+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Description

Hey!

This will be a group project about a specific organization called “

“Epworth hospital”

” and this is their website

https://www.epworth.org.au

Their website has all the information you need for the assignment and google as well.

I attached two files. One for total instructions on what the assignment is and how to structure it. The second one titled “Spotify” to show you a real example on how the assignment

should

look like.

You will essentially be

“

member 2”

And you will only do one part in the operating model which is

“Organization: How the organization is structured, including its value chain map.”

(I deleted the parts you didn’t have to do)

The world limit should be around 1300-1500

as the usual, let me know if you have any questions 🙂

ASSESSMENT TASK THREE: INDIVIDUAL CASE ANALYSIS
Assessment overview
The purpose of this assessment task is for you to apply the Operating Model Canvas
(covered in week three of this unit) in order to deepen your understanding of various aspects
of an organisation’s operating model and how this is influenced by organisation design
choices.
Please note that this assignment (individual case analysis) is linked to assignment 4
(group project). Your individual output from this assignment, and the feedback that
you will receive from your instructor, will serve as input for completing the group
project (for detailed instructions please go to ‘Assignment 4’ in Canvas).
Hence, it is important that you coordinate well with your team members to ensure that all
relevant aspects of the Operating Model Canvas are covered within your group through
assessment task 3 by having each group member focus on a different analysis component.
The relevant components of the Operating Model Canvas are:
•
✔ •
Processes: How the organisation creates and delivers the value proposition to the
customers or beneficiaries
Organization: How the organization is structured, including its value chain map.
✔
•
Locations: Where the work is located, what assets are needed at locations, and
what local factors influence the organisation due to the choice of locations
•
Suppliers: The nature of supplier relationships (arms-length, strategic partnerships,
etc.), key suppliers and their positioning in relationship to the focal organisation
•
Information & Management Systems: Which information & applications are
needed to support each process; which systems are used for scheduling, enterprise
planning, performance measurement, and improvement
Submission details
Word limit: 2,000 words
Weighting: 25%
Due date: Sunday, 2 May 2021, 23:59 pm (AET)
Submission: You are required to submit this assignment through Canvas, using the link
provided in the ‘Assignments’ section in Canvas. Please ensure you keep a copy of this
assignment until the grades and marks for the unit have been finalised. This essay must be
done as individual work, so you must not discuss the essay with your group members (or
anyone else) before completing the assignment.
Your written work for this assignment must meet the internationally accepted standards of
citation using the Swinburne version of the Harvard Citation Method only (see Canvas and
Swinburne Library website). Each assignment must contain a reference list of the works
referred to or cited. More information about correct paraphrasing and citing practices is
available in the ‘Avoiding Plagiarism’ documentation, also in Canvas.
1
Assessment task
Before attempting this assessment task, please make sure that you and your group
members have agreed on the organisation that you are going to analyse for assessment
task 4 (group project). Consider the Operating Model Canvas for your chosen organisation,
and coordinate with your group members:
Member 1 researches and analyses the processes of the chosen organisation as per
the Operating Model Canvas and critically discusses implications of their findings for
other aspects of the organisation’s operating model.
Member 2 researches and analyses the organization structure of the chosen
organisation as per the Operating Model Canvas and critically discusses implications
of their findings for other aspects of the organisation’s operating model.
Member 3 researches and analyses the locations of the chosen organisation as per
the Operating Model Canvas and critically discusses implications of their findings for
other aspects of the organisation’s operating model.
Member 4 researches and analyses the suppliers of the chosen organisation as per
the Operating Model Canvas and critically discusses implications of their findings for
other aspects of the organisation’s operating model.
Member 5 researches and analyses the information & management systems of the
chosen organisation as per the Operating Model Canvas and critically discusses
implications of their findings for other aspects of the organisation’s operating model.
Suggestions for your assignment structure
When writing your analysis, it is recommended that you apply the following structure:
•
Brief introduction to the organisation; your analysis; the theory and framework(s)
chosen and why; and limitations
•
Critical analysis of the relevant aspects and issues (existing and potential) of this
case with focus on your chosen section of the Operating Model Canvas
•
Implications of your findings for other aspects of the organisation’s operating model
and its ability to deliver on the value proposition
(consider using illustrative material to support this section)
•
Recommendations for organisation design choices in response to the identified
issues
•
Conclusion of key findings
•
References
2
Assessment Criteria
1. Analysis of relations between phenomena in discussion, using sound argumentation
and relevant evidence (evaluate information critically)
2. Knowledge and interpretation of relevant key concepts and issues
3. Outcomes evaluation with respect to other aspects of the operating model and the
value proposition of the chosen organisation
4. Ethical issue analysis in response to shifting stakeholder agendas
5. Organisation and presentation of ideas in writing (effective structure and expression)
See Marking Guide on the next page.
3
Criteria:
Analysis –
Evaluate
information
critically
(20%)
Knowledge
and
Interpretation
High Distinction
80‐100%
(30%)
Ethical Issue
Analysis
(10%)
Structure and
Expression
(10%)
Credit
60‐69%
Pass
50‐59%
No pass
Systematically and methodically
discriminates between assertion or
personal opinion and information
substantiated by robust and relevant
evidence. Identifies and rectifies
logical flaws.
Systematically discriminates
between assertion or personal
opinion and information
substantiated by relevant evidence.
Identifies logical flaws.
Discriminates between assertion
or personal opinion and
information substantiated by
relevant evidence. Identifies
logical flaws.
Discriminates between
assertion or personal opinion
and information substantiated
by evidence.
Conflates or confuses
assertion and personal
opinion with information
substantiated by robust
evidence. Lacks logic or
confuses logic with emotion.
Excellent knowledge and
interpretation of selected material:
advanced understanding of the issues.
Very good knowledge and
interpretation of selected material:
pertinent understanding of the
issues.
Good knowledge and
interpretation of selected
material: adequate understanding
of the issues.
Satisfactory knowledge and
interpretation of the key
concept: adequate
understanding; some related
concepts and/or issues may be
misunderstood.
Fragmented or insufficient
knowledge of the key
concept, major
misunderstandings of
related concepts.
Reviews results relative to the
problem defined with thorough,
specific considerations of need for
further work.
Reviews results relative to the
problem defined with detailed
consideration of need for further
work.
Reviews results relative to the
problem defined with some
consideration of need for further
work.
Reviews results in terms of the
problem defined with little, if
any, consideration of need for
further work.
Reviews results superficially
in terms of the problem
defined with no
consideration of need for
further work.
Clearly identifies the inherent ethical
choices and implications involved in a
professional and/or contemporary
situation. Brilliantly demonstrates an
understanding of the effects of
perspective, context, personal views,
and laws. Integrates clear descriptions
of relevant ethical ambiguities/
dilemmas into the overall analysis.
Clearly identifies the inherent
ethical choices and implications
involved in a professional and/or
contemporary situation.
Understands the effects of
perspective, context, personal
views, and laws. Integrates clear
descriptions of relevant ethical
ambiguities/ dilemmas into the
overall analysis.
Can identify/ name the inherent
ethical choices and implications
involved in the professional
and/or contemporary situation.
Clearly describes relevant ethical
ambiguities/ dilemmas.
Can identify/ name the
inherent ethical choices and
implications involved in the
professional and/or
contemporary situation.
Satisfactorily describes
relevant ethical ambiguities/
dilemmas.
Struggles to or is unable to
identify the ethical issue(s).
May identify some of the
professional and/or
contemporary stakeholder
issues or recognises relevant
decision-making dilemmas
but fails to clearly describe
them.
Excellent organisation of ideas; clear
and nuanced writing style; accurate
grammar, spelling and referencing.
Very good organisation of ideas;
clear writing style; accurate
grammar, spelling and referencing.
Good organisation of ideas; mostly
clear writing style; mostly accurate
grammar, spelling and
referencing.
Satisfactory organisation of
ideas; some ambiguities but
mostly accurate grammar,
spelling and referencing.
Unsatisfactory organisation
of ideas. Inaccurate
grammar and spelling affect
the clarity of the argument.
(30%)
Outcomes
evaluation
Distinction
70‐79%
4
Thi Nguyen (100595933)
Assessment Task 3: Individual Case Analysis – Spotify
The growth in modern technology has impacted the way we live our lives, may it be within the workplace to
our personal lifestyle. Music is no exception as the new era of mobile devices, laptops and internet has given
rise to the development of applications and software to improve this experience. Founded in 2006, Spotify is
a music streaming and media service that centralises around the ‘on-demand’ functionality where listeners
can experience a more interactive interface that allows them to select, edit and share a vast catalogue of
music. The ‘on-demand’ service has become a popular means of music consumption over other types of
streaming services, such as webcasting and locker services, with it being based on renting rather than buying
songs (Marshall, L. 2015). The music provider operates on a freemium model as well as a premium
subscription. Free access allows users to use basic features with limitations while the subscription unlocks
enhanced features such as better music quality, customisation, and commercial-free listening (Vizologi, 2018;
Spotify, 2020). Spotify has established itself as a major provider of music consumption with a claim to 36% of
the global streaming market alongside 286 million monthly active users, 130 million of which are premium
subscribers (Igbal, M. 2020).
Spotify has constructed their value proposition as a service that provides users with quality, personalised
music experience while creating a platform for artists to share their content (Spotify, 2020; Chu, R. 2017).
However, the company had seemed to dishonour the latter as they have developed a negative reputation
around their mismanagement towards their artists. Spotify has faced criticism around their unfair
compensation to recording musicians and producers, with many arguing the amount of money received from
Spotify’s royalties are far too little to live off especially among independent artists (Marshall, L. 2015). In
comparison to other large music streaming platforms, Spotify offers the lowest reported rate of $0.00318 per
steam while Amazon Music, Apple and Google Play paid artists an average stream rate of $0.01196, $0.00563,
and $0.00551 respectively (Igbal, M. 2020). In this essay, we will be exploring the onset of the Spotify versus
artist controversy from the perspective of various frameworks, most particularly from a supplier perspective.
First being the operating model canvas, which can be an effective tool to analyse the operational choices of
Spotify to achieve their value proposition and therefore identify the company’s strengths and weaknesses
(Campbell et al. 2017). In addition, the application of the stakeholder framework can allow a better
understanding of Spotify’s supplier relationship and their positioning to the company (Medelow, A.L. 1991;
Freeman, R.E. 2010). As the predicament centralises around whether the mistreatment of artists is warranted,
it is valuable to also analyse the issue from an ethical point of view and compare Spotify’s operations within
its legal requirements as opposed to their alleged unethical practices (Homewood & Irwin, 1991).
Spotify’s key suppliers come from a range of sources that work concurrently together to improve the
functionality of the service. This includes outsourcing expertise to third party companies such as internet and
distribution services as well as forming strategic partnerships with other large organisations. The main supplier
of Spotify derives from purchasing music content through record labels, rights holders, and independent
artists. These three types of suppliers allow the music streaming platform not only hold an immense range of
music options but also help deliver a better quality experience for customers and streamlined process for
artists who are looking to distribute their records on Spotify. The four major record labels that supply the
streaming platform with over 85% of music are Sony, Universal, Warner and Merlin (Igbal, M. 2020). Spotify
would pay out 52-70% of the revenue generated based on the number of artists steams to the record labels
and rights holders, who would then distribute around 15-50% to the artists depending on factors such the
user’s home country and artist’s royalty rate (King, M. 2012). As of 2013, Spotify had opened a new service for
independent artist to directly access the platform without the need to go through major record labels. The
music provider launched a new website called ‘Spotify for Artists’ where all outsourced agencies, such as artist
distributors, label distributors and delivery platforms, are recommended and listed for the musicians to choose
from. As defined in Spotify’s directory (2020), artist distributors are companies who assist in licensing,
distributing, and monetising of music, whereas label distributors provide other additional benefits including
promotion and marketing, artist development and metadata services. Delivery platforms are for artists that
do not need licencing assistance but require support in distributing and monetising their music content. In
Thi Nguyen (100595933)
addition, Spotify had formed tactical alliances with other major organisations to initiate exclusive agreements
that would add more value to the listeners. This includes teaming up with a communication and media
company, Rogers Communications, to provide Fido customers free 24-month subscription with Spotify
Premium (Worldwide Computer Products, 2015), and signing a partnership with audio company and hardware
manufacturer, Sonos, to produce home sound system devices that is integrated with Spotify’s music streaming
features (Music Week, 2010). To increase the appeal of their subscription, Spotify also reached a deal with
Universal Music Group to provide subscribers early access to new music releases from big artists including
Lorde, Katy Perry and Kanye West (Hern, A. 2017).
Spotify and their relationship with suppliers can be evaluated through Mendelow’s (1991) stakeholder
approach criteria. The most effective supplier approach undertaken by Spotify is their strategic alliances with
other non-competitive yet complementary organisations that can yield high cooperation to produce valueadded services to the music streaming platform. The strategy to ‘involve’ and equally support the partnership
means both parties would share the risks but attain better returns. In addition, Spotify outsources a margin of
their services to digital music distributors. These third-party agencies function as a middleman to assist artists
in licensing, distributing, and monetising music autonomously from Spotify. As both parties would claim no
risks or benefits from each other, this situation sanctions a more ‘monitor’ approach where both are less
cooperative. Overall, both supplier approaches as discussed have been appropriately managed by Spotify as
they have benefited by their relationship. On the other hand, the most influential supplier with the highest
potential of threat and cooperation is Spotify’s relationship to independent artists. As Spotify’s mission
statement centralises around their ability to offer a wide collection of music and podcasts (Spotify, 2020), the
collaboration between Spotify and artists must be satisfactory to maintain the company’s value proposition.
The controversy about the amount of money paid to artists indicates that Spotify does not take artist income
into consideration and musicians are placed in a financial model that cannot sustain their musical careers
(Marshall, L. 2015). However, it must be noted that Spotify does not directly deal with artists. Many artists
receive payment for their content through their record label contracts or using digital distributors who Spotify
would pay. Spotify has argued that the proportion of the revenue returned to the individual artists is a matter
of their contracts (Stahl, M. 2013). Although Spotify’s responsibility of this matter is up for debate, many claim
the low level of income is more than exploitative contracts. Nonetheless, the main issue of this stakeholder
relationship is the significant disconnection of Spotify from their artists. Their lack of collaboration means the
company does not have a strong relationship with artists who have the capacity to influence the success of
the music streaming service. As illustrated Figure 1 below, Spotify must redesign their stakeholder approach
with artists and provide a more interactive platform for artists to communicate and collaborate with the
company in order to internally negotiate better compensation rates and any other potential issues that may
arise in the future.
Figure 1. Recommended stakeholder approach for Spotify with suppliers.
Thi Nguyen (100595933)
Another argument that has been brought forward from the unfair compensation debate is Spotify’s ethical
standard around using micro-payments as a form of income for musicians and its claim to be devaluing music
itself (Homewood & Irwin, 1991). Unlike physical or downloadable records where artists are paid a fixed price
per song or album sold, Spotify pays royalties in relation to the quantity of streams per song (King, M. 2012).
Although Spotify are operating within legal requirements, many argue that the company illustrates unethical
practices that undermine the worth of an artist’s content. Spotify’s response to this issue was clarifying that
on-demand streaming services are not comparable to any other conventional music platform in the past that
operates as a unit-based business. With the modern shift towards music-renting over music-buying,
consumers are now paying for access to music and the continual micro-payments will compensate for the oneoff payments (Marshall, L. 2015). Spotify argues that artists must transition from a “unit-based thinking to a
consumption-based thinking” (King, M. 2012). However, the ethical debate still evolves around what is the
‘right’ amount that should be paid to artists who are not only creating more music but adding more value to
on-demand streaming platforms from each song produced. Granted that there is no correct answer to solve
this moral argument around the perceived unfair compensation but, as recommended above, Spotify need to
form a better relationship with artists that allows both parties to effectively work in partnership to resolve any
issues internally before resulting to the courts.
The operating model canvas is a useful method in outlining the organisational design and processes of Spotify
and identifying any weaknesses that may impede in delivering on the value proposition (Campbell et al. 2017).
Users have selected Spotify as their preferred means of music consumption as the music streaming platform
strives to deliver quality and personalised music experience while creating a platform for artists to share their
content (Spotify, 2020; Chu, R. 2017). The alleged underpayment from Spotify along with the identified issues
around their stakeholder approach and ethical standards towards independent artists has given rise to other
implications for other aspects of the organisation’s operating model. As illustrated in Figure 2 below, the
following elements of the operating model, including information management systems and organisational
processes, must be ensured so Spotify can maintain a positive relationship with their main suppliers and
deliver on their service as expected by their customers.
Figure 2. Spotify’s operating model canvas and implications related to artist underpayment issue.
Thi Nguyen (100595933)
Spotify must develop an effective communication system that will provide a better interaction between the
company and supplier as well as establish a segment in their organisational process that allows monitoring
of their suppliers to ensure artists are treated and managed appropriately.
In conclusion, Spotify is a major platform for on-demand music streaming that has faced significant criticism
on their handling of their suppliers, most notably the low royalty rates paid to musicians. Although the
company has an effective stakeholder approach with other major suppliers, such as strategic alliances and
outsourced music distributors, Spotify has not managed their relationship with independent artists
appropriately. As evaluated through the stakeholder framework, Spotify must shift from their current
‘defensive’ strategy and form a collaborative relationship with artists to ensure delivery of their value
proposition to provide a space for musicians to share their content. By doing so, Spotify can also tackle the
moral argument on whether the new standard of micro-payments per steam is the right way to compensate
artists. Nonetheless, this problem has ultimately affected the ability for Spotify to deliver their value
proposition. To ensure this is managed, it is recommended that the company establishes new processes to
monitor artist payments as well as create new communication platforms to enhance the collaborative nature
between Spotify and the artists.
Thi Nguyen (100595933)
References
1. Campbell et al. 2017, ‘Operating model canvas: aligning operations and organization with strategy’,
Zaltbommel: Van Haren Publishing, pp 34-64.
2. Chu, R. 2017, ‘Business Model Revolution: Four Cases of the Fastest-Growing, Disruptive Companies of
the Twenty-First Century’, Revolution of Innovation Management, pp. 145-189.
3. Freeman, R.E. 2010, ‘Chapter 3, Stakeholder Management: Framework and Philosophy, Strategic
Management’, Cambridge University Press.
4. Hern, A. 2017, ‘Spotify to Host Top Stars’ Albums for Premium Subscribers Only’, The Guardian, viewed
2nd October 2020, .
5. Homewood & Irwin, 1991, ‘The Ethics of Management’, LaRue Tone Hosmer, 2nd ed.
6. Igbal, M. 2020, ‘Spotify Usage and Revenue Statistics (2020)’, Business of Apps, viewed 2nd October 2020,
.
7. King, M. 2012, ‘Spotify’s D.A. Wallach Explains How Spotify Pays Artists’, Hypebot, viewed 20th
September 2020, .
8. Marshall, L. 2015, ‘Let’s keep music special. F—Spotify’: on-demand streaming and the controversy over
artist royalties’, Creative Industries Journal, vol. 8, issue 2, pp. 177-189.
9. Mendelow, A.L. 1981, ‘Environmental scanning: The impact of the stakeholder concept’, ICIS.
10. Music Week, 2010, ‘SERVICES: Sonos and Spotify become partners’, Future US Inc, viewed 20th
September 2020, .
11. Spotify, 2020, ‘About Us’, Spotify, viewed 20th September 2020, .
12. Spotify, 2020, ‘Provider Directory’, Spotify, viewed 20th September 2020,
.
13. Stahl, M. 2013, ‘Unfree Masters: Recording Artists and the Politics of Work’, Durham: Duke UP.
14. Vizologi, 2018, ‘Spotify Business Model’, Vizologi, viewed 20th September 2020,
.
15. Worldwide Computer Product News, 2015, ‘Rogers Communications partners with Spotify to offers Fido
customers streaming music service’, Normans Media Ltd, viewed 20th September 2020,
.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!