SCENARIO
EZ-Pleeze management has tasked you with preparing a presentation for senior executives based on the work you have previously completed (in Task 1 and Task 2). You will create a formal slide presentation with speaker notes that showcases and supports your strategic recommendations for the company. You will also be required to create an executive summary, to be given to senior executives, that highlights your presentation.
REQUIREMENTS
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Note: You must receive a passing grade on Task 1 and Task 2 for this Business Strategy course before you will be considered for a passing grade on this task.
Prepare a presentation and executive summary to generate support and resources for implementation of your strategic recommendations for EZ-Pleeze by completing the following sections:
Presentation
A. Create a slide presentation (e.g., PowerPoint, Keynote) (suggested length of 8â10 slides) with speaker notes for the senior executives at EZ-Pleeze.
- Discuss within your presentation the current state and the purpose of the companyâs strategic plan.
- Include the EZ-Pleeze SWOT analysis within the presentation.
- Include a completed strategic planning implementation table within your presentation, using the attached âStrategic Planning Implementation Table Template,â that includes strategic recommendations, start dates, evaluation dates, and resources needed.
a. Justify within the presentation the recommendations, timelines, and resources needed for EZ-Pleeze based on the completed strategic planning implementation table.
Executive Summary
B. Provide an executive summary (suggested length of 1â2 pages) for EZ-Pleeze senior executives that summarizes the purpose of the strategic plan, the SWOT analysis, and the strategic recommendations.
Sample Solution
2010) characterize two gatherings of collocations: Linguistic collocations comprise of a thing, a descriptive word, or an action word in addition to a relational word or a syntactic structure, for example, an infinitive or a provision. (for example unintentionally) Lexical collocations comprise of different mixes of things, descriptive words, action words and verb modifiers. (for example storms rage) In spite of the fact that the collocations are significant for L2 students, analysts have shown that collocations are an innate issue for them and utilizing collocations is one of the troublesome parts of jargon learning for students of an outside or second language including propelled students and expert interpreters (Taiwo, 2004; H”ttner, 2005; Walsh, 2005; Millar, 2005; Marty”ska, 2004; Wray, 2000; Bahns, 1993). Dechert and Lennon (1989) contemplated the procurement of collocations by cutting edge students and found that the subjects who had read English for at any rate ten years with broad contact with local speakers couldn’t create the language that fit in with local speaker models. Moreover, their creation caused misconstruing and intruded on cognizance. Dechert and Lennon (1989) keep up that the blunders made by the subjects are not linguistic, however lexical ones. They inferred that learning collocation is dismissed and it needs more consideration. Slope (1999, p. 4) expresses that absence of collocational information can prompt EFL understudies’ challenges in learning English collocations. It might likewise be recommended that one explanation behind the EFL understudies’ troubles in learning English relational words is that they as a rule endeavor to gain proficiency with the importance and utilization of relational words exclusively without giving adequate consideration to their collocational properties (Flowerdew, 1999). Delshad (1980) found that Iranian EFL/ESL understudies experience issues in the utilization of English relational words. As indicated by Delshad, Iranian EFL understudies generally abuse or exclude English relational words. Correspondingly, Zarei (2002) found that Iranian EFL students have issues with English collocations. He grouped English collocational designs into ten classifications of which the collocations of relational words are among the most hazardous examples, while ‘adjective+ verb modifiers’ and ‘fixed articulations’ position among the least tricky collocational designs for them. He further presumed that collocational ability is a fundamental piece of accomplishing local like fitness in English. Sadeghi and Panahifar (2013) concentrated on the utilization>
2010) characterize two gatherings of collocations: Linguistic collocations comprise of a thing, a descriptive word, or an action word in addition to a relational word or a syntactic structure, for example, an infinitive or a provision. (for example unintentionally) Lexical collocations comprise of different mixes of things, descriptive words, action words and verb modifiers. (for example storms rage) In spite of the fact that the collocations are significant for L2 students, analysts have shown that collocations are an innate issue for them and utilizing collocations is one of the troublesome parts of jargon learning for students of an outside or second language including propelled students and expert interpreters (Taiwo, 2004; H”ttner, 2005; Walsh, 2005; Millar, 2005; Marty”ska, 2004; Wray, 2000; Bahns, 1993). Dechert and Lennon (1989) contemplated the procurement of collocations by cutting edge students and found that the subjects who had read English for at any rate ten years with broad contact with local speakers couldn’t create the language that fit in with local speaker models. Moreover, their creation caused misconstruing and intruded on cognizance. Dechert and Lennon (1989) keep up that the blunders made by the subjects are not linguistic, however lexical ones. They inferred that learning collocation is dismissed and it needs more consideration. Slope (1999, p. 4) expresses that absence of collocational information can prompt EFL understudies’ challenges in learning English collocations. It might likewise be recommended that one explanation behind the EFL understudies’ troubles in learning English relational words is that they as a rule endeavor to gain proficiency with the importance and utilization of relational words exclusively without giving adequate consideration to their collocational properties (Flowerdew, 1999). Delshad (1980) found that Iranian EFL/ESL understudies experience issues in the utilization of English relational words. As indicated by Delshad, Iranian EFL understudies generally abuse or exclude English relational words. Correspondingly, Zarei (2002) found that Iranian EFL students have issues with English collocations. He grouped English collocational designs into ten classifications of which the collocations of relational words are among the most hazardous examples, while ‘adjective+ verb modifiers’ and ‘fixed articulations’ position among the least tricky collocational designs for them. He further presumed that collocational ability is a fundamental piece of accomplishing local like fitness in English. Sadeghi and Panahifar (2013) concentrated on the utilization>
