written communication skills

B

CO 113 WRITTEN COMMUNIC

A

TION SKILLS MID-TERM ASSESSMENT 2020 Task brief & rubrics

Task

· Individual written Assignment

· There are three texts and three tasks for each task. Answer ALL Questions. Formalities account for 10% of the grade

Formalities:

· Wordcount: 750 – 800words

· Cover Page and Table of Contents are excluded from the total word count.

· Font: Arial 10 pts.

· Text alignment: Justified.

· The in-text References and the Bibliography need to be in the Harvard citation style.

· Format: PDF file

Release date: Friday 13th of November 2020, 00:00 CEST

Submission: Sunday 15th of November 23:59 CEST – Via Moodle (Turnitin)

Weight: This task is 40% of your total grade for this subject.

It assesses the following learning outcomes:

Outcome

O2 demonstrate familiarity with different writing formats in business communication and apply this in practice

Read the texts below.

1) Evaluate the texts below commenting on the positive and negative aspects(50-100 words)

2) Rewrite the texts (100-150 words each text)

3) State a) the audience and b) the purpose of the communication (50 words)

A

To ALL Employees!!!

We regret that we must draw your attention to company policy regarding punctuality and scruffiness. We have noticed many of you slacking about and customers have complained that people are often chatting to each other instead of being served. We have also notice that people are leaving without shutting down computers abnd as a result we have seen just how much company time is being wasted on visiting sports websites, Facebook and other non-work-related activities. Times are toughand we should ALL be on the ball ALL the time. From now oon anyone caught in untowards behavior will be given a warning. Three warnings could have serious consequences. I am attaching a copy of the internal company chárter with all your rights and rules. Please read this immediately. Once again we are sorry this is happening and hope you will follow all the rules from no won.

B

This report is about the terrible decline in sales experienced in the third quarter of 2020. We all know that the pandemic is noticeable and also that the US elections and campaign have been having a serious affect on the economie.

The report concludes that unfortunately the inefficient sales team and secrecy of the financial department gave the result that this quater has been disasterous, much more bad that our most negative night,mares.

So that this does not happen never again the report recommends we are redesigning the communication flow and transparency. A repiit event of this kind would be an absolute disaster for the company!!! We are allready receiving calls from our creditors about the situation. Bad news travels fast so we ned to act now.

C. Dear ABC Customer Service

The other day I was called by one of your salesmen about our recent order Nr V 02348. The order is late, very late and this delay is causing us problems with our own customers. The salesman was rude and impossible to understand on account of having a thick foreign accent. When we agreed to work with you, you promised us a superior after-sales service. We have not seen any such service thus far. If you do not improve the service, we will need to reconsider further business with you. Please get in touch as soon as possible and give us a solution.

If you have any more problems to draw our attention to, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely

Rubrics

Exceptional 90-100	Good 80-89	Fair 70-79	Marginal fail 60-69
Identification of key concepts, task completion, Knowledge & Understanding (30%)	The student identifies all relevant key concepts and demonstrates superior understanding of them	The student identifies most key concepts and demonstrates good understanding of them.	The student identifies some relevant key concepts fairly well and demonstrates some understanding them (although some are lacking).	The student identifies few key concepts and demonstrates marginally inadequate understanding of them (several may be lacking or irrelevant).
Formatting and Application (30%)	The student uses the correct formatting for the purpose and audience of the business message.	The student uses mostly the correct formatting for the purpose and audience of the business message with a few errors.	The student uses some of the formatting. The purpose and audience of the business message are not fully considered	The student attempts to format, but there are significant errors. The purpose and audience of the business message are not made relevant
Strategy (20%)	The student uses the correct messaging strategy for the specific business situation.	The student shows evidence of understanding the messaging strategy	The student makes some attempt to use a messaging strategy	The student makes little attempt to apply a messaging strategy
Application of effective writing techniques (20%)	Clearly applies the relevant writing technique using appropriate language and the answer is coherent and uses correct grammar.	Applies the relevant writing technique. Some errors in language use, coherence and / or grammar and spelling	Attempts to apply the relevant writing technique. Errors in language use, coherence and / or grammar and spelling	Uses the incorrect writing technique and has many errors in language, coherence, grammar and spelling

BCO313 NEGOTIATION MID-TERM ASSESSMENT Task brief & rubrics

Task

 Individual written Assignment
 Material:

1. Case titled “BARGAINING PRICE WITH THE CHINESE” (Rob March) page 2
 Answer ALL the following questions:

1. “He realized the value of thinking like one’s opponent – seeing things as they do.” Explain what this means and give some examples to illustrate
this view.

2. “The Chinese insisted that custom required the visitor—Glazer—to make the first presentation. This he did, even though he was accustomed to
allowing his opponents to speak first” What are the advantages and drawbacks of making the first offer?

3. “Glazer could hardly believe that he had lowered his price twenty per-cent that week”: What does this tell you about Glazer’s ZOPA?
4. What can we ‘assume’ about the way Glazer did his due diligence? Evaluate the approach.
5. Name three tactics the Chinese used in the second meeting. Evaluate briefly how Glazer dealt with them.
6. “Glazer remembered the tight deadlines he had faced on previous trips to China; now positions had been reversed, with the Chinese facing the

pressures and deadlines.”: What does this tell you about Glazer’s preparation strategy for the negotiation?
7. ”For the first time, the Chinese made a counter offer. Auger-Aiso accepted, and agreement was reached” Why do you thing Auger Aiso agreed at

this point?
8. “He believed that Auger-Aiso had been awarded the contract because it had been the preferred supplier right from the start” How does this

belief relate to understanding the difference between distributive and integrative bargaining?

Formalities:

 Wordcount: 2500-3000 words
 Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are excluded from the total word count.
 Font: Arial 11 pts.
 Text alignment: Justified.
 The in-text References and the Bibliography have to be in Harvard’s citation style.
 Format: PDF file

Submission: Week 7 by the 22nd of November 2020 at 23:59 CET – Via Moodle (Turnitin)

Weight: This task is 40% of your total grade for this subject.
It assesses the following learning outcomes:

 Outcome 1: Have an in-depth understanding of the keys to successful negotiation
 Outcome 2: Critically appreciate negotiation styles, strategies, and tactics
 Outcome 3: Identify and create alternative negotiation strategies and tactics (own and of the other party)

 Outcome 4: Understand and apply due diligence, briefing and debriefing
 Outcome 5: Evaluate the difference between distributive and integrative bargaining

CASE STUDY: BARGAINING PRICE WITH THE CHINESE
Overview

K. G. Marwin Inc. developed a particular technology in the 1980s, called the Trilliamp Process, that the Chinese government sought to integrate into an ethylene

facility in Lanzhou, the capital of Gansu province. It signed a contract with Marwin, which in 1985 invited inquiries from U.S. and Japanese manufacturers for

production of the machinery. Marwin recommended the Japanese company Auger-Aiso as most capable of producing the turbines, while the Chinese invited two

U.S. companies—Federal Electric and Pressure Inc., which manufactured through the large Japanese trading company Mitsubo—to compete for the multi-million-

dollar contract.

The Scene

To undertake the negotiations with the three prospective suppliers, six Chinese officials and three representatives from the Bank of China were selected. The

Auger-Aiso chief negotiator was Todman Glazer, the company’s Japan branch manager from the United States who resided in Tokyo and was assisted by his

Japanese colleagues. Glazer remembered the tight deadlines he had faced on previous trips to China; now positions had been reversed, with the Chinese facing

the pressures and deadlines. He realized the value of thinking like one’s opponent—seeing things as they do. This was the first potential deal with China in the

ethylene market, and Auger-Aiso faced stiff competition from Mitsubo, which had already cornered the Chinese oil-processing market. At the first negotiation

meeting in Beijing, the Chinese insisted that custom required the visitor—Glazer—to make the first presentation. This he did, even though he was accustomed to

allowing his opponents to speak first. Glazer began by addressing the excellence of Auger-Aiso technology, explaining that the manufacturing would all be done in

Japan to ensure product excellence. When the Chinese offered no indication of their position or price, Glazer felt obliged to quote an upper-range price that would

allow flexibility. The Chinese still made no comment. In the afternoon, the Chinese heard offers from the combined Mitsubo-Pressure team, then Federal Electric.

By the end of the day, Federal Electric had dropped out of the race, accepting that it could not compete.

Revolving Doors, Changing Moods

During the first week of negotiations, a pattern emerged. The Chinese would meet with Glazer and his colleagues in the morning and ask for a price, saying that

their competitors had already bid such-and-such a price, which was invariably lower than the last Auger-Aiso bid. They would meet with Mitsubo-Pressure in the

afternoon and use the same approach, causing the latter to drop its price. Moreover, each meeting would end with the Chinese saying, “We will call you tomorrow.”

But, because they never called, both prospective vendors became panicky and visited the Chinese office without notice to present an even lower bid. As the

Chinese kept the vendors guessing and in the dark, Glazer understood how the Chinese had earned a reputation as master negotiators. At the second meeting,

tactics changed and there were different people representing the Chinese side. An antagonist would suddenly burst out in loud Chinese and harangue the Auger-

Aiso side for some fifteen minutes, complaining about the quality of the machines they were offering. A protagonist would then intervene and, apologizing for his

colleague, would say he had been upset about the current situation.

Glazer regarded these outbursts as no more than arranged role playing, designed to make the protagonist (the good guy) appear more trustworthy to the

foreigners. But, Glazer realized, all the participants were play-acting. Then there was yet another change. The Chinese located the Auger-Aiso and Mitsubo-Pressure

teams near the meeting room, in adjacent rooms. Mitsubo-Pressure would be called in and asked for its best price. After the team had returned to its room, Auger-

Aiso would be called in, told the latest price, and asked if it could beat this. When the prospective vendors could drop their price no lower, they would add

something to the package. Auger, for example, added oil gauges for its turbines, effectively a three-percent add-on. Even so, the Chinese still would not commit

to placing an order.

When the Price Is Right

Glazer could hardly believe that he had lowered his price twenty per-cent that week; to do so would have been out of the question in the United States. On the

final day, Auger-Aiso made another offer—and, for the first time, the Chinese made a counter offer. Auger-Aiso accepted, and the agreement was reached. A few

hours later, Mitsubo-Pres-sure came back with an even lower price, but the deal had already been struck. Glazer spoke later about how difficult it was to compete

with Japanese trading companies, explaining that U.S. companies had so many factors to bear in mind, including insurance and a variety of liabilities. Meanwhile,

Japanese trading companies, which had vastly different legal parameters [within which] to operate within, could more easily focus on getting contracts and closing

deals. He believed that Auger-Aiso had been awarded the contract because it had been the preferred supplier right from the start.

Rubrics

Exceptional 90-100 Good 80-89 Fair 70-79 Marginal fail 60-69
Knowledge &

Understanding
(20%)

Student demonstrates
excellent understanding of
key concepts and uses
terminology in an entirely
appropriate manner.

Student demonstrates
good understanding of the
task and mentions some
relevant concepts and
demonstrates use of the
relevant terminology.

Student understands the
task and provides minimum
theory and/or some use of
terminology.

Student understands the task
and attempts to answer the
question but does not
mention key concepts or uses
minimum amount of relevant
terminology.

Application (30%) Student applies fully
relevant knowledge from
the topics delivered in the
course.

Student applies mostly
relevant knowledge from
the topics delivered in
thecourse.

Student applies some
relevant knowledge from
the topics delivered in the
course. Misunderstanding
may be evident.

Student applies little relevant
knowledge from the topics
delivered in the course.
Misunderstandings are
evident.

Critical Thinking
(30%)

Student critically assesses
in excellent ways, drawing
outstanding conclusions
from relevant authors.

Student critically assesses
in good ways, drawing
conclusions from relevant
authors and references.

Student provides some
insights but stays on the
surface of the topic.
References may not be
relevant.

Student makes little or none
critical thinking insights, does
not quote appropriate
authors, and does not
provide valid sources.

Communication
(20%)

Student communicates
ideas extremely clearly and
concisely, respecting word
count, grammar and
spellcheck. Very well
organized and easy to read.

Student communicates
ideas clearly and concisely,
respecting word count,
grammar and spellcheck.
Well organized and easy to
read.

Student communicates
ideas with some clarity and
concision. It may be slightly
over or under the word
count limit. Some
misspelling errors may be
evident. Acceptablel
organizion of ideas and
mostly easy to read.

Student communicates ideas
in a somewhat unclear and
unconcise way. Does not
reach or does exceed word
count excessively and
misspelling errors are
evident. Organizion of ideas
need improvement; not
always easy to read.