review the 4 case studies provided for you on page 4.

Assessment instructions Reflection is key to any learning.
1. Review the 4 case studies provided for you on page 4.

 https://studenthome.work/assess
2. Select ONE case study and use it for the purpose of your REFLECTION in this assessment.
3. Conduct anyadditional research needed to ensure you have addressed the requirements of this task.
a. Review the weekly topic presentations for inspiration
4. Follow the instructions below to guide you through this REFLECTION.
The structure of the reflection should have the following format
Introduction
Briefly introduce the company featured in the Case Study you have chosen and how you will address the main components of your report.
Depth of Reflection on Case Study
Reflect on the case study chosen, including:
• Conduct a SWOT analysis and specifically state:
o An Idea (opportunity) for a potential different Type of Innovation
o Your recommendations to minimize the threats and weaknesses?
Design thinking approach
Discuss how design thinking principles can be applied to the particular case you have chosen.
Types of innovation
Determineat least 3 types of innovation in the case study you have chosen, are those innovations incremental?Radical?Explain why.
References
Ensure you use APA referencing style for all references used including in-text references
Appendices

Readings for the assessment Innovation Management http://www.innovationmanagement.se/
Harvard Business Review – Creativity https://hbr.org/topic/creativity
Why Design Thinking in Business Needs a Rethink
https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/SMR627-PDF-ENG?Ntt=design+thinking&itemFindingMethod=Search
Case Studies Source
https://www.ideatovalue.com/inno/nickskillicorn/2019/07/ten-types-of-innovation-30-new-case-studies-for-2019/
Grading Criteria / Rubric
CASE STUDIES
Ford & Volkswagen – Developing Self-driving cars: As two of the world’s largest car-makers, Ford and Volkswagen are competitors on the road. However, in 2019 they announced a partnership to work together to develop technology for self-driving cars and electric vehicles which would be used in both company’s fleets of the future. While Ford brings more advanced automated driving technology, Volkswagen was leading in electric vehicles. Through the combined venture called ARGO, both firms can spread their R&D spending across more cars, while both developing competing products.
Airbnb – Expanding into experiences: Airbnb built their business on allowing everyday people to sell accommodation in their homes to strangers. Now the company has begun offering complementary services to people visiting new places through Experiences. These experiences are also sold by local guides, and allow guests to try things they would otherwise not have known about in addition to staying somewhere new.
Peloton – bringing the gym into the home: Many people benefit from going to joint gym classes because the sense of a group working toward is goals together with a coach is more powerful than trying to exercise by yourself. Peloton makes exercise equipment with built-in screens, powered by a subscription to live and on-demand classes. It’s like being part of a workout group with the benefits of being at home.
Supreme – Limiting supply: While most companies want to get their products in to the hands of as many people as possible, Supreme has built a cult following through deliberately forcing scarcity of its products. The streetwear clothing retailer announces limited items which will only be available from a specific day when they “drop”, and once they are sold out, that’s it, unless you want to pay huge markups for a second-hand item on eBay. Their red box logo is now so collectible and desirable that the company is able to sell almost anything by putting the logo on it for a limited time only. Case in point: you can find official Supreme Bricks (yes, like the ones used to build houses) which are still selling on eBay for $500.
Assessment 3. Personal Reflection on Innovation– Marking Rubric
Criteria HD (85-100) D (75-84) CR (65-74) PASS (50-64) FAIL (0-49)
Depth of Reflection on the case study /business simulation exercise
(30 %) Excellent and in-depth reflection on the case study /the case study /business simulation exercise. Good reflection on the case study /the case study /business simulation exercise. General reflection on the case study /the case study /business simulation exercise. Marginal reflection on the case study /the case study /business simulation exercise. There are conceptual gaps in the reflection. Very poor reflection on the case study /the case study /business simulation exercise.
Analysis of the design thinking approach
(30%) Excellent synthesis of the design thinking approach and links to the case study /the case study /business simulation exercise. Good synthesis of the design thinking approach and links to the case study /the case study /business simulation exercise. Reasonable discussion on the design thinking approach. Needs more depth. Very marginal reflection on the design thinking approach. Limited connection with the simulation exercise. Inadequate discussion on the design thinking approach. The overall concept is not clear.
Reflection on innovation (30%) Advanced level of analysis on the types of innovation and linking to the case study /the case study /business simulation exercise. Good analysis on the types of innovation and linking to the case study /business simulation exercise. Reasonable analysis on the types of innovation and linking to the case study /business simulation exercise. Some areas are lacking and need improvement. Very marginal discussion on the types of innovation and linking to the case study /business simulation exercise. Very poor analysis on the types of innovation. Unclear links with the case study /business simulation exercise.
Formatting,
Referencing, word count (10 %) Excellentreferencing
Significant references are used by following the correct referencing style Appropriate references
are used by following the correct referencing style Credible references are
used by following the correct referencing style Marginal referencing.
Overall referencing style is problematic and needs improvement. Poor referencing.
Arguments are poorly supported with inadequate references