Study Questions for all students. Please write up and submit as per directions in the Syllabus. Your write-up should not exceed 2,500 words single spaced type no smaller than 12 point. Exhibits with data and / or other support material may be appended. ONLY USE THE P&G CASE AND YOUR COURSE MATERIALS. NO OTHER SOURCES SHOULD BE USED. NOTE THE SUBMISSION TIME. 

See the rubric in the Syllabus for this Assignment. You should spend about one-third of your time / space on Q1-4, one-third on Q5, and one-third on Q6.

1. What are P&G’s major markets at the time of the case?

2. Explain why P&G is pushing into the developing world, particularly targeting less affluent customers?

3. Explain in quantitative terms why China is crucial to this strategy.

4. What should P&G’s numerical sales target be in 5 year’s time? Please explain your reasoning using analysis based on data in the case.

5. Evaluate P&G’s China strategy. What have they done right? What have they done wrong? Please use the tools you have learned in the course to organize your analysis.

6. Please make specific recommendations for how P&G should reach the sales target you have set in China. What products, segments, and geographies should be its main focal points? What obstacles will they have to overcome? Please support your answers with data from the case.

The maximum word size of the analysis and answers should be 2,500 words excluding identification, footnotes, and exhibits. Exhibits should be added to show analysis and provide key pieces of information but should not be used to augment to word count.

Grading Rubric for Written Case Analyses, Also Relevant to the Group Strategy Project

Critical Thinking Rubric – STRT Graduate Courses  CapstoneMilestones BenchmarkPoints4321Framing the Problem / Explanation of issues20%Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. If appropriate, the decision maker is correctly identified.Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions. If appropriate, a decision maker is identified .Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/ or backgrounds unknown.Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description.Analysis35%Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Frameworks and concepts are correctly used in analysis. Employs quantitative information throughout to support points. Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Frameworks and concepts are at times correctly used in analysis. Quantitative information is integrated into some of the main points but not all.Limited information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/ evaluation, but not enough to develop a thorough analysis or synthesis. Frameworks and concepts are identified but not incorporated into the analysis. Very little quantitative information is integrated in the analysis.Basic information is utilized. Few if any frameworks are concepts are identified but not incorporated into the analysis. Minimal quantitative information is integrated. Recommendations35%Recommendations and conclusions are logical and reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order. All recommendations are well supported. When appropriate, options are clearly identified and the selection of one option over another is explained.Some recommendations are logically tied to a range of information. Other recommendations are weakly supported. When appropriate, options are identified and some explanation for selection of one option is provided.Recommendations are tied to some information but logic is incomplete or poorly laid out in some instances. When appropriate, options are identified but explanation for selection of one option over others is not clear.Recommendations are inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed. When appropriate, options or explanation of choice are not clearly identified or explained.Quality of Report10%Uses appropriate writing style and language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error- free. Demonstrates skillful use of high- quality, credible, relevant sources to develop ideas and correctly cites these sources. Uses straightforward language and appropriate writing style that generally conveys meaning to readers. The language in the portfolio has few errors. Demonstrates consistent use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas and correctly cites these sources.Uses language that generally conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although writing and writing style may include some errors. Demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support idea. Sources are cited, but not using in appropriate citation style.Uses language that sometimes impedes meaning because of errors in usage. Demonstrates an attempt to use sources to support ideas in the writing. Some sources are missing or cited but not using an appropriate citation style.