BMA534 International Business Management
Dr. Fan Liang @ University of Tasmania
• Form groups (2-3 members)
• Choose the topic through discussion in your
• Start your work from Week 2
• The issue under the cross-cultural context
• Internationalisation process, international expansion, export,
localisation, foreign production, management of foreign
employees, international disputes, entry strategies, etc.
• The company
• Not too big to be well known
• No too small to find information
• A large local company is appropriate, eg., Flight Centre,
Commonwealth, Woolworth, etc.
• Encourage to write on a company you are associated with
• Write a report to
• Identify and define the issue facing the company
• Critically analyse and evaluate the issue
• Make recommendations for the company
• First version of the group report
• 4,000 - 5,000 words
• In a finished form rather than a draft
• Expectation see the marking rubrics for the final group
• Submission through MyLO by Monday, 27 August at
• No marks for the peer review report and the final version
of the group report if the first version is not submitted on
The first version of the group report
• 20 marks
• Individual work
• To reflect on the first version of your group report and
inform the refinement of the final group report
• In report form
– Well structured and formatted
• 4 components
– Contribution of each group member
– Identification of major problems in the first version
– Critical analyses of these problems
– Constructive suggestions for further improvement
• 1,000 – 1,500 words
• Submit by Monday, 17 September at 14:00 pm through
Peer review report
• Contribution of each group member
– Better in bullet points
• Identification of major problems in the first version
– Five most significant problems in the first version
– In the order from the most to the least significant
• Critical analyses of these problems
– Carefully read the first version, check it against the marking
criteria and rubrics for the final version, and make comments
• Constructive suggestions for further improvement
– How should a problem be fixed up?
Writing the peer review report
• Title: Peer review report, group report title
• Structure 1 (recommended)
– Contribution of each member
– Problem 1
• Problem 1
– Problem 2
• Structure 2
– Contribution of each member
– Problems 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
– Analyses of problems 1-5
– Suggestions for problems 1-5
Structure of the peer review report
• Marking criteria
– Your own contribution to the group work (20%)
• Based on comments of all your group members
– Identification of at least five major problems in the first
version of your own group report (in the order from the
most to the least important) (20%)
– Critical analyses on the identified problems (20%)
– Feasible and implementable suggestions for further
– Logical, cohesive and formatted writing and
acknowledgement of sources if applicable (20%)
• No need to force references in the writing
Peer review report
• 30 marks
• Refine the group report by drawing on the insights of the
• 4,500 words and no more than 10% variation
• Marking criteria
• Due on Monday, 1 October at 17:30 pm.
• Submission through MyLO
Final version of the group report
– A strong sense of purpose
– Focus on the key theme and avoid irrelevant materials
– Focus on facts rather than abstract concepts and theories
– Provide information and make analyses
• What is the issue, what are the cause and consequence, how to resolve it
• Different from other kinds of writing
– Case studies = describe a full objective picture (a story) about a case
– Case study analyses = discuss, analyse, and evaluate information related to a case
– Lecture notes = explain and elaborate general points and theories for students
– Academic research papers = assess theories or phenomena to make general arguments
– Formal style and presentation
– Appropriate title, headings, page numbers, margins, fonts, paragraphing, spaces between lines, paragraphs and sections, in-text citations, and end references
– Refer to the style guide of Journal of International Business Studies for elements not specified
• The following structure is a suggestion only
• Alternative arrangement, if appropriate, is acceptable
Structure of the group report
• Compulsory for this assignment
• A summary rather than an introduction or
• Written for busy readers to quickly get to know
the key points even without reading the full report
• Therefore, the topical title and author information are
• Focus more on recommendations (different from
• Independent of the report
• The title and author information is needed
• The contents must be self-explaining
• About 1 or 2 pages 12
• On a separate page
• 1 or 2 levels of headings, but no more than 3
Table of contents
• A brief and simple description
• Summarise the key theme of the report
– Repeat the title and author information on the first
page of the report contents
– State the objective of the report
– Background information about the core theme
• key features of the company, such as industry, business,
history, international experience, position in the market,
• Background information of the cross-cultural context
(the foreign market/customer/country) (can be in a
separate section or in the environment analysis section)
– Describe the arrangement and structure of the
• Never ever use “body”, “body section(s)”, “main
section(s)” or “middle section(s)” as a heading!!!
• Normally include several sections in the middle
• Background information about the company (can
be arranged in the Introduction section)
• Define and describe the issue facing the company
• Analyse and evaluate the issue
• Cause, consequence, effects, implications for the
• Describe, discuss, analyse, categorise, evaluate, relate
to theories, compare, reasoning, etc.
• Use appropriate ways to present information 16
• Texts, figures, tables, charts, etc.
• Start with a very short summary and synthesis of
the discussion in previous sections
• Logically drive the conclusion from previous
– After the analyses in the middle section, now answer
the question of ‘so what’
• Possible ways of writing a conclusion
– Drawing out general arguments
– Relating to the objective of the report
– Predicting the future
– Discussing the implications
• Can also be included in the conclusion section
• Suggestions for the company for what to do in
relation to the issue
• Insightful – based on your own critical and innovative
• Logical – derived from discussion in previous sections
• Feasible – implementable
• Start with a new page
• 15+ references (both websites and academic
• Academically unsound sources are NOT allowed
– Wikipedia, textbooks, lecture notes, blog, and articles
• Strictly follow Harvard Referencing Style for both in-text
citations and end-referencing list
• In-text citation
– Correct: This has been emphasised repeatedly (Liang, 2016).
– Wrong: According to Liang, (2016) this is simply wrong.
– Wrong: This is also wrong. (Liang, 2016).
– Wrong: It is just wrong to cite internet materials in this way (www.abc.au, 2010).
• End references
– Websites and access dates are needed for materials available only on internet, but no wetsites are needed for publications which have hard copies but you sourced from internet
– Correct: University of Tasmania, 2015, Guidelines for Harvard citation
style, accessed 22 September, 2015, [www.utas.xxx.xxx].
– Correct: F. Liang, 2014, The correct style for end references, Pearson: Hobart.
– Wrong: F. Liang, 2014, The correct style for end references, Pearson:
Hobart, accessed 22 September, 2015, [www.xxx..com.au]. 20
Harvard Referencing Style
• Start with a new page
• For important materials that is not be able to
include in the main report
– Try to incorporate important information into the report
if it is important, or simply drop them if not important
• Words not counted
Marking criteria and rubrics
Ability to write in a professional context; present information in an appropriate way (20%)
No or few errors in language; Focused and purposeful discussion; Complete structure; Appropriate format; Appropriate ways to present information.
Few errors in language; mostly Focused discussion; Complete structure; Mostly appropriate format; Mostly appropriate ways to present information.
Some errors in language; reasonably Focused discussion; Complete structure; Reasonably appropriate format; Mostly appropriate ways to present information.
Mostly understandable but with errors in language; Clear discussion; Complete structure; Partly appropriate format; More than one way to present information.
Partly understandable; Some clear discussion; Most components included; Partly structured; Some formatting; Limited ways to present information.
Ability to identify, analyse and evaluate information to make arguments (20%) Addressed a complete set of key issues; Insightful, plausible and evidenced arguments.
Addressed most key issues; Mostly insightful, plausible and evidenced arguments.
Addressed many key issues; Mostly insightful and evidenced arguments.
Addressed some key issues; Mostly evidenced arguments.
Addressed limited key issues; Some evidenced arguments.
Ability to relate conceptual knowledge to the issues (20%)
Ability to draw conclusion and make recommendations based on research (20%)
Critically related relevant conceptual knowledge to the issues.
Conclusion and recommendations were insightful and feasible, and logically drawn from prior discussion.
Related mostly relevant conceptual knowledge to the issues.
Conclusion and recommendations were feasible and logically drawn from prior discussion.
Related some relevant conceptual knowledge to the issues.
Conclusion and recommendations were logically drawn from prior discussion.
Conceptual knowledge is partly relevant to the issues.
Conclusion and recommendations were mostly relevant to prior discussion.
knowledge was discussed.
recommendations partly relevant to prior discussion.
Ability to acknowledge sources and comply with Harvard citation style (20%)
Acknowledged all sources; appropriate and sound sources were referred to; complied with HCS.
Acknowledged most sources; mostly appropriate and sound sources were referred to; complied with HCS.
Reasonably acknowledged sources; partly appropriate and sound sources were referred to; mostly complied with HCS.
Acknowledged more than half of sources; some appropriate and sound sources were referred to; mostly complied with HCS.
Acknowledged limited sources; some unsound sources were used (e.g., Wikipedia, textbook, and lecture notes); partly
complied with HCS.