Assessment Information
Subject Code: MBA506
Subject Name: Thinking Styles, Negotiation and Conflict Management
Assessment Title: Negotiation Role Play & Summary 2
Weighting: 30%
Total Marks: 30
Due Date: Monday of Week 14, 11.55 pm AEST
.
Assessment Description
. ..
You will engage in a negotiation for a celebrity endorsement advertising campaign.
You may be nominated to represent the advertising corporation and
will receive email instructions from the company CEO including:
1. Appointment to represent the company as their agent for the negotiation of the endorsement contract;
2. Specific instructions about the desired endorsement contract fee and advertising campaign timeframe;
3. Information about the projected revenue to be raised from the advertising campaign;
4. Contact details of the agent appointed to represent the celebrity.
Alternatively, you may be nominated to represent the celebrity and
will receive email instructions from the celebrity’s manager including:
1. Appointment to represent the celebrity as their agent for the negotiation of the endorsement contract;
2. Specific instructions about the desired endorsement contract fee and advertising campaign timeframe;
3. Information about the projected revenue to be raised from the
advertising campaign; 4. Contact details of the agent appointed to
represent the advertising company.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on
behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright
Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to
copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of
this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under
the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading
global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd
ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS
Provider Code 02426B.
Assessment Information
Stage 1: Pre-negotiation
You must answer the following questions:
1. What is your client’s BATNA? What is your client’s reservation value?
2. What is the other party’s BATNA? What is the other party’s reservation value?
3. What is the ZOPA range? What is your strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the
ZOPA?
.
Stage 2: Negotiation
You must:
1. Enter negotiations with their counterpart for the endorsement contract;
2. Maintain a communications log that captures the date, method, items discussed, and outcomes of each communication.
.
.
Stage 3: Post negotiation
You must prepare a short report (1 page) to your client advising the outcome of the negotiation.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on
behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright
Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to
copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of
this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under
the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading
global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd
ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS
Provider Code 02426B.
Assessment Information
Criteria F (Fail)
0%-49% P (Pass) 50%-64% CR (Credit) 65%-74% D (Distinction)
75% - 84%
HD (High Distinction)
85%-100%
Mark
Assessment Content (Subject Specific) OUT OF 80 MARKS
Pre-negotiation Failure to identify either BATNAs, either
reservation values, or ZOPA range. Illogical or poorly explained
strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA. Reasonably
accurate identification of both BATNAs, both reservation values, and
ZOPA range. Further and more detailed contemplation required for
claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA. Close to accurate
identification of both
BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range. Strategy for
claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA outlined in sufficient
detail. Both BATNAs, both reservation values, and ZOPA range accurately
identified. Logical strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the
ZOPA well explained. Precise identification of both BATNAs, both
reservation values, and ZOPA range. Innovative and effective strategy
for claiming the greater proportion of the
ZOPA clearly articulated. /20
Negotiation
Communications log Poorly drafted communications log demonstrating little to no effort to implement strategy for claiming the
greater proportion of the ZOPA and no adaptive behavior in response
to negotiation process developments. Communications log indicates
reasonable implementation of strategy for claiming the greater
proportion of the ZOPA but either requires more detail or greater effort
in negotiation. Adaptive behavior in response to negotiation process
developments are evident but could have been stronger. Competent
implementation of strategy for claiming the greater proportion of the
ZOPA evidenced by communications log. Sufficient adaptive behavior
demonstrated in response to negotiation process developments.
Communications log demonstrates successful implementation of strategy
for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA. Negotiation process
developments met with adaptive behavioral responses. Detailed
communications log demonstrating effective implementation of strategy
for claiming the greater proportion of the ZOPA together with highly
adaptive behavior in response to negotiation process developments. /20
Negotiation
Multiple issue and contingency management Failure to identify
feetimeframe combination that creates the most value for both parties to
generate a Pareto efficient agreement. No contingency contract entered
to reconcile the difference in opinion between the parties over
anticipated revenue. Reasonable effort made to identify fee-timeframe
combination that creates the most value for both parties to generate a
Pareto efficient agreement.
Contingency contract discussed and
contemplated to reconcile the difference in opinion between the
parties over anticipated revenue. Fairly accurate identification of
fee-timeframe combination that creates the most value for both parties
to generate a Pareto efficient agreement. Legitimate contingency
contract created to reconcile the difference in opinion between the
parties over anticipated revenue. Accurate identification of
feetimeframe combination that creates the most value for both parties to
generate a Pareto efficient agreement.
Logical and useful contingency contract created to reconcile the
difference in opinion between the parties over anticipated revenue.
Precise identification of feetimeframe combination that creates the most
value for both parties to generate a Pareto efficient agreement. Clear
and effective contingency contract entered to reconcile the difference
in opinion between the parties over anticipated revenue. /20
Post-negotiation Report indicates negotiation not
successfully concluded or less than 30% of ZOPA claimed. Reasonably
well drafted report indicating successful negotiation with over 30% of
ZOPA claimed. Competent report indicating successful negotiation with
over 50% of ZOPA claimed. Well drafted report indicating successful
negotiation with over 70% of ZOPA claimed. Clear and concise report
indicating successful negotiation with over 90% of ZOPA claimed. /20
Structure Format and Presentation (Consistent across all courses) OUT OF 20 MARKS
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on
behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright
Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to
copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of
this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under
the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading
global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd
ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS
Provider Code 02426B.
Answer clearly and logically presented Serious lack of organization.
Body paragraphs do not refer back to or relate to main arguments.
Writing is formulaic, i.e. “in conclusion,” “another example is….”
Writing style could be more effective. Organization is hard to follow;
there is little progression of ideas. Little or no transitions between
paragraphs. Need to more effectively weave main arguments throughout and
relate body paragraphs. Paragraphs are generally well organized. Better
transitions needed. The progression of ideas could be more thoughtful.
Paragraphs relate back to main arguments to prove argument. Ideas &
arguments are well structured. Thoughtful progression of ideas and
details. Sound transitions between paragraphs. Major arguments are
effectively made. Ideas & arguments are effectively structured.
Thoughtful progression of ideas and details. Excellent transitions
between paragraphs. Concluding comments leave the reader thinking. Major
arguments are effectively woven throughout everybody paragraph, with
ideas always related back to main arguments. /4
Appropriate theory and research used to answer question posed The critique does not have appropriate structure and lacks
direction. No significant observations made from appropriate theory
and research. Poor writing and expression of arguments. Reasonable
critique which examines the relevant issues and makes reasonable
observations made from appropriate theory and research. Reasonable
writing and expression of arguments. Good critique examines the relevant
issues and makes good observations from appropriate theory and
research. Good writing and expression of arguments. A very good critique
considered all the relevant issues and made important observations made
from appropriate theory and research. Very good writing and expression
of arguments. Fully considered all the relevant issues and made
significant observations made from appropriate theory and research.
Excellent writing and expression of arguments. /4
Correct academic writing style used, including correct spelling,
grammar and punctuation Needs more sentence variety. Little or no
thought given to diction. Tone or language is conversational. Contains
much informal language. Uses “I” or
“you.” Contains many examples of unclear or awkward phrasing. Needs
more sentence variety. Attention needed with diction. Contains informal
language or conversational tone, or uses “I” or “you.” Unclear or
awkward sentence phrasing. Sentence variety is adequate. Tone is
appropriate. Diction is clear, but could be more effective. Language is
academic, and writing is clear and effective. Very little or no unclear
or awkward phrasing. Sentence variety is effective and good. Tone is
appropriate and consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is appropriate and
effective. Language is academic. Writing is clear, and concise. Sentence
variety is effective and sophisticated. Tone is appropriate and
consistent. Diction/ vocabulary is sophisticated and effective. Language
is academic. Writing is clear, concise, and strong. /4
Format of answer consistent with question requirements and
KBS guidelines No efforts made to follow submission and editing,
spacing, etc requirements. Meets most editing, spacing, fonts, and other
editing requirements. Some requirements not met. Meets editing,
spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets almost all
editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. Meets all
editing, spacing, fonts, and other editing requirements. /3
In-text referencing and reference list follows Harvard style and
consistent with KBS guidelines Inappropriate referencing. Not in-line
with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines.
Reasonably appropriate referencing, generally in-line with requirements
of Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Good referencing,
largely inline with requirements of Harvard style and consistent with
KBS guidelines. Very good referencing, 100% in-line with requirements of
Harvard style and consistent with KBS guidelines. Excellent/appropriate
referencing, 100% in-line with requirements of Harvard style and
consistent with KBS guidelines. /3
Word count is within + / - 10% of requirement Word count is within +
/ - more than 15% of requirement Word count is within + / - 15% of
requirement Word count is within + / - 10% of requirement Word count is
within + / - 5% of requirement Word count is within
+ / - 0% of requirement /2
Comments:
/80
/20
/100
Assessment Marking Rubric
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on
behalf of Kaplan Business School pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright
Act 1968 (‘Act’). The material in this communication may be subject to
copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or communication of
this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under
the Act. Kaplan Business School is a part of Kaplan Inc., a leading
global provider of educational services. Kaplan Business School Pty Ltd
ABN 86 098 181 947 is a registered higher education provider CRICOS
Provider Code 02426B.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Assessment Information Subject Code: MBA506 Subject Name: Thinking Styles, Negotiation and Conflict Management Assessment Title: Negotiation Role Play & Summary 2 Weighting: 30% Total Marks: 30 Due Date: Monday of Week 14, 11.55 pm AEST . Assessment Description . .. You will engage in a negotiation for a celebrity endorsement advertising campaign. You may be nominated to represent the advertising corporation and will receive email instructions from the company CEO including: 1. Appointment to represent the company as their agent for the negotiation of the endorsement contract; 2. Specific instructions about the desired endorsement contract fee and advertising campaign timeframe; 3. Information about the projected revenue to be raised from the advertising campaign; 4. Contact details of the agent appointed to represent the celebrity. Alternatively, you may be nominated to represent the celebrity and will receive email instructions from the celebrity’s manager including: 1. Appointment to represent the celebrity as their agent for the negotiation of the endorsement contract;
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment