1
UQ Business School
IBUS3304 Business in Asia
TUTORIAL GUIDE
Semester 2, 2018
Course coordinator: Dr Henry Xu
Office: Room 424, Joyce Ackroyd Building (#37)
Email: [email protected]
Course tutor: Mr Daniel Lewis
Office: Level One, Colin Clarke Building
Email: [email protected]
2
Table of Contents
TUTORIAL SCHEDULE (SEMESTER 2, 2018)………………………………………………………………….. 3
TUTORIAL 1: INTRODUCTION, TEAM FORMATION AND CASE SELECTION ……………………… 4
TUTORIAL 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
ACTIVITY OUTLINE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
CASE: INTERIOR JV (AVAILABLE ON THE BLACKBOARD)………………………………………………………………… 5
TUTORIAL 3………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
ACTIVITY 1: AN ILLUSTRATION OF CASE STUDY PRESENTATION……………………………………………………… 8
ACTIVITY 2: INDIVIDUAL CRITIQUE OF TEAM PRESENTATIONS ……………………………………………………….. 8
TUTORIAL 4……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
ACTIVITY OUTLINE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10
CASE: PROCTER & GAMBLE IN JAPAN: FROM MARKETING FAILURE TO SUCCESS ……………………………….. 11
TUTORIAL 5……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13
ACTIVITY OUTLINE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
CASE: SINGAPORE AIRLINES (A): THE INDIA DECISION (AVAILABLE ON THE BLACKBOARD)………………… 13
TUTORIAL 6……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
ACTIVITY OUTLINE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14
CASE: TOYOTA’S INNOVATIVE INTERNATIONAL MULTIPURPOSE VEHICLE (IMV) PROJECT……………………. 15
TUTORIAL 7……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
ACTIVITY 1: CASE STUDY PRESENTATION BY TEAM #1……………………………………………………………….. 18
ACTIVITY 2: INDIVIDUAL CRITIQUE OF TEAM PRESENTATION……………………………………………………….. 18
TUTORIAL 8……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
ACTIVITY 1: CASE STUDY PRESENTATION BY TEAM #2……………………………………………………………….. 19
ACTIVITY 2: INDIVIDUAL CRITIQUE OF TEAM PRESENTATION……………………………………………………….. 19
TUTORIAL 9……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
ACTIVITY 1: CASE STUDY PRESENTATION BY TEAM #3……………………………………………………………….. 20
ACTIVITY 2: INDIVIDUAL CRITIQUE OF TEAM PRESENTATION……………………………………………………….. 20
TUTORIAL 10……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
ACTIVITY 1: CASE STUDY PRESENTATION BY TEAM #4……………………………………………………………….. 21
ACTIVITY 2: INDIVIDUAL CRITIQUE OF TEAM PRESENTATION……………………………………………………….. 21
TUTORIAL 11……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22
ACTIVITY 1: CASE STUDY PRESENTATION BY TEAM #5……………………………………………………………….. 22
ACTIVITY 2: INDIVIDUAL CRITIQUE OF TEAM PRESENTATION……………………………………………………….. 22
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………………… 23
ASSESSMENT 1: LARGE CASE STUDY PRESENTATION…………………………………………………… 24
ASSESSMENT 2: INDIVIDUAL CRITIQUE OF TEAM PRESENTATIONS ……………………………… 25
IBUS3304 CRITERIA SHEET: SMALL CASE STUDY ANSWER…………………………………………… 26
IBUS3304 CRITERIA SHEET: SMALL CASE STUDY REFLECTION…………………………………….. 27
IBUS3304 CRITERIA SHEET: LARGE CASE STUDY PRESENTATION………………………………… 28
IBUS3304 CRITERIA SHEET: INDIVIDUAL CRITIQUE OF TEAM PRESENTATIONS …………… 30
IBUS3304 ANSWER SHEET: INDIVIDUAL CRITIQUE OF TEAM PRESENTATIONS…………….. 31
3
IBUS3304 Business in Asia
Tutorial Schedule (Semester 2, 2018)

TEACHING WEEK	SMALL CASE STUDY	LARGE CASE STUDY
2
3
4
5	Small Case Study #1 Procter & Gamble in Japan: From Marketing Failure to Success
6	Small Case Study #2 Singapore Airlines (A): The India decision (HBP case)*
7	Small Case Study #3 Toyota’s innovative international multipurpose vehicle (IMV) project
8	Large Case Study #1 McDonald’s: is China lovin’ it? (HBP case)*
9	Large Case Study #2 Trying to create a stir: opening a coffee shop in Korea (HBP case)*
10	Large Case Study #3 Krohne’s entry into the Chinese market (HBP case)*
11	Large Case Study #4 Marks and Spencer enters China (HBP case)*
12	Large Case Study #5 UPS in India – time to shift gears? (HBP case)*

 Introduction
 Team Formation
 Small Case Study
 Case Analysis
 Case Study Presentation and
Critique
Notes:
* All Harvard Business Publishing (HBP) cases can be downloaded from the “Harvard Business Cases”
folder at our course Blackboard site.
4
Tutorial 1: Introduction, Team Formation and Case Selection
Activity 1: Introduction
At the beginning of the tutorial, you will introduce yourselves through an ice breaker activity or by
mentioning the following:
 Your name
 The year of your study
 the program you are enrolled in
Activity 2: Team Formation
You are encouraged to formulate teams by yourselves. We need to have 5 teams in each tutorial with
3 – 5 students in each team. Once the 5 teams have been formed, each team will be assigned a
business case. After you have joined a team, you will work in the same team for both case study
presentation and team-based small case discussion and debriefing in tutorials.
Please note that on the day of your team’s presentation, your team is required to submit a hard copy of
your Powerpoint slides (1 or 2 slides per page) to your tutor in class and a soft copy of those slides to
our course Blackboard site before your tutorial.
Activity 3: Case Selection
There are five Harvard Business Publishing (HBP) cases to be assigned to teams for case studies.
From the course Blackboard website (–> “Learning Resources” –> “Harvard Business Cases”), you
can download those cases that are listed as follows:
 Case study #1: McDonald’s: is China lovin’ it?
 Case study #2: Trying to create a stir: opening a coffee shop in Korea
 Case study #3: Krohne’s entry into the Chinese market
 Case study #4: Marks and Spencer enters China
 Case study #5: UPS in India – time to shift gears?
5
TUTORIAL 2
Activity Outline
Before attending tutorial 2, read the small case titled “Interior JV: teething problems of a
manufacturing operation in China” (accessible at our course Blackboard site) and prepare an answer
(1 – 2 pages) to the case-study question as indicated by the last sentence of the conclusion section in
the case. Since this “Interior JV” case is used only as an illustration, you are not required to submit
your answer to the course Blackboard.
During the tutorial, your tutor will explain how small case study should be conducted in the scheduled
tutorials (see Tutorial Schedule on page 3). Then, she will explain how a (small or large) business
case can be analysed through a process-based approach. Finally, the case analysis method is
illustrated through the “Interior JV” case. Please note that some important information on case study
method is also included on the next page.
Case: Interior JV (available on the Blackboard)
Important Information on Small Case Studies
Small case study is designed to enhance your self-directed, team-based learning skills through
individual pre-class preparation and in-class team dynamics in tutorials. There are three small case
studies in tutorials. The first and the third small cases are included in this Tutorial Guide (on pages 11
and 15 respectively) and the second small case can be downloaded from our course Blackboard site.
Essentially, for each small case, you are required to answer two thought questions related to the case.
The two questions for each small case study are provided in the ‘Activity Outline’ section of the
tutorial in this document.
Before attending a small-case-study tutorial, you are required to review the relevant lecture materials
and textbook chapters. Also, you should prepare an answer (1-2 pages excluding figures or tables)
to the two case-study questions for the case. Submit the answer to the designated folder at our course
Blackboard site before the tutorial. During the first 20 minutes of the tutorial, you will join your team
formed in the first tutorial, discuss individual answers within the team, and reach consensus on your
team answer to the two case-study questions. Then each team choses a representative to debrief their
team answer and your tutor provides verbal feedback on team performance. This team-based
debriefing activity should take about 20 minutes in total.
Having studied all the three small cases in Teaching Weeks 5 – 7, you should stay back and reflect on
what you have learned during the whole learning process from pre-class preparation to in-class team
discussion and debriefing. Whenever necessary, you are expected to clarify questions arising from the
learning process through review of relevant lecture contents and/or book chapters and/or consultation.
Based on your individual reflection of this learning process, you are required to write reflection notes
(1-2 pages) about all the three small case studies. In writing the reflection notes, you may want to
think about the following questions:
6
 What did you get wrong during the process of preparing your answer? Why? Were some of the
problems addressed successfully in subsequent small case studies?
 How did your team discussion and debriefings in the tutorial help you to better understand the
case?
 How did the after-class review and/or consultation help you to better understand the case?
 What lessons have you learned from all the three small case studies? What are the implications of
these lessons for your future learning?
Note that you are required to submit a soft copy of your reflection notes to our course Blackboard,
which is due on 20 September.
Small case study constitutes 15% of the total subject assessment. In each small case study, you will be
awarded a mark out of 10 based on the quality of your answer. You have 2 opportunities to receive
marks for this assessment. Note: the first small case “Procter & Gamble in Japan” will be used as a try.
Out of these 2 assessment activities (i.e., the second and the third small case studies), only the higher
marks you have received will be counted towards your final marks for the course. In addition, you
will be awarded a mark out of 5 based on the quality of your notes of reflection on all the three small
case studies.
Important Information on Case Study Method
A business case is a description of a range of issues and/or problems about a case company that need
to be analysed and addressed. Thus case study adds a dimension of reality to your studies of the
course. In this course, the main purpose of small/large case study is to assess how well you understand
relevant concepts and theories in the course by your ability to apply them in analysing a particular
real-world case.
To study a business case, it is important to identify the key issues/problems the case company was
facing. To achieve this, you need to conduct a good analysis of the circumstance of the industry the
case company was in and its specific situation. When you are analysing the situation you can look into
factors like the mission of the business, the stakeholders of the business, the decision making process,
the process of manufacturing or service delivery, the major competitors of the case company, the
external factors related to the industry or country, etc. Depending on the situation, you can choose to
use appropriate tools (e.g., PESTL, SWOT, Porter’s Five Forces, Cause-Effect Analysis) to facilitate
your analysis of the case.
Once the key issues/problems are identified, you need to consider the possible solutions for the case
with unsolved problems and/or discuss the transferability of good/best practices. Where appropriate,
you should take into consideration both internal and external factors to the case company, their
implications in the short or longer term and relate them to appropriate concepts, principles and/or
frameworks. After the potential solutions to the case problems have been evaluated, it is time for you
to recommend the best (or most sensible) solutions for the case company. At this stage, it is important
to provide justifications for the recommended solution(s) based on the evaluation of options. You also
need to ensure that your recommendations are complementary and feasible to implement.
7
For practice cases, though some actions have already been taken by the case company, it is still
necessary to analyse and evaluate whether these actions are sensible and adequate to address the key
issues/problems in the case. You may need to think about the following questions:
 Are these actions/practices appropriate to address the issues/problems?
 If yes, why are they sensible solutions?
 What are the conditions and/or assumptions behind the actions/practices?
 Are they the most suitable solutions for the issues/problems?
 What other options can be considered to improve the situation?
If the case describes a real company, it may be necessary to do some desk research (e.g., Internetbased research on the case company) to find articles/information relevant to the key issues of the case,
and track down what has happened after the case was written. Nevertheless, your case study should be
focused on the case itself.
8
TUTORIAL 3
Activity 1: An Illustration of Case Study Presentation
In this tutorial, your tutor will explain how team-based case study presentations and individual
critique of team presentations should be conducted in tutorials through an example case titled
“Fonterra”. Please download this case from the course Blackboard website (–> “Learning Activities”
–> “Harvard Business Cases”) and read the case before the tutorial. Also, you need to read
“Assessment 1: Large Case Study Presentation” (see page 24) and “Assessment 2: Individual Critique
of Team Presentation” in this document (see page 25).
You need to pay attention to marking criteria for large case study presentations by which your
presentation will be assessed. Therefore, it is highly recommended that you read the instructions
(especially the suggested format and marking criteria for large case study presentations) before
preparing your Powerpoint slides.
Activity 2: Individual Critique of Team Presentations
After the completion of Activity 1, your tutor will explain how this individual assessment (starting
from teaching week 8) will be conducted. As part of this assessment, if you are not presenting a case
in a week, you need to read the case beforehand and come prepared with notes about the key
issues/problems the case company was facing and sensible solutions for addressing them and/or
transferable practices. This way, you will be able to contribute to the discussion during or following
the case presentation.
In this tutorial, after completion of the first activity (i.e., illustration of case presentation by using the
example case – “Fonterra”), your tutor will show you how to answer the set question on IBUS3304
Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team Presentation (see page 31). Your answer should be based
on your comprehension of the case study presentation and your own understanding of the case.
Whenever you choose to critique a large case study presentation (excluding your own team’s
presentation), you are required to complete an individual critique (max 400 words) of the team’s
presentation. For further information on this assessment, please refer to “Assessment 2: Individual
Critique of Team Presentation” (see page 25) in this document.
Comparison between Small and Large Case Studies
Compared with the small business cases, large business cases are usually considerably longer. A large
case usually describes a more complex business situation facing the case company than a small case
does. Therefore, unlike small case study, large case study necessitates a more comprehensive analysis
of the case. If there were a number of issues/problems the case company was facing, it may be
necessary for you to assess which issue(s)/problem(s) have greater impact on the case company than
others in terms of profits and/or operational performance. Then you should focus your case study on
addressing these more significant (or key) issue(s)/problem(s).
9
As mentioned earlier, small case study is designed to promote within-team discussion of the two
thought questions of the case under study. In contrast, the main purpose of large case study is to
promote effective class discussion of key issue(s)/problem(s) identified in the case. To achieve this, it
is expected that the presentation team should focus on gaining a deep and insightful understanding of
the case through a sound analysis of the case, rather than just presenting the facts and data of the case.
This is why analysis of the key issues/problems and application of relevant concepts/ theories to case
analysis are major marking criteria for large case study presentations. For details, please refer to
IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation (see pages 28-29).
10
TUTORIAL 4
Activity Outline
Before attending tutorial 4, read the small case on the next page which is titled “Procter & Gamble in
Japan: From Marketing Failure to Success”, and prepare an answer (1-2 pages) to the two thought
questions below. As this “P&G in Japan” case is used as a try, you are not required to submit your
answer to the designated folder at our course Blackboard site (www.elearning.uq.edu.au). Nonetheless,
you do need to bring a copy of your answer in some form (an electronic or hard copy as long as you
can assess it) to the tutorial.
When the tutorial starts, you join your team to discuss individual answers to the thought questions and
reach consensus. Then write down your team answer on a piece of paper provided by your tutor.
Finally, you need to elect a team representative to debrief your team answer and your tutor provides
verbal feedback on your team performance. The case study questions that will be discussed during the
tutorial are as follows.
Case Study Questions:
1. What factors made P&G’s old strategy ineffective?
2. Critically discuss how a company should approach a new market. Use the case as an example.
11
Case: Procter & Gamble in Japan: From Marketing Failure to Success
Procter & Gamble (P&G), the large US consumer products company, has a well-earned reputation as
one of the world’s best marketers. With its 80-plus major brands, P&G generates more than $37
billion in annual revenues worldwide. Along with Unilever, P&G is a dominant global force in
laundry detergents, cleaning products, and personal care products. P&G expanded abroad after World
War II by exporting its brands and marketing policies to Western Europe, initially with considerable
success. Over the next 30 years, this policy of developing new products and marketing strategies in
the United States and then transferring them to other countries became entrenched. Although some
adaptation of marketing policies to accommodate country differences was pursued, it was minimal.
The first signs that this policy was no longer effective emerged in the 1970s, when P&G suffered a
number of major setbacks in Japan. By 1985, after 13 years in Japan, P&G was still losing $40 million
a year there. It had introduced disposable diapers in Japan and at one time had commanded an 80
percent share of the market, but by the early 1980s it held a miserable 8 percent. Three large Japanese
consumer products companies were dominating the market. P&G’s diapers, developed in the United
States, were too bulky for the tastes of Japanese consumers. Kao, a Japanese company, had developed
a line of trim-fit diapers that appealed more to Japanese tastes. Kao introduced its product with a
marketing blitz and was quickly rewarded with a 30 percent share of the market. P&G realized it
would have to modify its diapers if it were to compete in Japan. It did, and the company now has a 30
percent share of the Japanese market. Plus, P&G’s trim-fit diapers have become a best-seller in the
United States.
P&G had a similar experience in marketing education in the Japanese laundry detergent market. In the
early 1980s, P&G introduced its Cheer laundry detergent in Japan. Developed in the United States,
Cheer was promoted in Japan with the US marketing message–Cheer works in all temperatures and
produces lots of rich suds. But many Japanese consumers wash their clothes in cold water, which
made the claim of working in all temperatures irrelevant. Also, many Japanese add fabric softeners to
their water, which reduces detergents’ sudsing action, so Cheer did not suds up as advertised. After a
disastrous launch, P&G knew it had to adapt its marketing message. Cheer is now promoted as a
product that works effectively in cold water with fabric softeners added, and it is one of P&G’s
bestselling products in Japan.
P&G’s experience with disposable diapers and laundry detergents in Japan forced the company to
rethink its product development and marketing philosophy. The company now admits that its UScentered way of doing business no longer works. Since the late 1980s, P&G has been delegating more
responsibility for new-product development and marketing to its major subsidiaries in Japan and
Europe. The company is more responsive to local differences in consumer tastes and preferences and
more willing to admit that good new products can be developed outside the United States.
Evidence that this new approach is working can again be found in the company’s activities in Japan.
Until 1995, P&G did not sell dish soap in Japan. By 1998, it had Japan’s best-selling brand, Joy,
which now has a 20 percent share of Japan’s $400 million market for dish soap. It made major inroads
against the products of two domestic firms, Kao and Lion Corp., each of which marketed multiple
brands and controlled nearly 40 percent of the market before P&G’s entry. P&G’s success with Joy
was due to its ability to develop a product formula that was specifically targeted at the unmet needs of
12
Japanese consumers, to the design of a packaging format that appealed to retailers, and to the
development of a compelling advertising campaign.
In researching the market in the early 1990s, P&G discovered an odd habit; Japanese homemakers,
one after another, squirted out excessive amounts of detergent onto dirty dishes, a clear sign of
dissatisfaction with existing products. On further inspection, P&G found that this behavior resulted
from the changing eating habits of Japanese consumers. The Japanese are consuming more fried food,
and existing dish soaps did not effectively remove grease. Armed with this knowledge, P&G
researchers in Japan went to work to create a highly concentrated soap formula based on a new
technology developed by the company’s scientists in Europe that was highly effective in removing
grease. The company also designed a novel package for the product. The packaging of existing
products had a clear weakness; the long-necked bottles wasted space on supermarket shelves. P&G’s
dish soap containers were compact cylinders that took less space in stores, warehouses, and delivery
trucks. This improved the efficiency of distribution and allowed supermarkets to use their shelf space
more effectively, which made them receptive to stocking Joy. P&G also devoted considerable
attention to developing an advertising campaign.
(Source: Pfoertsch W (2010) Proctor & Gamble in Japan: From marketing failure to success,
http://www.pfoertsch.com/wiki/uploads/Main/pgjapancase.pdf, accessed 21 July 2016)
13
TUTORIAL 5
Activity Outline
Before attending tutorial 5, read the small case which is titled “Singapore Airlines (A): The India
Decision” (available on our course Blackboard site (–> “Learning Resources” –> “Harvard Business
Cases”)) and prepare an answer (1-2 pages) to the two case-study questions below. Submit the answer
to the designated folder on our course Blackboard site (www.elearning.uq.edu.au) before your tutorial.
In addition, you need to bring a copy of your answer, in some form (an electronic or hard copy as long
as you can assess it) to the tutorial.
When the tutorial starts, you join your team to discuss individual answers to the two questions and
reach consensus. Then write down your team answer on a piece of paper provided by your tutor.
Finally, you need to elect a team representative to debrief your team answer and your tutor provides
verbal feedback on your team performance. The case-study questions that will be discussed during the
tutorial are as follows.
Case Study Questions:
1. Critically analyse if Singapore Airlines should enter the market.
2. If Singapore Airlines was to enter the market, how should they do it?
Case: Singapore Airlines (A): The India Decision (available on the Blackboard)
14
TUTORIAL 6
Activity Outline
Before attending tutorial 6, read the small case on the next page which is titled “Toyota’s innovative
international multipurpose vehicle (IMV) project”, and prepare an answer (1-2 pages) to the two
thought questions below. Submit the answer to the designated folder on our course Blackboard site
(www.elearning.uq.edu.au) before the tutorial. In addition, you need to bring a copy of your answer,
in some form (an electronic or hard copy as long as you can assess it) to the tutorial.
When the tutorial starts, you join your team to discuss individual answers to the two questions and
reach consensus. Then write down your team answer on a piece of paper provided by your tutor.
Finally, you need to elect a team representative to debrief your team answer and your tutor provides
verbal feedback on your team performance. The case-study questions that will be discussed during the
tutorial are as follows.
Case Study Questions:
1. Why did Toyota establish a regional production network in Southeast Asia? Identify and
justify three key drivers. Once you have identified these drivers, consider what managerial
and operational challenges a regional production network presents. Identify and justify three
key issues.
2. Critically analyse the aspects that affect firms’ localization decision. Use this case as an
example.
15
Case: Toyota’s innovative international multipurpose vehicle (IMV) project
Although planning for the IMV project began in 1999, soon after the Asian financial crisis, its genesis
is not solely attributable to this event. Sales of the Hilux pickup truck had been steadily declining in
Japan, Toyota was (and remains) committed to increasing overseas production, and a strategic
decision was taken to design affordable yet high quality pickup trucks and multi-purpose vehicles
(MPVs) for growth markets, mainly in emerging economies including East Asia. This was further
compatible with the overall strategy of increasing Toyota’s global market share of auto production
and sales. The crisis did, however, force a critical re-revaluation of Toyota’s traditional strategy of
local assembly using components, particularly more complex intermediate products such as engines,
from Japan. Toyota’s leitmotif is kaizen and consistent quality and this explains why the company had
been initially reluctant to relocate overseas from Japan the highly efficient production capacity that
had been built up over decades. The challenges associated with replicating the Japanese model
overseas are well documented (Abo, 2007) and are magnified in developing economies, such as those
found in Southeast Asia. Moreover, Toyota’s application of lean manufacturing is dependent on
closely coordinated supplier networks. Yet the collapse of regional economies and the drop in the
value of the Thai Baht in particular, presented an urgent economic rationale to increase localization of
component sourcing. Additionally, the previous model of offloading older models in developing
economies was coming under pressure from competitors, particularly Korean firms. The challenge,
therefore, was twofold; to offer attractive models utilizing the latest technology but still suitable for
developing economies, and to do so while maintaining a competitive price. Toyota’s response to this
is found in the IMV project, the stated aim of which is to ‘realise global optimal production and
supply networks’ (Toyota Annual Report, 2003).
IMV vehicles, of which there are five models with three body styles (pickup, SUV and multipurpose
vehicle), share a common platform, which reduces design and production costs and is becoming a
common feature in auto production. This platform is also specifically designed for the sometimes
challenging driving environments found in developing economies. The choice of these models reflects
diverse consumer demand in developing countries. Thailand, for instance is the world’s second largest
market for one-ton pickups while Indonesian consumers prefer the MPV style. The IMV vehicles also
act as entry level models that familiarize consumers in emerging economies with Toyota’s
competitive strengths and, the intention is that these consumers will be favourably disposed towards
Toyota’s mainstay sedans as middle classes expand and consumer tastes become more sophisticated.
A similar line of reasoning can be identified at Honda with regards to power products (generators,
outboard engines, agricultural tools) and motorcycles.
Production is centred on Toyota’s Thai and Indonesian plants but assembly also takes place in
Argentina and South Africa (See Figure 1). Crucially, all production occurs outside Japan and
Localization rates are high, reportedly 97 per cent in Thailand, which means that production does not
have to rely on components sourced, expensively, from Japan. This is where the ASEAN advantages
comes into play as Toyota, along with other Japanese auto makers, have been developing their
supplier networks on a regional basis for the past two decades. It is this historical investment and
development of local suppliers that allows Toyota to realize the advantages of low-cost labour while
maintaining quality. Due to intense scrutiny of the supply chain and high localization rates, cost
savings are reported to be around 30 per cent, allowing Toyota to compete therefore both on cost and
quality. Yet operating in emerging economies can also bring associated risks, particularly with regards
to disruption of the supply chain. To mitigate this, Toyota has built-in some flexibility to the demands
16
of the just-in-time production by requiring plants to maintain a two-week supply of components on
site. The initial production target at the project’s launch in 2002 was for 500,000 units with Thailand
as the key player allocated an annual target of 280,000 units of which 140,000 designated for export
markets. The Thai plant further produces and exports diesel engines. However strong demand
following commencement of the production line in 2004 saw the overall target for the project revised
upwards to 700,000 units. By comparison, Toyota’s total consolidated production in 2006 was
approximately 8 million units.
IMV production is also supported by the presence of Toyota’s regional HQ, Toyota Motor AsiaPacific (TMAP), in Singapore (established in 2001), which is 100 per cent owned by TMC. In
contrast to the more straightforward activities of regional management structures in North America
and Europe, Toyota’s organisation in East Asia has emerged from the necessity of dealing with the
complex nature of the regional division of labour and of a need for better coordination of supply
chains and parts complementation under AFTA. Additionally, the establishment of a Global
Production Centre (an advanced, globally integrated training facility) in Thailand in 2003 supports the
development of human resources in the region, further facilitation localization while maintaining
quality. Finally, Toyota established its first R&D centre in an emerging economy, Thailand in 2005
further underlining its commitment to localization of design (See Table 1 for details of production
bases in 2012).
The IMV project this represents an innovative response to competitive global markets and localized
demand. By drawing on an existing regional production network in (ASEAN) and production and
assembly facilities in other emerging economies Toyota is successfully linking spatial scale and
organizational structure. This has been facilitated by localization of production, investing in the
development of regional supply chains, a commitment to local staff, and regional management. Given
surging demand in emerging markets (45 per cent of Toyota’s total sales in 2011) the IMV project can
be regarded as a successful model of global/regional production organization and by March 2012 over
5 million units had been produced under the scheme.
Figure 1: The IMV supply network at launch
17
Table 1: Main IMV production bases in 2012
Notes: TMT – Toyota Motor Thailand Co. Ltd; TMMIN – Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indonesia;
TSAM – Toyota South Africa Motors (Pty.) Ltd; TASA – Toyota Argentina S.A.
References:
Abo, T. (ed.) (2007) Japanese Hybrid Factories: A Worldwide Comparison of Global Production
Strategies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Toyota (2003) Annual Report, Nagoya: Toyota.
(Source: Hasegawa, H., & Noronha, C. (Eds.). (2014). Asian business and management: Theory,
practice and perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan. 132 – 134)
18
TUTORIAL 7
Activity 1: Case Study Presentation by Team #1
Case Title: McDonald’s: is China lovin’ it?
If your team is to present the McDonald case this week, you need to prepare some (normally 25 – 35)
Powerpoint slides for your team presentation in the tutorial. It is highly recommended that before
commencing your work, you read the detailed instructions on this task (see “Assessment 1: Large
Case Study Presentation” (page 24) and “Important Information on Case Study Method” (pages 6-7)).
Particularly, you should pay attention to the task description and suggested format for your case
study presentation as well as IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation (see pages 28-
29). The maximum time for your team presentation is 30 minutes including Q&A.
As your team will present the McDonald case this week, all the team members will not be assessed
individually as the audience will. Nonetheless, when preparing your presentation slides, you should
keep in mind the following questions:
 What are the key issues/problems the case company was facing?
 What are the sensible solutions to the key issues/problems and/or transferable practices?
This is because on your Powerpoint slides, you should clearly indicate the key issues/ problems of the
case and the recommended solutions and/or transferable practices. There are two main reasons for
making these points clear. First, it would help your audience to better understand your presentation
and thus be better prepared for their individual assessment. Second, it is an important requirement for
your case presentation (see IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation on pages 28-29).
Therefore, it is required that your team provides a handout (1-2 pages) to the audience, which
captures the key issues/problems you have identified and the solutions you recommend (for “problem
solving”) and/or transferable practices of the case (for “practice”).
Activity 2: Individual Critique of Team Presentation
If you are not to present the McDonald case this week, you will be assessed individually by
answering the question on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team Presentations (see
page 31). To obtain good marks for this assessment, you need to read the case before attending the
tutorial and come prepared with your notes on your own understanding of the key issues/problems of
the case, sensible solutions and/or transferable practices.
For detailed instructions on this assessment, please read the task description in “Assessment 2:
Individual Critique of Team Presentations” (see page 25) in this document. Importantly you should
read the question and the instruction on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team
Presentations (see page 31). Please submit your completed critique to our course Blackboard by 11:59
pm on the following day of your tutorial.
19
TUTORIAL 8
Activity 1: Case Study Presentation by Team #2
Case Title: Trying to create a stir: opening a coffee shop in Korea
If your team is to present the Korean Coffee Shop case this week, you need to prepare some (normally
25 – 35) Powerpoint slides for your team presentation in the tutorial. It is highly recommended that
before commencing your work, you read the detailed instructions on this task (see “Assessment 1:
Large Case Study Presentation” (page 24) and “Important Information on Case Study Method” (pages
6-7)). Particularly, you should pay attention to the task description and suggested format for your
case study presentation as well as IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation (see pages
28-29). The maximum time for your team presentation is 30 minutes including Q&A.
As your team will present the Korean Coffee Shop case this week, all the team members will not be
assessed individually as the audience will. Nonetheless, when preparing your presentation slides, you
should keep in mind the following questions:
 What are the key issues/problems the case company was facing?
 What are the sensible solutions to the key issues/problems and/or transferable practices?
This is because on your Powerpoint slides, you should clearly indicate the key issues/ problems of the
case and the recommended solutions and/or transferable practices. There are two main reasons for
making these points clear. First, it would help your audience to better understand your presentation
and thus be better prepared for their individual assessment. Second, it is an important requirement for
your case presentation (see IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation on pages 28-29).
Therefore, it is required that your team provides a handout (1-2 pages) to the audience, which
captures the key issues/problems you have identified and the solutions you recommend (for “problem
solving”) and/or transferable practices of the case (for “practice”).
Activity 2: Individual Critique of Team Presentation
If you are not to present the Korean Coffee Shop case this week, you will be assessed individually by
answering the question on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team Presentations (see
page 31). To obtain good marks for this assessment, you need to read the case before attending the
tutorial and come prepared with your notes on your own understanding of the key issues/problems of
the case, sensible solutions and/or transferable practices.
For detailed instructions on this assessment, please read the task description in “Assessment 2:
Individual Critique of Team Presentations” (see page 25) in this document. Importantly you should
read the question and the instruction on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team
Presentations (see page 31). Please submit your completed critique to our course Blackboard by 11:59
pm on the following day of your tutorial.
20
TUTORIAL 9
Activity 1: Case Study Presentation by Team #3
Case Title: Krohne’s entry into the Chinese market
If your team is to present the Krohne case this week, you need to prepare some (normally 25 – 35)
Powerpoint slides for your team presentation in the tutorial. It is highly recommended that before
commencing your work, you read the detailed instructions on this task (see “Assessment 1: Large
Case Study Presentation” (page 24) and “Important Information on Case Study Method” (pages 6-7)).
Particularly, you should pay attention to the task description and suggested format for your case
study presentation as well as IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation (see pages 28-
29). The maximum time for your team presentation is 30 minutes including Q&A.
As your team will present the Krohne case this week, all the team members will not be assessed
individually as the audience will. Nonetheless, when preparing your presentation slides, you should
keep in mind the following questions:
 What are the key issues/problems the case company was facing?
 What are the sensible solutions to the key issues/problems and/or transferable practices?
This is because on your Powerpoint slides, you should clearly indicate the key issues/ problems of the
case and the recommended solutions and/or transferable practices. There are two main reasons for
making these points clear. First, it would help your audience to better understand your presentation
and thus be better prepared for their individual assessment. Second, it is an important requirement for
your case presentation (see IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation on pages 28-29).
Therefore, it is required that your team provides a handout (1-2 pages) to the audience, which
captures the key issues/problems you have identified and the solutions you recommend (for “problem
solving”) and/or transferable practices of the case (for “practice”).
Activity 2: Individual Critique of Team Presentation
If you are not to present the Krohne case this week, you will be assessed individually by answering
the question on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team Presentations (see page 31). To
obtain good marks for this assessment, you need to read the case before attending the tutorial and
come prepared with your notes on your own understanding of the key issues/problems of the case,
sensible solutions and/or transferable practices.
For detailed instructions on this assessment, please read the task description in “Assessment 2:
Individual Critique of Team Presentations” (see page 25) in this document. Importantly you should
read the question and the instruction on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team
Presentations (see page 31). Please submit your completed critique to our course Blackboard by 11:59
pm on the following day of your tutorial.
21
TUTORIAL 10
Activity 1: Case Study Presentation by Team #4
Case Title: Marks and Spencer enters China
If your team is to present the Mark and Spencer case this week, you need to prepare some (normally
25 – 35) Powerpoint slides for your team presentation in the tutorial. It is highly recommended that
before commencing your work, you read the detailed instructions on this task (see “Assessment 1:
Large Case Study Presentation” (page 24) and “Important Information on Case Study Method” (pages
6-7)). Particularly, you should pay attention to the task description and suggested format for your
case study presentation as well as IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation (see pages
28-29). The maximum time for your team presentation is 30 minutes including Q&A.
As your team will present the Mark and Spencer case this week, all the team members will not be
assessed individually as the audience will. Nonetheless, when preparing your presentation slides, you
should keep in mind the following questions:
 What are the key issues/problems the case company was facing?
 What are the sensible solutions to the key issues/problems and/or transferable practices?
This is because on your Powerpoint slides, you should clearly indicate the key issues/ problems of the
case and the recommended solutions and/or transferable practices. There are two main reasons for
making these points clear. First, it would help your audience to better understand your presentation
and thus be better prepared for their individual assessment. Second, it is an important requirement for
your case presentation (see IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation on pages 28-29).
Therefore, it is required that your team provides a handout (1-2 pages) to the audience, which
captures the key issues/problems you have identified and the solutions you recommend (for “problem
solving”) and/or transferable practices of the case (for “practice”).
Activity 2: Individual Critique of Team Presentation
If you are not to present the Mark and Spencer case this week, you will be assessed individually by
answering the question on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team Presentations (see
page 31). To obtain good marks for this assessment, you need to read the case before attending the
tutorial and come prepared with your notes on your own understanding of the key issues/problems of
the case, sensible solutions and/or transferable practices.
For detailed instructions on this assessment, please read the task description in “Assessment 2:
Individual Critique of Team Presentations” (see page 25) in this document. Importantly you should
read the question and the instruction on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team
Presentations (see page 31). Please submit your completed critique to our course Blackboard by 11:59
pm on the following day of your tutorial.
22
TUTORIAL 11
Activity 1: Case Study Presentation by Team #5
Case Title: UPS in India – time to shift gears?
If your team is to present the UPS case this week, you need to prepare some (normally 25 – 35)
Powerpoint slides for your team presentation in the tutorial. It is highly recommended that before
commencing your work, you read the detailed instructions on this task (see “Assessment 1: Large
Case Study Presentation” (page 24) and “Important Information on Case Study Method” (pages 6-7)).
Particularly, you should pay attention to the task description and suggested format for your case
study presentation as well as IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation (see pages 28-
29). The maximum time for your team presentation is 30 minutes including Q&A.
As your team will present the UPS case this week, all the team members will not be assessed
individually as the audience will. Nonetheless, when preparing your presentation slides, you should
keep in mind the following questions:
 What are the key issues/problems the case company was facing?
 What are the sensible solutions to the key issues/problems and/or transferable practices?
This is because on your Powerpoint slides, you should clearly indicate the key issues/ problems of the
case and the recommended solutions and/or transferable practices. There are two main reasons for
making these points clear. First, it would help your audience to better understand your presentation
and thus be better prepared for their individual assessment. Second, it is an important requirement for
your case presentation (see IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation on pages 28-29).
Therefore, it is required that your team provides a handout (1-2 pages) to the audience, which
captures the key issues/problems you have identified and the solutions you recommend (for “problem
solving”) and/or transferable practices of the case (for “practice”).
Activity 2: Individual Critique of Team Presentation
If you are not to present the UPS case this week, you will be assessed individually by answering the
question on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team Presentations (see page 31). To
obtain good marks for this assessment, you need to read the case before attending the tutorial and
come prepared with your notes on your own understanding of the key issues/problems of the case,
sensible solutions and/or transferable practices.
For detailed instructions on this assessment, please read the task description in “Assessment 2:
Individual Critique of Team Presentations” (see page 25) in this document. Importantly you should
read the question and the instruction on IBUS3304 Answer Sheet: Individual Critique of Team
Presentations (see page 31). Please submit your completed critique to our course Blackboard by 11:59
pm on the following day of your tutorial.
23
Assessment Summary

Assessment Task	Due Date	Weighting
Large Case Study Presentation	Submit your Powerpoint slides to the Blackboard before your tutorial and a hard copy of those slides in class.	25%
Individual Critique of Team Presentations	Submit your completed critique to the Blackboard by 11:59pm on the following day of your tutorial.	10%
Small Case Study	Submit your answer to the Blackboard before 8:00am Thursday of the same week; reflection notes due on 20 Sept.	15%

24
Assessment 1: Large Case Study Presentation
Type: Team submission
Due Date: Submit your presentation slides to the Blackboard before the tutorial
Weight: 25%
Task Description:
This assessment requires you to critically analyse the major issues and/or problems related to the case
that is assigned to your team. You will be assigned to a team in the first tutorial. Following the
team formulation, your team will be assigned a case that is to be presented by all the team members in
a scheduled tutorial time (see the Tutorial Schedule on page 3 of this document). The maximum time
for your case study representation is 30 minutes including Q&A.
Suggested Format:
The main goal of the case study is to analyse the key issues/problems the case company was facing,
the actions taken by the company that have proved either effective or ineffective in practice, the
remaining issues/problems and their possible solutions. Usually the case study presentation should
include the following elements:
 introduce the case organisation by giving some background information,
 provide a good analysis of the case, particularly the issues/problems the case organisation was
facing, which is supported by appropriate concepts/theories and research,
 identify a few key issues/problems through case analysis,
 discuss how to address the key issues/problems and/or transferable practices, and
 conclude the case study.
If the name of the case company was not disguised, background research is expected in preparation
for the case study. You should make yourselves familiar with the general issues in the industry
including its current developments, but should analyse the situation of the case as it existed at the time
it was written. In addition, you should refer to relevant concepts/theories in the course and rely on
public sources and not contact the companies directly.
Submission:
The presenting team should submit a hard copy of your presentation (1 or 2 slides per page) to your
tutor in class and a soft copy of the Powerpoint slides to our course Blackboard before your tutorial.
Criteria and Marking:
See IBUS3304 Criteria Sheet: Large Case Study Presentation on pages 28-29.
25
Assessment 2: Individual Critique of Team Presentations
Type: Individual submission
Due Date: Due by 11:59 pm on the following day of your tutorial
Weight: 10%
Task Description
Individual critique of team presentations starts from Teaching Week 8. Each week after the case study
presentation (excluding your own team’s presentation), you are required to complete an individual
critique (max 400 words) of the team’s presentation based on the presentation and your own
understanding of the case. Comments only need to be brief and must be made in response to the set
questions about what was presented. Your tutor will provide more details about the questions and how
this assessment will be conducted during the first three weeks of tutorials. In each of these individual
presentation critiques, you will be awarded a mark out of 5 for your own performance. Please note
that you have 2 opportunities to receive marks for these individual assessments. Out of these 2
critiques of team presentations, only the higher marks will be counted towards your final marks for
the course. Therefore, in total this individual presentation critique constitutes 10 (1×10%) out of 100
marks for the course.
Note that the marking of the critiques are the jurisdiction and responsibility of your tutor. If a student
fails to participate in a tutorial assessment week at the scheduled time, he or she will be awarded a
mark of zero for that week unless the tutor is provided with a document satisfactorily explaining the
student’s absence. The document should be submitted to the tutor no later than two working days after
the tutorial date. After assessing the documentation, the tutor will take an appropriate course of action.
This rule also applies to small case study.
Submission:
Submit your completed critique to the Blackboard by 11:59pm on the following day of your tutorial.
26
IBUS3304 CRITERIA SHEET: Small Case Study Answer

Tutorial No.:	Team No.:	Case Title:
Student Name & ID:	Marks: /10

Criteria	Outstanding (85%‐100%)	Very Good (75%‐84%)	Good (65%‐74%)	Meets Expectation (50%‐64%)	Below Expectation (47%‐49%)	Well Below Expectation (30%‐46%)	Serious Fail (0‐29%)
Understanding of the case and the case questions (CQs) (20%)	Demonstrated excellent under‐ standing of the case and the CQs.	Demonstrated a very good understanding of the case and the CQs.	Demonstrated a good understanding of the case and the CQs.	Demonstrated adequate under‐ standing of the case and the CQs.	Demonstrated in‐ adequate under‐ standing of the case and the CQs.	Demonstrated limited under‐ standing of the case and the CQs.	No attempt was made to understand the case and the CQs.
Relevancy and completeness of the answer (20%)	Answers are completely relevant and address all the issues.	Answers are almost completely relevant and address nearly all the issues.	Answers are mostly relevant and address most of the issues.	About half of the answer is relevant; about half of the issues are addressed.	Less than half of the answer is relevant; less than half of the issues are addressed.	A majority of the answer is irrelevant; most of the issues are not addressed.	No attempt was made to answer question(s).
Justification (20%)	Answers were completely justified.	Answers were almost completely justified.	Answers were mostly justified.	Answers were adequately justified.	Answers were inadequately justified.	Majority of answers was not justified.	No attempt was made to justify argument(s).
Use of relevant concepts/theories (20%)	All relevant concepts/ theories were used.	Almost all relevant concepts/ theories were used.	Most of the relevant concepts/ theories were used.	An adequate amount of relevant concepts/ theories were used.	An inadequate amount of relevant concepts/ theories were used.	Majority of relevant concepts/ theories were not used.	No attempt was made to use relevant concepts/theories.
Communication (20%)	Completely logical and clearly written; there were no spelling/ grammatical errors.	Almost completely logical and clearly written; there were minor spelling/ grammatical errors.	Mostly logical and clearly written; there were some spelling/ grammatical errors.	Adequate in logic and clarity of writing but with some spelling/ grammatical errors.	Inadequate in logic and clarity of writing; there were many spelling/ grammatical errors.	Clear failure in logical flow and communication; there were too many errors.	No attempt was made to communicate clearly.
Result: /100

Comments:
27
IBUS3304 CRITERIA SHEET: Small Case Study Reflection

Tutorial No.:	Team No.:	Case Title:
Student Name & ID:	Marks: /5

Criteria	Outstanding (85%‐100%)	Very Good (75%‐84%)	Good (65%‐74%)	Meets Expectation (50%‐64%)	Below Expectation (47%‐49%)	Well Below Expectation (30%‐46%)	Serious Fail (0‐29%)
Acknowledge any relevant changes to answers (30%)	Completely acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to answers.	Almost completely acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to answers.	Mostly acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to answers.	Adequately acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to answers.	Inadequately acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to answers.	Limited acknowledgement of relevant changes that needed to be made to answers.	Did not acknowledge any relevant changes that needed to be made to answers.
Acknowledge any relevant changes to the learning process (30%)	Completely acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to the learning process.	Almost completely acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to the learning process.	Mostly acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to the learning process.	Adequately acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to the learning process.	Inadequately acknowledged any relevant changes that needed to be made to the learning process.	Limited acknowledgement of relevant changes that needed to be made to the learning process.	Did not acknowledge any relevant changes that needed to be made to the learning process.
Lessons learned through refection (20%)	All the lessons learnt were honest, insightful and applicable.	Nearly all the lessons learnt were honest, insightful and applicable.	Most of the lessons learnt were honest, insightful and applicable.	About half of the lessons learnt were honest, insightful and applicable.	Less than half of the lessons learnt were honest, insightful and applicable.	Only a few lessons learnt were honest, insightful and applicable.	No lessons learnt were honest, insightful and applicable.
Communication (20%)	Completely logical and clearly written; there were no spelling/ grammatical errors.	Almost completely logical and clearly written; there were minor spelling/ grammatical errors.	Mostly logical and clearly written; there were some spelling/ grammatical errors.	Adequate in logic and clarity of writing but with some spelling/ grammatical errors.	Inadequate in logic and clarity of writing; there were many spelling/ grammatical errors.	Clear failure in logical flow and communication; there were too many errors.	No attempt was made to communicate clearly.
Result: /100

Comments:
28
IBUS3304 CRITERIA SHEET: Large Case Study Presentation

Tutorial No.:	Team No.:	Case Title:
Student Name & ID:	Student Name & ID:	Marks: /25
1.	2.
3.	4.
5.	6.

Criteria	Outstanding (85%‐100%)	Very Good (75%‐84%)	Good (65%‐74%)	Meets Expectation (50%‐64%)	Below Expectation (47%‐49%)	Well Below Expectation (30%‐46%)	Serious Fail (0‐29%)
Contents (70%)
Identification and discussion of key issues/problems (15%)	Identified and discussed all key issues/problems; acknowledged all minor ones.	Identified and discussed almost all key issues/problems; acknowledged nearly all minor ones.	Identified and discussed most of key issues/problems; acknowledged most of minor ones.	Identified and discussed about half key issues/problems; acknowledged some others.	Did not identify and/or discuss one or more of the most important issues/ problems.	Most of the issues/problems identified and/or discussed were irrelevant.	No attempt was made to identify and discuss key issues/problems.
Analysis of the key issues/problems (15%)	All identified issues/ problems were comprehensively analysed.	Almost all of the key issues/problems were analysed comprehensively.	The identified key issues/problems were reasonably analysed.	The identified key issues/problems were adequately analysed.	One or more of the most important issues/problems were not analysed.	Most of the issues/ problems identified were not analysed appropriately.	No attempt was made to analyse key issues/ problems.
Application of relevant concepts/ theories to case analysis (15%)	Applied all relevant concepts/theories to analyse the case.	Applied almost all relevant concepts/ theories to analyse the case.	Applied most of the relevant concepts/ theories to analyse the case.	Used an adequate number of relevant concepts/ theories to analyse the case.	Used an inadequate number of relevant concepts/ theories to analyse the case.	Used a limited number of relevant concepts/ theories to analyse the case.	No attempt was made to use relevant concepts/ theories.
Recommendation and/or discussion of implications (15%)	Comprehensive recommendation(s) / implementation plan and /or discussion of implications.	Very good recommendation(s)/ implementation plan and /or discussion of implications.	Good recommendation(s) / implementation plan and /or discussion of implications.	Adequate recommendation(s) / implementation plan and /or discussion of implications.	Inadequate recommendation(s) / implementation plan and /or discussion of implications.	Limited recommendation(s) and /or discussion of implications.	No recommendation(s) or discussion of implications.

29

Research and citation/reference (10%)	Comprehensively researched; well cited on slides and correctly referenced.	Substantially researched; mostly cited on slides and referenced.	Reasonably researched, cited on slides and referenced.	Adequately researched, cited on slides and referenced.	Inadequately researched, cited on slides and referenced.	Limited evidence of research, citations on slides and references.	No evidence of research, citations on slides and references
Communication (30%)
Structure (5%)	Excellent logical flow; very easy to follow by using signposts,	Very good logical flow; easy to follow by using signposts.	Good logical flow; audience can follow.	Adequate logical flow; audience can understand.	Inadequate logical flow; difficult to follow sometimes.	Problematic in logical flow; difficult to follow during most of the time.	No attempt made to structure the presentation.
Verbal delivery (5%)	Well rehearsed and delivered clearly; Q&A was well handled; within the time limit.	Presentation was mostly well delivered; Q&A was mostly well handled; within the time limit.	Presentation was reasonably delivered; Q&A was reasonably handled; within the time limit.	Presentation was adequately delivered; Q&A was adequately handled; within the time limit.	Presentation was inadequately delivered; Q&A was inadequately handled; out of the time limit.	Presentation was poorly delivered; Q&A was poorly handled; out of the time limit.	The presentation was not delivered.
Non‐verbal delivery (5%)	Engaging and confident; excellent use of eye contact and body language.	Confident and mostly engaging; very good use of eye contact and body language.	Confident and sometimes engaging; good use of eye contact and body language.	Confident and adequate use of eye contact and body language.	Lack of confidence sometimes; inadequate use of eye contact and body language.	Lack of confidence most of the time; limited use of eye contact and body language.	No confidence; no use of eye contact or body language.
Visual aids (e.g. slides, audio, video, handout) (5%)	Excellent use of visual aids that were clear and enhanced understanding.	Very good use of visual aids that helped understanding.	Good use of visual aids; mostly helped understanding.	Adequate use of visual aids; provided adequate help in understanding.	Inadequate use of visual aids; provided inadequate help in understanding.	Limited use of visual aids; provided limited help in understanding.	No appropriate visual aids were used.
After‐presentation activity (10%)	Excellent activity: class was fully engaged and activity was completely relevant.	Very good activity: class was mostly engaged and activity was completely relevant.	Good activity: class was well engaged and activity was mostly relevant.	Adequate activity: class was engaged and activity was mostly relevant.	Inadequate activity: class was partially engaged and activity was partially relevant.	Attempted activity: class was not engaged and activity was largely irrelevant.	No activity was conducted.
Result: /100

Comments:
30
IBUS3304 CRITERIA SHEET: Individual Critique of Team Presentations

Tutorial No.:	Team No.:	Case Title:
Student Name & ID:	Marks: /10

Criteria	Outstanding (85%‐100%)	Very Good (75%‐84%)	Good (65%‐74%)	Meets Expectation (50%‐64%)	Below Expectation (47%‐49%)	Well Below Expectation (30%‐ 46%)	Serious Fail (0‐29%)
Coverage of the critique (30%)	Comprehensively covered key problems/ solutions practices/ implications; all points made are relevant.	Almost comprehensively covered key problems/ solutions/practices/ implications; almost all points made are relevant.	Mostly comprehensively covered key problems/ solutions/practices/ implications; most points made are relevant.	Comprehensively covered about half of key problems/ solutions/practices/ implications; about half of the points made are relevant.	Comprehensively covered less than half of key problems/ solutions/practices/ implications; less than half of the points made are relevant.	Covered a limited number of key points but not in depth, or most of the points made are irrelevant.	No coverage of key problems/ solutions/practice s/ implications.
Quality of the critique (30%)	Extended/challenged the arguments presented to an excellent standard.	Extended/challenged the arguments presented to a high standard.	Extended/challenge d the arguments presented to a good standard.	Extended/challenged the arguments presented to an adequate standard.	Extended/challenged the arguments presented to an inadequate standard.	Extended/challenge d the arguments presented to a low standard.	No attempt made to extend/ challenge the arguments presented.
Justification and use of relevant concepts/theories (20%)	Completely justified using relevant concepts/theories.	Almost completely justified using relevant concepts/ theories.	Mostly justified using relevant concepts/ theories.	Adequately justified using relevant concepts/ theories.	Inadequately justified using relevant concepts/theories.	Majority were not justified using relevant concepts/ theories.	No attempt was made to justify argument(s).
Knowledge of the case (20%)	Demonstrated excellent knowledge of the case.	Demonstrated very good knowledge of the case.	Demonstrated good knowledge of the case.	Demonstrated adequate knowledge of the case.	Demonstrated inadequate knowledge of the case.	Demonstrated limited knowledge of the case.	Demonstrated little knowledge of the case.
Result: /100

Comments:
31
IBUS3304 ANSWER SHEET: Individual Critique of Team Presentations

Tutorial No.:	Team No.:	Date:
Case Title:	Student Name & ID:

Do you agree with the presenting team in terms of the key problems/recommendations and/or practices/implications as
presented in the tutorial? Please provide your critique of the presentation.
Instructions (Focusing on the difference between the presentation and your own understanding of the case)

	If you disagree with the presenting team on part/all of the key problems/recommendations and/or practices/ implications, please provide your own answers to those you disagree with and explain why. If you agree with the presenting team on all of the key problems/recommendations and/or practices/ implications, please explain why.
