BUSM2567 Business Decision Making Assessment 2: Assignment — Weighting: 40% Word limit: 1500 (+/-10%) plus appendices and references Assessment type: Report Group or individual assessment: Group — Overview In this assessment you will collaborate with a group to complete week-by-week tasks

BUSM2567 Business Decision Making

Assessment 2: Assignment

—

Weighting: 40%

Word limit: 1500 (+/-10%) plus appendices and references

Assessment type: Report

Group or individual assessment: Group

—

Overview

In this assessment you will collaborate with a group to complete week-by-week tasks. These tasks  are part of an online business simulation, where you will evaluate a model intended to be used for

assessing strategic investment proposals. You will write a report evaluating the model and

demonstrating your project management skills as a group. By working in a group, you will practice

the strong collaboration skills needed to thrive in the workplace.

Purpose

The purpose of this assessment is to demonstrate that you understand how information is collected,

analysed, and presented in a way that supports managers as they make strategic decisions. You will

show that you understand the risks that arise in a business setting, and that you can identify issues

and challenges that should be addressed when evaluating alternative investment options.

What do you need to deliver?

• 1 group report

Tools

• Web browser and access to Kilgors.com.

• Microsoft Excel

2

RMIT Classification: Trusted

• Facilities for collaborating with group members. For example: face-to-face meetings,

Collaborate Ultra on Canvas, business communication platform such as Microsoft Teams or

Slack, social media chat applications, etc.

Supporting Materials

• See the Reports tutorials in RMIT Library’s Learning Lab or information on how to write a

report.

• See the Group work resources for guidance on being part of a successful group.

Course learning outcomes

This assessment is linked to the following course learning outcomes:

CLO 1 Describe and implement a structured approach to generating meaningful insights and

informing ethical decision making in business.

CLO 2 Select, apply, analyse and evaluate the results of data analytics, analytical models and

other business tools in a socially intelligent manner.

CLO 3 Apply digital literacy skills to effectively communicate the results of data analyses and

analytical models in written and visual forms to support organisational decision-making.

CLO 4 Demonstrate effective teamwork skills in business decision making, including collaboration,

communication, and the ability to contribute to shared goals.

Marking criteria

This assessment will measure your ability to:

• Distinguish between types of investment proposals (4%)

• Conduct NPV analysis (3%)

• Discuss the reliability and relevance of financial metrics in relation to strategic investment

decisions (5%)

• Discuss the role of non-financial factors when managers make decisions relating to strategic

investments (4%)

• Identify and discuss two improvements to the model (10%)

• Select and justify an investment option (4%)

• Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a quantitative assessment model (10%)

3

Assessment Details

By Friday of Week 4 your course facilitator will allocate you into a group of 2-3 students. You will

collaborate with your group to complete week-by-week activities in Weeks 5-7. These activities

comprise a series of data analyses to evaluate a model which you will learn about during the Kilgors

Strategic Investment simulation. You will be introduced to this simulation in Week 4.

Your week-by-week activities will be as follows:

• Week 4: Initial simulation and group allocation

• Week 5: NVP analysis and sensitivity analysis

• Week 6: Assessment of investment proposals against non-financial criteria

• Week 7: Completion of questions and submission of report.

Structure and marking of your submission

• Your group report will be based on your responses to the seven questions presented in

Week 7.

• The maximum total word count for this assessment is 1500 words (+/- 10%). You must not

exceed this.

• Each question is worth a specific number of marks and has a suggestion for the number of

words to use. The number of words for each question below is for guidance only. The

optimum word count per question will depend on your approach to the task and may differ

from what is indicated.

• Your group must answer all questions in one document, and submission must be in the form

of a PDF file. Also upload the final excel file (template-likert.xlsx) showing your working. Use

excel formulas in the file instead of calculator.

Week-by-week activities

You will work together in your group and carry out each task in line with the following week-by-week

timeline.

Note: You will learn more about how to successfully approach collaborative projects during Weeks 4

to 7 of this course. It is important that you delegate tasks effectively and agree effective

communication methods shared by the whole group.

Week 4: Initial simulation and allocation into groups

In the course content in Week 4 you will be prompted to register on the Kilgors simulation website

and undertake the “strategic investment simulation”. You will take this simulation individually.

4

The simulation is of a business meeting and runs for approximately 30 minutes. While taking the

simulation, make notes so that you can refer back to the meeting later on.

In the simulation, you will be prompted to download three files:

 • Two PowerPoint Presentations from two characters in the simulation, Charles and Lee. (.pptx)

 • One Strategic Investment Management (SIM) template in an Excel worksheet (.xlsx)

You should download each of these files for later use with your team.

By Friday of Week 4 your course facilitator will allocate you into a team of 2-3 students. From Week

5 onwards you will then collaborate with your team,

You will find detailed instructions for each week in the Week 4 Understanding Assessment 2

task.

Week 5: NPV analysis and sensitivity analysis (approx. 45 minutes)

Outside of the course content, you will work with your group to evaluate an NPV analysis of two

investment proposals: a wine investment, and a luxury resorts investment. Collaborate on the SIM

spreadsheet (template-likert.xlsx file) you downloaded in Task 4.3.2

Complete the following eight steps as a group:

1. In the “Home” tab of the SIM spreadsheet, select the link to Step 1.

2. You will see an NPV analysis for the wine investment. Use the information provided by Lee

to fill-in the empty cells shaded blue. This involves translating the information from Lee’s

PowerPoint slides to the NPV template in the Excel spreadsheet. Use formulas in Excel

rather than a calculator. You may want to inspect the contents of the unshaded cells in the

spreadsheet as an example.

3. Make sure that all cash inflows are positive, and all cash outflows are negative. Note that the

monetary values are expressed in thousands.

4. Use your learning from Week 5 to explore the sensitivity analysis within the spreadsheet. By

changing the uncertainty percentages, you can note the corresponding optimistic and

pessimistic estimates of the NPV.

5. When you have filled in all the shaded cells and you are satisfied with the calculated NPV,

save the file, and go back to the ‘Home’ tab in the spreadsheet.

6. Now select the link to Step 2 from the ‘home’ tab in the spreadsheet.

7. You will be presented with an NPV analysis for the luxury resorts investment. Use the

information provided by Charles to fill-in the empty cells shaded blue as you did in step 1.

8. Explore the sensitivity analysis for the luxury resorts investment. When you have filled-in all

the shaded cells, and you are satisfied with the calculated NPV, save your file.

5

Week 6: Assessment of investment proposals against non-financial criteria (approx. 45

mins)

Outside of the course content, work with your group to assess each investment proposal against the

non-financial criteria outlined in the simulation.

1. In the ‘Home’ tab of the SIM spreadsheet (template-likert.xlsx file), select the link to Step 3.

2. You will see the main assessment template which lists 15 criteria against which the

investment proposals will be assessed. The scores for the 2 criteria listed under ‘Expected

financial returns’ is automatically determined based on the NPV analysis. Your task is to

assess the proposal against each of the other 13 criteria.

3. Selecting a particular criterion will take you to the corresponding assessment template.

Follow the instructions in each template and insert an appropriate Likert score for each of the

proposed investments, based on your judgement.

4. After you have given a Likert score for each investment, select “Continue.” The assessment

against the corresponding criterion is automatically reflected on the ‘main’ template. Repeat

the process for each of the 13 non-financial criteria. You can rely on your experience,

expertise, business acumen, and intuition when making each assessment. You should

discuss each criterion with your group, viewing the assessment of each criterion from

different perspectives in order to reveal new insights.

5. After you have assessed both investment proposals against all 15 criteria (or factors), then

the higher ‘Total Score’ will indicate the preferred investment. A score in brackets indicates

that it is negative. The difference column in red on the right-hand-side indicates which criteria

are driving the preference.

6. When you are ready, go back to the ‘Home’ tab, save and close the file. Save the final

version of the file under a distinctive name in a location that you can easily access.

7. You will then need to nominate one person to upload your resulting file. Login to the Kilgors

website and return to the Strategic Investment Simulation. Select “change…”, and then

upload the final version of your assessment file. Make sure you upload the correct file.

8. As a group, then continue working through the simulation. You should watch the “Capital

Investment Review Committee – feedback and discussion” section, then download the

“weighting” file and open it.

9. Discuss the weightings with your group. Adjust the weightings as you see fit, save the final

version of the ‘weighting’ file, and upload the weightings file as you did for the assessment

file.

10. Continue working through the simulation by taking the “Feedback on weighting and

recommendation to the Board” section. This concludes your work for the week.

6

Week 7: Completion of questions and submission of report

In Week 7, outside of the course content, work with your group to produce your submission for

Assessment 2 by completing each of the seven questions/tasks below, delivered as a report. Please

provide clear screenshots from the excel file (template-likert.xlsx) wherever relevant to support your

answer.

The maximum total word count for this assessment is 1500 words (+/- 10%). You must not exceed

this. Each question has a number of marks allocated to it and a suggestion for the number of words

to use. The number of words for each question below is for guidance only. The optimum word count

per question will depend on your particular approach to the task and may differ from what is indicated.

Your team must answer all questions in one document, and submission must be in the form of a PDF

file.

Questions

1. In the simulation, Jack proposed the upgrade of a fleet of vehicles and the acquisition of new

bottling equipment. Why were Jack’s proposals treated differently and separated from the

other two proposals? (4 marks; 100 words or less)

2. Revisit the NPV calculation for each of the two strategic investment proposals in the simulation.

Base your calculation on the estimates provided by Lee and Charles. Present the relevant

information using the NPV templates (this is the template-likert.xlsx file that you downloaded

with the simulation). (3 marks, excluded from word count.)

3. Assess the sensitivity of the calculated NPV to variations in three key input parameters.

Outline the outcome in either tabular or graphic form. Based on your sensitivity analysis,

evaluate and discuss the reliability and relevance of financial metrics in relation to strategic

investment decisions. (5 marks, less than 150 words)

4. Discuss the role of non-financial factors when managers make strategic investment

decisions. Why are these decisions necessary? Illustrate with a specific example from the

Kilgors simulation. (4 marks, less than 200 words)

5. In the simulation, you used a model in Excel to assess and compare the benefits and costs

of two investment options. Identify and discuss at least two significant improvements that

would make this model more useful. (10 marks, less than 550 words) Improvements could

involve:

• eliminating one or more factors

• introducing one or more factors; combining factors

• rearranging factors

• assessing one or more factors in a different way

• aggregating the scores in a different way

• shifting to a more qualitative approach.

6. You know that the client only has enough capital to pursue one of the options. Based on your

financial and non-financial analysis of the strategic investment proposals. Select the option

that you would advise the client to pursue, if any. Justify your selection. (4 marks, less than

200 words)

7

7. The Kilgors simulation used a quantitative assessment model. Do you think such a model is

useful when making strategic investments decisions? Discuss the key benefits and

shortcomings. If you think the model is not useful, discuss an alternative approach. (10

marks, 350 words)

Target Audience

The target audience for the report arising from the Kilgors simulation is the investment committee of

a large company. The report assesses the effectiveness of a strategic investment decisions-making

methodology and recommends improvements.

Recommended Length and Structure

Your report will be approximately 1500 words long. It should include the following sections:

1. Overview

2. Introduction

3. Assessment of the proposed investments – financial and non-financial.

4. Selection of the investment that Kilgors should pursue.

5. Suggested improvement to the strategic investment decision-making model.

6. The preferred approach to strategic investment decision-making.

7. Conclusion

Required references

References should be authoritative publications such as books, academic journals, industry

reports, news articles, professional magazines, etc. Topics may include discounted cash flow

analysis, multiple-factor decision making, the wine market, the luxury resort market, business

strategy, capital budgeting, cognitive bias, risk management, cost benefit analysis, expert

judgement, cybernetics. Three or four good references would be appropriate.

Referencing Guidelines

Use RMIT Harvard referencing style for this assessment. You must acknowledge all the courses of

information you have used in your assessments.

Refer to the RMIT Easy Cite referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in the

appropriate style. You can also refer to the Library referencing page for other tools such as

EndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.

Submission instructions

Use Microsoft Word or a similar program to create your report. Save your report as a PDF file. The

assessment will be submitted in Canvas by uploading your report as a PDF file.

8

Academic integrity and plagiarism information

Academic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the

work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge, and ideas.

You should take extreme care that you have:

• Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have

quoted (i.e., directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed, or mentioned in your

assessment through the appropriate referencing methods

• Provided a reference list and /or bibliography of the publication details so your reader can

locate the source if necessary. This includes material used from Internet sites.

If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism because

you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they

were your own.

RMIT University treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct.

Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:

• Failure to properly document a source

• Copyright material from the internet or databases

• Collusion between students

For further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the University website.

Assessment declaration

When you submit work electronically, you agree to the assessment declaration.

9

Below is the rubric for this assessment showing the grading criteria and describing the levels of achievement for each of these criteria.

Criteria Ratings Pts

HD D C P N DNS

Question 1:

Distinguish

Distinction shows

comprehensive

understanding of

types of investment

proposals and

impact of

uncertainty. Detailed

discussion of

quantitative and

qualitative factors.

Response is logical,

clear, concise, and

relevant, with

precise language.

Distinction shows

understanding of

types of investment

proposals and impact

of uncertainty.

Significant discussion

of quantitative and

qualitative factors.

Response is logical,

clear, and relevant,

with precise

language.

Distinction shows

some understanding

of types of investment

proposals and impact

of uncertainty. Some

discussion of

quantitative and

qualitative factors.

Response is mostly

logical, clear, and

relevant.

Distinction shows

some understanding

of types of investment

proposals and/or

impact of uncertainty.

Little or no discussion

of quantitative and

qualitative factors.

Response is

somewhat logical,

clear, and relevant.

Little to no

understanding of types

of investment proposals

demonstrated.

Response is not logical

or clear.

Question not

submitted

between types of

investment

proposals

4 to > 3.19 pts 3.19 to > 2.79 pts 2.79 to > 2.39 pts 2.39 to > 1.99 pts 1.99 to > 0 pts 0 pts 4 pts

Question 2:

Conduct NPV

analysis

NPV is calculated

correctly and all

figures are accurate.

Analysis is presented

NPV is calculated

correctly and is

within 10% of the

correct value.

NPV is calculated

with minor errors.

Analysis is presented

in clear and tidy

NPV is calculated

with minor errors.

Analysis is difficult to

interpret.

NPV is incorrect due to

major errors.

Question not

submitted

in clear and tidy Analysis is manner.

manner. presented in clear

and tidy manner.

3 to > 2.39 pts 2.39 to > 2.09 pts 2.09 to > 1.79 pts 1.79 to > 1.49 pts 1.49 to > 0 pts 0 pts 3 pts

10

Question 3:

Discuss the

reliability and

relevance of

financial

metrics in

relation to

strategic

investment

decisions

(#AoL 6 Critically

Engaged) Uses

evidence to

address

questions, test

hypothesis and

evaluate claims

and solutions

Organises and

synthesizes evidence

to reveal insightful

patterns, opportunities

and areas of concern

related to the topic or

context.

Three input

parameters are clearly

identified. Clear and

relevant discussion

about uncertainty in

input parameters and

links with NPV value.

Logical and

comprehensive

commentary

Outcome of sensitivity

analysis is presented

in a clear, concise

manner.

Organises evidence

to reveal important

opportunities and

areas of concern

related to the topic

or context.

Three input

parameters are

clearly identified.

Clear discussion

about uncertainty in

input parameters

and links with NPV

value. Logical and

comprehensive

commentary

Outcome of

sensitivity analysis is

presented in a clear

manner.

Organises evidence,

but the organisation

is not wholly

effective in revealing

important

opportunities and

areas of concern to

the topic or context.

Three input

parameters are

identified. Discussion

about uncertainty in

input parameters and

links with NPV value

is mostly clear.

Logical commentary.

Outcome of sensitivity

analysis is presented

although may be

unclear.

Organises evidence,

but the organisation

is not minimally

effective in revealing

basic and obvious

opportunities and

areas of concern to

the topic or context.

Three input

parameters are

identified. Discussion

about uncertainty in

input parameters and

links with NPV value

is ambiguous, with

minor omissions.

Outcome of sensitivity

analysis is presented

although may be

unclear.

Lists evidence, but it is

not organised and/or

is not well related to

the topic or context.

Little to no discussion

of input parameters

and links with NPV

value. Outcome of

sensitivity analysis is

unclear.

Question

incorrect not

submitted.

5 to > 3.99 pts 3.99 to > 3.49 pts 3.49 to > 2.99 pts 2.99 to > 2.49 pts 2.49 to > 0 pts 0 pts 5 pts

Question 4:

Discuss the role

of non-financial

Discussion is clear,

concise and logical.

Uses precise

language. Discussion

is clearly illustrated

using specific and

relevant example.

Discussion is clear,

and logical. Uses

precise language.

Discussion is clearly

illustrated using

specific and

relevant example.

Discussion is clear,

and logical. Uses

ambiguous language.

Discussion is

Discussion is relevant

but key issues are not

identified, logic is not

clear. May lack an

Discussion is not

relevant and/or key

issues are not

identified, logic is not

Question not

submitted

factors when

managers make

illustrated using

relevant example.

example clear.

decisions relating

to strategic

investments

4 to > 3.19 pts 3.19 to > 2.79 pts 2.79 to > 2.39 pts 2.39 to > 1.99 pts 1.99 to > 0 pts 0 pts 4 pts

11

Question 5:

Identify and

discuss two

Two improvements

are proposed that will

make the model

significantly more

useful, with clear and

compelling

justification.

Two improvements

are proposed that

will make the model

more useful, with

Two improvements

are proposed that will

make the model

slightly more useful,

Two improvements

are proposed but with

unclear justification

and/or explanation as

The improvements are

unlikely to make the

model more useful

and/or less than two

Question not

submitted

improvements to

a model

clear justification. with a convincing

justification.

to how they would

make the model more

useful.

improvements

proposed.

10 to > 7.99 pts 7.99 to > 6.99 pts 6.99 to > 5.99 pts 5.99 to > 4.99 pts 4.99 to > 0 pts 0 pts 10 pts

Question 6:

Select and justify

an investment

option

Preference for one of

the investment

proposals is clearly

stated; justified by

clear, concise, and

logical discussion.

Preference for one

of the investment

proposals is

expressed or

implied; justified by

logical discussion;

language may

include some

ambiguity;

Informative

discussion; key

issues are mentioned;

language may be

ambiguous or

unclear; preference

may not be expressed

Justification is mostly

relevant but key

issues are not

identified, and logic is

not clear.

Justification is not

relevant and or key

issues are not identified.

No response

submitted

4 to > 3.19 pts 3.19 to > 2.79 pts 2.79 to > 2.39 pts 2.39 to > 1.99 pts 1.99 to > 0 pts 0 pts 4 pts

12

Question 7:

Discuss the

strengths and

weaknesses of a

quantitative

assessment

model

An opinion on the

extent to which a

quantitative model is

useful is clearly

expressed; the

opinion is supported

by a compelling

explanation on how it

is useful; the logic is

clear and

comprehensive.

The language is

concise and precise.

Both the benefits and

the shortcomings are

discussed indicating a

well balanced

approach.

Authoritative literature

is cited.

An opinion on the

extent to which a

quantitative model

is useful is clearly

expressed; the

opinion is supported

by a convincing

explanation on how

it is useful; the logic

is clear and

comprehensive.

The language is

concise and

precise, with minor

ambiguities. Both

the benefits and the

shortcomings are

discussed. The

argument may not

be well balanced.

Authoritative

literature is cited.

An opinion on the

extent to which a

quantitative model is

useful is implied; key

issues are mentioned;

the opinion is

supported by a

reasonable

explanation; the logic

may not be clear and

comprehensive.

The language may be

ambiguous.

The response is

informative; key

issues are mentioned.

The language may be

ambiguous or unclear

The response is not

informative, key issues

are lacking,

The language may be

ambiguous or unclear.

No response

submitted

10 to > 7.99 pts 7.99 to > 6.99 pts 6.99 to > 5.99 pts 5.99 to > 4.99 pts 4.99 to > 0 pts 0 pts 10 pts

Total: 40 pts