section). The overall length of the report, including citations, but excluding the reference list, is 1000 words. Include the word count at the end of the report, and before the reference list. Turnitin similarly should be 10% or lower. Use 1.5 line spacing, 2.5 cm margins on top, bottom and on each side, Times New Roman font size 12. You are required to use the Harvard (AGPS) Referencing style throughout your essay. All reports must cite, in total, a minimum of two (2) sources. This includes the textbook. Page 1 of 4 Do not use colour printing or formatting templates when submitting your report. Remember to include an executive summary and a content section. WRITING STYLE: The report should be written in a formal and academic style. The report will be evaluated for discriminatory language, clarity of expression and overall presentation. Do not use bullet points, and casual language or bracketed comments. The use of headings and subheadings is encouraged and appropriate. Do not include abstract, footnotes or endnotes. Your report must be fully and appropriately referenced, using Harvard (AGPS) intext citations. Substantial marks will be deducted for inadequate, or incorrect, referencing. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS This assessment must be submitted via Turnitin in iLearn. Hard copies will not be accepted or marked. Guidance on how to submit a Turnitin assignment may be accessed from http://mq.edu.au/iLearn/student_info/assignments.htm#turnitin. If you cannot access or view your submission via Turnitin in iLearn, you have not correctly submitted your work and will need to do so prior to the due date. (If you require assistance submitting through Turnitin, you may lodge a OneHelp Ticket or refer to the IT help page.) You may make several submissions via Turnitin to check your work for plagiarism and make adjustments accordingly up until the due date. If you submit again after the due date your submission will be counted as a late submission and penalties will apply (see below). Please note that for a first time submission the similarity report will be available immediately but for any subsequent submissions it will take 24 hours for the similarity report to be generated in Turnitin. Please note that it is your responsibility to: • allow sufficient time for submission of your work and any uploading of documents so try to avoid submitting your work just prior to the deadline. • ensure that you make the correct submission and that your document can be viewed in Turnitin. Please also note that technical issues such as an internet outage or computer failure are not considered grounds for special consideration. For further details please check the Special Consideration Policy. LATE SUBMISSIONS Late submissions are possible and will be penalised at 20% per day up to 4 days (weekend inclusive). If a student submits an assessment task 5 or more days a after the due date without grounds for special consideration (See Special Consideration Policy) record or submission will be made but the student will receive zero marks for the assessment task. RETENTION OF RECORDS Student are required to keep a copy of all items submitted or completed for the purpose of assessment or evaluation until the end of the grade appeal period. FEEDBACK Feedback will be provided in Turnitin via iLearn before Week 6. Marks will be available in Gradebook. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY Using the work or ideas of another person, whether intentionally or not, and presenting them as your own without clear acknowledgement of the source is called Plagiarism. Macquarie University promotes awareness of information ethics through its Academic Integrity Policy. This means that: Page 2 of 4 • • • • all academic work claimed as original must be the work of the person making the claim all academic collaborations of any kind must be acknowledged academic work must not be falsified in any way when the ideas of others are used, these ideas must be acknowledged appropriately. All breaches of the Academic Integrity Policy are serious and penalties apply. Students should be aware that they may fail an assessment task, a unit or even be excluded from the University for breaching the Academic Integrity Policy. EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS Students are responsible for their learning and are expected to: • actively engage with assessment tasks, including carefully reading the guidance provided, understanding criteria, spending sufficient time on the task and submitting work on time; • Read, reflect and act on feedback provided; • Actively engage in activities designed to develop assessment literacy, including taking the initiative where appropriate (e.g. seeking clarification or advice, negotiating learning contracts, developing grading criteria and rubrics); • Provide constructive feedback on assessment processes and tasks through student feedback mechanisms (e.g. student surveys, suggestions for future offerings, student representation on committees); • Ensure that their work is their own; and • Be familiar with University policy and faculty procedures and act in accordance with those policy and procedures. Page 3 of 4 MARKING CRITERIA Please review the marking rubric in iLearn. The marking criteria are: 1. Depth of knowledge and development of a consistent, clear and well-supported answer to the question. 2. Overall level and quality of synthesis, analysis, critical thinking, support and substantiation, in terms of key themes, arguments and issues raised in the question. 3. Quality of academic research undertaken, as per: a. Appropriate number of relevant academic references sourced from peer reviewed national and international journals. All essays must cite at least six (6) academic sources for a pass grade. b. Degree of relevance of sources to the arguments featured in your essay. c. Employment of correct Harvard (AGPS) Referencing style. 4. Use of appropriate structure, as discussed above. 5. Clarity of expression, grammar, spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and terminology employed as per management and business glossaries covered in class. 6. Overall essay layout and presentation. Page 4 of 4
WMGM102 Report and Reflection Marking Rubric: Case Study Analysis & Teamwork Reflection Criteria and their loading Fail (FA) Fail (F) Pass (P) Credit (Cr) Distinction (D) High Distinction (HD) (in %) Analysing case study question 1: (20%) Clarity, accuracy and quality of the in-depth analysis of the case study contents Nonsubmission OR Student is found to have plagiarised The report regurgitates the case study’s information and/or the theory and fails to provide an analysis of Haider’s decision making style. The report poorly interprets the case study information and provides an inaccurate and superficial analysis of Haider’s decision making style. The report interprets the case study information and provides a mostly accurate analysis of Haider’s decision making style. (0 – 9.5) (10 – 12.5) The report regurgitates the case study and fails to systematically evaluate both the strengths and weaknesses of Haider’s future oriented decision making style. The report poorly analyses the case study and poorly evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of Haider’s future oriented decision making style. The report interprets the case study and adequately evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of Haider’s future oriented decision making style. (10-12.5) (13-14.5) The report analyses the case study information and provides an accurate and insightful analysis of Haider’s decision making style. (13 – 14.5) Analysing case study question 2: (20%) Nonsubmission OR Clarity, accuracy and quality of the in-depth analysis of the case study contents Student is found to have plagiarised Analysing case study question 3: (20%) Nonsubmission OR Clarity, accuracy and quality of the in-depth analysis of the case study contents Student is found to have plagiarised (0 – 9.5) The report discusses the case study information and provides a perceptive and insightful analysis of Haider’s decision making style. (17 – 20) (15 – 16.5) The report resourcefully interprets the case study and systematically evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of Haider’s future oriented decision making style. The report insightfully interprets the case study and outstandingly and systematically evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of Haider’s future oriented decision making style. (15-16.5) (17 – 20) The report regurgitates the case study’s information and/or the theory and fails to identify and explain the factors and stakeholders that influenced Haider’s future oriented decisions The report poorly interprets the case study’s information and/or the theory and superficially identifies and explains the factors and stakeholders that influenced Haider’s future oriented decisions (0 – 9.5) (10-12.5) The report effectively interprets the case study’s information and/or the theory and identifies and explains the factors and stakeholders that influenced Haider’s future oriented decisions. The report resourcefully interprets the case study’s information and/or the theory and systematically analyses and explains the factors and stakeholders that influenced Haider’s future oriented decisions (13-14.5) The report insightfully interprets the case study’s information and/or the theory and outstandingly analyses the factors and stakeholders that influenced Haider’s future oriented decisions (17-20) (15- 16.5) Report Structure:(5%) Quality and accuracy of headings and subheadings Criteria and their loading Nonsubmission OR Student is found to have plagiarised Fail (FA) Headings are absent, random or regurgitations of the case study questions. Headings are generic and/or confusing, and poorly paraphrased case study questions. (0-2) (2.5-3) Headings generally capture the issues from the case study. Headings capture the main themes/ issues found in the case study. (3.5) (4) Headings strategically capture the underlying themes/ issues found in the case study. Sophisticated identification of the stakeholders and case study background. (4.5-5) Fail (F) Pass (P) Credit (Cr) Distinction (D) High Distinction (HD) Writing (5%) Use of academic language and terminology; Quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar; and sentence structure Nonsubmission OR Student is found to have plagiarised Quality of research and referencing (10%) Nonsubmission OR The amount and quality of sources; Accuracy of referencing; Consistency of referencing; Compliance with Harvard (AGPS) style Student is found to have plagiarised Reflection on teamwork (20%) Nonsubmission OR Understanding of the purpose and value of teamwork; Exploring personal teamwork experiences, including challenges and opportunities encountered; Student is found to have plagiarised Student name and student number: Report has multiple grammar/spelling mistakes; Very Poor choice of expressions and terms; very poor sentence structure. Report has several grammar/ spelling mistakes; Poor choice of expressions and terms; poor sentence structure. Report has Fair use of grammar with fair spelling; fair choice of expressions and terms; fair sentence structure. The report has few or none grammar/spelling mistakes; Good choice of expressions and terms and sentence structure. The report has no grammar/spelling mistakes; Excellent choice of expressions and terms, and sentence structure. (5 – 6) (6.5 – 7) (7.5 – 8) (8.5 – 10) Research is based on irrelevant sources; Referencing does not conform to the Harvard (AGPS) style; multiple inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies in the in-text citations, and the reference. Research is based on sources with limited relevance; Referencing mostly conforms to the Harvard (AGPS) style. Many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the in-text citations, and the reference list. Research is based on mostly relevant sources; Referencing conforms to the Harvard (AGPS) style. Few inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies in the in-text citations, and the reference list exists. Research is based on relevant and reputable sources; Referencing conforms to the Harvard (AGPS) style. Mainly no inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the in-text citations and the reference list exists. Research is based on highly relevant and reputable sources; Referencing conforms to the Harvard (AGPS) style. Referencing is impeccable, with no inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the in-text citations and the reference list. (0 – 4.5) (5 – 6) (6.5 – 7) (7.5 – 8) (8.5 – 10) Basic questioning the purpose and value of teamwork, including the challenges and opportunities it may present to individual team members; Little exploration of personal teamwork experiences is provided. Broad questioning of the purpose and value of teamwork, including the challenges and opportunities it may present to individual team members; Guarded exploration of personal teamwork experiences is provided. Thorough questioning of the purpose and value of teamwork, including the challenges and opportunities it may present to individual team members; Open exploration of personal teamwork experiences is provided. Deep questioning of the purpose and value of teamwork, including the challenges and opportunities it may present to individual team members; Visionary and courageous exploration of personal teamwork experiences is provided. (10-12.5) (13-14.5) (15 – 16.5) (17-20) (0 – 4.5) No questioning of the purpose and value of teamwork, including the challenges and opportunities it may present to individual team members; No exploration of personal teamwork experiences is provided. (0 – 9.5) Tutor’s feedback: Report mark: Tutorial number, day, time: Tutor’s name & signature: /100

Tutor Answer

Mercury_H
School: Purdue University

...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
10/10 would recommend. Responsive and helpful.

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors