Individual SWOT and Strategic Recommendation
Individual SWOT and Strategic Recommendation
The intent of the Individual SWOT and Strategic Recommendation Report is to integrate internal and external environments of a firm and develop a strategic recommendation. Using your company you need to
The project consists of four steps/phases:
- Create a SWOT from your team and individual data.
- Identify their current strategies.
- Present the strategic issues/problems/decision to which the company needs to attend.
- Generation of strategic alternatives or options, i.e., what the company could do to improve the company results
- Choice/decision among the alternatives as to what the company should
These steps/phases are reflected in the instructions and suggestions below.
- Develop a SWOT Matrix and discuss the implications of the SWOT and how it helps to form the companies strategies, goals, and mission.
- Identify what strategies – Porter’s generic, business and corporate level that the company appears to be following and how the company’s internal abilities and external forces impact on these strategies.
- Explain what changes you might recommend in the company’s direction. Make sure that you use the SWOT and the book to help you.
Your audience is the top executives of the company. You need to place yourself in the role of an analyst who has been hired to help the firm craft a strategy. Put your data into tables and figures. Your text should be your analysis, interpretation, and findings derived from your data. You need to gather the data (cite your sources) and do analysis. Remember it is the so what and interpretation which matters. Use the techniques and tools to outline the external and competitive environment of the industry for the company. You must refer to and utilize your Exhibits. Business writing is a must, therefore it is important to use headings and have a clear logic in your report.
Remember – Headings, summaries, roadmaps, page numbers, spelling and grammar all count!
Exhibits that should be attached to the report include at least a SWOT for the firm. The data (numbers and charts) go into tables and figures, write your analysis referring to the data. It is the quality of data and interpretation which matters. Exhibits should be referred to and discussed in the report. Do not just repeat data, instead analyze and tell your boss what the data means. Use headings to help organize your report. Please make sure you use terms developed in class and from the book. You need to cite your sources of data. Use end notes to cite your sources. Be consistent in your format. You may also include reference page. The Maximum length is 7 pages with an additional 5 pages of exhibits. What you turn in for this assignment you should be proud to give to any boss.
Note that in several instances the Professor/Boss expects the use of exhibits, e.g., financial statements. There are multiple points at which “a graph will speak volumes.” Or a summary exhibit will efficiently summarize a discussion. I would suggest putting your tables and charts in the back of your report. The page count assumes 12-Point Times Roman font or equivalent, with one-inch margins. Generally a professional report will be single (or perhaps one and a half) spacing.
The report is for a business audience and needs to fit a more business style of writing. Contact the writing center if you are unsure about business writing style. Use headings to organize your work.
| Suggested Outline of Report Content at the Very Least |
| Introduction · Purpose of analysis · Overview/outline of written report |
| I. Strategies of the firm – Description of the current strategy choices of the firm (2- 3 pages) · Generic or Business level strategy · Corporate Level Strategy · Use of BCG matrix if appropriate for the firm. |
| II. SWOT analysis (2 Pages) · SWOT table · Discussion of the SWOT |
| III. Recommendations (2-3 Pages) Recommendation based on your analysis make sure that you identify how your recommendation will solve problems and tie it into the financials. |
Bibliography should be extensive. Use consistent format, but be sure to include the following information: author’s name (date). Title of article. publication (e.g., a magazine, journal, or series publication), volume, issue, pages (if known), Source: http//www reference; database; accessed: date). Make sure to include database from which the article was drawn.) Below are examples of bibliographic entries.
| Examples of Bibliographic Entries Example of a magazine article: Russell, Sophia (2009). Defiant Growth. B&T Magazine (Sept. 4), 59(2700):20-23 (Source: Database: Business Source Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=44685237&site=bsi-live; accessed May 22, 2011). Example of a book: Jones, Geoffrey (2010). Beauty imagined: A history of the global beauty industry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Pp. xiv + 412. 25 illus. 32 plates. ISBN 9780199556496 Hbk. £25/$45). Example of a company document: Shiseido Annual Report 2010 (Source: http://www.sec.gov. Note that in this instance the Annual Report was drawn directly from a government source. It might also be available on the company’s investor page. |
Individual SWOT and Recommendation Report
Name:___________________________________ Firm: __________________
| Strategic Analysis (90%) | |||||
| Category (Weight) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Score |
| Strategies of the Firm 25% |
Analysis did not correctly identify the firm’s strategies. |
Analysis superficially identified and evaluated some of components involved in the current strategy choices of the firm. Limited understanding of the different levels of strategy in a firm. |
Analysis correctly identified and evaluated most of firm’s current and past strategy choices and integrated the choices with the abilities of the firm. Limited understanding of the pros and cons of strategies chosen. |
Analysis indicates a thorough understanding of the firm’s current and past strategy choices. Accurately demonstrated an understanding of how abilities and external environment help or hinder the strategic choices. |
|
| SWOT Analysis 30% |
Superficial SWOT analysis with limited ties with data and analysis. Limited recommendations indicated. |
A SWOT analysis that incorporates some elements of the internal and external analysis. Some recommendations that relate to the to the analysis. The analysis provided a weak discussion of strengths and weakness, | A strong SWOT analysis which identifies and ties the sections of the report together. Some consistency of the recommendations with the analysis of the report. The analysis provided an adequate rationale for the findings from the data and analysis presented. |
Excellent SWOT, which ties together the analysis of the data and implications developed in the report. Creative solutions and recommendations that tied in heavily with the analysis of the report. The analysis provided well-reasoned supporting arguments in the discussion of strengths and weakness, opinion, and/or recommendation. |
|
| Recommendation 25% |
Very limited recommendation indicated which did not tie to issues or problem in the SWOT. | One recommendation was presented with very little detail and did not relate to SWOT or analysis done in the papers. | Options were presented to solve problems and utilize strengths . The recommendation began to take advantage of an opportunity or defend from a threat. | Options were presented to solve problems and utilize strengths . The recommendation tied to the opportunities and threats, while taking into account the financials of the firm and demand in the market |
|
| Quality of Data and Analysis 10% |
Report provided little specific industry and firm data. Few observations. Narrow scope. The analysis did not provide a strengths and weakness or opinion and/or recommendation. Limited data sources used and logic is not complete. Lack of understanding of the material. Many logic errors that made following the logic of the write-up difficult. |
Some data, but very superficial. Few observations and little if any interpretation. Identified few abilities and opportunities and threats. The logic was incomplete and had some major holes. Limited understanding of the models. Some logic errors and resulting argument was weak. |
Some non-obvious observations, sometimes interpreted well. Good Data and observations, but needs more analysis. Identified some elements of the SWOT. The analysis provided adequate rationale for the these. Few logic holes with the beginnings of comprehensive understanding of the firm. Strong argument. |
Excellent data and well researched, Many issues observed in depth. Reasonable interpretations of observations. Identified a number of abilities and external factors.. The analysis used well-reasoned supporting arguments. Strong understanding of the concepts and the organization. Virtually no logic errors and resulting excellent arguments. |
|
| Sub-total for Analysis | |||||
| Writing (10%) | |||||
| Category (Weight) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Score |
| Grammar/spel-ling 5 % |
Many errors that interfered with understanding the write-up. |
Many errors, but the write-up was generally understandable. |
Some errors, but the write-up was very understandable. |
Very few errors and very understandable. |
|
| Use of exhibits and bibliography, presentation 5% |
No exhibits included. Disorganized and not clearly labeled sections |
Few exhibits included, but only general reference made to the exhibits. Some organization (headings, labels, table of contents, framing paragraphs) |
Appropriate exhibits included each of which was referred at an appropriate point in the write-up. Good organization (headings, labels, table of contents, framing and summary paragraphs ) |
Included exhibits that were very well designed and each was skillfully used in reinforcing the arguments in the write-up. Good organization (headings, labels, table of contents, framing and summary paragraphs ) |
|
| Sub-total for Writing | |||||
| Total | |||||
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!