Assignment: Case Study

Description Marks out of Wtg (%) Due date

Case Study (2000 words) 40 40 22 January 2020

Please see the case titled ‘Home Pharmaceuticals’ in the assignment forum on study desk. This case is applicable
to both Case Study Assignment and the examination. You are required to analyse this case and answer the
questions below.

Important instructions:
A. The format of presenting the case study answers is indicated in the assignment questions below. Please note
that neither a report format nor essay format is required; just follow the format and instructions in the
assignment questions below. A general introduction and conclusion to the case study should not be included.
B. Word count: The word count is 2000 words. A word count between 1800 and 2200 (10% +/- 1 800) is
acceptable. If the word count is exceeded, only the first 2200 words will be marked and this will obviously
have a negative impact on your mark for the assignment. The word count excludes the title page, words in the
figures and tables and the List of References. In-text references are included in the word count.
C. Theory support: As indicated in the case study questions below, you are required to support your views with
theory. To ensure depth and credibility of your work, you need to demonstrate that you read widely on the
topic by including the views of a wide range of theory sources. Theory sources include scholarly journal
articles researched through the USQ Library databases. The prescribed text (Thompson et al. 2018) as well as
the course readings must also be included as theory support. On postgraduate level it is expected that research
include about fifteen journal articles (excluding the course readings and text).
D. References: Please note that information obtained from the case study should not be referenced as the case
study is the base source of information for your assignment. Do not use the course Study Book (or any other
study books) as a reference source. All ideas and data presented in-text, must be referenced according to the
Harvard AGPS method. The full reference of each source must be presented in the List of References at the
end of your document. Please see the USQ Library website for help on how to use the Harvard AGPS method:
http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide
E. Marking criteria sheet: It is important that you read through the marking criteria when preparing your
assignment to note the criteria that assignments will be evaluated against. Please insert a copy of this criteria
sheet at the end of your document. Please insert a page break at the end of your assignment before copying the
marking criteria sheet on the next page.
F. Submission: Only one document in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) can be submitted. Please make sure that
you submit the correct file and the final version of your assignment. It creates unnecessary problems if you
submit the wrong file and we have to reset your submission page.
G. It is extremely important that you submit your assignment by the due date. We are learning about strategic
planning in this course and your ability to plan your time to ensure that you meet the due dates is an important
aspect of this course. Please see the USQ policy on assignment submission, Point 4.2.4 ‘Late submission of
assignments’ http://policy.usq.edu.au/documents/14749PL#4.2_Assignments . This policy, that outlines
penalties for late submission, will be applied in this course. Requests for extension to the due date can only be
considered if the guidelines in the policy are followed.
H. If you have questions about the assignment, please post them on Case Study Discussion Forum on Study Desk.
Even if you don’t have questions, it is important that you follow the discussions on this forum to make sure
that you are on the right track with your responses to the case study questions.
Title page
The USQ Cover sheet should not be included. The first page of your assignment must be a title page where the
following information must be included:

• Assignment title
• Full name and student number
• Actual word count (not the required word count but the actual number of words in your assignment
(excluding the title page, List of References, and words in tables/figures).
• Email address or contact phone number (If there is a problem with your assignment, it is useful to have your
details so that I can contact you directly).

Please note that you may submit your assignment as a draft to the submission link for turnitin check. You
will receive a turnitin report stating your similarity percentage. If your percentage is higher than 20%, you
should seriously consider revising your assignment or you may lose marks for potential plagiarism. Please go
to the following link for information regarding how to avoid plagiarism.
https://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/plagiarism

Assignment task:
After reading and analysing the case Home Pharmaceuticals (HP) carefully, you are required to act as a strategy
consultant to analyse the company’s current position to enable strategy development for the future. You are
required to write a report presenting your findings about:

1) The current status of the industry and market

2) Macro- and micro environmental conditions that influence the organisation now and in future
3) Key Success Factors of the industry and how HP currently responds to or meet these success factors
4) HP’s strategic and competitive challenges (drawing on industry analysis, evaluation of HP’s internal situation,
and competitive strength assessment).

The aim of this report is to discuss the current strategic position of HP to enable strategy development for the
future. Please note that the report must not include recommendations for future strategies but only present the
analyses (as appendices) and discussions (in the body of the report) as indicated in the assignment question.
Strategy development is addressed in the examination where you will build on the information that you presented
in this report, and propose future strategies for the company.

What to include in the body of the report:

• A brief summary of the industry and market: Use only the information presented in the case study and
summarise in your own words the current status of the industry and market by including an overview of aspects
such as the industry in general, current industry trends, competition in the industry, the state of the global
market, the state of the Australian market, and any other facts that might be relevant background that can be
used for preparing future strategies. No additional research or references to sources are required here as the
summary information should come only from the case study facts. For marking purposes, the first criterion in
the marking criteria sheet ‘Understanding of case study context’ applies.
• A discussion of the results of the environmental analyses: identify the top three (3) macro environmental
conditions that influence the organisation, and also the top three (3) micro environmental conditions. For each
of the macro and micro conditions that you identified, explain why they are important, how these environmental
conditions influence the organisation now and in future, and how it might affect future strategic planning. Here
you need to add theory to support your views (please see Point A & B in the ‘Important Instructions’ section).
Make sure that you use theory support effectively by integrating the views and arguments of other authors
(journal articles) with your own views rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
• A discussion about how HP meets/does not meet the industry key success factors. Here you need to add theory
to support your views (please see Point A & B in the ‘Important Instructions’ section).
• A discussion outlining the strategic and competitive challenges that HP is currently facing. See page 112 of your
text (Thompson et al. 2018) for more information and ideas about what to include in this discussion. Again,
support your views with theory.

What to include as Appendices in the report:

All analyses (frameworks, assessment tables, comparisons/matching tools) must be presented as Appendices and
the results must be discussed in the body of the report. The population of the frameworks and tables with relevant
case data is important as it reflects the level of analysis of the case study. A deep level of case analysis (A or HD
standard) will include a variety of relevant and important data (presented as bullet points in the frameworks/tables)
demonstrating an in-depth analysis of the case study and understanding of the theory related to the analysis tool. It
is recommended that you use the following analysis tools to enable you to address the assignment questions:

• A macro external analysis (PESTEL) and micro external analysis of the industry (Porter’s Five Forces). Use
the layout as presented as Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 in your Study Book. Draw these frameworks and populate
each block with data from the case, using bullet points. For the Five Forces analysis, remember to include an
evaluation of the levels of threat (new entrants, substitutes, competition), barriers to entry (new entrants),
evaluations of bargaining power (suppliers and buyers), switching costs (suppliers, buyers and substitutes),
industry competitors (who they are and level of threat), and complements (identify them).
• A Key Success Factor (KSF) analysis: Explain very briefly what KSFs are, how KSFs are identified for an
industry, and critically discuss how they are used in strategy development in general. Use theory to support
your explanations. Your text and/or Study Book explain the basic principles about how key success factors are
identified. Do not copy the information from the text and/or Study Book into your discussion. Here you need
to add theory from at least three (3) journal articles to provide depth to your discussion. Then, draw a KSF
table (similar to Table 2.2 in the Study Book) for the pharmaceutical industry. Populate the columns with the
most prominent external forces impacting on this industry (use results of PESTEL and Five Forces analyses),
the likely industry responses as a whole (how the whole industry is currently responding to these forces) and
then list the Key Success Factors for the industry (tip: limit your KSFs to the five most important issues in the
pharmaceutical industry. More than one external force and/or industry response may link to one KSF).
• A competitor analysis: Figure 2.4 in the Study Book presents a Competitive Profile Matrix (similar to the
Weighted Competitive Strength Assessment (Thompson et al. 2018, p.110). Draw the matrix, list the Key
Success Factors that you identified for the pharmaceutical industry and compare HP to two of their closest
competitors you may find in the market. Use information about the competitors that you can find and make
further assumptions. Do not research these companies to find further information. Do not research the
pharmaceutical industry as research related to the industry does not count as ‘theory support’ as explained in
point A below.)
• An analysis of HP’s resources and capabilities: present HP’s resources (tangible, intangible and human
resources) matched with HP’s capabilities in a table or similar format to show the matches.
• An analysis of ranking KSFs with HP’s capabilities: See Appendix 1 of Study Book Module 2 (p.23 Study
Book) for ideas about how to present this.

These analyses should be sufficient in providing the information that you need to answer the case study questions.
Do not include narratives in the appendices; only the population and application of the frameworks and assessment
tools will be marked. The discussions must be presented in the body of the report.

List of References
Include here a list of full references of all the in-text references that you included in your discussions. The case
study should not be referenced here but your text and readings that you referenced should appear here. Only list
those sources that you referred to in your written work. Make sure that you follow the correct Harvard AGPS
method of referencing. Please see the USQ Library website for help on how to use the Harvard AGPS method:
http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide . The Communication Skills Handbook
by Summers and Smith (any of the editions) is also a very valuable source of information for referencing and
assessment writing in general.

Marking Criteria Sheet (see next 3 pages)

The marking criteria below will be used to evaluate your assignment against. Please make sure that you read
through the criteria sheet to see the expectations on various grade levels per section of the Case Study questions.

Please insert a copy of the full criteria sheet (three pages) into your assignment. This should be done by inserting a
page-break after the List of References, then copy-and-paste each of the 3 pages into your own document to display
as presented below. To ensure that the three pages are copied correctly into your assignment, please insert a page
break after each page as shown in the criteria sheet below. Thank you for your help in this!

Please post questions about Case Study in the Study Desk forum titled ‘Case Study Discussion Forum’.
Marking Criteria Sheet
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50%
UNDERSTA Lacks a demonstrated
NDING OF understanding of the case
CASE study context.
STUDY
CONTEXT Include general case study
background instead of
summarising important
industry and market
information.
Differentiation between
industry and market is not
clear.
Important industry/market
information omitted.
Misunderstood the case study
focus. Included mostly
irrelevant material.
Information presented in an
unstructured way.
High degree of copy and paste Some degree of copy and
from case.
Phrases/sentences from case
directly copied to this section.
MARK / 3 <1.5
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50%
SELECTION No frameworks or assessment Some frameworks/
AND tools applied and/or not assessment tools selected
APPLICATIO included as appendices. and applied; and included
N OF as appendices.
FRAMEWOR
KS AND Tools selected are not
ASSESSMEN appropriate to solve the
T TOOLS specific business problems.
Incorrect interpretation of
business problems.
(judgement)
Included written discussions
as appendices.
Frameworks/tools applied
incorrectly: no case data
included or irrelevant case
data used to populate the
frameworks/tools. Poor
selection of case data.
Insufficient case analysis.
MARK/8 <4
PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION TOT
50%–64% 65%–74% 75%–84% 85% and up AL
Basic to fair understanding Sound understanding of the Strong understanding of the Superb understanding
of case study context. industry and market industry and market. of case study context
demonstrated in the demonstrated in the
Included some irrelevant selection of case data. A broad selection of selection of case study
case background relevant industry and data.
information. No irrelevant case market information
background information included. Excellent
Some attempt to included. differentiation between
differentiate between Well-constructed answer, industry and market
industry and market. Clear distinction between presented in own words, information
industry and market important key issues clearly demonstrated.
May not have identified all information. identified.
the relevant industry or All important and
market information. Sound selection of relevant market and
information presented in a industry information
Presentation and structured way. included.
structuring of information
needs improvement. No irrelevant content.
Information presented
Included some irrelevant
in a clear, concise and
material.
structured way in the
author’s own words.
paste from case.
1.5 – 1.9 2 – 2.2 2.3 - 2.5 2.6- 3
PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION TOT
50%–64% 65%–74% 75%–84% 85% and up AL
Sound selection and Selection of all relevant Excellent selection of
application of frameworks/ assessment relevant frameworks/
frameworks/assessment tools, clear application and assessment tools,
tools, and included as included as appendices. presented in a clear and
appendices. concise way as
Some tools selected are All tools selected are appendices.
appropriate but the All tools are appropriate in appropriate and applied in Demonstrates clear
selection of tools required solving the business an advanced way to solve judgement in selecting
to solve the business problems. the business problems. the most important and
problems is incomplete. relevant tools.
Not all of the required
analysis tools are used.
No written discussions in No written discussions in No written discussions in No written discussions
appendices, only tools. appendices, only tools appendices, only tools in appendices, only
tools. Excellent
selection of
Frameworks/tools are Frameworks/tools are Frameworks/ tools appropriate tools
applied correctly with applied correctly with populated with applied in a superior
bullet points from case relevant bullet points with comprehensive lists of way to solve the
data but covers only some case data, covering most of bullet points for each business problems.
issues, analysis is the important issues. element/factor. Bullet
incomplete. Mostly Elements are sufficiently points are clearly Frameworks/tools
theory, insufficient case populated with theory and formulated and applicable, populated with
study data. Basic level of case data. Satisfactory level demonstrating a deep level extensive lists of bullet
case analysis. of case analysis. of case analysis. points for each
element/ factor. Bullet
points are excellently
formulated and
applicable,
demonstrating
exceptional case
analysis.
4.0 – 5.1 5.2 – 5.9 6.0 – 6.7 6.8 – 8
CRITERIA FAIL PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION
Less than 50% 50%–64% 65%–74% 75%–84% 85% and up

DISCUSSION Lacks a demonstrated Basic to fair understanding Sound understanding of Strong understanding Unequivocal understanding
ON understanding of the question. of question. May not have the question of the question. of question. Excellent
ENVIRONM Less than 3 macro and 3 micro answered all the issues demonstrated in the Answers all parts of analysis of relevant issues
ENTAL external environmental relevant to the question. answer to the question. the question, pertaining to each part of the
INFLUENCE conditions identified and Might have some patches All relevant issues including clear and question.
S discussed. of irrelevant material. addressed. No irrelevant appropriate
Selection of appropriate materials or discussions. discussions for each
Excellent critical analysis
environmental issues. Sound selection of part of the question.
(Apply theory Not all issues relevant to and discussion.
appropriate Selection of relevant
concepts, question have been answered.
environmental issues. and important
apply Included mostly irrelevant Writing is very close to
environmental issues Original material is the result
analytical material. Selection of less- sources, although
demonstrating a clear of in-depth investigation.
skills to solve important environmental issues. paraphrased. Basic Satisfactory structure
understanding of the Excellent critical analysis of
business discussion of issues. and progression of
frameworks sources. References are
problems, discussion.
Direct copy and paste from relevant and clearly
interpret
sources. No original sources Some evidence of integrated and exceed
complex Very good structure,
included. structure and progression Theory sources applied expectations of number of
management clear arguments and
of discussion. to case study in an sources applied.
issues, apply progression of
effective way.
skills in Poor structure: no paragraphs, no discussion.
synthesising logical progression of discussion. Basic application of theory
theory to case study. Original material
High level of
obtained and integrated
No references. No theory. No application of theory
in most instances.
application of theory to case. No Included one journal to case study;
journal articles for theory article, and/or prescribed demonstrating a deep
support. Only textbooks, no other text and/or readings for Included more than one level of insight in
research. High degree of theory support. Citations original journal articles applying the
paraphrasing or direct quotes. were mostly from the for theory support. frameworks.
Included irrelevant sources (web course materials. Include Effectively used theory
pages, study books, articles from some irrelevant sources to explain and support
Clear evidence of
magazines) to support theory (web pages, study books, the case study issues.
wider reading.
related to case study issues. articles from magazines)
References are well
to support theory related to
integrated into the
case study issues.
discussions. Critical
analysis of sources.
Included a wider
range of journal
articles and text for
theory support.
MARK/8 <4 4.0 – 5.1 5.2 – 5.9 6.0 – 6.7 6.8 - 8
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50%
DISCUSSION Lacks a demonstrated
ON KSFs, understanding of the question.
ORG KSFs not identified. Selection of
CAPABILITI less-important KSFs. Links
ES AND between KSFs and organisation
LINKS not explained. Organisational
capabilities not identified.
Analysis of results from
(Apply theory
assessment tool is incorrect.
concepts,
Organisation’s capabilities not
apply
compared to KSFs. No
analytical
conclusion about how org is
skills to solve
meeting KSFs. Misunderstood
business
the case study focus. Included
problems,
mostly irrelevant material.
interpret
complex
management Poor structure: no paragraphs, no
issues, apply logical progression of discussion.
skills in
synthesising
No references. No integration of
theory)
theory and application. No
theory, only application. Only
theory, no application. Only
textbook no other research. High
degree of paraphrasing or direct
quotes. Included irrelevant
sources (web pages, study books,
articles from magazines) to
support theory component.
MARK/8 <4
PASS
50%–64%
Basic to fair understanding
of question. Identified
some of the main KSFs.
Compared some org
capabilities to KSFs. Basic
analysis of results from
tools. Basic conclusion
about how the org is
meeting KSFs. May not
have answered all the
issues relevant to the
question. Might have
some patches of irrelevant
material.
Some evidence of
structure and progression
of discussion.
Included one journal
article, and/or prescribed
text and/or readings for
theory support. Citations
were mostly from the
course materials. Include
some irrelevant sources
(web pages, study books,
articles from magazines)
to support theory related to
case study issues.
4.0 – 5.1
CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION
65%–74% 75%–84% 85% and up
Sound understanding of Strong understanding Unequivocal understanding
the question of the question. of question. Excellent
demonstrated in the Answers all parts of analysis of both KSFs and
answer to the question. the question, All organisational capabilities.
Identified all of the main relevant KSFs Comparison of org
KSFs with a satisfactory identified and capabilities and KSFs
comparison to org compared to relevant demonstrates an in-depth
capabilities. Sound org capabilities. understanding of the theory
conclusion about how Conclusion about how and an in-depth analysis of
the org is meeting the the org is meeting the the case study.
KSFs. Included all KSFs demonstrates a
relevant issues. No high level of
irrelevant material. understanding and
analysis.
Satisfactory structure Very good structure, Excellent critical analysis of
and progression of clear arguments and theory and outstanding
discussion. progression of conclusion about how the
discussion. organisation meets the
KSFs.
Theory sources applied
to case study analysis in High level of Original material is the result
an effective way. application of theory of in-depth investigation.
to case study; Excellent critical analysis of
demonstrating a deep sources. References are
Original material relevant and clearly
level of insight in
obtained and integrated integrated and exceed
applying the
in most instances. expectations of number of
frameworks.
sources applied.
Included more than one
Clear evidence of
original journal articles
wider reading.
for theory support.
References are well
Effectively used theory
integrated into the
to explain and support
discussions. Critical
the case study issues.
analysis of sources.
Included a wider
range of journal
articles and text for
theory support.
5.2 – 5.9 6.0 – 6.7 6.8 - 8
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50%
DISCUSSION Lacks a demonstrated
ON understanding of the
COMPETITI question. Fails to
VE synthesise results from
POSITION tools and discussions to
identify crucial strategic
and competitive
(Analytical
challenges.
skills to solve
business
problems,
interpret
complex
management No conclusion about the
issues, skills org’s major strategic and
in competitive challenges.
synthesising Included
theory) recommendations about
future strategies.
Misunderstood the
purpose of evaluating
strategic and competitive
challenges. Included
mostly irrelevant material.
Poor structure: no
paragraphs, no logical
progression of discussion.
No references. No
integration of theory and
application. No theory, only
application. Only theory, no
application. Only textbook
no other research. High
degree of paraphrasing or
direct quotes. Included
irrelevant sources (web
pages, study books, articles
from magazines) to support
theory component.
MARK/8 <4
PASS 50%–
64%
Basic to fair understanding
of question. Basic synthesis
of results from tools and
discussions, identified basic
strategic and competitive
challenges.
Basic conclusion about the
org’s major strategic and
competitive challenges.
Included no
recommendations about
future strategies. Basic
understanding of the
purpose of evaluating
strategic and competitive
challenges. Included some
irrelevant material.
Some evidence of structure
and progression of
discussion.
Included one journal article,
and/or prescribed text and/or
readings for theory support.
Citations were mostly from
the course materials. Include
some irrelevant sources (web
pages, study books, articles
from magazines) to support
theory related to case study
issues.
4.0 – 5.1
CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION
65%–74% 75%–84% 85% and up
Sound understanding of Strong understanding Unequivocal
the question demonstrated of the question. understanding of question.
in the answer to the Compelling synthesis of Excellent synthesis of
question. Sound synthesis results from tools and results from tools and
of results from tools and discussions identified a discussions identified an
discussions, identified a comprehensive range of outstanding range of
complete range of strategic and strategic and competitive
strategic and competitive competitive challenges, challenges, demonstrating
challenges. demonstrating a high an exceptional level of
level of understanding understanding and
and analysis. analysis.
Appropriate conclusion Very good conclusion
about the org’s major about the org’s major Excellent conclusion about
strategic and competitive strategic and the org’s major strategic
challenges. Included no competitive challenges. and competitive
recommendations about Included no challenges.
future strategies. Sound recommendations about Exceptional understanding
understanding of the future strategies. Strong of the purpose of
purpose of evaluating understanding of the evaluating strategic and
strategic and competitive purpose of evaluating competitive challenges.
challenges. Included no strategic and Included no irrelevant
irrelevant material. competitive challenges. material.
Included no irrelevant
material.
Satisfactory structure Excellent structure, clear
Very good structure,
and progression of arguments and
clear arguments and
discussion. progression of discussion.
progression of
discussion.
Original material High level of application Original material is the
obtained and integrated of theory to case study; result of in-depth
in most instances. demonstrating a deep investigation.
Included more than one level of insight in Excellent critical analysis
original journal articles interpreting the results of sources. References are
for theory support. of the frameworks. relevant and clearly
Effectively used theory Clear evidence of integrated and exceed
to explain and support wider reading. expectations of number of
the case study issues. References are well sources applied.
integrated into the
discussions. Critical
analysis of sources.
Included a wider
range of journal
articles and text for
theory support.
5.2 – 5.9 6.0 – 6.7 6.8 - 8
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50%
WRITTEN Lacks a demonstrated
COMMUNIC understanding of the question.
ATION Not adhering to assignment
SKILLS/ requirements. Incorrect report
PRESENTAT structure applied. Format of
ION frameworks/tools incorrect. No
title page. Did not follow the
required structure. Excessive
spelling, grammatical errors;
poor syntax. Poorly presented; A
lot of typing errors. Over or
under 10% of word limit
No research of topics. No
RESEARCH
scholarly journal articles
Arguments not supported with
theory. No theory references.
Unsupported personal opinions.
Only company websites or
general websites.
REFERENCI
Did not conform to Harvard
NG
referencing.
(Communicati
on skills)
MARK / 5 <2.5
TOTAL OUT OF 40
PASS
50%–64%
Basic to fair understanding
of question. Some
instances in which the
assignment requirements
and structure not followed.
Mostly correct format of
frameworks/tools but
some issues making it
difficult to read/mark. Fair
understanding of rules of
grammar and construction.
Some spelling /typing
errors. Within word count.
Included some scholarly
journal articles although
insufficient number of
relevant journal articles.
Some general websites
included as research
sources.
Harvard referencing
techniques varies.
2.5 – 3.2
CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION
65%–74% 75%–84% 85% and up
Sound understanding of Strong understanding Unequivocal understanding
the question. Adhere to of the question. Clear of question. Exceptional
assignment understanding and presentation of frameworks.
requirements and application of Well-constructed and crafted
structure. Frameworks assignment piece of work. A pleasure to
presented clearly and requirements. read. Professional
easy to read/mark. Concise, clear and presentation.
Sound level of fluency professional
in writing; (may have presentation of
one or two awkward frameworks. Clear
sentences). No obvious and fluent writing.
errors in grammar or Professional
syntax. Well presented. presentation.
Satisfactory number of Clear evidence of Uses dynamic, unique
material beside relatively
scholarly journal wider reading.
articles. Sufficient standard material to develop
research. theoretical concepts.
Excellent research.
Only minor errors in Accurate Harvard
Meets Harvard
Harvard referencing –
referencing protocols. referencing no errors.
in-text or List of
references.
3.3 – 3.7 3.8 – 4.2 4.3- 5