Assessment Brief Program Bachelor of Business College William Blue College of Hospitality Management APM College of Business and Communication Code and Subject MGT101A Managing in a Global Environment Assessment Case Study Analysis 3 Group or Individual Individual Length 1300 words (+/- 10%) Learning Outcomes A, B, C and F Submission Date Week 8 Total Marks 100 marks Weighting 30% Assessment Brief: Students are required to critically analyse the provided management case study by answering the case study questions. Careful analysis and application of management principles is expected. The focus of the analysis is the application of the content studied in Weeks 1 - 7 and the prescribed text should be used as the primary source. Further research to support the analysis is essential. The Analysis should: 1. Critically analyse the case. 2. Clearly identify and justify the management principles applied to the case. 3. Critically evaluate the questions posed to the case. 4. Do additional research to gain a broader perspective of the case and topics. 5. Answer the questions in Question and Answer format. 6. Be submitted electronically in Word format, 12pt. and 1.5 line spacing. 7. Be fully referenced using the Harvard Referencing System (see Academic Skills section of the learning Portal). HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 3 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 1 of 4Marking Criteria: Case Study Analysis • Responses accurately and clearly communicate answers to case study questions • Use of theoretical knowledge to support answers • Theory is supported with appropriate references that are cited correctly both in-text and in the reference list. Responses accurately and clearly communicate answers to case study questions /40 33-40 25-32 17-24 9-16 1-8 0 All responses provide a direct and accurate answer the question that is communicated clearly with no grammatical or spelling errors Majority of responses provide a direct and accurate answer to the question that is clearly communicated with minor grammatical or spelling errors Majority of responses provide a direct and accurate answer to the question but the communication lacks clarity OR has major grammatical or spelling errors Responses have an implied answer to the question asked but do not directly answer the question OR communication is poor with major spelling or grammatical errors Majority of responses do not answer the question asked AND communication is unclear with minor spelling and grammatical errors. Majority of responses do not answer the question asked AND are not communicated clearly with major spelling and grammatical errors Theory used is accurately explained and applied to support answers /40 33-40 25-32 17-24 9-16 1-8 0 All responses to questions are supported with relevant theoretical knowledge that is explained correctly and integrated seamlessly into the answer to the question. All responses to question are supported with relevant theoretical knowledge that is explained correctly BUT not integrated well into the answer Majority of responses to questions are supported with relevant theoretical knowledge. Explanation of theory has minor errors or clarity issues, but integrated well in the answer Majority of responses to questions are supported with relevant theoretical knowledge that is explained with minor clarity issues and not integrated into the answer Majority of responses are NOT supported with relevant theoretical knowledge OR majority of theory used is explained incorrectly. No response to questions is supported with theoretical knowledge OR Responses are supported with theoretical knowledge that is not relevant to the response OR explained incorrectly. Theory is supported with appropriate references that are cited correctly /10 10 8 6 4 2 0 Both in-text and reference list citations are used perfectly according to the Think: Education standards In-text and reference list citations used accurately but have minor errors according to the Think: Education Standards. Referencing style used is used correctly but is not the referencing style required according to the Think: Education Standard In-text and reference list citations are present but do not follow a particular referencing framework Either in-text or reference list citations are not used. No in-text or reference list citations used. Evidence of appropriate use of additional research. /10 10 8 6 4 2 0 HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 3 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 2 of 4Evidence of broad research of high quality additional sources appropriately used. Evidence of research of high quality additional sources appropriately used. Evidence of research of additional sources appropriately used. Evidence of recommended sources appropriately used. Poor evidence of recommended sources used. No evidence of recommended sources used. Total mark / 100 The Case: Disastrous decisions Any decision has the potential to turn out badly, but very few turn out as badly as the decisions made by the British Petroleum (BP) during the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The Deepwater Horizon was a large floating rig for drilling oil wells that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico (off the US south coast) in April 2010. Methane gas from an oil well was released into the drilling rig and ignited, killing 11 workers and causing the well to leak oil into the sea. The resulting oil spill took three months to bring under control, by which time it is estimated that more than 110 million litres of oil had been released into the ocean, making it the largest offshore oil spill in US history. At the time of the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon was being leased by BP to drill an exploratory well for a joint venture for which BP was the majority shareholder and project manager. The venture was behind schedule and costing BP $1.5 million per day. Subsequent investigations of the disaster found that, in the period before the explosion, BP had apparently chosen to use riskier procedures for drilling the well to save time and money. These caused a range of safety failures including leaks in key systems and equipment, using components in ways they weren’t designed for, and the incorrect connection of pipes and equipment to accident preventers. Investigators also found that BP and its employees ignored warnings about leaks in accident prevention equipment and weaknesses in the well. On the day of the explosion, managers misread the data about pressure levels in the pipeline and approved the pumping of the seawater rather than drilling fluid into the pipeline to prevent methane leaking into the well. Seawater was too light to stop the gas rising up the pipe into the rig, which then ignited and exploded. With millions of litres of oil leaking into the marine environment, BP faced intense pressure to cap the well and bring the flows of oil and gas under control. Extreme conditions and untested technologies forced a trial-and-error approach. First, the company tried to close the valves on the well that were leaking oil with remotely operated underwater vehicles. When that didn’t work, BP tried unsuccessfully to place a 125-tonne containment dome over the largest leak and pipe the oil to storage vessels. The company then tried a “top kill” – pumping drilling fluids into the well to restrict the flow of oil and then seal the well with cement – but this also failed. BP considered using explosives to blast and clog the well but decided against it because, if it failed, the company couldn’t try any further alternatives. The spill was finally HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 3 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 3 of 4contained by inserting a washer into the burst pipe, which plugged the flows of oil gas and diverted them into a containment system. In the meantime, the consequences of BP’s decisions about containing and cleaning up the oil spill were becoming apparent. Three main strategies were used: (1) containing the oil on the water’s surface using booms (floating barriers); (2) applying dispersants to dissolve the oil and break up the slick; and (3) removing oil form the water by collecting it for later processing and burning off the oil on the ocean surface. BP was publicly criticised for using Corexit, a dispersant known to be highly toxic and that had never been used before in such large quantities. In the months following the disaster, chemicals in the oil and dispersants caused mutations in marine life and a range of health problems in residents and clean-up workers, including vomiting, chest pains, headaches, seizures, skin lesions, and damage to internal organs and the central nervous system. The decisions taken by BP and the ensuing disaster had far-reaching consequences for the company. The CEO, Nick Heyward, resigned and criminal charges were subsequently laid against several BP employees. The company pleaded guilty to felony convictions related to the deaths of the 11 workers and incurred a financial liability from the disaster of more than $4.5 billion in fines, compensation payments and the cost of the clean-up operation. BP was also temporarily banned from tendering for US government contracts due to the ‘lack of business integrity’ it demonstrated during the disaster. It remains to be seen how long it will take to rebuild trust in the company and its decisions. Source: Robbins, S., DeCenzo, D., Coulter, M., Woods, M. 2014. Management Essentials. Pearson Australia Group Pty Ltd, Frenchs Forest, NSW. Case Questions: 1. How would you apply the four different ethical approaches for guiding BP’s ethical decision making in the period before the explosion? 2. From what we know of the company, how would you critically evaluate the planning function of their management processes? 3. Apply the six decision-making steps to the decisions BP made during the crisis and critically evaluate where they went wrong. 4. Identify and describe the corporate culture prevalent at BP before and during the crises. 5. Given the details available of the case, what can you infer about the organisational structure of BP? Can you identify a link between the organisational structure and corporate culture of BP? 6. If you were asked to assist BP in managing the change now necessary to rebuild trust in the company and its decisions, what would your recommendations be? 7. Research and find at least one journal or scholarly web article which would support any part of the analysis you presented for this case. Be sure to reference this source appropriately both with a citation in the relevant part of the text, and with a full reference at the end of your text. HEP: 4375/CRICOS Provider Code 00246M MGT101A Ass 3 Case Study T3 2016.docx Page 4 of 4