MKT 442 Case Study: Tata Steel Limited: Fighting Commoditization by Creating Innovative Services And Solutions

this is a group project you’ll only do my part see files for the case study files and instructions in modules also Team: The Leverage Marketing Firm Case Study: Tata Steel Limited: Fighting Commoditization by Creating Innovative Services And Solutions doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V7sWDaBAfZ3fOCLk5b1329NHcY7ITFttv428YTc2Ggc/edit?usp=sharing case study: https://www.scribd.com/document/788282250/Tata-Steel-Case-Study-HBR-PDF my part is member 2 only do that part Lets try and have most of the essay done by tomorrow so we can go over it and start making the powerpoint next my teammate was able to do the intro and case synopsis the other members will do the other parts (my part) Member 2 – Analytical Foundation Write: Section 4: Industry & Sales Analysis (Porter Five Forces table + sales implications) Section 5: Theoretical Lens (Key-Account Management, SPIN/consultative selling, CRM) Section 6: Root-Cause Diagnosis Do: Pull 3–4 recent journal articles (Industrial Marketing Management, JM, etc.) for citations Gather data on global over-capacity, Tata’s dealer network size, and coking-coal imports Draft concise figure or table for Five Forces (ready to drop into Word) Member 3 – Alternatives & Recommended Strategy Write: Section 7: Solution Alternatives (Options 1–3, pro/con matrix) Section 8: Recommended Strategy (Steel-as-a-Platform) – structure, metrics, comms funnel Do: Build the qualitative scoring matrix (easy table) Flesh out incentive-plan redesign: % base vs. bonus, KPIs, cross-sell index Outline the architect/contractor loyalty program for the comms funnel Member 4 – Implementation, Financials, Risk, Conclusion Write: Section 9: Implementation & Financial Impact (3-phase timeline + EBITDA estimate) Section 10: Risk & Mitigation matrix Section 11: Conclusion Group Project – Case Study Objective: Select a case study and create an in-depth overview. The paper should be around 10 pages in length and a separate recorded presentation should be submitted. https://hbsp.harvard.edu/import/1250977 Links to an external site. Submission: 1 Person from the group submit the following: Format: Double space Arial 12pt font, APA guidelines Written paper must be saved and submitted to Canvas as PDF. Write up: 100 points Written paper should provide a summary of the case and present an issue with a suggested solution. This is not a book report, so your writing and format should be different than that of the case study. The hypothetical problem and solution should be supported by concepts presented in either textbook and/or additional academic resources. It is expected that the paper length is 10 pages Rubric – Will follow this as an outline. It is not absolute and grading can range anywhere in between high and low scores. This should be a good reference guide. Rubric is listed below. Rubric Case Study Case Study Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Summary/Overview of Case Present the case so audience can understand and see problem and consider solutions. Is the company and industry defined and explained? Is it clear how significant the company is within its market? (1-2 pages) 25 to >15.0 pts Exceeds Standards Clearly present the main points of the case in an engaging approach and well-organized manner, with no confusion or overstatement. Identifies significance of case, background of company and the market/industry, and leads into problem. 15 to >5.0 pts Meets Standards Identifies the main elements of the case and its main points. Structure is organized and story is delivered. Only describes the company as presented in the case. ie. missing relevant background research on the market with things like competition, market size/worth or more. 5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Standards Loosely summarizes case, or in a manner that is too similar to the author’s voice. 25 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Presentation of problem/analysis Problems should be stated in terms that are actionable by the decision-maker for the analysis. A good problem definition keeps the case analysis tightly structured because everything discussed after this point must be related to the problem(s) stated in this section. 25 to >15.0 pts Exceeds Standards Identifies problem clearly, There is no confusion between symptoms and problems. Symptoms are clustered, with each group of symptoms pointing toward an underlying problem. Substantial problems (more than 1 if available) faced by the company’s decision-makers are identified, and stated in terms that are actionable by the company’s leadership. Statements are SUPPORTED by citation. We can’t make anything up. 15 to >5.0 pts Meets Standards At least 1 of the company’s substantial problems is identified and stated in terms that are actionable by the company’s leadership. Missing significant citation or general statements that are not supported by research or other trusted sources. 5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Standards 2 or more of the following errors apply: *Problems stated may refer to environmental conditions *Symptoms are stated as the problems. *Recommendations are stated as problems. * Problems may not be stated in single, concise, complete sentences. * More than 3 problems stated may be included. 25 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Solution Problems are dissected to analyze key factors. (Solutions may be presented – ex. Option 1, 2, and 3, and your Recommendation should be the right solution) Significant research is provided with supporting details and citation. 25 to >15.0 pts Exceeds Standards Analysis includes all of the following: * Stated problems are analyzed thoughtfully * At least 1 strategic analysis tool applied Identifies a comprehensive set of thoughtful alternatives, excluding “Do Nothing” alternatives (6 alternatives). There is a set of alternatives for each problem. Statements are SUPPORTED by research and citation. We can’t make anything up. 15 to >5.0 pts Meets Standards Analysis includes 2 of the following: * 1 problem is analyzed thoughtfully OR 2 or more problems are covered superficially. * At least 1 strategic analysis tool applied * Relevant financial analysis is applied (Financial ratios or other financial analysis approach) Identifies majority of alternatives (4-5 alternatives), excluding “Do Nothing” alternatives. May have only 1 set of alternatives for more than one problem. Sufficient research and citation. 5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Standards Analysis includes 1 of the items listed in the next column. Identifies few, if any alternatives (3 or less alternatives) listed or not all aspects of identified problems are addressed. Missing significant citation or general statements that are not supported by research or other trusted sources. 25 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Overall Writing 25 to >15.0 pts Exceeds Standards “Exceeds” is qualified by well written and organized text, where each section is presented as a whole and not a different “voice”. Correct Citations and references to other sources – ie text or research. 15 to >5.0 pts Meets Standards Paper may cover most topics, but may contain limited errors in writing, citation, format, or organizational structure. 5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Standards Insufficient coverage of support or reference to the case study. 25 pts Total Points: 100