Explain what the PESTEL tool is used for and how it assists in strategy development

Please see the case titled ‘Chester & Kent Craft Beer’ in the assignment forum on the study desk. This case is applicable to both the case study and the examination at the end of the semester. You are required to analyze this case and answer the questions below.
Important instructions:
A. The format of presenting the case study answers is indicated in the assignment questions below. Please note that neither a report format nor essay format is required; just follow the format and instructions in the assignment questions below. A general introduction and conclusion to the case study should not be included.
B. Word count: The word count is 2,000 words. A word count between 1,800 and 2,200 (10% +/- 2,000) is acceptable. If the word count is exceeded, only the first 2,200 words will be marked. The word count excludes the title page, words in the figures and tables, and the List of References. In-text references are included in the word count.
C. Theory support: As indicated in the case study questions below, you are required to support your views with theory. To ensure the depth and credibility of your work, you need to demonstrate that you read widely on the theory topic by including the views of a wide range of theory sources. Theory sources include scholarly journal articles researched through the USQ Library databases. The prescribed text (Grant et al. 2014) as well as the course readings must also be included as theory support. On a postgraduate level, it is expected that research include about fifteen journal articles (excluding course readings and text).
D. References: Please note that information obtained from the case study should not be referenced, as the case study is the base source of information for your assignment. If you use information from the course study book, you should find the original source (see list of references at the end of each module) and reference the original source of theory. All ideas and data presented in text must be referenced according to the Harvard AGPS method. The full reference to each source must be presented in the List of References at the end of your document. Please see the USQ Library website for help on how to use the Harvard
AGPS method: http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide
E. Marking criteria sheet: It is important that you read through the marking criteria when preparing your assignment to note the criteria that assignments will be evaluated against. Please insert a copy of this criteria sheet at the end of your document. Please insert a page break at the end of your assignment before copying the marking criteria sheet on the next page.
F. Submission: Only one document in Microsoft Word (.doc or.docx) can be submitted. Please make sure that you submit the correct file and the final version of your assignment. It creates unnecessary problems if you submit the wrong file, and we have to reset your submission page.
G. The due date is Tuesday, 11:55 PM AEST, January 3, 2017. Penalties will be applied for late submissions. Please see the USQ policy on assignment submission, Point 4.2.4, ‘Late submission of assignments’: http://policy.usq.edu.au/documents/14749PL#4.2_Assignments. Extensions to the due date can only be considered if the guidelines in the policy are followed.
H. If you have questions about the assignment, please post them in the Case Study Discussion Forum on the Study Desk. Even if you don’t have questions, it is important that you follow the discussions on this forum to make sure that you are on the right track with your responses to the case study questions.
Assignment questions:
After reading and analyzing the case ‘Chester & Kent Craft Beer’ carefully, please respond to the following questions: Use the headings and subheadings shown below to present your answers.
Title page
The USQ cover sheet should not be included. The first page of your assignment must be a title page where the following information must be included:
• Assignment title
• Full name and student number
• Actual word count
• Email address or contact phone number (if there is a problem with your assignment, it is useful to have your details so that I can contact you).
Please present the title page as a separate page.
1. Summarize the industry and market information (+/- 300 words)
Based on the information provided in the case, summarize the industry and market background for Chester & Kent Craft Beer. Present this in your own words and outline aspects such as the industry in general, current industry trends, competition in the industry, the state of the global market, the state of the Australian market, and any other fact that might be relevant background that can be used in preparing future strategies.
2. Industry analysis: PESTEL Analysis (+/- 450 words)
2.1 Introduction
Explain what the PESTEL tool is used for and how it assists in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your text but also other theory sources to add depth to your discussion.
2.2 Figure 1: PESTEL analysis
Draw the PESTEL framework as presented in your text (Grant et al. 2014, p. 115) and populate each block with data from the case using bullet points. The six elements as well as the middle block, the industry environment, must be populated. Make sure that the reader understands what the case study fact is that you are identifying; one word in a bullet point may not be sufficient. For each element, identify a number of issues. The level of analysis of your case will be demonstrated in the population of each of the blocks.
2.3 Element narrative
In this section, each of the elements that you populated with case study facts must be discussed.
Explain how the environmental conditions might influence the organization (Chester & Kent Tap House & Brewery) in the future and impact future strategic planning. The overall industry environment (the middle block of PESTEL) must also be discussed in terms of the impact of environmental conditions on suppliers, competitors, and customers and how this impacts future strategic planning. Here you need to add theory to support your views (please see Points C and D above in the ‘Important Instructions section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own views, rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
3. Industry Analysis: Porter’s Five Forces (+/- 450 words)
3.1 Introduction
Explain what Porter’s Five Forces Framework is used for and how it assists in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your text but also other theory sources to add depth to your discussion.
3.2 Figure 2: Porter’s Five Forces Framework (extended version)
Draw ‘Porter’s Five Forces Framework Extended with Complements’ as presented in your text (Grant et al. 2014, p. 134) and populate each block with data from the case using bullet points. Make sure that the reader understands what the case study fact is that you are identifying; one word in a bullet point may not be sufficient.
Read Grant et al. (2014, pp. 121–134) for information about what each force entails. Note that the case study facts should be included here. For each element, identify a number of issues, if applicable. The level of analysis of your case will be demonstrated in the population of each of the blocks.
3.3 Forces narrative
In this section, each of the forces that you populated with case study facts must be discussed. Explain how the microenvironmental conditions (industry conditions) might influence the organization (Chester & Kent Tap House & Brewery) in the future and impact future strategic planning. In the middle block, the industry competitors and rivalry among existing firms must be discussed. Here you need to add theory to support your views (please see Points C and D above in the ‘Important Instructions section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own views, rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
4. Industry Analysis: Key Success Factors (KSFs) (+/- 450 words)
4.1 Introduction
Explain what KSFs are and how they are used in strategy development. Use theory to support your explanations. Use your text but also other theory sources to add depth to your discussion.
4.2 Table 1: Key Success Factors
Draw up a KSF table similar to Table 4.2 (Grant et al. 2014, p. 145) for the craft beer industry.
Identify the external forces impacting this industry, list the likely industry responses as a whole (how the whole industry is currently responding to these forces), and then list the key success factors for the industry. These are the characteristics that companies in this industry should have if they want to be successful and competitive. Pay special attention to how you formulate these success factors (see Table 4.2 in Grant et al. 2014, p. 145 for examples), as they play an important role in developing a range of strategies going forward.
4.3 KSF narrative
From the list of KSFs that you identified in the table, choose five (5) of the most important key success factors for the industry. Explain why you have chosen each of these KSFs as most important in the industry; why are these factors critical in the craft beer industry?
Here you need to add theory to support your views (please see Points C and D above in the ‘Important Instructions section). Make sure that you use your theory component to integrate the views and arguments of other authors (journal articles) with your own views, rather than using theory only for definitions of elements.
5. Discuss the value of rational models (such as PESTEL, Five Forces, and KSFs) in contemporary strategic planning. (+/- 350 words)
The Module 2 readings address the use of strategic tools in modern strategic planning. In this section, discuss the value and role of rational models in practice. Provide your personal view (supported) about the issue as to whether these strategic tools should be used or not in strategy development.
In Section 2.3.2 Strategic Tools and Their Use in Practice of Your Study Book (Module 2, p. 11), the use of ‘technical rational’ models is addressed. Please do not copy information from the study book into your answer in this section. It is important that you read the views of the authors of the readings (Module 2 Readings) and develop your own opinion about the usefulness of these models in practice. In this section, additional theory sources are not required; only the relevant Module 2 readings should be used as theory to support your discussion. Remember to apply in-text referencing (and, of course, full references in the List of References) when you present the views obtained from these sources.
Conclude with a final assessment in regard to forecasted demand for Chester & Kent Craft Beer, including projections for 2021 based on your strategy selection.
6. List of References
Include here a list of full references for all the in-text references that you included in your discussions. The case study should not be referenced here, but your text and readings that you referenced should appear here. Make sure that you follow the correct Harvard AGPS method of referencing. Please see the USQ Library website for help on how to use the Harvard AGPS method: http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide. The Communication Skills Handbook by Summers and Smith (any of the editions) is also a very valuable source of information for referencing and assessment writing in general.
Marking Criteria Sheet (see next 3 pages)
The marking criteria below will be used to evaluate your assignment. Please make sure that you read through the criteria sheet to see the expectations for various grade levels per section of the case study questions.
Please insert a copy of the full criteria sheet into your assignment. This should be done by inserting a page break after the List of References, then copy-and-paste each of the 3 pages into your own document to display as presented below. Thank you for your help with this!
Please post questions about the case study in the Study Desk forum titled ‘Case Study Discussion Forum’.

CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50% pass
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION 85% and up TOT
AL
SUMMARISE
INDUSTRY
AND
MARKET
INFORMATI
ON lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question, and the differentiation between industry and market is not clear.
Not all issues relevant to the question have been answered. I misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
High degree of copy and paste from the case. Basic to a fair understanding of the question.
May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question.
Included some irrelevant material.
Some degree of copying and pasting from the case Sound understanding of
the question demonstrated in the answer to the question
There is a clear distinction between industry and market information.
Good selection of information presented in a structured way. Strong understanding of the question.
Answers all parts of the question and includes a broad selection of relevant industry and market information.
The well-constructed answer and argument are clear and reinforce important key issues. Unequivocal understanding of the question.
Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
No irrelevant content.
Excellent development and flow of argument.
MARK / 4 2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
PESTEL ANALYSIS:
INTRODUCT
ION
No introduction or introduction without theory support  The prescribed text was not used.
The introduction does not explain the link between strategy development andBasic introduction: only text is used as theory support. The prescribed text was not effectively used. A basic explanation of the link with strategy development Sound introduction: some original sources were used as theory support. Sound explanation of the link with strategy development. A clear introduction demonstrates research on the topic. The link with strategy development is well researched and presented clearly. Original sources of theory applied Excellent introduction, concise, clear, and demonstrating a deep level of understanding of the topic. A range of original sources of theory applied
PESTEL ANALYSIS:
FRAMEWOR
K No framework was presented or presented incorrectly. No case facts, only theory as bullet points. Elements are not populated with case data. Irrelevant data is included.
Elements are populated with only theory and no case study data. Poor selection of case data
I misunderstood the requirements.
Insufficient case analysis  The framework is presented with bullet points from case data but covers only some issues; the analysis is incomplete.
Elements were populated insufficiently. Mostly theory, insufficient case study data Basic level of case analysis. The framework is presented with relevant bullet points and case data; most of the important issues are included.
Elements are sufficiently populated with theory and case data, resulting in a satisfactory level of case analysis. The framework is populated with relevant and significant case study data, demonstrating a deep level of case analysis. Excellent population of the framework with important and relevant case study data. The original material is the result of an in-depth investigation. Excellent analysis of sources
PESTEL ANALYSIS:
NARRATIVE Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Not all issues relevant to the question have been answered. I misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of the argument.
No references. There is no integration of theory and application. No theory, only application. Only theory, no application. Course materials and/or prescribed text are not used. Only textbooks; no other research. High degree of paraphrasing or direct quotes. Include irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support the theory component. Basic to a fair understanding of the question. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question.
Might have some patches of irrelevant material.
Some evidence of the structure and progression of the argument
I included some additional references, although the integration of all or some of these references needs improvement. Citations were mostly from the text. I included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support the theory component. Sound understanding of
the question demonstrated in the answer to the question All issues were addressed.
Good structure and progression of the theme.
Original material was obtained and integrated in most instances.
Sources of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component. Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.
Very good structure, clear arguments, and progression of argument.
There is clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of sources Unequivocal understanding of the question. Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
Excellent critical analysis and discussion.
The original material is the result of an in-depth investigation. Excellent critical analysis of sources. References are relevant and clearly integrated.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 – 9
CRITERIA FAIL PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION TOT
Less than 50% 50%–64% 65%–74% 75%–84% 85% and up AL
FIVE No introduction or introduction Basic introduction, only sound introduction, Clear introduction Excellent introduction,
Forces: without theory support. text used as theory, some original sources demonstrating concise, clear, and
INTRODUCT The prescribed text was not used. support. Prescribed text is used as theory support. research on the topic. demonstrating a deep level
The ION Introduction does not explain why it was not effectively used. Basic sound explanation of link with strategy of understanding of the
link with strategy development. The explanation of link with link with strategy development is a good topic. A range of original strategy development was researched and sources of theory applied.
presented clearly.
Original sources of
theory applied.
FIVE No framework is presented.  A framework is presented. Framework: Excellent population of the forces: presented incorrectly. No case with bullet points from relevant bullets populated with framework with important first-person facts only theory as bullet points. case data but covers only points with case data and relevant case study data.
K elements are not populated with some issues; analysis is most of the important and significant case study.  The original material is the result data. Irrelevant data was included. incomplete. issues are included. data demonstrating an in-depth investigation.
deep level of case Excellent analysis of the sources.
Elements populated with only Elements populated Elements are theory; there is no case study data. Poor insufficiently. a mostly sufficiently populated selection of case data. theory, insufficient case with theory and case I misunderstood the requirements. study data. Basic level of data, satisfactory level Insufficient case analysis case analysis. of case analysis.
Five lacks a demonstrated Basic to fair understanding Sound understanding of Strong understanding Unequivocal understanding
FORCES: understanding of the question. The question of the question may not exist. Excellent
NARRATIVE Not all issues relevant to answering all the issues demonstrated in the answers and all parts of the analysis of relevant issues have been answered. relevant to the question. answer to the question. the question, pertaining to the question. I misunderstood the case study. Might have some patches All issues included discussions.
focus. Included mostly irrelevant material. addressed to each of the
material. elements. Excellent critical analysis
and discussion.
Some evidence of good structure and
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no structure, and no progression of theme. Very good structure,
logical progression of the argument. Clear arguments and original material are the result of an in-depth investigation.
Original material argument. Excellent critical analysis of No references. No integration of Additional sources were obtained and integrated. References are theory and application. No references, although in most instances relevant and clearly theory, only application. Only integration of all or some clear evidence of integrated theory, no application. The course of these references needs wider reading.
materials and/or prescribed text improvement. Citations Sources of theory: references are not well used. Only one textbook and none other were mostly from the text. include scholarly journals integrated into the research. High degree of I included some irrelevant articles to support the discussions. Good
paraphrasing or direct quotes. sources (web pages, study theory component) balance of text, Included are irrelevant sources (web books, articles from journals, etc.). Critical pages, study books, and articles from magazines support the analysis of sources. magazines) to support the theory component.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 – 9
KSF: No introduction Basic introduction, only sound introduction, clear introduction Excellent introduction,
introduce without theory support. text used as theory, some original sources demonstrating concise, clear, and
ION Prescribed text not used.  The prescribed text is used as theory to support research on the topic. demonstrating a deep level of  The introduction does not explain why it was not effectively used. Basic Sound explanation of the link with strategy and understanding of the link with strategy development  The explanation of link with link with strategy development is a good topic. A range of original strategy development was researched and sources of theory applied.
presented clearly.
Original sources of
theory applied.
KSF No framework is presented.  A framework is presented. Framework is an excellent population of the FRAMEWOR presented incorrectly. No case with bullet points from relevant bullets populated with framework with important
K facts only theory as bullet points. case data but covers only points with case data and relevant case study data. Elements are not populated with some issues; analysis is most of the important and significant case study.  The original material is the result data. Irrelevant data was included. incomplete. issues are included. data demonstrating an in-depth investigation.
Elements populated with only Elements populated Elements are a deep level of case Excellent analysis of theory; no case study data. Poor insufficiently. Mostly sufficiently populated analysis sources. selection of case data. theory, insufficient case with theory and case
I misunderstood the requirements. study data. Basic level of data, satisfactory level
Insufficient case analysis
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50% pass
50%–64% CREDIT
65%–74% DISTINCTION
75%–84% HIGH DISTINCTION 85% and up TOT
AL
KSF:
NARRATIVE Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Not all issues relevant to the question have been answered. I misunderstood the case study focus. Included mostly irrelevant material.
Poor structure: no paragraphs, no logical progression of the argument.
No references. There is no integration of theory and application. No theory, only application. Only theory, no application. Course materials and/or prescribed text are not used. Only textbooks; no other research. High degree of paraphrasing or direct quotes. Include irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support the theory component. Basic to a fair understanding of the question. May not have answered all the issues relevant to the question.
Might have some patches of irrelevant material.
Some evidence of the structure and progression of the argument
I included some additional references, although the integration of all or some of these references needs improvement. Citations were mostly from the text. I included some irrelevant sources (web pages, study books, articles from magazines) to support the theory component. Sound understanding of
the question demonstrated in the answer to the question All issues were addressed.
Good structure and progression of the theme.
Original material was obtained and integrated in most instances.
Sources of theory include scholarly journal articles to support the theory component. Strong understanding of the question. Answers all parts of the question, including discussions for each of the elements.
Very good structure, clear arguments, and progression of argument.
There is clear evidence of wider reading. References are well integrated into the discussions. Good balance of text, journals, etc. Critical analysis of sources Unequivocal understanding of the question. Excellent analysis of relevant issues pertaining to the question.
Excellent critical analysis and discussion.
The original material is the result of an in-depth investigation. Excellent critical analysis of sources. References are relevant and clearly integrated.
MARK/9 4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 – 9
VALUE OF
RATIONAL
MODELS Lacks a demonstrated understanding of the question. Study book materials were copied. There is no evidence that the readings for Module 2 were studied. I did not conclude with a clear opinion about the value of the models. Arguments not supported by theory from the readings No theory references (readings).
Unsupported personal opinions. Basic to a fair understanding of the question. There is evidence that some of the readings were studied.
Some valid arguments offered, supported by theory.
Concluded with an opinion about the value of the models. Some arguments are supported by theory from readings. Sound understanding of the question. Evidence that all of the readings for Module 2 were studied
Valid arguments are built on the views presented in the readings. Good theory support.
Concluded with a valid opinion about the value of the models. All arguments are supported by theory from the readings. Strong understanding of the question. A clear critical opinion is justified by the theory.
Very good arguments built on the views presented in the readings Very good theory support.
Very good conclusion about the value of the models, supported by theory from the readings. Unequivocal understanding of the question. Excellent critical opinion is justified by the theory.
Excellent arguments and clear evidence of understanding of the issues addressed in the readings
Excellent conclusions, supported by theory from the readings.
MARK/5 2.5 2.5 – 3 3 – 3.5 – 4 4 – 5
RESEARCH/
REFERENCI
NG/
PRESENTAT
ION There was no research on the topics. No scholarly journal articles Only company websites
I did not conform to Harvard referencing.
Not adhering to assignment requirements. No title page. Did not follow the required structure. Excessive spelling, grammatical errors, and poor syntax Poorly presented; There are a lot of typing errors.
Over or under 10% of the word limit I included some scholarly journal articles, although the number is insufficient. Citations were mostly from the text.
Harvard referencing techniques vary.
There were some instances in which the assignment requirements and structure were not followed. Fair understanding of rules of grammar and construction. There were some spelling and typing errors. Within the word count Satisfactory number of scholarly journal articles. Sufficient research.
Only minor errors in Harvard referencing—in-text or list of references
Adhere to the assignment requirements and structure. Sound level of fluency in writing; may have one or two awkward sentences. No
obvious errors in grammar or syntax. Well presented. Within-word count There is clear evidence of wider reading.
Meets Harvard referencing protocols.
Clear and fluent writing. Professional presentation.
Within the word count
Uses dynamic, unique material alongside relatively standard material to develop theoretical concepts. Excellent research.
Accurate Harvard referencing has no errors.
Well-constructed and crafted piece of work. It was a pleasure to read. Professional presentation. Within the word count
MARK / 4 2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
TOTAL/40: