Discussion Board (Case Analysis)
The instructor will post discussion questions on the required two cases. Each student is to answer all questions and then comment on at least one other students postings. You will be graded on your ability to apply the concepts from the learning modules and the quality of your answers and comments to other students postings. The discussion board will be used to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information among class participants. See grading rubric.
Discussion Board Evaluation of Original Posts
Mentions at least two concepts from required courses readings for each question and includes references and citations.
Relates information to quality researched resources outside of the required readings and includes references and citations.
Discussions are at critical thinking level, not just recitation of facts. Discussions at a critical thinking level means discussing why you hold that opinion and support the opinion by quality referenced research, what you see wrong or right with the point mentioned, how you see the point being consistent or inconsistent with what you have learned, implications for the future. In other words, critiquing the readings, means analyzing arguments from the perspectives of both good and bad or pro and con and then justifying your analysis with information from quality referenced resources.
Discussion Board Evaluation of Reply to Other Students Posts
Provides meaningful feedback on others ideas. Comments include how the idea may be enhanced or applied to a different content area, or personal experience. The learners response encourages other group members to share ideas and generates additional discussion.
Critical ElementsNot EvidentImprovement NeededProficient (80-89%)Excellent (90 97%)Exemplary (98-100%)0%(60-79%)Main Element: Subject Matter of the Case Analysis/Discussion Skips this section.Justification is weak or lacking. Subject matter details are not included. Does not include different perspectives or strategic focus in analysis.Justification is fair. Subject matter details are lacking. Includes different perspectives in analysis. The analysis does not include a strategic focus.Justification is strong – good. Some subject matter details are not fully developed helpful in understanding the topic. Includes different perspectives in analysis. The analysis offers a strategic focus.Fully describes/justifies subject matter of the case analysis/discussion. Includes different perspectives in analysis. The analysis offers a strategic focus. Includes some concepts of material covered course but not in all sections of discussions.Includes at least ONE concept of material covered in course in all sections of discussions. Includes at least TWO concepts of material covered in course in all sections of case analysis/discussion. Includes at least TWO concepts of material covered in course in all sections of discussion. Students are required to reference the course material applied in this discussion. For example: (Ch 1, Instructor Lecture, PP_Slide number or Textbook, page number)Students are required to reference the course material applied in this discussion. For example: (Ch 1, Instructor Lecture, PP_Slide number or Textbook, page number)Students are required to reference the course material applied in this discussion. For example: (Ch 1, Instructor Lecture, PP_Slide number or Textbook, page number)Students are required to reference the course material applied in this discussion. For example: (Ch 1, Instructor Lecture, PP_Slide number or Textbook, page number)
Discussion (Case 2)
Norton, Michael I. and Jeremy Dann (2013), Juan Valdez: Innovation in Caffeination, Harvard Business School, Case 9-513-090, pages 1-24.
Electronic copies of the cases can be purchased at Harvard Business Publishing. Access: https://hbsp.harvard.edu/import/757992 (Links to an external site.)
Due: Sun Nov 8 @10:00pm NOTE: Reminder: Original Post due @10:00pm; Reply Post due @11:30pm
Answer ALL Discussion Forum Questions and Reply to at least 1 other students post. Please give reasons WHY when giving your opinions.
Juan Valdez, the fictional farmer that helped the Colombian Coffee Growers Federation (FNC) make 100% Colombian mountain grown coffee, which prior to 1990s was the preferred choice among American consumers vs Starbucks.
(1) Analyze the unique nature of the Colombian coffee sector and state how it both constrains the Juan Valdez brand and how it offers opportunities for future innovations.
(2) How did the federation and the Juan Vladez brand adapt to a new era of competition in the coffee industry? Does the changed organization have the organizational capabilities to compete?
(3) Should Procafecol invest in new brewing, packaging and other technologies, ore remain firmly entrenched as a branding organization?
(4) Would you close the flagship store or keep it open? What are the reasons for doing each? Do the FNC and Procafecol have different perspectives on this matter?
