Topic: Alternative Case Study Assessment Task
Alternative Case Study Assessment Task:
IMPORTANT NOTE: This alternative assessment task is provided for students who are unable to or do not wish to carry out a
workplace-focused decision audit project.
Word length: 3,500 words ± 20%
Value: 60% of the final mark
Modules covered: Primarily Modules 4 to 7; but integration of concepts from Modules 1 to 3 also required (attached from 1 To
7)
Required Appendix: A completed version of the CDDP Template focusing on the 2007 P4-A strategic decision must be included in
the final submitted document for your (a Microsoft Word-editable version of this template can be accessed in Module 6).
This alternative assessment task focuses on the case study entitled Green & Safe’s New Solvent (included at the end of this
task description). You will need to read this case study carefully and completely. Your analysis of the case study will
require application of your learning from across the entire unit. Thus, as you work on this task, keep in mind that it is
effectively serving as your final comprehensive examination for this unit.
The task requires you to undertake a very close and complete analysis of the 2007 strategic decision about the conversion to
P4-A solvent.
The assessment task has several required parts:
Part 1: Diagram the flow of specific events in this case study. Be as factual and objective as possible at this stage,
focusing on what happened (steps followed, information considered), how it happened (decision process as far as you can see
it) and any evident feedback following the decision. (10% of your mark)
Part 2: Provide a brief snapshot summary of the key characteristics/attitudes/values associated with each of the key players
in the decision process. This part can be displayed in a table. (5% of your mark)
Part 3: Describe and discuss, in detail, how the entire decision process can be analysed using a range of concepts,
theoretical perspectives and approaches (e.g., hard systems, prescriptive/ normative and/or descriptive/ naturalistic,
decision traps, group decision processes, heuristics & biases, negotiation) from this unit. ‘Diagnose’ the quality of then
decision process from within the context of the perspectives you choose. In this analysis, discuss the individual,
interpersonal/ group, organisational, societal, ethical and environmental constraints associated with the decision. To help
in this complete and complex analysis of the 2007 P4-A strategic decision, you must employ the CDDP template (see Module 6)
as part of the analysis and you must incorporate the completed template as an Appendix to your assignment. Where appropriate,
you should address any relevant conflict and negotiation issues and ripple effects/unintended consequences that arose in the
case study. You should also consider managerial thinking issues associated with the persons involved in the case study
decision. Throughout this part, take as comprehensive (with respect to the material covered in this unit) as possible
regarding your analysis of the case study. This part constitutes the major portion of emphasis in the assignment. (65% of
your mark)
Part 4: Discuss how you think the decision process could have been made more effective and how you think G&S and/or certain
specific people could have done things differently, perhaps to improve the outcomes or better respond to feedback. Include in
your discussion an exploration of how managerial thinking/decision support systems and procedures could or might have been
used in the decision process. Be sure to link this discussion to your previous analyses of the case study. You must also
discuss, giving clear reasons, whether or not you think the P4-A strategic decision was a decision best made by a group or an
individual. (20% of your mark)
It is important that your discussions include plenty of examples and illustrations, from the case study, for the various
concepts you invoke. I am not after book definitions or textbook discussions of theories and concepts – I want your thoughts
on the matters to hand. The clear linking of your discussions to specific details/issues in the case study as well as your
use of a broad range of concepts and theoretical ideas form two essential marking criteria for this assignment. Remaining
marking criteria will be tied to how clearly you set out the event flow and surrounding details as well as the summaries of
the individual players in the first two parts of the essay, how thoroughly you develop your discussion and CDDP analysis in
part 3 of the essay, and how well you pull things together in the part 4 of the essay. The marking guide for this alternative
case study assessment task is set out below.
REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE REFLECTING YOUR LEARNING IN THE ENTIRE GSB 740 UNIT IN THIS ASSESSMENT TASK. IT IS TRULY YOUR FINAL
EXAM!
GOOD LUCK!
You should keep the marking guide in mind when you are deciding how many words to use in each section.
Marking Guide for Alternative Case Study Assessment Task (attached to you in PdF which has same name )
