MNG81001 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION

MNG81001 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION

Assessment 3	CASE STUDY
Document design	Memo format
Due Date	Friday 11th May 9.00AM (QLD time)
Length	1000 words (+/- 10%)
Weight	25%

Assessment task

The objective of Assessment 3 is to understand the concept of ‘analysis’ and learn how to analyse information efficiently and effectively using a case study. According to Rosenwaser and Stephen (2009, p. 4), analysis is:

More than just a set of skills, analysis is a frame of mind, an attitude toward experience. It is a form of detective work that typically pursues something puzzling, something you are seeking to understand rather than something you are already sure you have the answers to.

Analysis finds questions where there seemed not to be any, and it makes connections that might not have been evident at first.

A business case study ‘is a description of an actual situation, commonly involving a decision, a challenge, an opportunity, a problem or an issue faced by a person (or persons) in an organization’ (Erskine, J.A. and Leenders, M.R., Learning with Cases, © 1997, Richard Ivey School of Business).

Cases contain relevant data about the issue available to the key person in the case, plus background information about the organisation.

The Qantas social media disaster

Companies around the globe are embracing and adopting social media for many different reasons, including: customer service, marketing, internal communications, public relations, and corporate social responsibility. It is now a reality that social media is changing the way stakeholders and companies communicate daily, providing opportunities for collaboration, participation, interactivity, and engagement.

Your task is to analyse a business case study that chronicles one of the worst years for Qantas. In 2011 Qantas faced a communication strategy that spiraled out of control. According to Australia’s public relations watchdog, PRdisasters.com, Qantas not only finished 2011 with the biggest PR disaster but three of its slip-ups made the top 10 list for 2011. The top 10 list of PR disasters in Australia for 2011 can be obtained at the following website: https://prdisasters.com/2012/01/09/australias-2011-pr-disasters-awards-announced/.

This case places you directly into the role of Olivia Wirth, executive of Government and Corporate affairs at Qantas Airlines, who must devise a plan of action to respond to the company’s failed and publicly scrutinised social media contest through Twitter.

You need to apply analytical, decision-making, creativity and communication skills to create an effective strategy for Qantas management to implement. You also need to take into consideration the series of events that have compounded over the past years to negatively affect the public’s perception of Qantas. In response to the company’s failed Twitter contest and mounting public animosity, what course of action should Olivia Wirth recommend to Qantas management?

Please follow these guidelines to complete the assessment:

1. Carefully read the Ivey Business School case: ‘Qantas Airlines: Twitter Nosedive’. Note: you will need to go onto the Ivey Business School website https://www.iveycases.com/ and purchase a copy of this case (approximately A$5.00).

2. Read the case several times and answer the following questions in your analysis/ recommendation(s):

a. What future actions can Qantas take to build a positive public perception of the brand? Be prepared to provide justification for your recommended actions.

b. Identify three important factors for an organisation to consider when using social media, such as Twitter, for contest or other public relations initiatives. Use 3-5 secondary sources to support your analysis.

c. Using the Communication Plan Template in the case (see Exhibit TN-1), devise a course of action for Olivia Wirth to recommend to Qantas management.

Some important guidelines to consider when developing a recommended course of action:

• The different stages of the communication plan template must fit together, if they do not, adjustments must be made.

• The communication plan should be realistic and feasible.

• The various problems that Qantas has experienced publically over the past year must be taken into account.

2. Please be aware that the writing quality and appropriate referencing will be marked as well as the content.

4. Submit Assessment 3 to Turnitin via the Blackboard site no later than the due date: Monday 4^th June 2018, 9.00am (QLD time).

5. Refer to the Marking Criteria Guide and Marking Rubric.

PRIOS/CDT brief for Assessment 3:

a. Purpose: In response to Qantas’ failed Twitter contest and mounting public animosity, develop a course of action Olivia Wirth can recommend to Qantas management.

b. Reader: Qantas management (author: Olivia Wirth).

c. Information: Based on secondary sources.

d. Organisation: Direct order approach.

e. Style: Formal. Be sure to proofread carefully to ensure that there are no sentence-level errors such as spelling mistakes, wrong word choice, incorrect punctuation, etc.

f. Channel choice: written document.

g. Document design: Memo format.

h. Length: 1000 words.

Marking criteria/weighting

Evaluation criteria	Task	Weight
1. Format, Introduction, & Conclusion	Is the memo format used fully and appropriately? Does the introduction, body and conclusion contain all the identifying features? Are the elements of the introductory and concluding paragraphs clear, relevant and informative?	20%
Purpose & Audience	Has the student understood the task and covered the key points? Does the response adequately address the topic and task? Does this document take into account the needs of the audience? Does this document provide adequate information for the reader? Does the writer thoroughly address any potential questions from the reader?	15%
Credibility	Is the student able to convince the reader that they are knowledgeable about the topic? Are claims backed up? Sources cited? Are sources reliable and authoritative? Does the student understand the proper attribution rules? Do the appearance, accuracy and clarity of the writing give credibility? Are three to five reliable sources used to evaluate three important factors for an organisation to consider when using social media?	20%
Referencing	Has the SCU Harvard reference style been used? Does every source have: The name of the author(s) The full title; and Complete publication information? Are sources cited in the body of the paper and in the reference list at the end of the paper? Are the right model citations used?	15%
Readability	Is there a clear structure to the response? Do the paragraphs contain one main idea that is explored using relevant evidence? Is there cohesion between sentences? Are internal headings clear and informative and enhance the readability for the audience?	15%
Language	Is there a range of vocabulary? Are sentences grammatically correct? Are sentences accurate and complete? Has a spell check been used? Is spelling accurate?	15%

Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction
<12.5	12.5 – 15.5	16 – 18	18.5 – 20.5	21+
Multiple parts of the assignment are missing or incomplete. Student fails to answer the question.	Essential elements are imprecise or absent. Work at a level that would be considered basic.	Key elements are presented but could be further developed and given more depth.	Most aspects included in a final, well-developed form.	The assignment contains all required elements and is of the highest order.

Criteria	High Distinction 85 to 100 %	Distinction 75 to 84 %	Credit 65 to 74 %	Pass 50 to 64 %	Fail 0 to 49 %
Format, Introduction, & Conclusion Weight 20.00%	Memo format is used fully and appropriately. Elements of the Introductory and Concluding paragraphs are clear, relevant and informative.	Memo format is used appropriately. Elements of the Introductory and Concluding paragraphs are clear, relevant and informative. There may be some minor inconsistencies.	Memo format is used. Most elements of the Introductory and Concluding paragraphs are clear, relevant and informative.	Memo format is used. Some elements of the introductory and/or Concluding paragraphs may be clear, relevant and informative.	Memo format may not be used. Elements of the introductory and/or Concluding paragraphs may be missing and/or irrelevant, and/or unclear.
Purpose & Audience Weight 15.00%	The purpose of the assessment is fully addressed, and main ideas are fully appropriate for the audience.	The purpose of the assessment is sufficiently addressed, and main ideas are appropriate for the audience.	The purpose of the assessment is addressed, and most main ideas are appropriate for the audience.	The purpose of the assessment is adequately addressed, and some main ideas are appropriate for the audience.	The purpose of the assessment is not adequately addressed, and main ideas are inappropriate for the audience.
Credibility Weight 20.00%	Main ideas are clearly and sufficiently supported using required case study (see assessment details). Three social media factors are evaluated using 3-5 reliable and appropriate sources to support the analysis. Credibility is enhanced by sufficient and appropriate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.	Main ideas are clearly and sufficiently supported using required case study (see assessment details). Three social media factors are evaluated using 3-5 reliable and appropriate sources to support the analysis. However, there are minor inconsistencies. Credibility is enhanced by sufficient and appropriate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.	Most main ideas are supported using required case study (see assessment details). Three social media factors are evaluated using 3-5 reliable and appropriate sources to support the analysis. However, some may be unclear and/or insufficient. Credibility is often enhanced by appropriate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.	Some main ideas are supported using case study (see assessment details). Three social media factors are evaluated using 3-5 reliable and appropriate sources to support the analysis. However, main ideas often lack clarity and/or support. Credibility is impacted as a result of missing and/or inadequate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.	Main ideas are not supported by the case study (see assessment details). Less than three sources are used to support the analysis. Main ideas lack relevance for the audience. Credibility may be lacking as a result of missing and/or inadequate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.

Criteria	High Distinction 85 to 100 %	Distinction 75 to 84 %	Credit 65 to 74 %	Pass 50 to 64 %	Fail 0 to 49 %
Referencing Weight 15.00%	SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing is fully accurate and consistent throughout. Quotes are used accurately and appropriately throughout.	SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing is accurate and consistent. Quotes are used accurately and appropriately, although minor errors may occur.	SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing is mostly accurate and consistent. Quotes may be used too often and/or may be used inappropriately. There may be some evidence of plagiarism.	SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing is often faulty, and/or missing, and/or poorly marked in paragraphs. Quotes may be used too often and/or may be used inappropriately. There may be evidence of plagiarism and/or poor paraphrasing.	No or very little SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing used. If used it is mostly inaccurate and/or inadequate. There may be significant evidence of plagiarism.
Readability Weight 15.00%	Each paragraph has one clear main idea and is logically organised. Cohesion between sentences is fully acceptable. Internal headings are clear and informative and enhance the readability for the audience.	Each paragraph has one clear main idea and are logically organised Cohesion between sentences is well-managed. However, minor inconsistencies occur. Internal headings are clear and informative and enhance the readability for the audience, although there may be minor inconsistencies.	Paragraphing is adequate. However, the main idea, and/or organisation and/or cohesion is sometimes faulty and/or unclear. Internal headings are adequate, but could be clearer, and/or more informative, and/or more frequent to enhance readability for the audience.	Paragraphing may be missing or inappropriate. Organisation and/or cohesion are often faulty and/or unclear. Internal headings are often inadequate, and/or unclear, and/or uninformative for the audience.	Paragraphing, organisation, and cohesion are inadequate and cause strain for the audience. Internal headings are missing or do very little to enhance readability for the audience.
Language Weight 15.00%	A wide range of vocabulary is used accurately and is used appropriately (for audience); spelling is accurate throughout. A wide range of grammatical structures used accurately and appropriately. Punctuation is accurate.	A range of vocabulary is used accurately and is used appropriately (for audience); minor spelling errors. A range of grammatical structures are appropriately used; some minor errors, (incl. punctuation errors).	Vocabulary is generally adequate and accurate, and is used appropriately (for audience), some spelling errors.	Vocabulary is adequate but is sometimes used inaccurately and/or inappropriately (for audience), and spelling errors may occur. Grammatical structures lack accuracy, and errors (incl. punctuation errors) impede communication.	Vocabulary is often inadequate, inappropriate (for audience) and inaccurate; words often incorrect or incorrectly used; substantial spelling errors. Grammatical structures lack accuracy, and errors (incl. punctuation errors) strain communication.

• • Assignment status: Resolved by our Writing Team
  • Source@PrimeWritersBay.com

GET THIS PAPER COMPLETED FOR YOU FROM THE WRITING EXPERTS  CLICK HERE TO ORDER 100% ORIGINAL PAPERS AT PrimeWritersBay.com

• • • • NO PLAGIARISM