Posted: April 12th, 2015
Japan and Malaysia
Written Report (20%) & Presentation (10%)
Japan and Malaysia (One is developed market another is developing market)
Report Overview – Working in groups and acting as the employees of a consulting company who have been hired by the Australian Trade Commission (Austrade), you are required to develop a business style report and presentation. Austrade’s mission is to help Australian companies succeed in international business by providing advice, market intelligence and support to Australian companies to reduce the costs and risk involved in selecting and developing international markets (Austrade, 2011). You have been hired by Austrade to write a report on the comparative attractiveness of two countries (of your choice) for Australian companies interested in developing their international markets. Your task is to conduct a comparative assessment of the attractiveness of your chosen countries based on a number of dimensions. The dimensions you choose to construct this assessment is in part up to you, however, they should reflect your learning related to characteristics of the political economy and country attractiveness for investment. For example, you may utilize components from the PESTEL or other frameworks presented during this course to construct your report. In light of the limited time you have to complete this report it is recommended that each group choose only four dimensions on which to base their comparative analysis. As a research exercise, your report must provide empirical data on both countries so that you can make a reasonably robust recommendation. Ultimately, your report should provide Austrade with recommendations on which of the two countries are likely to present fewer risks and challenges to Australian companies considering international expansion. Your report should produce a rational evaluation of the business environments’ (rather than simply discussing market size or potential) so that Austrade can provide advice to firms on what to expect when conducting business in these countries.
Learning Objectives (written report) – This assessment builds on your understanding of political economy, country risk and foreign direct investment (FDI). It requires you to build on and demonstrate your understanding of how various aspects of the political economy affect country attractiveness for investment. As a research exercise this project also evaluates your ability to identify and retrieve valid information to inform your analysis. Your ability to communicate in writing with sufficient clarity to convey complex information in an international business will also be developed and evaluated through this assessment.
Advice – To conduct a comparative analysis, you must convert your raw data describing the dimensions of the political economy and use it to make a meaningful argument that explains to your customer (Austrade) the relative attractiveness and risks of the business environment of each country. The following tips for comparative writing may help[1]
- Identify in your frame of reference (in this assignment your frame of reference is your analysis of the four dimensions you have selected);
- make sure you explain to the reader the rationale behind your choice of grounds for comparison;
- write your report using comparative language. For example, you can indicate the precise relationship between the two countries on a particular dimension by using the word “whereas” and you can make links between country A and B in the body of your report by using transitional expressions of comparison and contrast e.g. similarly, likewise, on the contrary, conversely, on the other hand..
Your ability to analyse your data is a primary concern of the examiners of the report (i.e. your ability to draw out the implications of the data for the reader). This can be done by consistently explaining the significance of the data presented). For example, if you present information on the political systems of your chosen countries you need to go one step further and explain/suggest/indicate whether these political systems will create distance between Australia and these countries, or whether the political systems of these countries are welcoming to foreign investment.
The level of research undertaken must provide you with enough evidence to make a well-informed decision or reasonably robust recommendations to Austrade. If there is a paucity of relevant information in one-area you are expected to compensate by using more data in another section of your report. As this is a research exercise, the more relevant the data you have, the easier it will be for you to write the report. Remember, when collecting data, only use data that you can demonstrate to be relevant (i.e. data that can be convincingly used to demonstrate the relative attractiveness or unattractiveness of each of your chosen countries for investment.) The time you have to complete this project is limited and therefore there are understandable limits on the amount of data you can collect. You should aim to have similar data on both countries so that you can make a good comparative assessment. Finally, all data should be discussed in a logical and coherent manner. Your data should logically build to the conclusion/recommendations. You must clearly and concisely communicate your arguments to the reader.
Writing, referencing, formatting, submission and word count – Please use size 12 font (Arial or Times New Roman), 1.5 line spacing and ensure that your project is a maximum of 2500 words in length (excluding an Executive Summary, Table of Contents, Appendices and Reference List). You are required to submit this assignment electronically through Turnitin. All sources consulted should be consolidated in a Reference List at the end of the report, in a consistent format in accordance with the format outlined in the Student Manual. You may also wish to add appendices to the report. Do not to include data in the appendices of the report that is not referred to in the main body of the report. The appendices should be consistent with and used to complement the discussion in the body of the report. Deadline – see Course Outline. The final marks of both components of the assessment are peer moderated.
Marking Criteria (first column) – the following marking criteria and marking rubric will be utilised when grading this assessment. A more detailed explanation of these marking criteria can be provided during class.
| Criteria | Unacceptable | Acceptable | Good | Very Good | Excellent |
| Comparative analysis of data in the context of the assessment task – i.e. attractiveness for foreign direct investment (FDI)
7 marks |
Identifies inappropriate dimensions of framework to construct the report with little comparative analysis | Identifies some appropriate dimensions, but inconsistent comparative analysis | Identifies mostly appropriate dimensions with consistent comparative analysis on most dimensions | Identifies only appropriate dimensions to construct the report with consistent and in-depth comparative analysis | In-depth comparative analysis including an integrative evaluation of chosen dimensions of framework within and between countries. |
| Level of Research adequate to make well-informed decisions and recommendations
7 marks |
Unsatisfactory use of sources/data.
Evidence of limited understanding of data required. |
Uses some relevant data and demonstrates some understanding of relevant data. | Uses a range of relevant data and demonstrates an understanding of the relevant data. | Uses a wide range of relevant and current data and evidence of high understanding of data. | Uses a wide range of academic and other sources all of which are current and relevant.
A number of sources include complex concepts and analysis. |
| Communication of report is presented in a logical and well organised manner as per the assessment task.
3 marks |
Unclear introduction and conclusion and uneven or illogical discussion | Clear introduction and conclusion, with some organisation | Some organisation and balanced discussion but not developed coherently. | Develops coherent and even discussion of dimensions of the framework chosen | Develops discussion cogently, with even and integrated discussion of all dimensions of the framework and connects ideas with effective transitions throughout. |
| Writing General – language and grammar and referencing.
3 marks |
Sentence structure and grammar inadequate for clarity and/or incomplete referencing of sourced material. | Sentence structure and grammar adequate, but errors cause distraction or errors in referencing. | Sentence structure and grammar adequate, with minor errors that do not distract reader. | Sentence structure and grammar is good and correct referencing of all sourced material. | Employs words with fluency for ease of reading. Writing and references are essentially error free. |
Learning Objective (Presentation) – This assessment will develop and evaluate communication skills.
| Criteria | Unacceptable | Acceptable | Good | Very Good | Excellent |
| Content – Knowledge of material and appropriate data
3 marks |
Demonstrates inadequate knowledge.
Makes little or no use of evidence to support ideas or arguments.
|
Demonstrates basic knowledge.
Make some use of evidence to support ideas or arguments.
|
Demonstrates good knowledge.
Makes considerable use of evidence to support ideas or arguments. |
Demonstrates very good knowledge.
Makes extensive use of evidence to support ideas or arguments.
|
Demonstrates excellent knowledge.
Makes extensive use of evidence to support ideas or arguments and data chosen is of highest quality. |
| Delivery -audience is engaged and material is presented through appropriate media and learning tools.
3 marks |
Presenters make little effort to engage audience.
Presenters use inappropriate or low quality visual aids. |
Presenters make some effort to engage audience.
Presenters use visual aids of reasonable quality. |
Presenters engage audience, present clearly, use quality visual aids. | Presenters engage audience, and consistently present clearly. Every effort is made to interact with audience.
High quality visual aids. |
Presenters are animated and enthusiastic. They are engaging and motivate audience interest.
Presenters use a good variety of approaches and tools to generate learning opportunities. |
| Teamwork – presented effectively as a group
2 marks |
Some presenters did not contribute effectively.
Work was undertaken individually level evidence by disjointed effort. Background noise during presentation. |
Each presenter worked well with the rest of the team.
Evidence of planned /rehearsed presentation. |
A high level of group collaboration is evident through reasonably smooth transitions and integrated content. | A high level of group collaboration is evident through consistently smooth transitions and integrated content. | Undetectable group collaboration – Group Presentation was delivered to a standard that might be achieved in an individual presentation. |
| Overall structure
2 marks
|
Presentation is not logically structured, is confusing and speakers or sections do not clearly follow each other.
No or weak introduction and/or ineffective conclusion.
|
Presentation is for the most part logically structured.
Evidence of an introduction that sets out the direction of the presentation. Evidence of conclusion. |
Presentation is logically structured with good connections between each speaker and section.
|
Presentation is logically structured with clear connection between each speaker and section.
Sections are integrated and the sequence of the presentation is well-organised.
|
Presentation is logically structured with clear connection between each speaker and section with evidence of synthesis throughout, including the drawing together of main points to conclude with central message.
. |
Marking Criteria (first column) – the following marking criteria/rubric will be utilised when grading the presentation. Group Number:
[1] Source – Harvard Writing Centre (2006) http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/CompAnalysis.html
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.