MBS664 Strategies for Growth and Excellence
Assignment 2: Case study Analysis Costco
Length: 4000 words
Reference: Chicago Referencing
Instructions:
Read the case study Costco Wholesale in 2018: Mission, Business Model, and Strategy available from Thompson A, Peteraf, M, Gamble, J & Strickland, A (2020) Crafting and Executing Strategy: The Quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 22nd edition. C17 – C40.
Prepare a case study analysis of Costco which, addresses this question:
‘What is your assessment of Costco’s business model and strategy? How well is Costco’s strategy working? What recommendations would you make to Costco management to sustain the company’s growth and improve the company’s financial performance?’
Thompson A, Peteraf, M, Gamble, J & Strickland, A (2020) Crafting and Executing Strategy: The Quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 22nd edition. Case 4 Teaching Note Costco Wholesale Corp. in 2018: Mission, Business Model, and Strategy, p.302.
Resources:
It is recommended that students read ‘Guide to Case Analysis’ for advise on how to prepare a case study analysis. This guide is found after case 32 in your textbook Thompson A, Peteraf, M, Gamble, J & Strickland, A (2020) Crafting and Executing Strategy: The Quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 22nd edition. CA 1 – CA 12.
It is also recommended that students undertake independent research on Costco’s Business Model and Strategy useful resources are available from the internet, business magazines, newspapers, academic journals.
The case study must provide a comprehensive and well reasoned answer to the question above, however it also must satisfy the assessment criteria specified in the marking rubric below.
Assignment 2: Marking rubric for the case study
| High Distinction | Distinction | Credit | Pass | Fail | |
| Criteria 1: Depth & breadth of research. | Excellent depth and breadth of research. Location of broad range of data and views on case study firm’s growth and issues. | Very good depth and breadth of research, a range of relevant sources are used in the assignment. | Good depth and breadth of research. Uneven research, some points are well researched, others need development.
|
Satisfactory level and depth of research. Tendency to rely on a small number of sources which limits perspectives and analysis. | Insufficient evidence of research, case study relies on one or two sources (often secondary rather than primary). |
| Criteria 2: /10 Critical analysis
of case study
firm, evaluating
its opportunities for growth and the issues, which could limit or prevent growth.
|
Excellent, deep level of analysis. Identifies firm’s business model, several growth opportunities for the firm as well as issues, which could inhibit or impede growth. This analysis situates the firm within its industry and markets, evaluates the impact of its stakeholders including government regulators, suppliers and partners. | Very good analysis. Identifies firms business model, its core growth opportunities for growth, and major impediments to progress. However, the analysis could have been deepened or extended, considering alternative products, processes or tactics. | Good analysis. Identifies firms business model, however depth and breadth of analysis needs to be developed and extended. The focus is too narrow or short term.
|
Satisfactory analysis. Displays rudimentary attempt to analyse firm’s business model. Depth and breadth of analysis is uneven, one element may be rigorously analysed (eg: a development opportunity) while other elements need deeper and more comprehensive analysis (eg: competitors moves, changing customer preferences, changing government regulations etc). | Weak level of analysis. Displays no evidence of understanding firm’s business model. Instead the assignment describes the firm’s products or services, rather than critically analysing the strengths, weaknesses of the firm. Doesn’t provide adequate analysis of the firm within its industry, consider competitors moves, timing. Or, how the actions of other stakeholders impact the survival and growth of the firm, suppliers, distributors, government regulators. |
| Criteria 3: case study provides recommendations of which opportunities
the firm should prioritise and the tactics needed to attain success, advice on how to overcome obstacles.
|
Excellent, develops detailed recommendation s of how the firm could capitalise on its key opportunities and mitigate its potential threats which supported by solid evidence, flowing from the previous analysis. | Very good, develops detailed recommendations of how the firm could capitalise on its key opportunities and mitigate its potential threats. Recommendation s could be improved with presentation of additional supporting data, or stronger explanation of how obstacles could be overcome. | Presents several recommendation s however needs to strengthen the links between the recommendation s and the body of the case study. Additional evidence or consideration of tactics for implementation, methods of adaption or when
to stop or replace strategy needed. |
Satisfactory analysis however there is a major flaw in the case study, either its focus is too narrow, so elements are not investigated, or too broad leading to superficial analysis. | Unsatisfactory case study describes firm’s actions and industry rather than critically evaluating its current and future operations (growth opportunities and threats and limitations. |
| Criteria 4: Case study is logically structured, well written, argument is supported by evidence, Chicago references used. | Excellent professional comprehensive case study analysis. Well written, clear, coherent structure with individual sections linked to each other. Points are substantiated with relevant evidence correctly cited. | Very good case study analysis, overall standard is high but there is one element or section which needs development perhaps it is missing supporting data, hasn’t considered potential scenarios, or the actions of new market entrants with disruptive business models. | Good case study analysis, solid standard is high but there are two or more elements or sections which needs development perhaps it is missing supporting data, hasn’t considered potential scenarios, or the actions of new market entrants with disruptive business models. | Satisfactory case study however there is several areas of weakness: disorganised random structure, weak expression, points made not supported by appropriate references correctly cited. | Unsatisfactory , weak structure and organisation. Lacks a sustained developed argument – no links between sections, difficult to read and follow. Weak expression, or doesn’t cite references correctly. |
