|Subject Name:||Dynamic Strategy and Disruptive Innovation|
|Assessment Title:||Stakeholder Analysis and Strategy Development Report|
|Word Limit:||2,000 words|
You are required to watch the YouTube Clip Snapchat’s three-part business model with CEO Evan Spiegel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqPHordzhdw
You will also need to perform your own research on Snap Inc.
You must then prepare a Snap Inc. Stakeholder Analysis & Strategy Program Report including an Executive Summary and a Conclusion and using the following headings:
Prepare a diagram with Snap Inc. as the central organisation surrounded by the company’s stakeholder groups using the stakeholder view model
For each stakeholder group identified in the stakeholder view model research Snap Inc. further and prepare a list identifying and describing the specific stakeholders within each stakeholder group
Select four specific stakeholders and analyse their behaviour and motives
Tip: choose a stakeholder from each of the different four stakeholder categories to avoid repeating yourself in sections C and D
Identify the stakeholder category that each of the four stakeholders belong to and list the generic strategic programs available for managing each stakeholder.
Recommend a specific strategic program for each of the four identified stakeholders that are consistent with one of the generic programs identified in section C.
|Criteria||Fail 0-5||Pass 5-6.5 (grade 4)||Credit 6.6 – 7.5 (grade 5)||Distinction 7.6-8.5 (grade 6)||High Dist’n 8.6-10 (grade 7)|
|Understanding of the project||Key points left out. No grasp of issues that faced the client. Over reliance on notes.||Includes some issues but analysis glossed over. Team seemed uncomfortable to go beyond key facts.||Includes all issues, analysis and recommendations but with little elaboration. Not integrated with theory or are not justified.||Builds convincing argument showing how key issues, analysis and recommendations are integrated together.||Builds convincing argument showing how all key points are integrated together. Uses examples to elaborate the key
points and theory.
|Introduction / Conclusion||Introduction missing or underdeveloped. Reader has no idea what the assessment will be or was about. No conclusion.
Assessment just finishes.
|Limited clarity of purpose / overview. Highlights key issues but interpretation of these.
Conclusion weak. Doesn’t tie in with what was introduced.
|Provides purpose for assessment, highlights and interprets key issues to be addressed but
recommendation but not integrated.
|As for level below plus shows consistency between marketing problem identification and final
recommendations well established.
|Engaging conclusion clearly sums up assessment and relates back to the introduction.|
|Research and evidence||Evidence of analysis and 3rd party support||No references to any sources. Suggestions/recommendations just seem appear.||Steps used in analysis shown but little justification why or how these are used to develop recommendations.||Background research and analysis of this is clearly identifiable.
Steps used are shown and some rationale for the development of recommendations provided.
|Evidence of extensive research and analysis: journals, prescribed text, other books, verified websites, primary research. Used references to justify analysis||As for level below plus able to use references to back up claims and recommendations made.
Recommendations clear come from the analysis of the project.
|Synthesis and conclusion||Recommendations||Recommendations missing||Recommendations very general in nature – client would not be able to implement them without
doing further analysis.
|Recommendations given in a way that they could be implemented but no justification given or
benefits explained to the client
|Recommendations are logical and feasible. Timelines and justifications for these provided.
Ties in with the clients brief.
|Recommendations can easily be implemented. Timelines, responsibilities and costs
|Structure||Organisation||No structure to the assessment. Reader cannot follow sequence. No introduction or conclusion. Apparent that group is not working well together. Group members missing (without valid reason) or not contributing.||Ideas not focused. Reader may have difficulty following argument. Main points difficult to identify. No transition between key points. Awkward transition between speakers. Assessment
appears to be done by individuals rather than group.
|Main ideas presented in logical manner. Flow of assessment may be awkward. Group members demonstrate that they have worked on assessment as a whole.
All group members take equal share in assessment.
|Main ideas presented in logical manner. Flow of assessment smooth between speakers. Shows that the group has worked collaboratively||Ideas clearly organised so Reader can follow easily. The purpose of the assessment is clear in all stages. Seamless transition between speakers.|
|Total out of 30 Comments|
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 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS Provider Code 02426B.