Negotiation

Negotiation

Details of task:
Read the case below and answer the following question:
Assess the potential for the creation of value in the negotiation between Top Class and Swift.
Please read the question carefully. In your answer you should draw upon relevant theories, the readings, and the information about the case to support your arguments.
Please design your answer carefully as the structure of your response will affect the grading.
Negotiating Fashion:
Top Class Fashions, based in Hong Kong, are due to meet with Swift Holdings, a European client, with whom their current turnover is $US15 million. When Swift and Top Class first established a business relationship, Top Class produced clothes to Swift’s designs and the turnover was $US5 million. The relationship has worked well and been highly profitable for both parties. Top Class has intimated by email that they will look for a 9.5 per cent increase in price, effective next month. Recent productivity improvements at Top Class dampened down costs increases to only 5.5 per cent during the past year, and they also gained from a 3.5 per cent windfall foreign exchange movement. This year, Top Class invest heavily in a new plant in mainland China and need to expand sales by volume and revenue to pay for the borrowing costs and to justify the growth in capacity. Swift Holdings have already expressed doubts about price rises while there is uncertainty about exchange rate movements in Europe and the short term prospects for the Euro. While the recession is over in the UK, it is still a problem in other European countries, where consumer confidence remains soft. The most Swift is prepared to consider is a price rise of 3 per cent. Swift have informed Top Class that they have a new range of clothing designs ready for release, worth initially about $1US million a year and growing thereafter, in addition to their current ranges, and they intend to place this order with following the meeting, either with Top Class or another manufacturer in Thailand. They also have a problem to bring to the meeting concerning a shipment of 10,000 pairs of jeans which Swift has rejected because of “poor stitching”. These jeans cost Swift $US20 a pair (production cost, insurance and freight from Hong Kong plus UK inspection and packaging) and they normally retail in Europe for $60 a pair. Shipping them back to Hong Kong would cost $30,000, or they could decide to dispose of them at below cost in the secondary “imperfect” market. Either way, Swift is asking for a rebate on any future orders from Top Class as compensation for the loss they are likely to incur.
Assessment task 1
2015
Word limit:
1500 words
Weighting/Value:
20%
Estimated return date:
17 April, 2015
Criteria for marking:
An assessment rubric is available on Moodle
Learning objectives assessed:
The task assesses learning objectives 1, 2 & 3.
Submission details:
Assessment task 1 should be submitted by the due date via Moodle, which you can access via links in the portal. You must use the following format to name your file.
Penalties for late lodgement:
Students seeking an extension of time for submitting an assignment must obtain permission from the chief examiner prior to the due date. A maximum penalty of 10% of the total mark allocated to this assessment will be deducted for each day that it is late. Students should note that a weekend is 2 days and will be treated as such when penalties are calculated. After 10 days late assignments will be accepted but will not be given a mark. Late assignments will not be accepted without severe penalty. Excuses such as those relating to computer breakdowns are not acceptable. Students are advised to save to your hard drive as you work through your assignments and to keep a soft copy on USB/CD etc for safekeeping.

MGF5630 Assessment Rubric
Assessment Task 1: Essay
Student Name/ID:____________________________________________________________________________ Date:________________________
Assessor:____________________________________________________________________________ Overall Mark (circle) N P C D HD
Criteria
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Proficient
Exemplary
Question analysis
? Attempts to respond to questions arising explicitly from the essay question, but does not succeed in addressing key elements of the questions
? Does not identify the question or there is a mis-match between declared question and essay content
? Essay question declared
? Responds with an approximate degree of relevance to essay question, but may not explicitly or accurately identify key components of topic
? Declared question not explicitly or consistently pursued in the body of the essay
? Essay question declared
? Responds appropriately to the essay question
? Identifies key components of topic
? Essay question consistently pursued through the body of the essay
? Argument may need to be more explicitly articulated/refined/clarified
? Essay question declared
? Responds appropriately and insightfully to the essay question
? Analysis of question redefines the topic provided and constructs an appropriately focussed argument
? Argumentative response clearly and consistently articulated
Research and reading
? Little evidence of reading any of the core texts and further readings
? References inappropriate or irrelevant to the topic and/or discipline
? Evidence of having read and understood some core texts and further readings
? Relevance of some references to the topic / discipline debatable
? Thorough understanding of core texts and further readings
? References generally relevant to the topic and appropriate to the discipline
? Thorough understanding of core texts and further readings
? Evidence of independent reading beyond core texts and further readings
? References highly pertinent to the topic
Analysis and critical thinking
? Discussion is focused on describing the negotiation case.
? Theories/concepts from the discipline are not identified/explained.
? Discussion focused on describing the negotiation case.
? Relevant theories/concepts identified but poorly explained.
? May not articulate relevance of ideas from readings to argument.
? Discussion synthesises information from negotiation case with ideas from readings.
? Relevant theories/concepts are explained accurately.
? Attempts articulation of ideas from readings to argument.
? Discussion cogently identifies key ideas from readings and relates to negotiation case.
? Thorough articulation of relevance of the materials to the argument.
N
HD
D
C
P
MGF5630 Principles of Negotiation Semester 1, 2015
Criteria
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Proficient
Exemplary
Organisation and presentation of material
? Does not use appropriate essay format
? Key elements missing eg.
? Introduction
? Conclusion
? Other:
? Essay format attempted but effective structure not achieved
? Editing for relevance of content needs work
? Overall argumentative structure needs work
? Logical sequencing of ideas needs work
? Essay format achieved, but requires refinement
? Articulation of relevance of content reasonably effective
? Overall argumentative structure reasonably effective
? Logical sequencing of ideas reasonably effective
? Highly effective essay construction
? Effective articulation of relevance of content
? Effective argumentative structure
? Logical and coherent sequencing of ideas
Communication skills
? Major presentation problems
? Major problems with spelling, grammar and academic conventions
? Skills in written communication need work urgently
? Adequate presentation
? Partially conforms to spelling, grammar conventions
? Some inconsistencies or inappropriateness in style, formatting and tone
? Skills in written communication need work
? Generally appropriate presentation
? Generally conforms to spelling, grammar conventions; minor errors
? Generally appropriate style and tone
? Solid skills in written communication
? Professional presentation
? Consistently accurate spelling and grammar
? Consistently appropriate style and tone
? Well-to highly-developed skills in written communication
Referencing
? Referencing / acknowledgement of sources absent or seriously deficient
? No reference list
? Citation attempted, but elements missing or inconsistent formatting
? Citation not in APA style
? Reference list provided but inconsistent formatting and/or inaccurate
? Citation information generally complete
? Generally consistent format in APA style but some minor errors in applying conventions
? Generally accurate reference list, though some minor errors
? Full and correct citation using APA style
? Reference list is accurate and has a consistent format
Further comments:
N
HD
D
C
P

Place this order with us and get 18% discount now! to earn your discount enter this code: special18 If you need assistance chat with us now by clicking the live chat button.