Using the following case from Information Technology for Managers (2nd ed.),
Do the following in this week’s case discussion forum:
- Based on this week’s material on the changing IT industry and your own research, answer:
- How have the CRM needs of IT software companies changed over time?
- What are the major disruptors in IT today?
- How do you think they will change in the future?
This collaborative activity should provide you the foundation you’ll need to address the case questions in your analysis this week.
Then, begin your analysis starting with the following:
- Why did IBM drop Siebel and implement SugarCRM?
- Why do you think IBM waited several years before switching to SugarCRM?
- What is your analysis of the changing CRM needs of IT companies and their future?
- How are the CRM needs of other industries changing?
- How do CRM needs of a large corporation like IBM differ from that of small companies?
- How does this relate to our discussion of disruptors and digital transformation?
Assignment Requirements
You have been asked by leadership to present your findings. Develop a 7-10 slide VOICE over PowerPoint Presentation leveraging what you have learned through collaboration, your own research, and the application of this week’s topics to critically analyze the case through the management lens. Be sure to address all points of this assignment in your final presentation (introduction, summary of the central issue, analysis, recommendations and conclusion) and cite your work appropriately using APA formatted citations and include a references page at the end of your presentation.
Get help with APA-style citations at Purdue’s OWL site>>
View RubricCase Study RubricCase Study RubricCriteriaRatingsPtsUnderstandingview longer description5 ptsExceptional: Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)4 ptsGood: Demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)3 ptsFair: Demonstrates an acceptable sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)2 ptsPoor: Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)0 pts/ 5 ptsAnalysisview longer description5 ptsExceptional: Makes appropriate and powerful connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading4 ptsGood: Makes appropriate connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading3 ptsFair: Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between the issues and concepts studied in the reading2 ptsPoor: Makes little or no connection between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading0 pts/ 5 ptsRecommendationsview longer description10 ptsExceptional: Presents detailed, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly supported by the information presented and concepts from the reading8 ptsGood: Presents specific, realistic, and appropriate recommendationssupported by the information presented and concepts from the reading6 ptsFair: Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations supported by the information presented and concepts from the reading4 ptsPoor: Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations with little, if any, support from the information presented and concepts from the reading0 pts/ 10 ptsUse and Quality of Referencesview longer description5 ptsAll reliable authorities.4 ptsMost are reliable authorities.3 ptsSome are reliable authorities2 ptsNone are reliable authorities0 pts/ 5 ptsTotal Points: 0
Choose a submission type
Submission type Upload, currently selectedUploadMore submission optionsMore
Submit file using Webcam PhotoWebcam PhotoSubmit file using Canvas FilesCanvas Files
