Critique Solievier

SCIENTIFIC PAPER ASSESSMENT

PAPER W

S.OLIVER BERND FREIER GMBH&CO.KG GOES INDIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction to the assessment paper 1

2. Management Summary/Abstract 1

3. Introduction 1

4. Paper logically shortened 1

5. Theme or problem clear 1

6. Theory relevant and explained 1

7. Logical link of theory to story 2

8. Balance theory/story content 2

9. Quality of English 2

10. Understandable? 2

11. Recommendations 2

12. Conclusion 2

13. Proper referencing in bibliography 3

14. Proper referencing in text 3

15. Standard layout 3

16. Conclusion to the assessment 3

1. Introduction to the assessment paper

The following paper will serve as critique of a case study from the lecture Case Studies and Excursions presented in the summer semester of 2007. The title of the paper being s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH&Co.KG goes India, written by an unknown author.

The main objective of the following will be to objectively analyse the abovementioned paper for different aspects including structure, content and technical appropriateness. For the assessment a check list type of review will serve useful to provide an in-depth analysis of the paper.

2. Management Summary/Abstract

Unfortunately the author fails to provide any sort of abstract or executive summary as such. It is therefore not possible to get a general idea of the paper without any further reading.

3. Introduction

The introduction is somewhat novelesque, the beginning is rather hasty and does not explain what is the reason or purpose of the paper. It is only until the third paragraph that the reader can get a general idea about what he/she is about to read. There is an attempt to provide a research question though unfortunately it is not well phrased nor properly lead in and therefore lacking mesh with the rest of the paragraph.

4. Paper logically shortened

The paper provides an exhaustive background on relevant issues nonetheless it may cast a shadow over the actual point of the case.

5. Theme or problem clear

The introduction presents obvious hints about the upcoming pages though it fails to provide key information about the structure and contents of the paper. It is only after completely reading the paper that the reader can approximately pinpoint the actual theme or problem of the case.

6. Theory relevant and explained

The author manages to provide relevant theory supporting the case. The use of models to support the case are well chosen and thoroughly explained. The decision to use only two models was perhaps adequate since they could be properly exhausted within the possible space restraint.

7. Logical link of theory to story

On the first model there is a structured link connecting the theory to the story, the author decided to use a step by step method in which each segment of the theory would be followed by its link to the story. This leads to believe that the author grasps theoretical concepts and its application to the case. Unfortunately on the second model there is a failure to directly connect the theory to the case, it is merely a well explained set of entry strategies of which only one will later be linked to the case. An option would have been to provide possible outcomes had the case taken alternative strategies.

8. Balance theory/story content

There is an imbalance present in the paper, the amount of theory clearly exceeds that of the actual story. The problem being the fact, that the