Case Submission Guidelines – Dowling Flexible Metals The case submission should contain three key elements described below – Introduction, Analysis,…

Case Submission Guidelines – Dowling Flexible Metals

The case submission should contain three key elements described below – Introduction, Analysis, and Recommendation/Implementation.

Introduction


– value 15 points – 5 points for the introduction and 10 points for a clear and succinct problem identification and statement (the problem will flow from your analysis).

This section should only be about four or five sentences long and would normally be developed after your analysis and recommendation have been completed. For example one might write something such as:

The following case submission/report (just samples, you might have a preferred name for this) examines events that have unfolded at Dowling Flexible Metals, identifies the main problem(s) facing senior management, analyzes key issues and people, and concludes with a recommendation and implementation. We believe that the main problem that Dowling Flexible Metals faces is XXXXXXXXX and our main recommendation, which is fully detailed at the end of the submission/report, is XXXXXXXXXX.  The problem and recommendation are based on the following detailed analysis.

You can include your recommendation in the introduction if you wish, but at least please state the problem.

Analysis


– value 65 points – 50 points for incorporation of concepts from the text and course to explain the case issues and 15 points for how well your material is integrated.

Groups who include more key issues (e.g., structure, culture, leadership, power, teams/groups), fully consider those issues, and show


how


the issues contribute to the outcomes of the case will receive more marks than those groups who include fewer issues, and/or don’t explain the issues, and/or don’t show how the issues are related.

For example, in some analyses where organizational culture is an issue that should be considered some groups simply use the word culture, but never describe it, nor do they show how it fits in with other issues discussed (i.e., integration). Other people have used the word culture and described the organization’s culture briefly, but have not shown how culture is a factor in the case. My suggestion is that


if


you deal with the issue of culture, describe the culture and you might well ask why the culture is as it is, and lastly show how culture is related to issues/problems in the case (this last connection is the integration issue).

Please bear in mind that there is no magic number of issues, but there are some key issues that groups should deal with.

Please use subheadings freely, but please remember to wrap up each section and indicate how the section is relevant to the problem and/or other elements.  Please use transitions as you move on to the next sections.

Your analysis should conclude with a summary of the analysis, a brief restatement of the problem, and a closing that suggests you are now presenting your recommendation.

Recommendation/Implementation


– value – 20 points – 10 points for a clear and direct recommendation to Bill Dowling and 10 points for a brief description of your implementation.

Spelling and Grammar


– I can live with a couple of typos or one or two awkward constructions, but after that I will dock the group points (to a maximum of 15 points) for poor spelling and grammar.

Other issue


Please do not use terms such as “would have”, “could have”, “should have”, “might have, or “if …”, which really just lead to speculation and take your focus away from what actually happened in the case. Please deal with the evidence before you in the case itself, not what might have been.

Assume that you have been hired by Bill Dowling as a consultant and your job is to explain to him what has happened here (i.e., provide an analysis) and to provide him with a recommendation about what he should do now.