Student’s Name:

International Business Fundamentals (BBB4M)

Teacher’s Name: Abigail D.

AOL6 (Case Study)

Weight: 10%

Knowledge and Understanding Thinking Communication Application Total

/ 25 / 25 / 25 / 25 / 100

Culture Case Study

You are the field support installation manager for a MNC supplier of petroleum industry equipment. Aramco inSaudi Arabia has purchased one of your catalytic crackers for their Ras Tanura refinery. The “turnkey“purchase contract requires that you need to be in Ras Tanura to oversee the installation and start-up of thecracker. This will take approximately two months and will require working and supervising the work of Saudiengineers, maintenance, and refinery plant operators.

You will be accompanied by a junior engineer who will do most of the field supervision. There are twopotential candidates who have indicated interest in accompany you on the trip. On paper, both are equal basedon technical competencies. Both are young and ambitious and recognize that this trip would be a feather intheir cap for an upcoming promotion competition. Furthermore, both are parents to pre-school children.

Your dilemma is who do take along with you. Sarah or Jonas? Sarah is a single mom and practicing orthodoxJew. Jonas is in an openly gay relationship and a proud supporter of the LGBT movement.

Required:- Indicate who you would take with you.- Identifying the significant pros and cons for your choice (five items – total) and justify with a

succinct analysis.- Also, indicate what conversation you would have with, your choice, before departure.

Your answers should be typed in Word, Times New Roman, 12 point font, and double spaced.


Case Study Rubric

Categories Level 1(0-40%) Level 2(40-60%) Level 3(60-80%) Level 4(80-100%)

Knowledge andUnderstanding


Demonstrates aninadequateunderstanding of thetopic(s) andchoice(s)

Demonstrates anacceptableunderstanding of thetopic(s) and choice(s)

Demonstrates anaccomplishedunderstanding of thetopic(s) and choice(s)

Demonstrates asophisticatedunderstanding of thetopic(s) and choice(s)



– Presents anincomplete analysisof the choice;- Identifies 1-2 prosand cons for thechoice;- Poor conversation.

– Presents asuperficial analysis ofthe choice;- Identifies 3-4 prosand cons for thechoice;- Good conversation.

– Presents a thoroughanalysis of thechoice;- Identifies 5 pros andcons for the choice;- Powerfulconversation.

– Presents an insightfuland thorough analysisof the choice;- Identifies more than 5pros and cons for thechoice;- Excellent conversation.



– Makes little or noconnection betweenthe choice and thecontents studied;- Supports diagnosisand opinions withfew reasons andlittle evidence;arguments notobjective.

– Makes appropriatebut somewhat vagueconnections betweenthe choice and thecontents studied;- Supports diagnosisand opinions withlimited reasons andevidence; presentssomewhat one‐sided arguments.

– Makes appropriateconnections betweenthe choice and thecontents studied;- Supports diagnosisand opinions withreasons and evidence;presents a fairlybalanced view;interpretation is bothreasonable andobjective.

– Makes appropriateand powerfulconnections betweenthe choice and thecontents studied;- Supports diagnosisand opinions withstrong arguments andevidence; presents abalanced and criticalview; interpretation isboth reasonable andobjective.



Writing isunfocused,rambling, orcontains seriouserrors; lacks detailand information;poorly organized.

Writing lacks clarityor conciseness andcontains numerouserrors; givesinsufficient detail andinformation; lacksorganization

Writing isaccomplished interms of clarity andcontains a few errors;includes sufficientdetails andinformation;well‐organized

Writing demonstrates asophisticated clarity,conciseness, andcorrectness; includesthorough details andinformation; extremelywell‐organized