Case Study: Ziroom: Creating Quality Rental Living
Case Study: Ziroom: Creating Quality Rental Living[1]
| Scenario: You are providing information about a new service idea using a blog post to generate support from stakeholders in the case study company. Your blog post should evidence your understanding of the company’s current situation and explain why the new service you are proposing is justified. |
Students are required to submit a 2,000-word blog post (+/- 10%), excluding references and appendices, which accounts for 50% of the mark awarded for the module (100% for MKT3100 students).
Your blog post should:
- Briefly describe and critically evaluate the Ziroom business model, paying particular attention to the services they currently offer and how they work
- Articulate a problem experienced by current or future Ziroomers
- Describe the new service’s value proposition, explain how it will work using the models and techniques from the NSD portfolio of tools
This is an individual assessment. While students are encouraged to learn through peer-support and collaboration for learning-by-doing when applying various NSD tools and techniques to a case[2], the assignment must be a student’s own work.
For the purposes of this module, students are not allowed to develop joint New Service ideas.
Note that plagiarism is a serious offence that can lead to you failing the module and your suspension from studies.
Key Marking Criteria and weighting:
You need to pitch your New Service idea as a new direction for the case study company, Ziroom. Your work will be assessed based on the following considerations:
- Appropriate use of NSD tools [25]
- Development of appropriate new service model [25]
- Use of appropriate principles for new service development [25]
- Feasibility [20]
- Presentation [5]
Guidelines for submission:
The deadline for submission is 4pm on 12 May 2022.
You must submit the blogpost essay via Turnitin. Your submission must include a Title Page with your name and student number, the name of your new service, total word count, and a declaration that the work you are submitting is your own and appropriately referenced using the Harvard at Newcastle format (use the Blogpost assessment cover sheet file).
The required word count is 2,000 words (+/- 10%) excluding references and appendices.
You will be notified when your mark and feedback is available through Canvas’ TurnItIn marking. It is important that you read your feedback carefully as this is written to ensure you develop your skills further and gain the best classification of degree possible. We take a lot of time to provide appropriate feedback and we ask you to process it, think about it, and ask for clarification if necessary. We provide feedback to help you.
You will need to upload your post on MKT3014 WordPress blog (the link to the blog will be provided alongside detailed submission instructions).
Information on ‘How to create a post’ WordPress video tutorial is available here: https://en.support.wordpress.com/video-tutorials/add-content-and-media/
During the semester, students will have an opportunity to receive formative feedback on their draft essay plan.
Detailed marking criteria
| 1 of 2 | 0-19% | 20-39% | 40-49% | 50-59% | 60-69% | 70-79% | 80%+ |
| Poor fail | Marginal fail | Marginal pass | Adequate | Good | Very good | Excellent | |
| Appropriate use of NSD tools to support the narrative
[25] |
There is no discernible narrative and no evident use of NSD tools | Use of the NSD tools results in muddled and confusing narrative | Use of the NSD tools is not clear, establishing no obvious basis for the New Service in the narrative | Use of the NSD tools is reasonable and provides some justification for the New Service | Structure of the narrative flows logically. There is an obvious need for the New Service evidenced using NSD tools | Structure of the narrative is very good with a compelling justification for the New Service evidenced using NSD tools | Structure of the narrative is excellent, leading to viewer commitment to New Service development |
| Development of appropriate new service model
[25] |
The new service is completely inappropriate for the case study company. No business model components have been considered. | There is a poor fit with the case study company/ the fit is unclear. The business model components considered are not appropriate. | There may be a fit with the case study company, but more explanation is necessary. Some of the business model components considered are relevant. | There is some fit with the case study company. Some of the business model components considered are relevant and you have given some justification as to their configuration. | There is good fit with the case study company. The relevant business model components are considered and their interaction and configuration justified. | There is good fit with the case study company. The relevant business model components will clearly work together well to enable New Service delivery. | The New Service has a robust fit with the case study company. The components of the business model work holistically to enable successful New Service delivery with a high degree of confidence. |
| Use of appropriate principles for new service development
[25] |
No evidence of any engagement with appropriate academic principles | There is little evidence of any understanding of the relevant academic principles. Erroneous or irrelevant theory. | There is a basic appreciation of the relevant academic principles, however this is limited and they are not applied to the New Service development. | Some understanding of the relevant academic principles. A degree of relevance in application is demonstrated. | A critical appreciation of the relevant academic principles is shown. A sound grasp of relevant theories shown. | A sophisticated and critical discussion of the relevant academic principles with signs of originality and demonstrating a sound understanding. | Highly sophisticated, original, imaginative and appropriately critical discussion that demonstrates an outstanding understanding of the process. |
| Feasibility
[20] |
No evidence has been provided to demonstrate feasibility. | The evidence provided to demonstrate feasibility was inappropriate or irrelevant. | Minimal valid evidence demonstrating feasibility has been given, but not enough to make a convincing case. | Some valid evidence demonstrating feasibility has been given. A partial case. | Good evidence for demonstrating feasibility has been given. Some key risks have been minimised through research.
|
Very good evidence for demonstrating feasibility has been given. Key risks have been eliminated, with evidence of adaptation. | Excellent evidence for demonstrating feasibility has been given.
|
| Presentation
[5] |
The work is difficult to follow, lacks coherence, is error strewn and poorly presented or cannot be accessed online. | The work is difficult to follow at times, is poorly organised and there are major technical problems in the execution. | The work is difficult to follow at times, technical errors impact on the execution. | The work is adequately produced. No technical errors | The work is well produced and shows some flair. | The work is very well produced and demonstrates flair and creativity throughout. | The work is excellent, showing innovation, creativity, insight and seamlessly ‘on message’. |
[1] Yu, Chungling & Mao, Chuanjiang (2015) Ziroom: Creating Quality Rental Living. 8-114-311. Beijing: Tsinghua SEM China Business Case Center.
CITATION
