Individual Case Analysis

Description

Case Studies and Articles

Donna Dubinsky and Apple Computer, Inc. (A). Todd D. Jick, Mary Gentile (Authors).

Product #: 486083-PDF-ENG

Each student must purchase their own copy of each case study and article listed above. The case studies must be purchased at the educational rate from Harvard Business School Publishing. Please go to the following web site to purchase them:

Harvard Business School Cases and Articles
(Links to an external site.)

Please read and respond to the questions below:

Segment 1: July 1981 to fall 1984 (Donna’s first three years at Apple – before the JIT idea surfaced)

What are Donna Dubinsky’s apparent strengths and weaknesses during this time period? (Respond in three to four sentences)

Segment 2: September 1984 and beyond

How did Dubinsky react to the initial JIT idea? How did she respond to the growing interest in the JIT proposal? Why? (Respond in three to four sentences)
What do you think Donna should have done differently?

– Consider: (1) Her reaction to Jobs’ criticism of the current distribution system (2) the period between Jobs’ initial JIT idea and the strategy review meeting in December 1984 and (3) her participation in the task force proceedings (Respond in three to four sentences for each component of this question)

What do you think Weaver, Jobs, and Coleman should have done differently during the above time periods? (Respond in three to four sentences for each person)
What information from the articles “How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight” and “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions” might have been helpful for the main players in the case to know and apply? Explain. (Respond in three to four paragraphs)

Submission Instructions:

To submit the assignment, you may copy/paste or directly type the text of your assignment into the text area Or you can upload your response in a word file. Once you finish, please click “Submit Assignment”. This will complete the submission process of your assignment.

Grading Rubric

Excellent

A to A+

90 – 100% of available points

Generally meets expectations

B to B+

80 – 89% of available points

Needs improvement C to B-

70 – 79% of available points

Far below expectations

60 – 69% of available points

D to F (less that 60%)

1. Addresses the questions and objectives

Clearly address the objectives. Clearly and succinctly identifies issues. Uses analysis, synthesis, & evaluation.

Addresses the objectives, though the reader may need to search for the points. Identifies, discusses, & analyzes issues.

Partially addresses the objectives. Generally identifies & describes issues. Could be substantially improved by one or two more drafts.

Doesn’t really address the objectives directly or clearly. Does not identify issues or is not clear about appropriate issues.

2. Integrates concepts – The extent to which the response uses concepts, and joins them into a cohesive whole.

The response draws from seemingly disparate concepts and shows connections clearly and synergistically. The whole becomes more than the sum of the parts.

Shows use of terms and ideas from course. Draws connection between concepts.

Lists terms or examples. Takes a few concepts & may attempt to integrate, but does so sparsely or incompletely.

Mostly uses concepts in a descriptive form. Shows misunderstanding or misuse of terms. Omits important concepts

3. Rigorous argument and apparent effort — The extent to which the response uses terms, ideas, sentence structure, concepts, and variety to convey an argument rationally and compellingly

Conveys ideas in original, precise language with a noticeable sense of voice and awareness of reader. Involves the reader in a way to promote a “reflective analysis” of ideas. Reader really learns something from reading the written

response.

Makes clear points, but are fairly rote. Response presents ideas, but does not actively engage or compel the reader to re-evaluate.

Mixed in quality. Some good points, but some confusion. Reader is unsure of the argument being presented.

Argument is vague or garbled. Reader finds it extremely difficult to find strong points made by the writer.

4. Uses of evidence — The extent to which the response uses evidence. Evidence consists of appropriate data, citations to published materials like books and articles, and consistent specific personal observations.

Makes effective use of specific references, uses a number of appropriate reputable sources found outside of assigned readings, gives concrete examples, develops ideas fully, anticipates needs of reader.

Uses evidence, but only a limited amount. Goes somewhat beyond the readings required in the course

Uses evidence, but it may seem “forced” or spotty, or may be from weak or inappropriate sources (e.g. citing a construction trade magazine).

Exhibits vague or unsupported ideas and/or cites inaccuracies.

5. Well-written – The extent to which the response exhibits direction, shape & coherence, is readable, legible, uses good language, is engaging and inspiring.

Exhibits clear and logical flow including introduction, transitions, and conclusion. Free from spelling and grammar errors. Uses sentence structure and length effectively to convey ideas. Response is a pleasure to read.

Follows flow of introduction, body, & summary. Free from spelling and grammar errors. Response is readable. Could use more editing. Response could be more lively, engaging, inspiring.

Mixed – may have some good sentences, mixed with incorrect language, tenses, etc. Unclear where the writing is going. Parts may be hard to understand. Could improve substantially with one or two more drafts.

Lacks context or focus. Utilizes vague and inappropriate/ incorrect language, or fragments and run-ons. Hard to understand. Exhibits errors in spelling, punctuation, paragraphing, grammar that interfere with communication.

Previous
Next