Canadian Trading Partner

Working by yourself or with one other student, take the country that you recommended in your Assignment #1 that your firm should consider for entry and prepare an analysis of two alternative forms of mode of entry.Your final “PROFESSIONAL deliverable for the assignment will be a report that includes the following:1. Cover page2. Table of contents3. An executive summary of the paper (maximum half a page).4. An analysis, based on the analytical tools (PESTEL, FIVE FORCES) discussed in class, is to be used to create a credible, defensible and professional rationale for mode of entry; evidencing a good knowledge of the company in question, the industry it is in, the country in question and the modes of entry under consideration.5. The analysis section should naturally lead you to the selection of decision criteria that will allow you to make a recommendation amongst the modes of entry under consideration. The decision criteria must be reasonable and credible in the context of the company and industry in question.a. Decision criteria are NOT to be quantitative in nature…they are to be qualitative in nature. For example, the following criteria (or similar to these criteria) are NOT to be used, regardless of how you define them.i. Cost of entryii. Capital costiii. Market shareiv. Market penetrationv. Initial start up costsvi. Initial capital investment6. Your recommendation may be supported by a decision matrix (See Appendix A for an illustration of a decision matrix), or a narrative defense of your recommendation.7. A well-argued summary recommendation as to why the company should proceed with the chosen mode of entry, as opposed to the one not selected.8. Your final report is to be written in the 3rd person. It will be judged on the factual information it contains based on your research, the clarity of your arguments, the incorporation of key concepts from the course in your narrative, the depth of your analysis and the professionalism expected of a formal memo prepared by an outside consultant to the firm in question. In this regard a discussion of the history of the company is redundant, as it is assumed that the company executive knows far more about the company than the external consultant.