WHAT YOU NEED TO DO Word count at least 1100 Read the case thoroughly. Consider

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO
Word count at least 1100
Read the case thoroughly. Consider the case question you are being asked to answer. Find 4 additional sources that supplement the case study assigned – use these and cite them in the text of your paper, and include a references page at the end of your case paper (APA formatting suggested). Then, using your best critical thinking and business writing skills, develop your own analysis of the situation facing the firm and an evaluation of the options it should consider.
CASE QUESTIONS
What is/are the main issue(s) facing Tesla at the end of the case?
Given the outcome in Singapore, as well as the mixed performance in Europe and the US, was the time right for Tesla to enter China?
If Musk took Tesla into China, what could he learn from the experiences Tesla had elsewhere in order to make China a success? How could he deal with some of the unknowns that confronted the company in China (a new foreign market for the company)?
What should the company’s entry strategy into China consist of? What organizational structure would you recommend Tesla adopt for the Chinese entry? Refer to the chapter readings and assigned articles to inform these answers, clearly link your answers to concepts in the readings.
What are 1-2 recommendations you would give to Tesla to address the main issue you identified in Q#1? How should they implement your recommendation(s)?
GRADING
This assignment is worth 100 points. I will use the associated rubric for grading this assignment.
LCB20.21 BA 453 Common Case Rubric
LCB20.21 BA 453 Common Case Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome***Assessment, Application, and Evaluation
40 to >37.0 ptsAcccomplished
37 to >34.0 ptsEffective
34 to >30.0 ptsEmerging
30 to >0 ptsIneffective
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLCB 20.21 1a.400.1Assesses and evaluates external dynamics in market and industry issues.
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 ptsAccomplished: Demonstrates clear and complete understanding of key case issues and relevant external dynamics in the industry, competitors, and customers. Thorough and credible qualitative and quantitative evidence integrated to support positions.
3 ptsEffective: Strong identification of external dynamics in the industry, with competitors, and customers, but not evenly covered. Thorough qualitative analysis presented but could use improvement in quantitative depth and integration.
2 ptsEmerging: Good identification of external dynamics, but uneven coverage. Could use additional insights about industry, competitors or customers. Good qualitative analysis presented but misses some major factors; limited quantitative depth and integration.
1 ptsIneffective: Individually listed industry, competitor or customer dynamics Neither quantitative nor qualitative analysis is completed nor integrated to support recommendations.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLCB 20.21 1a.400.2Assesses and evaluates internal company context and issues
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 ptsAccomplished: Thorough and sophisticated analysis of resources, processes and people within context. Provides comparative and/or industry dimension. Thorough and credible qualitative and quantitative evidence integrated to support positions.
3 ptsEffective: Covers most major resource, policy or process areas that are important to success. Strong understanding of some elements of firm’s choices. Could have additional industry or competitive comparisons. Thorough qualitative analysis presented but could use improvement in quantitative depth and integration.
2 ptsEmerging: Additional work is needed on processes, resources or people. Has rudimentary understanding of the firm or its resource choices. Little to no competitive or comparative industry references. Good qualitative analysis presented but misses some major factors; limited quantitative depth and integration.
1 ptsIneffective: Ineffective discussion of resource, people or processes. Does not demonstrate understanding of the firm or its resource choices. No industry or competitive comparisons. Neither quantitative nor qualitative analysis is completed nor integrated to support recommendations.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLCB 20.21 2b.400.4Provides evidence for statements and clarifies assumptions
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 ptsAccomplished: Assumptions are succinctly clarified and statements are supported with strong, credible evidence from the case but pushes beyond the facts to the implications.
3 ptsEffective: Assumptions are clarified and most statements supported with evidence. Substantiates analysis with facts but largely discusses facts alone, without drawing implications.
2 ptsEmerging: Assumptions and statements are made, but need clarification. Demonstrates awareness of need for evidence. Needs significant improvement in using case facts/examples to substantiate conclusions. Facts largely listed rather than knit together.
1 ptsIneffective: Assumptions are not clarified. Weak or missing evidence to support statements. Does not effectively use case information to build an argument, support analysis, or draw implications and conclusions.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLCB 20.21 1a.400.3Demonstrates ability to apply tools or frameworks and integrate towards conclusions
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 ptsAccomplished: Demonstrates proficiency in applying and using strategic frameworks and tools. Moves beyond application to explain and highlight key implications . Demonstrates holistic and integrated key case issues
3 ptsEffective: Shows understanding of most strategic frameworks and tools. Uses tools to build good understanding of key case issues. Could use additional focus to highlight implications for strategic options and challenges.
2 ptsEmerging: Tools used but not knit together to tell a story about the company and its environment. Tools applied individually, but little depth in terms of implications or integration. Little in way of overall integration or articulation of key case issues.
1 ptsIneffective: Tools not effectively applied individually. Unclear if they are understood. Little evidence of ability to integrate and push towards implications.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome***Recommendations & Decision Analysis
35 to >34.0 ptsAccomplished
34 to >29.0 ptsEffective
29 to >26.0 ptsEmerging
26 to >0 ptsIneffective
35 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLCB 20.21 1c.400.1Articulates and evaluates options
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 ptsAccomplished: Insightful identification of multiple options and divergent perspectives. Clearly articulates criteria to evaluate options.
3 ptsEffective: Identification of obvious options and divergent perspectives. Identifies decision criteria and provides some evaluation, but does not systematically use to evaluate each option.
2 ptsEmerging: Needs to include more perspectives. Lists options with basic evaluation. Some discussion of pros and cons, but not tied to evaluation criteria.
1 ptsIneffective: No options presented, just final recommendations. Decision criteria and priorities are not clearly identified.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLCB 20.21 1c.400.2Proposes and supports recommendations
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 ptsAccomplished: Delivered meaningful recommendations along with outcomes or goals to be reached. Thorough qualitative and quantitative support presented and integrated including financial assessment of feasibility and projected returns.
3 ptsEffective: Strong identification of goals. Recommendations are somewhat vague and need to be tied to goals. Thorough qualitative rationale presented. Could use improvement in quantitative depth and integration, particularly financial assessment and return projections.
2 ptsEmerging: Reads more like a list than an integrated set of recommendations. No outcome or goals statement included. Good qualitative rationale presented but misses some major factors. Limited quantitative depth and integration. Limited financial discussion.
1 ptsIneffective: Recommendations unclear and inferred. No outcome or goals statement included. Neither quantitative nor qualitative analysis is completed nor integrated to support recommendations. Financial feasibility not addressed.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome***Action Plan
15 to >14.0 ptsAccompished
14 to >12.0 ptsEffective
12 to >10.0 ptsEmerging
10 to >0 ptsIneffective
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentifies elements of implementation that demonstrate company can execute successfully
0 ptsAccomplished
Integrated presentation of goals and detailed implementation priorities that flow from and support recommendations.
0 ptsEffective
Initial start of implementation priorities. Flows from recommendations. Convinces management of feasibility but does leave a few implementation issues and questions uncovered.
0 ptsEmerging
Additional work is needed on providing detailed action plan to demonstrate to management that the strategy can be implemented. Cursory treatment of action items reads more like a list than a cohesive and prioritized set of initiatives.
0 ptsIneffective
No real discussion of implementation priorities, timing or dependencies. Repeats recommendations. Fails to provide management meaningful direction toward implementation thus outcome is unclear and lacks credibility.
0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBuilds complete action plan
0 ptsAccomplished
Answers the ‘How”, “When” and “Who”.
0 ptsEffective
Incomplete answers to one of “How”, “When” or “Who”.
0 ptsEmerging
Incomplete answers to two of ‘How”, “When” or “Who”.
0 ptsIneffective
No effective discussion of ‘How”, “When” and “Who”.
0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome***Presentation & Writing
10 to >9.0 ptsAccomplished
9 ptsEffective
9 to >6.0 ptsEmerging
6 to >0 ptsIneffective
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLCB 20.21 2a.400.1/3/4Clarifies point of view and focuses audience connection
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 ptsAccomplished: Sets up as an executive memo and uses a clear insider’s voice, which clarifies the lens and priorities of speaker. Memo provides clear thesis and compelling storyline. Clear call to action at the outset.
3 ptsEffective: Sets up as an executive memo but does not clearly use an insider’s voice, although author does clarify priorities. Thesis and storyline are generally clear, well-developed, and moderately compelling. Initial call to action could be strengthened.
2 ptsEmerging: Sets up as an executive memo but takes an outsider’s view. Thesis and storyline are present, but require further development. The reader can observe or glean the main objective and argument. Opening is an introduction to issue, but does not function as a call to action
1 ptsIneffective: Neither sets up as a memo nor takes an insider’s view. Thesis and storyline are unclear and exhibit minimal development. Opening neither lays out issue nor functions as a call to action.
—
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLCB 20.21 2b.400.5/6/7Uses appropriate format and design elements while using precise and professional language and tone
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 ptsAccomplished: Successful execution of business writing conventions including organization, content, presentation, signposts/header transitions, visual information and stylistic choices. Skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error free. Professional tone.
3 ptsEffective: Demonstrates consistent use of business writing conventions including organization, content, presentation, signposts/header transitions, visual information and stylistic choices. Uses straightforward language that generally conveys meaning to readers. Good professional tone. Sentences are clear and tone is appropriate. Few errors exist.
2 ptsEmerging: Follows basic expectations appropriate to business writing for organization, content, and presentation. Begins to use signposts/headers to create basic transitions and skim value. Demonstrates attempt at style, grammar and tone with a professional audience. Begins to use language that conveys meaning to readers. Sentences may be wordy and clarity is inconsistent.
1 ptsIneffective: Attempts to use a consistent system for basic organization and presentation, with little to no skim value or transitions. Needs to redraft to improve coherence and develop proficiency. Uses language that sometimes impedes meaning because of errors in usage or awkward language. Tone is not suitable for a professional business audience.
—
Total Points: 100