Understanding the external and internal environments of a company is crucial for strategic planning and decision-making. For students tasked with analyzing global giants like Starbucks Corporation, mastering various analytical frameworks becomes essential. ReliableAssignmentsHelp.com provides specialized assistance with Starbucks Corporation Analysis assignments, ensuring students can comprehensively evaluate the company’s strategic position. Here are the key analyses required for a thorough Starbucks Corporation Analysis assignment:
External Environment Analyses
- Analysis of General Environment and Driving Forces
- Evaluate the driving forces causing industry changes.
- Industry Identification
- Define the industry and its boundaries clearly.
- Analysis of Industry Economic Characteristics
- Describe the economic features of the industry.
- Industry Profitability Analysis (Five-Forces)
- Analyze the competitive nature of the industry using the five-forces model.
- Analysis of Strategic Position of Firms in the Industry
- Assess the value propositions and relative strengths and weaknesses of competitors.
- Analysis of Potential Strategic Moves of Competitors
- Predict future actions of competitors based on their objectives and capabilities.
- Identification of Industry Key Success Factors
- Identify and explain the key success factors in the industry.
Internal Environment Analyses
- Analysis of Mission and Vision
- Evaluate the firm’s mission and vision statements.
- Strategy Analysis and Evaluation
- Define and evaluate the firm’s strategy.
- Evaluation of the Firm’s Current Structure
- Assess the firm’s structure in terms of sustainability and competitive advantage.
- Analysis of Firm’s Culture and Leadership
- Evaluate the firm’s culture and leadership.
- Evaluation of the Firm’s Financial Performance
- Perform a financial analysis using key financial statements.
- SWOT Analysis
- Conduct a comprehensive SWOT analysis of the firm.
- Strategic Fit Analysis
- Evaluate the firm’s competitive position and the fit between external challenges and internal capabilities.
Recommendations
- Recommendations That Address Identified Strategic Issues
- Provide clear and concise recommendations.
- Description of How Recommendations Will Solve Strategic Issues
- Link recommendations to strategic issues with logical arguments.
- Description of the Firm’s Ability to Implement the Recommended Strategies
- Evaluate the firm’s ability to implement the strategies.
- Stakeholder Analyses
- Analyze the long-term consequences of the recommended strategies for stakeholders.
ReliableAssignmentsHelp.com offers expert assistance to ensure students excel in their Starbucks Corporation analysis assignments, covering all necessary analyses comprehensively.
Starbucks Corporation Analysis Assignment Help
| Grading Dimension | Score Range | Points | ||
| External Environment Analyses | Poor 1 | Average 2 | Excellent 3 | Points |
| Analysis of General Environment and Driving Forces | Case does not demonstrate clear understanding of the driving forces causing the industry to change. | Most of the driving forces are identified and their linkages to change are presented. | Complete analysis of driving forces that will cause the industry to change. | |
| Industry Identification | The industry is poorly defined and might be mistaken for another. The level of aggregation may be inappropriate or its rationale weakly presented. | The industry is defined adequately. It will not be mistaken for any other. The level of aggregation may not clearly fit the context or the rationale may lack clarity. | Complete and concise description of the industry under analysis with its boundaries very clearly defined. | |
| Analysis of industry economic characteristics | The section communicates a superficial grasp of the economics of the industry. | The economics of the industry are identified but may not be clearly described or depth may be lacking. | Complete description of the economic features of the industry demonstrating a solid grasp of the context. | |
| Industry Profitability Analysis (five-forces) | Superficial application of the model without exposition of its nuances. The section fails to demonstrate mastery of the tool. | An adequate analysis of the competitive nature of the industry using the five-forces model. | Complete analysis of the competitive nature of the industry using the five-forces model. | |
| Analysis of strategic position of firms in the industry | The section is missing or extremely superficial. Firms may be missing or analysis may be poor. | The analysis contains some sense of the value propositions of most relevant competitors. Relative strengths and weaknesses of some are incomplete or missing. | The analysis contains insights into value propositions of all relevant competitors along with relative strengths and weaknesses of each. | |
| Analysis of potential strategic moves of competitors | The section communicates a superficial grasp of the likely future actions of competitors or provides few insights into a single or small group of competitor(s). | A prediction of what some relevant competitors are likely to do in the future is presented. Links to their objectives, capabilities, intentions and beliefs about the industry may be scant. | A solid prediction of what all relevant competitors are likely to do in the future based on their objectives, capabilities, intentions and beliefs about the industry. | |
| Identification of industry key success factors | The KSF’s are poorly defined and might be mistaken for one another. The depth may be inappropriate or the rationale for selection may be weakly presented. | The KSFs may be properly identified and defined but the clarity of linkages to economic or competitive success may be lacking. Perhaps the list of KSFs is incomplete. | Thoroughly identifies and describes the factors that are the major determinants of financial and competitive success in the industry and explains why this is so. | |
| Grading Dimension | Score Range | Points | ||
| Internal Environment Analyses | Poor 1 | Average 2 | Excellent 3 | Points |
| Analysis of mission and vision | The firm’s mission and vision are poorly defined or important aspects may be missing. The mission statement may be poorly written. | The firm’s mission and vision are adequately defined although some aspects may be missing. The mission statement is adequately written. | The firm’s mission and vision is well defined and concise; all important aspects are included. The mission statement is very well written. | |
| Strategy analysis and evaluation | The firm’s strategy is poorly defined or important aspects may be missing. The description may be poorly written. | The firm’s strategy is adequately defined although some aspects may be missing. The description is adequately written. | The firm’s strategy is well defined and concise; all important aspects are included. The description is very well written. | |
| An evaluation of the firm’s current structure | May oversimplify, confuse or misidentify the structure or its efficacy or fail to evaluate its adequacy given its context or timing. | Identifies the current structure and makes an evaluation on at least several dimensions. May include some insights into sustainability, competitive advantage, and position. | Explains, decomposes and evaluates the quality of the firm’s structure in terms of sustainability, competitive advantage, position and distinctive competences. | |
| Analysis of firm’s culture and leadership | The culture and leadership may be poorly evaluated or may be evaluated along fewer dimensions than may be needed. The discussion may be poorly written. | The culture and leadership may be adequately evaluated along a minimal set of dimensions. The discussion may be only adequately written. | The culture and leadership are clearly evaluated along all important dimensions and the evaluation is very well written. | |
| Evaluation of the firm’s financial performance (if applicable – Fin. Stmts provided in the case) | The financial analysis may be incomplete, missing absolute or relative measures of the firm’s performance. May take only a historical perspective. | Performs financial analysis that measures of the firm’s key financial statements from a limited point of view. May take a limited perspective or not clearly reflect all the implications. | Performs a complete financial analysis that includes the implications of absolute and relative measures of the firm’s financial statements from a historical and prospective point of view. | |
| SWOT Analysis | Superficial or incomplete narrative description of the SWOT of the situation. May be missing supporting linkage or overlook key factors. | The SWOT may be properly identified with limited linkages to the context. May overlook minor dimensions. | Accurately and clearly explains, decomposes and evaluates the quality of the SWOT in terms that are applicable to the situation. Absolute and relative measures are included. | |
| Strategic Fit Analysis | ||||
| An evaluation of the firm’s competitive position | The section is missing or extremely superficial. The analysis may be poor. | The analysis contains some sense of the value propositions of the firm. Relative position may be incomplete or missing. | The analysis contains insights into the value proposition of the firm and its position relative to all key competitors. | |
| Analysis of fit between external challenges and internal capabilities | Some strategic issues are defined. But the descriptions may be scant, poorly articulated or not clearly linked to other parts of the report. | Strategic issues are defined; the descriptions are well written, but perhaps not clearly linked to other parts of the report. | Concise, complete and well written analysis of the current strategic issues facing the firm and firm capabilities to deal with these issues. | |
| Grading Dimension | Score Range | Points | ||
| Recommendations | Poor 1 | Average 2 | Excellent 3 | Points |
| Recommendations that address the identified strategic issues | The described recommendations may be too vague, do not provide enough detail or are inadequate to address the strategic issues identified. | The recommendations are fitted to issues but may not be clearly and concisely described. There may be some ambiguity that could inhibit their evaluation and implementation. | The recommendations are fitted to specifically identified issues and are clearly and concisely described – lending themselves to evaluation and implementation. | |
| A description of how recommendations will solve the strategic issues | Recommendations are neither well linked to strategic issues nor supported by logical arguments. The section may be poorly written. | Specific logical arguments are provided along with a description of how recommendations will solve each of the strategic issues. The arguments are concise and well written. | Specific logical arguments are provided along with a description of how recommendation. | |
| A description of the firm’s ability to implement the recommended strategies | Description is scant or missing. Not all strategic recommendations are considered. Significant resources or competencies are overlooked. | Description of the firm’s ability to implement the strategies is included but the evaluation section is characterized by some gaps. The description may lack clarity or miss minor elements. | Complete description of the firm’s ability to implement the strategies supported by an evaluation of the firm’s skills, abilities, knowledge, competencies, and resources in a concise form. | |
| Stakeholder analyses | Section is missing, is poorly written, omits important stakeholders or analyzes them only superficially. | Most stakeholders are included as are most long term implications. Section is mostly balanced but may have gaps. | Complete evaluation of the long-term consequences of the recommended strategies supported by a stakeholder analyses. | |
| Written Communication | Poor 1 | Average 2 | Excellent 3 | Points |
| Citations and sources | Citations are sketchy, incomplete or a list of sources if provided is not complete. | Proper citations have generally been used and report includes a list of sources. | Citations have been used to support all sections requiring their use and the report includes a list of sources. | |
| Sentence structure, grammar, etc… | A distracting number of errors exist in sentence structure, grammar or spelling. | A small number of errors exist in sentence structure, grammar or spelling. | Proper sentence structure, grammar and spelling have been used. | |
| Graphics, tables and figures | Graphics, tables and figures are omitted in the report where they might add to the report or are of poor quality and detract from the case. | Graphics, tables and figures used are of average quality and add somewhat to the team’s analysis. The graphics may be fair to good. | Graphics, tables and figures are very well used and are high quality and add to overall understanding of the team’s analysis. | |
| Report Appearance (introduction, brief executive summary, page numbers, useful subheadings and labels) | The report makes a poor appearance or appears to be individually prepared sections merged together (doesn’t flow, too redundant, wastes report space on trivial issues, conflicting info., etc.). | The report is unremarkable although it may be a well formatted document. | Overall, the report is a professional-looking document that would make an outstanding impression. | |
Additional Remarks:
Points Earned
Points Possible _________
Percentage