Homework answers / question archive / The document should be 1200- 1,500 words and address the following points listed below

The document should be 1200- 1,500 words and address the following points listed below

Business

Share With

The document should be 1200- 1,500 words and address the following points listed below.

develop a case study analysing a real marketing problem situation where existing problem need to be solved. It should relate the theory to a practical situation;You must use an existing company trying to solve a specific marketing problem.

A marketing problem could be a launching of a new product or service, increase sales with developing the cash flow, keep the customers with the company due to the covid 19, marketing mix approach, digital marketing development, promotion, events, public relation and others.

Recommended sources for case studies, https://businesscasestudies.co.uk/

Marketing subjects
Branding Competitive Advantage Customer Focus International Marketing Market Research Marketing Mix Marketing Planning Marketing Strategies Place Price Product Product Launch Product Life Cycle Product Portfolio Promotion Segmentation Swot

Take examples from the website above for using on your own case study

You must use at least 7 references with the citations in the context
Use short paragraphs with many sub headers which will be included the table of contents

Synopsis/Executive Summary 200 words This will be developed as the last step for your assignment. • Outline the purpose of the case study.

Write the objective, what is the target of this case study
• Describe the field of research.

The field is related with the theory and the area which your case is involved.
• Outline the issues and findings of the case study without the specific details. Briefly describe them
• Identify the theory that will be used
State your academic theory for this specific case study

Findings 400 words
• Identify the problems found in the case by: analysing the problem, supporting your findings with facts given in the case, the relevant theory and course concepts. searching for the underlying problems
identify the problems with the guidance of the theory and the factors that are related to the theory. For example, if you are developing a case study related to marketing mix, take each element and check for any missing parts in your case study

Discussion 500 words
• Summarise the major problem/s.
You connect the findings problems from previous section as a summary showing the priorities and importance of each
• Identify alternative solutions to this/these major problem/s. We need to identify more than one solution which will be derived by the proposals of the theory and the practical solutions • Briefly outline each alternative solution and evaluate its advantages and disadvantages We need a critical analysis of each of the solution showing the advantages and disadvantages and the future impact for the organisation

Recommendations 400 words
• Choose which of the alternative solutions should be adopted.
You must choose only one solution with the specific criteria adapting the characteristics of the organization.
• Briefly justify your choice explaining how it will solve the major problem/s.
Explain which problems will be solved with this solution, might be not solved all the problems • This should be written in a forceful style as this section is intended to be persuasive.
• Here integration of theory and coursework is appropriate.

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20 Decision criteria for the identification of alternatives in strategic environmental assessment Margaret Desmond To cite this article: Margaret Desmond (2007) Decision criteria for the identification of alternatives in strategic environmental assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25:4, 259-269, DOI: 10.3152/146155107X269067 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X269067 Published online: 20 Feb 2012. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 14744 View related articles Citing articles: 14 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tiap20 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25(4), December 2007, pages 259–269 DOI: 10.3152/146155107X269067; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/iapa Decision criteria for the identification of alternatives in strategic environmental assessment Margaret Desmond The European Union Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive requires the assessment of likely significant effects on the environment of implementing plans or programmes and reasonable alternatives. While Irish SEA regulations and guidelines emphasise rigour and objectivity in the assessment of alternatives they have little to say on the actual identification of alternatives. Therefore, criteria should be established that would aid decision-makers in the identification of alternatives appropriate to the tier of decision-making. A methodology is set out in this paper for identifying generic SEA alternatives for a proposed plan or programme. Specifically, the methodology includes a set of alternatives identification criteria. The outputs from this methodology will help focus on the identification of more sustainable alternatives for SEA. Keywords: decision-making, strategic environmental assessment, alternatives, criteria, Ireland S TRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL assessment (SEA) is an important tool for integrating the environment into decision-making (Sadler and Verheem, 1996; Sheate et al, 2003) and as such offers a promising approach towards achieving the goal of sustainable development (Thérivel and Partidário, 1996). Specifically, SEA seeks to inform the decision-maker of the degree of uncertainty over impacts, the level of consistency in objectives (plan and environmental), the sensitivity of the baseline and the range of plan or programme alternatives available. Margaret Desmond is EPA Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Geography, University College Cork, Western Road, Cork City, Eire; Email: m.desmond@ucc.ie; Tel: +353 87 7508353. The author wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the EPA, ERTDI Programme (2000–2006). Thanks are due to Dr Alan Bond, University of East Anglia and Dr Colin Sage, University College Cork for insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The author appreciates the thoughtful feedback from the two anonymous referees, whose comments and suggestions have contributed greatly to the quality of the paper. Any errors of omission, fact or interpretation are the author’s. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 Alternatives are options, choices, or courses of action; they are means to accomplish particular goals (Steinemann, 2001). Specifically, they are the means of achieving the central aims of SEA, which is to provide for a high level of environmental protection and to integrate environmental considerations into the decision-making process. To determine whether the central aims of SEA are being incorporated into the development of alternatives, some criteria must be used where SEA/ environmental objectives and environmental issues/ problems are included. While there is no currently available methodology for the identification of alternatives in SEA, this research paper proposes a set of criteria to help practitioners develop a set of alternatives for a plan or programme. Specifically, this begins with a theoretical description of rational decision-making. Following from this, the identification of alternatives within SEA is briefly discussed and shortcomings identified. A methodology is then set out describing how a set of alternatives identification criteria was developed. Based on this, a methodology comprising a set of criteria is proposed. 1461-5517/07/040259-11 US$08.00 © IAIA 2007 259 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA Rational decision-making In an effort to ground the notion of alternatives development theoretically, the literature of the decision-making sciences have been drawn on in this paper. In this respect, attention has been placed on the insights offered by the structured approaches to problem solving, which are viewed by some as one of the most important activities in the decisionmaking process (Perry and Moffat, 1997; Corner et al, 2001). However, it is worth noting that such approaches are seen as inconsistent with the realities of policy, plan and programme decision-making by many commentators (Weston, 2000; Benson, 2003; Bond, 2003). For example, Nitz and Brown (2001) argue that the rational decision-making approach is not reflective of policy-making procedures and is unrealistic in its assumptions of objective rationality. Structured decision-making process Structured decision-making is an organised process for engaging multiple stakeholders in a productive decision-oriented dialogue that considers both facts and values (Failing et al, 2007). It relies on the principles and tools of decision analysis, the core elements of which include defining objectives and measures of performance, identifying and evaluating alternatives, and making choices based on a clear understanding of uncertainties and trade-offs (Keeney and Raiffa, 1976; Henig and Buchanan, 1996; Hammond et al, 1999). Participants begin by structuring a problem in terms of a small set of relevant issues and interests (Keeney, 1992). These are defined in terms of explicit objectives or endpoints of concern, and performance measures are identified for each. Performance measures (also termed performance criteria, indicators or attributes) are the specific metrics used to track the extent to which objectives are satisfied by the alternatives (Gregory and Keeney, 1994). They are the criteria used to compare and evaluate alternatives and allow rational choices to be made between them. Multi-objective and multi-attribute decision-making methods (Keeney and Raiffa, 1993) are at the core of the structured decision-making approach. When combined, multi-objective decision-making (MODM) and multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) methods provide a useful and structured framework (Kok, 1986; Kok and Lootsma, 1985) for the generation of alternatives based on the identification of components of objectives and attributes (Henig and Buchanan, 1996). The main goal for the plan or programme is firstly disaggregated into objectives and sub-objectives and secondly into attributes to measure the performance of alternatives in relation to the objectives (Malczewski, 1999). The identification of key objectives is an essential precursor to alternative generation (Keeney, 1992). The tabulation of objectives and sub-objectives can be represented in a hierarchy or value tree (Keeney and 260 Raffia, 1976; Keeney, 1992), which provides a simple visualisation tool of what matters in a particular decision context. An attribute or performance measure for reporting progress is identified for each lower-order objective (sub-objective). Attributes clarify the meaning of each objective and are required to measure the consequences of different alternatives (Keeney and Gregory, 2005). Attributes also provide a means for consistent comparisons across alternatives, which means that hard-to-quantify impacts can be included in the evaluation framework on an equal footing with more quantitative impacts (Failing et al, 2007). Based on the objectives identified for the issue under consideration, participants then identify alternatives (Gregory and Keeney, 1994). Each alternative is evaluated against the attributes with respect to the objectives (Failing et al, 2007). To facilitate the organisation of objectives, attributes and alternatives, a consequence table can be constructed. Using the framework, a set of well-differentiated alternatives should emerge (Henig and Buchanan, 1996). These alternatives should present high potential value and they should be realistic. In addition, the framework might also be usefully used when developing alternatives across different tiers or levels of decision-making. Hwang and Yoon (1981) argue that MODM methods are most applicable to a continuous domain of infinite or large number of choices, to best satisfy the decisionmaking constraints, preferences or priorities. MADM methods are more applicable within discrete domains where alternatives are usually limited and often prespecified that require attribute comparisons, involving implicit or explicit tradeoffs. Thus, at different levels or tiers of decision-making, varying aspects of the structured decision-making framework might be more or less applicable. The structured decision-making approach provides useful insights into the systematic identification and development of alternatives for SEA. As the approach provides a framework for identifying alternatives whose performance can be measured, this allows for the development of ‘reasonable’ alternatives. That is, alternatives that are context specific, issues driven and participatory, where multi-objectives are central and trade-offs made explicit. The objectives- and evidence-based approach to structured decision-making is in keeping with the recommendations and orientations of Sheate et al (2001), Pope et al (2004) and Fischer (2007) to SEA decisionmaking. The definition of context-specific issues and the systematic identification and interrogation of relevant objectives is important in the context of SEA. In the face of competing interests and values of the multi stakeholders involved in SEA, the systematic identification and ranking of objectives could be very useful where trade-offs might be necessary. The assessment of the ‘performance’ of alternatives element of the framework is of use in the SEA context in that it provides an early indication of the Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA The decision-making literature provides a useful mechanism for identifying and developing SEA alternatives: it also sets out the criteria to be included in the development of alternatives: objectives; decision context; tier of decision-making; and participation impacts of certain actions. That is, it can begin to diagnose potential issues that might arise from certain alternatives. This aspect is in keeping with the future proofing orientation of SEA. The framework provides useful insights into the issue of tiering within SEA. In particular, the approach suggests that, as one moves up the decisionmaking process from project level to plan and policy level, the ‘type’ of alternative changes from discrete, well-defined alternatives to more vague and more broadly defined alternatives that can be interrogated using MADM/MODM approaches. In a similar fashion, Fischer (2007) argues that the form and number of alternatives available in the policy context are quite different from those available at the project level. Overall, it seems that the theoretical and procedural insights of the decision-making literature provide a useful mechanism for the identification and development of SEA alternatives. The literature also sets out what could usefully be described as criteria that should be included in the development of alternatives: objectives; decision context (existing issues); tier of decision-making; and participation. Alternatives in SEA The consideration of alternatives is an essential element of the EIA process (Jones, 1999) and has been described as the ‘heart ‘of the environmental impact statement (Council for Environmental Quality, 1987). However, in practice the consideration of alternatives has been weak because of the focus on projects and the control exerted by the developer (Jones et al, 2005; Benson, 2003). Accordingly, the consideration of alternatives at lower levels within the decision-making process does not give rise to strategic decisions (Steinemann, 2001). In contrast, the development of alternatives at the higher levels of plans and programmes should theoretically provide opportunities to address shortcomings and lead to more sustainable decisionmaking, that is, decision-making that incorporates the pillars of sustainability (social, economic and Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 environmental), while recognising the inevitability of conflicts, compromises and trade-offs (Gibson et al, 2005). One of the original reasons for the development of the SEA process was to enable the consideration of alternatives at the strategic level (Sadler, 1996). If a vision or set of goals exists for a policy, plan or programme, it is possible to intervene and evaluate alternatives to select the appropriate direction that will is most likely to reach the desired vision (Noble, 2000). As SEA considers the longer-term and largerscale plans, it can give proper consideration to different ways of achieving certain visions, goals, aims and issues (Jones et al, 2005; Fischer, 2007). In combining ‘objectives-led’ (Partidário, 2003; Sheate et al, 2001, 2003; Esson et al, 2004) and ‘evidencebased’ approaches to SEA (Sheate et al, 2001, 2003; Fisher, 2007), alternatives should be able to both deal with existing problems and/or meet a plan or programme vision or objectives depending on the specific context. To meet the goals of representing the environment within plan- and programme-making some commentators make a broad distinction among alternatives, options and scenarios in SEA (Noble, 2000; Thérivel, 2004). The choice of an alternative from a set represents a strategic course of action, which has been referred to by Noble (2002) as a choice from “alternative options”. Options in contrast are a mix and match of combinations of individual components of a strategic action (Thérivel, 2004) and can be referred to as “option alternatives” (Noble, 2002). Alternatives or options can also be used to deal with various scenarios or factors outside the control of the strategic action (Thérivel, 2004). Scenariobased approaches are centred on developing a set of stories about plausible futures and outcomes, in contrast to seeking to identify one fixed prediction on the most likely impacts (Bartlett and Brunstad, 2006). In this approach, the emphasis is on alternative visions of the future, such as those used by Partidário et al (2005) and Verheem (1996). In the scenarios-based approach, alternatives are much less constrained than in the more classic approaches described by Wood (1995). While the SEA regulations and guidelines emphasise rigour and objectivity in the assessment of alternatives, they have little to say on their actual development. In addition the “Do’s and Don’ts guide to generating and developing alternatives” (CEP et al, 2006) offers some general assistance, but does not set out development criteria. Thus, criteria need to be put in place that should aid decisionmakers in the development of alternatives appropriate to the sector, administrative level and decision tier and are able to meet the central goals of SEA. Research on the development of criteria for use in the identification of alternatives has been conducted in Ireland and is strongly influenced by the demands and constraints of the country’s SEA process and environmental-planning systems. 261 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA Setting criteria: the case of Ireland Prior to the implementation of the European Union (EU) SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) no formal provisions for the approach existed in Ireland (Scott, 2005), however, it was anticipated through a number of environmental policy documents. For example, the policy document “Making Ireland’s development sustainable” (DOEHLG, 2002a) set out to establish a SEA system for plans and programmes in Ireland, while the strategic appraisal of land use plans was anticipated in the Planning and Development Act 2000 (DOEHLG, 2004). The significance of SEA was further recognised in the National Spatial Strategy (DOEHLG, 2002b), where its role is seen as pivotal in ensuring that environmental issues are integrated into the implementation of the Strategy. Since July 2004, the SEA Directive has been transposed directly into Irish law to ensure that all substantive and procedural requirements of the Directive are met. Guidance on the implementation of SEA has been progressed through a number of Government publications (DOEHLG, 2004; EPA, 2003). The timetable for the SEA process in landuse planning has been designed to run in parallel with the preparation of land-use plans, while the regulations endeavour to ensure that consultation of environmental authorities does not add to the number of existing parties already consulted during the plan preparation. However, it is worth noting that the approach being taken focuses predominantly on environmental issues rather than on broader sustainability issues (Scott, 2005). By the end of June 2007, approximately 28 SEAs had been undertaken (in various forms of completion) across a number of sectors (land use, water, waste, energy, transport), through different tiers of decision-making and by a combination of planning authorities and consultants. However, a number of challenges currently exist in relation to the SEA process in Ireland, including alternatives identification, prediction and evaluation, cumulative impacts, mitigation and monitoring (Scott, 2005; Desmond, 2007). The approach to handling alternatives in Irish SEAs has begun to evolve from screening out those with potential environmental impacts and assessing only the preferred environmental option (Scott, 2005). As experience has grown, a range of alternatives is now being suggested in most land-use plans, from which the best environmental option is assessed and identified. Based on a recent assessment (Desmond, 2007), some good examples of alternatives were identified, such as the spatial alternatives developed for the Barna, County Galway local area plan, while some poor examples were to be found in the earlier SEAs. However, it was not clear whether the alternatives identified were equally capable of meeting plan and SEA/environmental objectives. To determine whether the alternatives being proposed in Irish 262 SEAs are equally robust, a set of criteria has been developed in this study by which they might be identified and evaluated. Development of alternatives methodology The methodology that was used in the development of criteria for setting SEA alternatives in this research paper included a number of phases; 1) an assessment of criteria as set out under the EU SEA Directive, national legislation and guidelines was undertaken; 2) an assessment of a sample set of SEAs in Ireland to determine criteria currently in use was conducted; 3) a questionnaire of potential criteria was circulated to all SEA practitioners (consultants and Local Authority staff) currently active in Ireland; 4) face-to-face interviews were conducted with a sample set of SEA professionals, responsible authorities and statutory consultees to elicit views on existing and potential criteria. The methodology allowed the author to determine how alternatives are currently being dealt with in an Irish context and how this might be improved in the light of growing familiarity with the SEA approach. In particular, the questionnaire follow-up of detailed semi-structured interviews with some of the more experienced planners and practitioners was extremely useful. However, while the approach provided very useful insights into the identification of alternatives, the main limitation of the approach was that it was not trialled through a ‘live’ SEA case study. While the author was involved with SEA practitioners during the period of the study, the level of decision-making and the timing of the intervention was such that the criteria could not be adequately trialled and accordingly they have not been included in this research paper. Assessment of existing criteria The first task in the development of the criteria was to determine those suggested by the SEA Directive, national legislation and existing guidelines. The Directive and national legislation (S.I. 435 and 436) are not prescriptive on how alternatives should be developed, suggesting only that the objectives and geographical scope of the plan or programme must be considered. • Objectives and geographical scope: While these criteria might seem obvious, the simple and logical exercise of first setting objectives and then trying to attain them (Benson, 2003) can in practice be fraught with difficulty, uncertainty and conflict. In considering the geographic scope of the plan or programme, it would seem obvious that the development of alternatives should be considered within the areal and administrative scope of the proposer. However, certain plans or programmes, such as waste management or river Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA basin district management, have administrative boundaries that extend to wide geographic areas. In some circumstances the geographic scope of such plans or programmes can include a number of administrative jurisdictions and on occasions other countries. Beyond this limited set, a more detailed set of criteria is set out in national and international SEA guidelines (DOEHLG, 2004; ODPM, 2005) (see Table 1). These include: consultation; acceptability; reasonableness; realism (and relevance); implementation (including operational, legal and statutory requirements); and hierarchy of options. • Consultation: The requirements for consultation under the SEA Directive set out who should be consulted and when. At a minimum, consultees should be given an “early and effective” opportunity within appropriate time frames to participate in the SEA process and express their opinions. The consultation opinions within SEA are required to be “taken into account during the preparation of the plan or programme and before its adoption or submission” (Article 6), whereas, in the EIA process, opinions are only to be taken into account in the development consent procedure (Sheate et al, 2005). While the differences in the consultation requirements may seem subtle, it can be argued that, through the earlier and effective inclusion of a wider set of participants, the development of alternatives should be enhanced. • Acceptability: Traditionally the notion of acceptability within impact assessment has been understood as the achievement of established environmental criteria or standards. The impact of this on alternatives has been to identify and approve a clearly acceptable option but not always necessarily the best one (Gibson et al, 2005). In the context of SEA, a more ambitious understanding of acceptability might include higher socio-environmental and socio-economic standards. The test of acceptable alternatives should be those that achieve international/national environmental standards while also being socially and economically acceptable. • Reasonableness: Reasonable alternatives are variously defined as those already in use or practice In SEA, acceptability might include higher socio-environmental and socioeconomic standards: the test of acceptable alternatives should be those that achieve international/national environmental standards while also being socially and economically acceptable (O’Brien, 2000), capable of implementation (DOEHLG, 2004) and technically and economically feasible (Smith, 2007). Such interpretations seem to be located in what is possible right now and at odds with notions of the strategic or forward planning. Based on the earlier decisionmaking discussion, reasonable alternatives might be better understood as those that have occurred within the specific (policy and socioenvironmental) context of the plan or programme, have included relevant objectives (future focused and user defined) and have their performance measured in relation to the main objectives. • Implementation: refers to the technical, administrative, operational, legal and statutory feasibility of implementing an alternative, and the various materials and services required during its implementation. Implementation as a criterion for alternatives decision-making may be best suited to lower levels of decision-making where alternatives are specific and well-defined. • Realism (and relevance): refers to the degree of resemblance an alternative bears to the actual situation (in the real world) and its usefulness in addressing specific issues and objectives. An alternative becomes increasingly relevant the more closely its outputs correspond with addressing issues and objectives (Bartell et al, 2003). Based on the earlier decision-making discussion, realistic and relevant alternatives might be those that have been subjected to a structured process of development and analysis. Table 1. Existing EU, UK and Irish alternatives identification criteria Directive Legislation DOEHLG ODPM Plan/programme objectives Plan/programme objectives Broaden plan/programme objectives Realistic Reasonable Geog scope of plan/programme Implementation Realistic Geog scope of plan/programme EPA Consultation Acceptability Statutory requirements Relevant Legality Operational requirements Hierarchy of options Sources: SEA Directive; Irish SEA legislation; EPA; DOEHLG and ODPM guidelines Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 263 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA Table 2. Criteria used in environmental reports to date Sector and tier of decision Criteria Land-use planning: one county development plan Realistic, implementation, statutory and operational requirements, context of higher plans Land-use planning: ten local area plans Significant issues, plan objectives, statutory and operational requirements, policy a context, consultation Land-use planning: one masterplan Unclear Water: one water plan Feasibility, infrastructure, costs, impacts, legislation, time Waste management: Waste hierarchy, costs, technology, one regional waste environmental impacts management plan Note: Source: a The number of times each criterion was identified in the ten local area plans was as follows: significant issues (x5), plan objectives (x10), statutory and operational requirements (x7), policy context (x10) and consultation (x3) Author • Hierarchy of alternatives (options): Different types of alternative exist at different tiers of decision-making (Thérivel and Partidário, 1996; Thérivel, 2004; Fischer, 2007). As a way of conceptualising this, the ODPM (2005) suggests that a hierarchy of alternatives ranging from the uppermost of need/demand to the lower of timing and detailed implementation. The hierarchy provides a useful starting point for the consideration of different types of alternatives available at the different tiers of decision-making. Alternatives criteria currently in use in Irish SEAs An assessment was undertaken of a sample set of 14 completed SEAs in Ireland to determine the criteria currently being used in the development of alternatives in practice (Table 2). The SEAs assessed were conducted in the context of different sectors and tiers of decision-making. In the sample, 12 of the SEAs were from land-use planning and one each from water and waste planning. The Irish land-use planning system is based on a clear hierarchy of plans from the uppermost National Development Plan (NDP) (Government of Ireland, 2007) and National Spatial Strategy (NSS) (DOEHLG, 2002b), to the regional level regional planning guidelines (RPGs), to the lower level county development plans (CDPs) and strategic development zones, to local area plans (LAPs) and master plans. While the SEA process is integrated into the regional level and downwards (Figure 1), to date only lower-level CDPs and downwards have undertaken strategic assessments. The 12 land-use plans used in the study were composed of: one county development plan; ten local area plans and one masterplan. From other sectors, one regional waste management plan and one county-level water plan were used. From the assessment of alternatives within the plans criteria used included variations on those set out above such as technical, statutory and economic feasibility. Based on this assessment, some observations can be made. First, while a number of different criteria are currently being used for the development of alternatives, there is no obvious pattern or core set being applied at different tiers of decision-making. Second, the two main SEA objectives — environmental protection and the integration of the environment into decision-making — might not be fully achieved through the current lists. An overview of the criteria suggests that there is an emphasis on dealing with current issues rather than on ways of achieving a future vision. In other words, the criteria seem in the main to be reactive rather than proactive and more suited to developing project- or programme-type alternatives rather than higher-level plan alternatives. For example, criteria NDP NSS RPGs Sea zone of influence CDPs LAPs Master plans Figure 1. Irish land use: planning hierarchy of plans Source: Author 264 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA such as implementation are more appropriate for the development of detailed project-type alternatives, than more general strategic ones. Thus it would seem that specific criteria should be included that are context-specific and can achieve the central goals of SEA. Based on the specific goals of SEA, key SEA literature (fro instance, Thérivel and Partidário, 1996; Thérivel, 2004, Fischer, 2007), the insights from decision-making theory (see earlier section) and procedures, and the earlier assessments (see above), additional criteria are suggested for the development of alternatives. These include: tier of decisionmaking; path dependency; environmental/SEA objectives; existing environmental issues; potential environmental issues; sustainability; and timing. • Tier of decision-making: In theory a tiered hierarchy for environmental decision-making exists that differentiates among policies, plans, programmes and projects (Wood and Djeddour, 1992). While the reality may be different (Thérivel, 2004), practitioners are likely to be able to identify alternatives specific to the administrative level and systematic tier that SEA is applied to (Fischer, 2007). While the notion of tiering within policy decision-making is not without its challenges (Noble, 2000; Scarse and Sheate, 2002; Arts et al, 2005), as a criterion it provides a very useful structure for the development of alternatives specific to differing decision-making levels. In this respect, the approaches of MODM and MADM might be usefully deployed. In addition, it can be usefully linked with the hierarchy of alternatives (ODPM, 2005). • Path dependency: Path dependency within a tiered decision-making hierarchy refers to the way in which policy decisions create a context for subsequent decisions, and thereby create a certain path dependency, reinforcing the likelihood of similar decisions in the future (Scarse and Sheate, 2002). Thus, the formulation of alternatives must be considered in the context of an historical policy trajectory that has set out the future orientation or vision. In this understanding “the focus is on paths, not places” (Noble, 2002: 4). Based on this, options within the chosen policy pathway can begin to be formulated. • Environmental/SEA objectives: The SEA Directive requires information on the environmental protection objectives that are relevant to the plan or programme, and the way those objectives have been taken into account (Annex 1, SEA Directive). In addition to the specific plan or programme objectives, environmental objectives must also be considered in the development of alternatives. Based on the earlier rational decisionmaking discussion, a structured approach might be beneficial where competing and potentially conflicting objectives must be accounted for in the development of alternatives. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 • Existing environmental issues: Linked to the setting of environmental objectives is the identification of existing environmental issues in the baseline. In an evidence-based approach, alternatives must be able to respond to specific issues in the environment. As Thérivel (2004) argues, the test of the alternative in this situation lies in its ability to solve the existing problem. Following on from the earlier rational decision-making discussion, a structured approach might be usefully used to link existing issues to objectives and alternatives. • Potential environmental issues: Not only should alternatives be able to solve existing problems but they should also aim to avoid or mitigate potential issues. The notion of potential issues is closely linked with the evidence from the baseline and the setting of appropriate environmental objectives, each of which has a role to play in the development of alternatives. • Sustainability: For some commentators, SEA is recognised as a means of contributing to sustainability (Noble, 2002; Thérivel, 2004; DalalClayton and Sadler, 2005). If this goal is to be progressed, sustainability decision criteria should be included in the development of alternatives (Gibson et al, 2005). By including such criteria, all policy and development objectives are considered together and trade-offs are addressed directly, such that best options, not just acceptable ones, are achieved (Gibson, 2006). • Timing: To be fully effective, the SEA must be timed to run in parallel with the plan-making process, which will allow for interventions to be made in an effective manner. A post-hoc SEA for a plan does not allow it to influence key decisions, which defies the central objectives of the Directive. As Thérivel and Walsh (2006) argue, the consideration of alternatives is the one aspect of SEA that cannot be effectively “retrofitted”. Accordingly, a full set of alternatives-development criteria should include most of those listed in Table 3. However, some variations will be necessary, particularly in relation to the tier of decision-making, which Fischer (2007) has identified as being most significant in the development alternatives. For example, at the higher and policy tiers of decisionmaking, appropriate criteria would include: geographic scope (area wide); objectives; acceptability; reasonableness; sustainability; hierarchy of options; existing and potential issues; consultation; and timing. At lower tiers of decision-making, the most applicable criteria could include: objectives; technical and economic feasibility; path dependency; environmental issues (current and projected); consultation; and timing. While the two lists appear almost identical, some of the criteria will need to be applied differently at different tiers of decision-making. For example, the environmental objectives set at the policy level will 265 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA Table 3. Existing and proposed SEA alternatives development criteria Existing SEA alternatives development criteria need to be disaggregated to indicators or attributes at lower programme or project levels. At policy or plan level, the objectives set can be broad and general, such as the goal to achieve at least “good status” in relation to all European waters by 2015 (EPA, 2002). However, at the programme or project level, this objective would need to be disaggregated into to its component parts, where the objectives will be progressed through attributes such as physical and biological parameters. Proposed additional SEA alternatives development criteria Geographic scope of P/P Tier of decision-making Plan/programme objectives Path dependency Acceptable SEA/environmental objectives Hierarchy of options Existing environmental issues Reasonable Potential environmental issues Implementation (operational, technical, economic, legal, statutory Sustainable Realistic and relevant Timing Consultation Source: Author Questionnaire of potential criteria Once the potential list of criteria had been devised, it was then circulated to all practitioners in Ireland who had been involved in the SEA process since 2004. Based on a full list of completed and draft (28 in number) SEAs in Ireland (Table 4) supplied by the Environmental Protection Agency (statutory consultee), a total of 20 (of which 13 responded) Table 4. Status of SEAs (completed and draft) in Ireland at 31 December 2006 Sector Tier of decision-making Date of completion or expected completion Who conducted the SEA Land-use plan Land-use plan Expected completion 2007 Completed 2005 Athlone Town Council a Clare County Council Expected completion 2007 Completed 2006 Clare County Council Clonmel Borough Council Completed 2005 a Completed 2006 Completed 2006 Expected completion 2007 Completed 2003 Cork County Council Cork County Council Dublin City Council a Dublin Docklands Development Authority and Terry Prendergast (DIT) Fingal County Council Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Athlone Town Development Plan Ennis and Environs, Development Plan (2003), Proposed variation 4 (2005) Kilrush Town Development Plan (2002) Clonmel Town and Environs Development Plan Amendment to Carrigtwohill Special Local Area Plan Amendment to Skibbereen Local Area Plan Mallow town Special Area Local Plan Ballsbridge Local Area Plan Dublin Docklands Draft Master Plan (Pilot SEA) Fingal Development Plan 2005-2011, Draft variation no 1 North Ballymun Local Area Plan Donabate Local Area Plan Clarinbridge Local Area Plan Land-use plan Bearna Local Area Plan Completed 2006 Land-use plan Completed 2006 Completed 2006 Louth County Council Completed 2006 Louth County Council and Cronin Matthews Land-use plan Oranmore Economic Corridor Local Area Plan North Drogheda Environs Master plan Dundalk South West Special Local Area Plan Meath Draft County Development Plan Fingal County Council Fingal County Council a Galway County Council and CASS Environmental Services Ltd. Galway County Council and CASS Environmental Services Ltd Galway County Council Completed 2006 Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Tallaght Town Centre Local Area Plan Completed 2006 Tramore Local Area Plan Completed 2006 West Meath County Development Plan Expected completion 2007 Wexford County Development Plan Completed 2006 Greystones/Delgany Local Area Plan (2006) Completed 2006 Land-use plan Transport Wicklow Town Development Plan Dublin Airport Master Plan Meath County Council & CASS Environmental Services Ltd a South Dublin County Council a Waterford County Council a West Meath County Council a Wexford County Council Wicklow County Council and Aoife Cassidy and Associates/Murray O Laoire Architects Wicklow County Council Fingal County Council and RPS Water Waste Greater Dublin Water Supply Pilot SEA of Midlands Regional Waste Management Strategy Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Land-use plan Energy Note: Source: 266 Completed 2005 Completed 2005 Completed 2006 Completed 2006 Completed 2006 Completed 2006 Completed 2006 Completed 2005 South Tipperary County Development Plan, Completed 2006 Policy on Wind Energy Development a Indicates authorities and consultants that replied to questionnaire Author Cork County Council a Dublin City Council and RPS a a a Offal, Laois, Longford, North Tipperary a a and West Meath County Councils and RPS/MCOS, COWI, EPA a South Tipperary County Council and Fehily, Timoney and Company a Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA local authorities, six environmental consultancies (four responded) and one statutory consultee (responded) were asked their opinions on: the role of SEA in the development of alternatives; and the potential list of criteria. Interviews with a sample of SEA practitioners As a follow up to the questionnaire responses, it was decided to bring the criteria to a sample of respondees with different perspectives, understanding and roles within the SEA process, with a view to further refinement. In particular, the face-to-face interviews were used to overcome the shortcomings of the questionnaires and allowed the author to work through why certain answers were given in the original questionnaires. The stakeholders included: one official SEA consultee with responsibility for setting national guidelines and providing advice and assistance on SEA; two sets of plan-makers at the level of local authorities with responsibility for environmental decision-making; and two environmental consultants with responsibility for undertaking SEAs, and interpreting guidelines and methodologies; and two planning academics working in the area of SEA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted based on the following two issues: the role of SEA in the development of alternatives; comments on the potential list of criteria. Institutionally, there was a recognised lack of experience within authorities in the development of alternatives. In some circumstances, the overall benefit of SEA to the planning process is not universally perceived or understood. For some respondents it was felt that the development of alternatives was already being undertaken as part of best practice in planning and that the Directive was now simply adding an assessment element to this practice. Legally, there were severe constraints being imposed on the development and identification of alternatives because of time and resource limitations. In Ireland, the timing of the SEA within the policy/plan review process is bound by legislative requirements as set out in the Planning and Development Acts 2000–2006, which put very strict time limits on different elements of the planning process. This means that the SEA has to be conducted within existing tight time-lines, which can impact on the effective development of alternatives. Additionally, the absence of SEAs at the higher and more strategic levels of land-use planning was perceived as problematic. Comments on the potential list of criteria: Overall, the respondents agreed with the direction of the criteria and no new criteria were suggested for consideration. Some general comments received in relation to each criterion are set out below. Outcome of questionnaires and interviews Conclusion The role of SEA in the development of alternatives: The outcome of the questionnaire/interview process was to reveal problems, which are procedural, institutional and judicial in nature and which impact on the development and identification of alternatives in SEA in Ireland. Procedurally, there was a perceived lack of guidelines in relation to the identification of alternatives at different sectors and levels of decision-making. This was further compounded by the lack of experience of SEA in Ireland, which resulted in few national case studies to which practitioners could refer for guidance. The purpose behind proposing a set of alternatives identification criteria was to establish a means of developing alternatives that would be of a sufficiently high, yet practical, standard to meet the objectives of the SEA Directive and Irish legislation. Developed within an Irish environmental planning context, a set of criteria based on the insights of decision-making theory, SEA practice, questionnaires and interviews was proposed. It was argued that the proposed criteria should be sufficiently robust to develop alternatives that are context specific and meet the main SEA objectives. In recognising that different types of alternative may be available in specific situations, it was further argued that different combinations of the criteria may be appropriate to different tiers of decision-making. It was further recognised that a criterion such as SEA/environmental objectives, which are common to all tiers of decision-making, might need to be disaggregated into its component parts depending on the specific situation. The potential list should not be seen as exhaustive and may need to be updated over time as familiarity and confidence in the SEA process grows. The alternatives decision criteria provide a simple and logical method for identifying reasonable alternatives for use in SEA. Since the identification, description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives is a central but highly challenging SEA exercise, it is useful to establish a methodology for their development. Procedurally, there was a lack of guidelines for identification of alternatives; institutionally, there was a lack of experience within authorities in the development of alternatives; legally, time and resource limitations put severe constraints on identification of alternatives Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 267 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA Table 5. Comments on alternatives development criteria SEA criterion Comments Sustainability criteria Essential. However, no generic list of sustainability criteria is available. Sustainability criteria are dependent on the planning sector and the level of the plan within the decision-making hierarchy. a Sustainability criteria must be linked to the mandatory objectives of the plan under consideration SEA/environmental objectives This is very important if the goals of environmental protection are to be included in the plan-making process Existing environmental issues The alternative must address existing environmental problems. If the proposed policy/plan is not being formulated to address existing problems, it is effectively useless Potential environmental issues As environmental plans can have long life spans (10–20 years) it is important to be able to anticipate and be able to address future potential problems through SEA Hierarchy of options An important consideration, which is dependent on the tier of decision-making. Setting out what options are available early in the process allows the planner to signal limitations that may exist in relation to certain plans. Tier of decision-making This is important and clearly related to the hierarchy of options. Both must be considered together as they are dependent on each other Path dependency Important consideration in justifying why certain alternatives are available or not in the plan Consultation Important. However, most felt that in reality the ability to consult widely was restricted because of legal requirements of the planning process Timing Important. The timing of the development/identification of alternatives should begin as soon as possible to allow for consultation, redevelopment and refinement Note: a It is worth noting that many generic sets of sustainability decision-making criteria currently exist, including ICLEI (2004), Sadler (1996) and Lawrence (1997). As Gibson et al (2005) argues these criteria lists, which may be presented as fundamental objectives, key challenges, essential strategy components, foundation principles or design imperatives, are rarely meant to be the final word. Variations will occur because of local conditions, thus specific additions and elaborations will be necessary. References Arts, J, P Tomlinson and H Voogh 2005. EIA and SEA Tiering: The Missing Link? Position paper prepared for the meeting on SEA of the International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA), Prague, September. Bartell, S, R Pastorok, H Akcakaya, H Regan, S Ferson and C McCay 2003. Realism and relevance of ecological models used in chemical risk analysis. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9(4), 907–938. Bartlett, S and B Brunstad 2006. Scenario Based Approaches in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Paper presented at the IAIA Conference, Stavanger, Norway, May. Benson, J 2003. What is the alternative? Impact Assessment Tools and Sustainable Planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (4), 261-280. Bond, B 2003. Let’s not be rational about this: response to Benson. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (4), 261-280. CEP, Levett-Thérivel, Scott Wilson, TEC and C45 2006. Do’s and Don’ts Guide to Generating and Developing Alternatives. www.sea-info.net/files/general/options (accessed 10/01/2007) Corner, J, J Buchanan and M Henig 2001. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 10, 129-141. Council on Environmental Quality, 1987. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Quality Act 40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508: Washington DC. Dalal- Clayton, B and B Sadler 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. London: Earthscan. Desmond, M 2007. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): A Tool for Environmental Decision-Making. Irish Geography, 40 (1), 18-30. DOEHLG, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government 2002a. Making Ireland’s Development Sustainable. Dublin: Stationery Office. DOEHLG, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government 2002b. National Spatial Strategy. Dublin: Stationery Office. DOEHLG, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local 268 Government 2004. Implementation of SEA Directive (2001/42/EC): Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment. Dublin: Stationery Office. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency 2002. National Rivers Monitoring Programme. Environmental Protection Agency: Wexford. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency 2003. Development of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Methodologies for Plans and Programmes in Ireland. Environmental Protection Agency: Wexford. Esson, G, B Reekie and T Jackson 2004. Objectives Led SEA in a Scottish Local Authority. European Environment, 14,153-164 Failing, L, R Gregory and M Harstone 2007. Integrating Science and Local Knowledge in Environmental Risk Management: A Decision Focused Approach. Ecological Economics (in press, accessed at www.sciencedirect.com 2/09/2007) Fischer, T 2007. Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment; Towards a Systematic Approach. London: Earthscan. Gibson, R 2006. Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(3), September, 170–182. Gibson, J, S Hassan, S Holtz, J Tansey and G Whitelaw 2005. Sustainability Assessment: Criteria, Processes and Applications. London: Earthscan. Government of Ireland 2007. National Development Plan for Ireland 2007–2013. Dublin: Stationery Office. Gregory, R and R Keeney 1994. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Science, 40(8), 1035–1048. Hammond, J, R Keeney and H Raiffa1999. Smart Choices: a Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business School Press. Henig, M and J Buchanan 1996. Solving MCDM problems: process concepts. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5, 3–21. Hwang, C and K Yoon 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag. ICLEI, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives 2004. Local Agenda 21 campaign. Available at , last accessed 5 April 2007. Jones, C 1999. Screening, scoping and consideration of alternatives. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment: Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 Decision criteria for identifying alternatives in SEA Process, Methods and Potential, ed. J Petts, 465–484. London: Blackwell Science. Jones, C, N Lee and C Wood 1991. UK environmental statements 1998–1990: an analysis. Occasional Paper 29, Department of Planning and Landscape. University of Manchester: Manchester. Jones, C, M Baker, J Carter, S Jay, M Short and C Wood eds. 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land use Planning. London: Earthscan. Keeney, R 1992. Value-Focused Thinking. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Keeney, R and R Gregory 2005. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Operations Research, 53(1), 1–11. Keeney, R and H Raiffa 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade Offs. New York: Wiley. Keeney, R and H Raiffa 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kok, M 1986. The interface with decision makers and some experimental results in interactive multiple objective programming methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 26, 96–107. Kok, M and F Lootsma 1985. Pairwise comparison methods in multiple objective programming with applications in a long term energy-planning model. European Journal of Operational Research, 22, 44–55. Lawrence, D 1997. Integrating sustainability and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Management, 21(1), 23–42. Malczewski, J 1999. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. New York: Wiley. Nitz, T and L Brown 2001. SEA must learn how policy making works. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 3(3), 329–342. Noble, B F 2000. Strategic environmental assessment: what is it and what makes it strategic? Journal of Environmental Assessment, Policy and Management, 2(2), 203–224. Noble, B F 2002. The Canadian experience with SEA and sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(1), 3–16. O’Brien, M 2000. Making Better Environmental Decisions: an Alternative to Risk Assessment. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. ODPM, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2005. A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Partidario, M 2003. SEA Training Manual. Fargo ND: International Association of Impact Assessment. Partidário, M, B Sheate, O Bina and H Byron 2005. Sustainability assessment of scenarios for agricultural development and biodiversity conservation in mountain areas. Paper presented at the IAIA Conference, Boston MA, 29 May–3 June. Perry, W and J Moffat 1997. Developing models of decision making. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48, 457–470. Pope, J, D Annandale and A Morrison-Saunders 2004. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 595–616. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal December 2007 Sadler, B 1996. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment — Final Report: Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluation Practice to Improve Performance. Ottawa: International Association for Impact Assessment and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Sadler, B and R Verheem 1996. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, Challenges and Future Directions. Report 53, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Netherlands. Scott, P 2005. Ireland. In Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning, ed. C Jones, pp. 130–145. London: Earthscan. Scarse, J and W Sheate 2002. Integration and integrated approaches to assessment: what do they mean for the environment? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 4, 275–294. Sheate, W, S Dagg, J Richardson, R Aschemann, J Palerm and U Steen 2001. Vol. 1 Main Report European Commission Contract No.B4- 040/99/136634/MAR/B4. London: Imperial College Consultants ICON. Available at , last accessed 21 July 2006. Sheate, W, S Dagg, J Richardson, R Aschemann, J Palerm and U Steen 2003. Integrating the environment into strategic decision-making: conceptualizing policy SEA. European Environment, 13(1), 1–18. Sheate, W, H Byron, S Dagg and L Cooper 2005. The Relationships between the EIA and SEA Directives. Final Report to the European Commission. London: Imperial College London Consultants. Smith, M D 2007. A review of recent NEPA alternatives analysis case law. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 127–144. Steinemann, A 2001. Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 3–21. Thérivel, R 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. London: Earthscan. Thérivel, R and M Partidário 1996. The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan. Thérivel, R and F Walsh 2006. The Strategic Environmental Directive in the UK: 1 year onwards. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 663–673. Verheem, R 1996. SEA of the Dutch ten-year programme on waste management 1992–2002. The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment, eds. R Thérivel and M Partidário, pp. 86–94. London: Earthscan. Weston, J 2000. Decision making theory and screening and scoping in UK practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2), 185–203. Wood, C 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment: a Comparative Review. Harlow: Longman Scientific Review. Wood, C and M Djeddour 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: EA of policies, plans and programmes. Impact Assessment Bulletin, 10, 3–22. 269 Guidelines for Business Case Analysis Prof. Dr. Christoph Rasche Dr. Achim Seisreiner University of Potsdam Adopted from Harvard Business School and adjusted to the European diction of strategic management Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis Content I. Introduction 3 II. A Case Analysis Framework 3 III. A. Analyze and Record the Current Situation 4 B. Analyze and Record Problems and Their Core Elements 7 C. Formulate, Evaluate, and Record Alternative Courses of Action 8 D. Select, Implement, and Record the Chosen Alternative Course of Action 8 Guidelines for an Operational Approach to Case and Problem Analysis 8 IV. Pitfalls to Avoid in Case Analysis 9 V. Communicating Case Analyses 10 A. The Written Report 10 B. The Oral Presentation 12 VI. Conclusion 12 2/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis I. Introduction Cases assists in bridging the gap between classroom learning and the so-called real world of management. They provide us with an opportunity to develop, sharpen, and test our analytical skills at: - Assessing situations. - Sorting out and organizing key information. - Asking the right questions. - Defining opportunities and problems - Identifying and evaluating alternative courses of action. - Interpreting data. - Evaluating the results of past strategies. - Developing and defending new strategies. - Interacting with other managers. - Making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. - Critically evaluating the work of others. - Responding to criticism. The use of business cases was developed by faculty members of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration in the 1920s. Case studies have been widely accepted as one effective way of exposing students to the decision-making process. Basically, cases represent detailed descriptions or reports of business problems. They are usually written by a trained observer who actually had been involved in the firm or organization and had some dealings with the problems under consideration. Cases generally entail both qualitative and quantitative data which the student must analyze and determine appropriate alternatives and solutions. The primary purpose of the case method is to introduce a measure of realism into management education. Rather than emphasizing the teaching of concepts, the case method focuses on application of concepts and sound logic to real-world business problems. In this way the student learns to bridge the gap between abstraction and application and to appreciate the value of both. The primary purpose of this paper is to offer a logical format for the analysis of case problems. Although there is no one format that can be successfully applied to all cases, the following framework is intended to be a logical sequence from which to develop sound analyses. This framework is presented for analysis of comprehensive management cases; however, the process should also be useful for shorter cases, incidents, and problems. II. A Case Analysis Framework A basic approach to case analyses involves a four-step process. First, the problem is defined. Second, alternative courses of action are formulated to solve the problem. Third, the alternatives are analyzed in terms of their strengths and weaknesses; and fourth, an alternative is accepted and a course of action is recommended. This basic approach is quite useful for the student well versed in case analysis, particularly for shorter cases or incidents. However, for the newcomer this framework may well be inadequate and oversimplified. Thus, the following expanded framework and checklists are intended to aid the student in becoming proficient at case and problem analysis. 3/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis A. Analyze and Record the Current Situation Whether the analysis of a firm’s problems in done by a manager, student, or paid business consultant, the first step is to analyze the current situation. This does not mean writing up a history of the firm but entails the type of analysis described below. This approach is useful not only for getting a better grip on the situation but also for discovering both real and potential problems – the central concern of any case analysis. Phase 1: The environment. The first phase in analyzing a management problem or case is to consider the environment in which the firm is operating. The economic environment can have a decided effect on an industry, firm, and management program. For example, a depresses economy with high unemployment may not be an ideal situation for implementing a large price increase. The social and cultural environment also can have considerable effect on both multinational and domestic firms. For example, the advent of men’s hairstyling could be considered an appropriate reaction to today’s longer hairstyles, whereas a price reduction to stimulate demand for haircuts could well be inappropriate. Phase 2: The industry. The second phase involves analysis of the industry in which the firm operates. This phase can be critical, particularly in terms of how the firm’s product is defined. A toonarrow definition of the industry and competitive environment can be disastrous not only for the firm but also for the individual analyzing the case. In appraising the industry, it is useful to first categorize it by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and in terms of the accompanying list (figure 1). After initial definition and classification, attention should be paid to such factors as: 1. Technology. a. Level. b. Rate of change. c. Technological threats to the industry. 2. Political-legal-social influences. a. Trends an government controls. b. Specific regulations. c. Social responsibility pressure. d. Consumer perceptions of industry. 3. Industrial guidelines and trends. a. Pricing policies. b. Promotion. c. Product lines. d. Channels of distribution. e. Geographic concentration. f. Increases or declines in firms or profitability. 4. Financial indicators a. Financial ratios. b. Working capital required. c. Capital structure. d. Sources and uses of funds. e. Sales. f. Profitability. 4/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis Class Possible Implications 1. A few giants (oligopolistic). Examples: Aluminium producers. Cigarette manufacturers. Price cutting is fruitless. Antitrust action is a hazard. Concerned action leads to a monopolistic situation facing the customers. Very high capital costs to enter the industry. 2. A few giants and a relatively small number of „independents.“ Examples: Auto industry. Oil industry. Tire industry. Meat processors. Price cutting by smaller companies may bring strong retaliation by giants. Follow-the-leader pricing. Antitrust action against the giants is a hazard. Monopolistic prices. Squeeze on the independents. High capital costs to enter the industry. 3. Many small independent firms. Examples: Food brokers. Sales reps. Auto supply parts. Kitchen cabinet manufacturers. Real estate firms. Tanneries. Cost of entry is low. Special services. Usual local market. Threat of regional or national linking into a major competitor. Sophisticated business practices often lacking. 4. Professional service firms. Examples: Management consultants. Marketing research firms. Advertising agencies. Confusion of standards. Easy entry (and exit). Secretive pricing, often based on what the traffic will bear. 5. Government regulated to a great degree. Examples: Banking. Stock brokerages. Rail industry. Communications industry. Entry is usually difficult. Government provides a semimonopoly that may lead to high profits or inability to survive in a changing world. Figure 1: Industry classes Phase 3: The firm. The third phase involves analysis of the firm itself not only in comparison with the industry and industry averages but also internally in terms of both quantitative and qualitative data. Key areas of concern at this stage are such factors as objectives, constraints, management philosophy, strengths, weaknesses, and structure of the firm. Phase 4: The management program: Although there may be internal personnel or structural problems in the corporation itself that need examination, typically an analysis of the current corporate strategy is the next phase. In this phase the objectives of the firm are analyzed in terms of agreement, soundness, and attainability. Each element of the management toolbox as well as other areas, such as business research and information systems, is analyzed in terms of whether it is internally consistent and synchronized with the goals of the business unit and firm. Although cases often are labeled in terms of their primary emphasis, such as “Pricing” or “Advertising”, it is important for the student to analyze the corporate strategy and entire management toolbox, since a change in one element will affect the entire management program. In performing the analysis of the current situation, the student should analyze the data carefully to extract the relevant from the superfluous. Many cases contain information that is not relevant to the problem, it is the student’s job to discard this information to get a clearer picture of the current situation. As the analysis proceeds, a watchful eye must be kept on each phase to determine (1) symptoms of problems, (2) current problems, and (3) potential problems. Symptoms of problems are indicators of a problem but are not problems in and of themselves. For example, a symptom of a problem may be a 5/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis decline in sales in a particular sales territory. However, the problem is the root cause of the decline in sales – perhaps the field representative quit marketing sales calls and is relying on phone orders only. The following is a checklist of the types of questions that should be asked when performing the analysis of the current situation. Checklist for Analyzing the Current Situation Phase 1: The environment. 1. Are there any trends in the environment that could have an effect on the industry, firm, or management program? 2. What is the state of the economy ? Inflation? Stagflation? Depression? 3. What is the cultural, social, and political atmosphere? 4. Are there trends or changes in the environment that could be advantageous or disadvantageous to the industry, firm, or management program? Can the management program be restructured to take advantage of these trends or changes? Phase 2: The industry. 1. What industry is the firm in? What class of industry? Are there other industries the firm is competing with? 2. What is the size of the firm relative to the industry? 3. How does the firm compare in terms of market share, sales, and profitability with the rest of the industry? 4. How does the firm compare with other firms in the industry in terms of a financial ratio analysis? 5. What is the firm’s major competition? 6. Are there any trends in terms of government control, political, or public atmosphere that could affect the industry? Phase 3: The firm. 1. What are the objectives of the firm? Are they clearly stated? Attainable? 2. What are the strengths of the firm? Managerial expertise? Financial? Copyrights or patents? 3. What are the constraints and weaknesses of the firm? 4. Are there any real or potential sources of dysfunctional conflict in the structure of the firm? 5. How are the functional departments (e.g. marketing, financial services, controlling, HR…) structured in the firm? 6. What is the corporate culture of the firm? What kind of management style is preferred? How do employees communicate? Phase 4: The management program. 1. What are the objectives of the management program? Are they clearly stated? Are they consistent with the objectives of the firm? Is the entire management toolbox structured to meet these objectives? 2. What management concepts are at issue in the program? Is the management program well planned and laid out? Is the program consistent with sound management principles? If the program takes exception to management principles, is there a good reason for it? 3. To what target market is the program directed? Is it well defined? Is the market large enough to be profitably served? Does the market have long-run potential? 4. What competitive advantage does the management program offer? If none, what can be done to gain a competitive advantage in the market place? 6/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis 5. What products are being sold? What is the width, depth, and consistency of the firm’s product lines? Does the firm need new products to fill out its product line? Should any product be deleted? What is the profitability of the various products? 6. What promotion mix is being used? Is promotion consistent with the products and product images? What could be done to improve the promotion mix? 7. What channels of distribution are being used? Do they deliver the product at the right time and right place to meet consumer needs? Are the channels typical of those used in the industry? Could channels be made more efficient? 8. What pricing strategies are being used? How do prices compare with similar products of other firms? How are prices determined? 9. Are business research and information systematically integrated into the management program? Is the overall management program internally consistent? 10. Are (senior/middle) managers capable to translate strategy into action? Are managers excellent in action or just in talking? The relevant information from this preliminary analysis is now formalized and recorded. At this point the analyst must be mindful of the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are objective statements, such as financial data, whereas opinions are subjective interpretations of facts or situations. The analyst must make certain not to place too much emphasis on opinions and carefully consider any variables that may bias such opinions. Regardless of how much information is contained in the case or how much additional information is collected, the analyst usually finds that it is impossible to specific a complete framework for the current situation. It is at this point that assumptions must be made. Clearly, since each analyst may make different assumptions, it is critical that assumptions be explicitly stated. One authority suggests that, when presenting a case, the analyst should distribute copies of the assumption list to all audience members. In this way confusion is avoided in terms of how the analyst perceives the current situation and how others can evaluate the reasonableness and necessity of the assumptions. B. Analyze and Record Problems and Their Core Elements After careful analysis, problems and their core elements should be explicitly stated and listed in order of importance. Finding and recording problems and their core elements can be difficult. It is not uncommon upon reading a case for the first time for the student to view the case as a description of a situation in which there are no problems. However, careful analysis should reveal symptoms, which lead to problem recognition. Recognizing and recording problems and their core elements is most critical for a meaningful case analysis. Obviously, if the root problems are not explicitly stated and understood, the remainder of the case analysis has little merit since the true issues are not being dealt with. The following checklist of questions is designed to assist the student in performing this step of the analysis. Checklist for Analyzing Problems and Their Core Elements 1. What is the primary problem in the case? What are the secondary problems? 2. What proof exists that these are the central issues? How much of this proof is based on facts? On opinions? On assumptions? 3. What symptoms are there that suggest these are the real problems in the case? 4. How are the problems, as defined, related? Are they independent or are they the result of a deeper problem? 5. What are the ramifications of these problems in the short run? In the long run? 7/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis C. Formulate, Evaluate, and Record Alternative Courses of Action This step is concerned with the question of what can be done to resolve the problem defined in the previous step. Generally, a number of alternative courses of action are available which could potentially help alleviate the problem condition. One authority suggests three to seven alternatives as a reasonable number of alternatives to work with. Another approach is to brainstorm as many alternatives as possible initially and then reduce the list to a workable number. Sound logic and reasoning are particularly important in this step. It is critical to avoid alternatives that could potentially alleviate the problem but that at the same time create a greater new problem or require greater resources than the firm has at its disposal. After serious analysis and listing of a number of alternatives, the next task is to evaluate them in terms of their costs and benefits. Costs are any output or effort the firm must exert to implement the alternative. Benefits are any input or value received by the firm. Costs to be considered are time, money, other resources, and opportunity costs, while benefits are such things as sales, profits, goodwill, customer and employee satisfaction. The following checklist provides a guideline of questions to be used when performing this phase of the analysis. Checklist for Formulating and Evaluating Alternative Courses of Action 1. What possible alternatives exist for solving the firm’s problems? 2. What limits are there on the possible alternatives? Competence? Resources? Management preference? Social responsibility? Legal restrictions? 3. What major alternatives are now available to the firm? What management concepts are involved that affect these alternatives? 4. Are the listed alternatives reasonable given in the firm’s situation? Are they logical? Are the alternatives consistent with the goals of the management program? Are they consistent with the firm’s objectives? 5. What are the costs of each alternative? What are the benefits? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative? 6. Which alternative best solves the problem and minimizes the creation of new problems given the above constraints? D. Select, Implement, and Record the Chosen Alternative Course of Action In light of the previous analysis, the alternative is now selected that best solves the problem with a minimal creation of new problems. It is important to record the logic and reasoning that precipitated the selection of a particular alternative. This includes articulating not only why the alternative was selected but also why the other alternatives were not selected. No analysis is complete without an action-oriented decision and plan for implementing the decision. The accompanying checklist indicates the type of questions that should be answered in this stage of the analysis. Checklist for Selecting and Implementing the Chosen Alternative 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What must be done to implement the alternative? What personnel will be involved? What are the responsibilities of each? When and where will the alternative be implemented? What will be the probable outcome? How will the success or failure of the alternative be measured? III. Guidelines for an Operational Approach to Case and Problem Analysis 1. Read the case quickly to get an overview of the situation. 8/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis 2. Read the case again thoroughly. Underline relevant information and take notes on potential areas of concern. 3. Review outside sources of information on the environment and the industry. Record relevant information and the source of this information. 4. Perform comparative analysis of the firm with the industry and industry averages. 5. Analyze the firm. 6. Analyze the management program. 7. Record the current situation in terms of relevant environmental, industry, firm, and management program parameters. 8. Make and record necessary assumptions to complete the situational framework. 9. Determine and record the major issues, problems, and their core elements. 10. Record proof that these are the major topics. 11. Record potential courses of actions. 12. Evaluate each initially to determine constraints that preclude acceptability. 13. Evaluate remaining alternatives in terms of costs and benefits. 14. Record analysis of alternatives. 15. Select an alternative. 16. Record alternative and defense of its selection. 17. Record the who, what, when, where, how, and why of the alternative and its implementation. IV. Pitfalls to Avoid in Case Analysis Below is a summary of some of the most common errors analysts make when analyzing cases. When evaluating your analysis or those of others, this list provides a useful guide for spotting potential shortcomings. 1. Inadequate definition of the problem. By far the most common error made in case analysis is attempting to recommend a course of action without first adequately defining or understanding the problem. Whether presented orally or in a written report, a case analysis must begin with a focus on the central issues and problems represented in the case situation. Closely related is the error of analyzing symptoms without determining the root problem. 2. The search for “the answer”. In case analysis there are no clear-cut solutions. Keep in mind that the objective of case studies is learning through discussion, exploration, and the search for intelligent questions. There is no one “official” or “correct” answer to a case. Rather, there are usually several reasonable alternative solutions. 3. Not enough information. Analysts often complain that there is not enough information in some cases to make a good decision. However, there is justification for not presenting “all” of the information in a case. As in real life, a manager or consultant seldom has all the information necessary to make an optimal decision. Thus, reasonable assumptions have to be made, and the challenge is to find intelligent solutions in spite of the limited information. 4. Use of generalities. In analyzing cases, specific recommendations are necessarily not generalities. For example, a suggestion to increase the price is a generality, a suggestion to increase the price by $1.07 is a specific. 5. A different situation. Considerable time and effort are sometimes exerted by students contending that “If the situation were different, I’d know what course of action to take” or “If the marketing manager hadn’t already fouled things up so badly, the firm wouldn’t have a problem”. Such reasoning ignores the fact that the events in the case have already happened and cannot be changed. Even though analysis or criticism of past events is necessary in diagnosing the problem, in the end, the present situation must be addressed and decisions must be made based on the given situation and the future. 9/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis 6. Narrow vision analysis. Although cases are often labeled as a specific type of case, such as “Pricing”, “Product”, “Personnel” and so forth, this does not mean that other variables should be ignored. Too often students ignore the effects that a change in one management element (e.g. investment) will have on the others (e.g. financing). 7. Realism. Too often analysts become so focused on solving a particular problem that their solutions become totally unrealistic. For example, suggesting a $1 million advertising program for a firm with a capital structure of $50,000 is an unrealistic solution. 8. The business research solution. A quite common but unsatisfactory solution to case problems in business research, for example, “The firm should do this or that type of business research to find a solution to their problem.” Although business research may be helpful as an intermediary step in some cases, business research does not solve problems or make decisions. In cases where business research is recommended, the cost and potential benefits should be fully specified in the case analysis. 9. Rehashing the case material. Analysts sometimes spend considerable effort rewriting a two- or three-page history of the firm as presented in the case. This is unnecessary since the instructor and other students are already familiar with this information. 10. Premature conclusions. Analysts sometimes jump to premature conclusions instead of waiting until their analysis in completed. Too many analysts jump to conclusions upon first reading the case and then proceed to interpret everything in the case as justifying their conclusions, even factors that are logically against it. V. Communicating Case Analyses The final concern in case analyses deals with communicating the results of the analysis. The most comprehensive analysis has little value if it cannot be communicated effectively. There are two primary media through which case analyses are communicated – the written report and the oral presentation. A. The Written Report Since the structure of the written report will vary by the type of case analyzed, the purpose of this section is not to present a “one and only” way of writing up a case. The purpose of this section is to present some useful generalizations to aid the student in case write-ups. First, a good written report generally starts with an outline. The purpose of the outline is to: 1. Organize the case material in a sequence that makes it easy for the reader to follow. 2. Highlight the major thoughts of the case and show the relationships among subsidiary ideas and major ideas. 3. Reinforce the student’s memory of the case ideas and provide the framework for developing these ideas. 4. Serve to refresh the student’s memory of the case when it has to be referred to weeks later. The outline format should avoid too fine a breakdown, and there should be at least two subdivisions for any heading. The following is an example of typical headings: I. Current Situation. A. Environment. 1. Economic. 2. Cultural and social. 3. Political and legal. B. Industry. 10/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis 1. Definition. 2. Classification. 3. Technology. 4. Political-legal-social factors. 5. Industrial guidelines and trends. 6. Financial indicators. C. Firm. 1. Objectives. 2. Constraints. 3. Management philosophy. 4. Strengths. 5. Weaknesses. 6. Structure. 7. Culture. D. Management program. 1. Objectives. 2. Constraints. 3. Strengths. 4. Weaknesses. 5. Target market(s). 6. Product considerations. 7. Promotion considerations. 8. Pricing considerations. 9. Channel considerations. 10. Information and research considerations. 11. Managerial capabilities. E. Assumptions about current situation. II. Problems. A. Primary problem(s) 1. Symptoms. 2. Proof. B. Secondary problem(s) 1. Symptoms. 2. Proof. III. Alternatives. A. Alternative 1. 1. Strengths and benefits. 2. Weaknesses and costs. B. Alternative 2. 1. Strengths and benefits 2. Weaknesses and costs. C. Alternative 3. 1. Strengths and benefits. 2. Weaknesses and costs. 11/12 Rasche/Seisreiner: Guidelines for Business Case Analysis IV. Decision and Implementation. A. What. B. Who. C. When. D. Where. E. Why. F. How. V. Technical Appendix. Writing the case report now entails filling out the details of the outline in prose form. Clearly, like any other skill, it takes practice to determine the best method for writing a particular case. However, simplicity, clarity, and precision are prime objectives of the report. B. The Oral Presentation Case analyses are often presented by an individual or team. As with the written report, a good outline is critical, and it is often preferable to hand out the outline to each audience member. Although there is no best way to present a case or to divide responsibility between team members, simply reading the written report in unacceptable, since it encourages boredom and interferes with all-important audience discussion. The use of visual aids can be quite helpful in presenting class analyses. However, simply presenting financial statements contained in the case is a poor use of visual media. On the other hand, graphs of sales and profit curves can be more easily interpreted and can be quite useful for making specific points. Oral presentation of cases is particularly helpful to students for learning the skill of speaking to a group. In particular, the ability to handle objections and disagreements without antagonizing others is a skill worth developing. VI. Conclusion From the discussion it should be obvious that good case analyses require a major commitment of time and effort. Individuals must be highly motivated and willing to get involved in the analysis and discussion if they expect to learn and succeed in a course where cases are utilized. Persons with only passive interests who perform “night before” analyses cheat themselves of valuable learning experiences which can aid them in their careers. 12/12 How to Write a Conclusion Many writers underestimate the value of a conclusion and spend very little time crafting it. However, it really should be one of the most powerful and carefully worded paragraphs in the essay. After all, the conclusion is your last chance to make an impression or convince the reader of your point. Your conclusion should: ? Stress the importance of your thesis statement. ? Give the essay a sense of completeness. eness. ? Make a strong final impression on the reader. Things to Avoid: ? Don’t simply imply restate your ideas in your conclusion without making significant alterations in the wording. ? Don’t introduce ntroduce a new point in your conclusion conclusion. ? Avoid using trite concluding phrases such as: “i“in conclusion”, “in summary”, or “finally”. Often these the phrases are used in speeches, but they are rarely a good way to end a written paper. ? Don’t apologize for your stance or minimize your insights. Be confident in the knowledge you have acquired during your research. Strategies for composing a conclusion: ? Ask yourself these questions: Why should your reader care about what you wrote?? What is the most important thing for your reader to take away from this paper? Is there an action you want to encourage your reader to take? Are there any thoughts you want to highlight? Use the answers to any of those questions to formulate your conclusion. ? Synthesize the ideas in your paper, but don’t summarize. If you simply repeat what you wrote before, you will lose your reader’s attention at a critical point. Rather, combine the ideas expressed in your paper in a different way, creating a new whole, rather than simply repeating what you wrote before. ? End with a thought that will make your readers apply what you’ve written to their own lives or to a situation around them. ? Demonstrate te how your ideas work together to back up your ideas or conclusion. ? Bring your reader full-circle circle by echoing themes from your introduction. You might do this by returning to an opening scene, reiterating key words from your introduction, or using a parallel concept. ? Close with a powerfull quote, an interesting anecdote anecdote,, a thought provoking question, or startling fact to stir your reader.