The report is lacking the PFF diagram and the use of additional models. Additionally, the main challenges of the sector are not clear.
It would have been beneficial to state that you are using the case study as the basis of the discussion, and referred to it in the introduction. (Although you did reference the work towards the end of the section it is just a source of statistical information as is)
The analysis is supposed to be applied and focused on understanding the sector as a whole. The assessment does not ask to discuss Pret – the organization. There are some parts of this report that indicate your focal points are shifting towards discussing the organization.
Where is the Porters Five Forces diagram with your analysis incorporated ?
Inserted figures in the report need to make sense. The efforts made to collect the information is evident, but some require more discussions around it so that the take-away is clear.
There are some good points in your discussion but the “so what” is missing in some of the statements you make, leaving the reader with questions.
One may argue from the information of the case that for the PFF analysis:
Bargaining power of buyers is low when buyers are high in numbers, meaning there is high demand for products and services. Additionally, loyal/habitual buyers in existing locations are not price sensitive or willing to search.
Bargaining power of suppliers is moderate due to considerations of rental space where landlords have power.
Why did you just use PFF for the analysis? Why not also use PESTLE?
So what is the outcome of your analysis? Is the sector still attractive? Any structural issues observed in the sector in terms of profitability?
It would have been ideal to see a summative discussion on the threats and opportunities after the analysis.
You needed to clearly identify the challenges for the casual dining sector. You state that the analysis suggest the sector is struggling but do not elaborate on the “why”.
A better connection between the first half of your report and second half was expected.
The suggested means of increasing profitability are limited but logical. The discussion here should have been tied back to the analysis as well. A PESTLE analysis would have been beneficial to back up some of the points you raise.
The points listed for the limitations sections are indeed limitations but more development in discussion was expected here as well.
For example, how it was to apply the frameworks to this specific report and did the limitations affect your analysis? Are there ways that could mitigate the limitations raised?
