| Course | BUSI 400 Strategic Planning/Business Policy (BUSI400) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 6 |
| Assignment | Group Case Analysis 1 |
| Paper type | Group strategic case analysis |
| Length | about 558 words, 2 double-spaced pages plus title page and references. Course guide: a group written case analysis using the module/week's strategy analysis and choice tools to recommend a strategy and action plan |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| Points | 125 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 6 in Liberty's published BUSI 400 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 400 Week 6
Choosing Hershey's Next Move: SWOT, SPACE and a Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix
[Student Name]
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI 400: Strategic Planning/Business Policy
Group Case Analysis 1
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The textbook's assigned case is not public, so a strategy choice analysis of a public company, The Hershey Company, stands in for it; facts come from the company's filings, and the matrix ratings and attractiveness scores are the group's judgments.
Choosing Hershey's Next Move: SWOT, SPACE and a Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix
Input Stage
Earlier exercises produced an External Factor Evaluation total of 2.51 and an Internal Factor Evaluation total of 2.48, both close to the average of 2.5 (David & David, 2017). Hershey's strengths are its brands, seasonal leadership and distribution; its weaknesses are cocoa dependence, a sharp 2025 margin decline and a small international presence (The Hershey Company, 2026).
Matching Stage
| SWOT strategies | |
|---|---|
| SO: use brand and retail strength to expand salty and better-for-you snacks | ST: use pricing power and hedging to offset cocoa costs |
| WO: reduce cocoa dependence by growing non-chocolate categories | WT: cut costs and trim weak products to protect margins |
In the SPACE matrix, Hershey's competitive position is strong because of its brands and share, and its financial position remains reasonable despite lower earnings, but its stability position is weak because of volatile input costs, and its industry position is moderate. That combination places Hershey in the competitive quadrant, which David and David associate with strategies such as product development, related diversification and cost improvement rather than aggressive expansion. McGahan and Porter (1997) found that industry membership explains a meaningful share of differences in profitability, alongside firm-specific effects, which supports giving the industry's cost turbulence real weight in the stability score. Hershey is a strong company in a stormy industry, and its strategy should be built for weather, not just for growth.
The SWOT matrix produced four kinds of strategy, and they are not equally urgent. The weakness-threat strategy, cutting costs and trimming weak products, is a necessary defense but cannot create growth on its own. The strength-threat strategy of pricing and hedging buys time but has limits, because consumers resist repeated price increases and hedges eventually expire. The two growth options worth comparing are the strength-opportunity strategy of snack expansion and a market development strategy that would carry chocolate brands into more international markets, which addresses the weakness of a small international presence. Those two alternatives go into the decision stage.
Decision Stage: QSPM
| Key factor | Weight | Snack expansion AS | TAS | International chocolate AS | TAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cocoa and sugar costs | 0.20 | 4 | 0.80 | 1 | 0.20 |
| Growth of salty and better-for-you snacks | 0.10 | 4 | 0.40 | 2 | 0.20 |
| International markets with low consumption | 0.08 | 1 | 0.08 | 4 | 0.32 |
| Iconic North American brands | 0.15 | 3 | 0.45 | 2 | 0.30 |
| Retailer relationships and distribution | 0.10 | 4 | 0.40 | 2 | 0.20 |
| Small international presence | 0.10 | 2 | 0.20 | 3 | 0.30 |
| Total | 2.33 | 1.52 |
Snack expansion scores 2.33 against 1.52 for international chocolate expansion. The decisive factor is cocoa: growing snacks reduces exposure, while selling more chocolate abroad increases it. The group scored attractiveness from 1 (not attractive) to 4 (highly attractive) for each factor and left factors that did not distinguish the alternatives out of the matrix, as the chapter allows. International expansion scored well only on the factors directly about international markets, and it would require building distribution and brand awareness from a small base while cocoa costs squeeze the margins that fund such investment. The group does not rule out international growth permanently; it recommends revisiting it when cocoa prices stabilize and the snack business can share the cost of expansion.
Recommendation and Action Plan
The group recommends expanding salty and better-for-you snacks in North America over the next three years.
- 1. Year 1: Invest in capacity and marketing for existing snack brands; owner, president of the salty snacks business; estimated cost, $150 million.
- 2. Years 1-2: Launch co-branded snacks that pair snack formats with Hershey's chocolate and Reese's flavors in limited, lower-cocoa forms; owner, chief growth officer.
- 3. Years 2-3: Pursue one or two small related acquisitions if valuations are reasonable; owner, chief financial officer.
Success will be measured by snack sales growth and by the share of gross profit coming from non-chocolate products. The group also agreed on a warning sign: if snack sales grow mainly through heavy promotion that erodes margins, the plan should be revisited before the acquisition step. Each member reviewed the action plan for feasibility, and the group adjusted the timeline after one member pointed out that new capacity would take most of the first year to build.
References
David, F. R., & David, F. R. (2017). Strategic management: A competitive advantage approach, concepts and cases (16th ed.). Pearson.
McGahan, A. M., & Porter, M. E. (1997). How much does industry matter, really? Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<15::AID-SMJ916>3.0.CO;2-1
The Hershey Company. (2026). Annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000047111&type=10-K
What the BUSI 400 Week 6 instructions ask
Module/Week 6 assigns chapter 6 of David and David, on strategy analysis and choice, with a single presentation, and the first Group Case Analysis is due, worth 125 points, followed by the fourth peer evaluation. The chapter's three-stage framework moves from input tools such as the external and internal factor matrices, to matching tools such as the SWOT, SPACE, BCG and IE matrices, to the Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix for deciding between alternatives. In a case analysis the group identifies the strategic problem, weighs the options and proposes an action plan that could be carried out. Because the textbook's cases are not public, this sample applies the framework to the same public company used in earlier exercises.
How this BUSI 400 Week 6 example is built
The analysis follows chapter 6's three stages. The input stage summarizes the EFE and IFE totals from earlier work. The matching stage builds a SWOT matrix, matching internal strengths and weaknesses against external opportunities and threats to produce strategies, then a SPACE matrix that locates Hershey's strategic posture. The decision stage compares two alternatives in a QSPM, scoring each against key factors. The recommendation follows the higher QSPM score, and an action plan assigns steps, costs and responsibility. Each table is explained in the text, so the reasoning behind the numbers is visible. Members' independent ratings are compared before the final scores are agreed. The action plan's costs are the group's estimates, labeled so readers do not mistake them for company figures.
BUSI 400 Week 6 grading rubric: where the points go
Group case analyses are graded on correct use of chapter 6's tools, logical links from the earlier assessments to the strategies chosen, justified ratings and scores, a clear recommendation and a workable action plan, with writing and citations in current APA format and individual grades adjusted by peer evaluations. Graders expect SWOT strategies that actually pair internal and external factors, SPACE axes based on the firm's real data, and a QSPM that compares genuinely different alternatives. An action plan without costs, timing or owners is incomplete. Recommendations that ignore the analysis, or analysis that never reaches a recommendation, both lose points.
BUSI 400 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Start from your external and internal assessments, since chapter 6's matching tools use their factors. In the SWOT matrix, write strategies that combine a specific strength or weakness with a specific opportunity or threat. Score the SPACE axes from the firm's financial data and industry conditions, and explain the quadrant. Choose two realistic alternatives for the QSPM and score attractiveness factor by factor. Let the higher total drive the recommendation. Write an action plan with steps, a timeline, an estimated cost and a responsible manager. Share the drafting, then let a single member edit the whole report. Keep the QSPM to the factors that actually distinguish the alternatives, as the chapter allows, and explain the largest differences.
Related BUSI 400 sample papers
Other BUSI 400 weeks
- BUSI 400 Week 1: Individual AOL Exercise 1
- BUSI 400 Week 2: Group AOL Exercise 1
- BUSI 400 Week 3: Group AOL Exercise 2
- BUSI 400 Week 4: Individual Case Analysis 1
- BUSI 400 Week 5: Individual AOL Exercise 2
- BUSI 400 Week 7: Individual Case Analysis 2
- BUSI 400 Week 8: Group Case Analysis 2
More BS in Business Administration sample papers
- BUSI 370 Week 6: Written Report 4
- BUSI 372 Week 6: Forum 3 Thread and Replies
- BUSI 405 Week 6: Forum 6 Thread and Replies
- BUSI 409 Week 6: Forum 3 Replies
BUSI 400 Week 6 questions, answered
What is BUSI 400 Group Case Analysis 1?
Group case analysis 1, a 125-point Module/Week 6 assignment applying David and David's strategy analysis and choice tools to recommend a strategy and action plan.
Where can I find a free BUSI 400 Week 6 sample paper?
See below for a complete BUSI 400 Week 6 group case analysis of Hershey with a SWOT matrix, SPACE analysis, QSPM and action plan.
What is a QSPM?
The Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix scores how attractive each alternative strategy is against key internal and external factors, weighted as in the EFE and IFE matrices, to identify the best option.
What does the SPACE matrix show?
It plots a firm on four dimensions, financial position, competitive position, stability position and industry position, to suggest whether an aggressive, conservative, defensive or competitive posture fits.
What else is due in BUSI 400 Module/Week 6?
A peer evaluation follows the group case, and the reading is the sixth chapter of David and David, on strategy analysis and choice, with one presentation. The case counts for 125 points.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom BUSI 400 Week 6 sample · All BUSI 400 weeks · All courses