PAGE ASSIGNMENT 3 .docx

PAGE
ASSIGNMENT 3
Developing Your Team
Your name here
Strayer University
DELETE THE INFORMATION IN THIS TEMPLATE BEFORE
SUBMITTING YOUR PAPER!
Introduction
In this section, you will introduce what your paper is about. An
introduction sets the stage for the topics your paper will
discuss. Start by thinking about the question(s) you are trying to
answer. Provide information about the company you are
choosing to discuss for this assignment. Your introduction
should conclude with your topic sentence. A topic sentence is a
concise summary of the main topics of your paper, typically
written as one sentence. For this paper, there are three main
topics, so be sure to include them all in your topic sentence.
Creating a Diverse Team with Different Strengths
In this section, you are asked to explain how you could create a
diverse team of employees with different strengths. We talked
about diversity in Week 8 in our class. What were your thoughts
on workplace diversity and its importance to a company’s
culture and performance? Think about the steps or actions you
would take to bring diversity to your company. Think about the
strengths you would want your employees to have, such as
attention to detail, good communication, excellent people skills,
and so on. (You may want to refer to Assignment 1 where you
discussed employee characteristics.) Then discuss how you find
people with those characteristics. Use scenarios (examples) to

convey your ideas.
Methods to Improve Team Dynamics and Employee Behaviors
In this section, you are asked to discuss methods you would
adopt to improve team dynamics and employee behaviors. You
can start off by talking about what team dynamics are, then go
into discussing why a positive team dynamic is important.
Discuss the team dynamics you want in your workplace and how
you might ensure that those dynamics are in place. We talked
about team work in Week 7. What are some of the things you
discussed that you would put in place to help your employees be
a better team? Sometimes to have a positive team dynamic, you
need to give employees some guidance on what is expected of
them and how they should behave at work. This can be done
with various control systems – guidelines, procedures, rules,
and so on. We talked about control systems in Week 9. What are
some of the controls you might put in place to help your
employees perform well as a team?
Two Management Techniques to Align Team Behaviors to the
Company Mission
In this section, discuss two (2) management techniques you
would implement to ensure that your new team aligns to your
company’s mission. You can begin talking about a company’s
mission and it’s importance. If employees don’t know the
company mission statement, they may not understand the
importance of their work or how what they do fits in the grand
scheme of things. Reflect on all the aspects of management we
have learned about and discussed in our class. As a leader in
your firm, what are the actions you would take with your
employees to help them understand the mission and vision of
your company?
Conclusion
In this section, you will wrap everything up that you have in

your paper. A conclusion summarizes the main points in your
paper. For this paper, there are three main topics, so be sure to
include them all in your conclusion.
Sources
This is where you list all of the resources you have used in your
paper. Be sure to cite ideas you are using from your resources.
Be sure to put direct quotes in quotation marks. Each source
listed should have at least one citation in the body of your
paper. Follow proper SWS formatting for listing your sources
and citations
Additional Tips for a Good Paper
1. Delete all of the wording in this template before submitting
your paper. The information provided is simply to help you get
a good understanding of the assignment topics and get a
headstart on each section.
2. When you have completed your work, it is helpful to save the
file with a different name such as BUS302 Assignment 3. This
will help to prevent submitting the assignment template by
mistake.
3. The paper should 3-5 pages long. If you discuss each of the
three assigned topics – creating a diverse team, improving team
dynamics, and aligning behaviors with the company mission –
in at least one page each, you will meet the length requirement.
4. Use headers, like the ones in this template, to help you
organize your thoughts and focus on what the assignment is
asking.
5. Always include a title page and page numbers. All papers
must be submitted in a Word file.
MGT 690 2/14/20

Sun Power Simulation
This document is a quick starter guide to the interface and how
you will run each of the unique “worlds” in this exercise. You
will play in each world for 18 simulated years.
Starting
The Sun Power simulation can be accessed here:
http://forio.com/simulation/mit-sloan-solar
Click “Play as part of a class”
For “Choose a Screen ID” enter your initials
For “Class code”, enter “MGT690_01”
Interface
The first page is the Dashboard where you can see high-level
information about your own market share, solar panel price,
cost, etc. and how that compares to all other solar. More
detailed information is available through the panels on the left
(some will not be populated with useful information until a few
years into the simulation). There is a link to the case at the
bottom of the screen.
Decisions
In this simulation, you have two choices: price of the module
and investment in process improvement.
Pricing – You can either manually set a price, sell for a set
percentage below the average of your competitors, or a
percentage markup of your cost.
Process improvement – You set the percentage of revenues that
will be invested in improving the efficiency of your solar panel
manufacturing process.
Years to advance – Leave this at 1 year for the purpose of the
class, you can set higher values if you wish to run the
simulation on your own.
Once you have made a decision, press the “Advance” button to
go to the next year. Do not press “Start Over” – it is best to
learn from your mistakes as they happen.
Exercise Timeline
Begin with MGT690_01, once you finish the 18 year simulation,

record your performance (press the “Copy to Clipboard” Option
above the dashboard table to save your data). Consider the
questions.
After the discussion, press “Logout” in the top right, press
“Play as part of a Class”, enter the same ID, and then enter the
class code MGT690_02. Answer the questions on the following
page after finishing.
If you want to play around with different settings, you can click
“Play as an individual” and select “Settings”.
World 1 (MGT690_01):
1. What strategy did you use? Was it effective?
2. What were your outcomes? Percentage of market share and
cumulative profit?
3. What happened in the world? How did you react to it?
World 2 (MGT690_02):
1. What felt different about this world?
2. What were your outcomes? Percentage of market share and
cumulative profit?
3. What happened in the world? How did you react to it?
SunPower: Focused on the Future of Solar Power
Rebecca M. Henderson, Joel Conkling and Scott Roberts
It was December 2006. Tom Werner, CEO of SunPower, glanced
down at his watch and shook his head in dismay. His run was
not going well, despite the sounds of John Lee Hooker’s

“Boogie Chillen” coming through his earphones. He blamed the
board meeting later that afternoon.
Given SunPower’s position as the producer of the world’s most
efficient solar cells, also known as photovoltaics or PV, and
recent forecasts that solar power might be on the edge of
explosive growth, he knew that he’d be asked some tough
questions. Werner wondered how fast the solar power industry
was likely to grow and how long SunPower’s advantage was
likely to last. How could SunPower compete with much larger
companies like Sharp and Q-Cells? Or with the niche
“technology play” firms that were springing up? How could
SunPower’s current advantage be turned into an enduring
competitive edge?
As the sun began to rise, Werner picked up the pace again, and
began jogging home.
Environmental Issues
One of the most important drivers of the world’s renewed
interest in solar power was its ability to offer energy
independence in combination with significant environmental
benefits. After all, the earth received more energy from the sun
than humans consumed throughout an entire year. Since the
burning of fossil fuels generated a number of noxious
substances including SO2, NO, NO2, and particulates, concerns
for human and environmental health had driven interest in solar
power from its earliest days. But evidence that rising
concentrations of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere could pose
large long-term environmental risks had significantly increased
interest in the technology.
For over a century, scientists had observed the “greenhouse
effect,” the warming of the earth caused by the atmosphere’s
increased absorption of infrared radiation resulting from
increased concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere.
Levels of CO2 had risen from around 280 parts per million
volume (ppmv) before the industrial revolution to 380ppmv in
2006 higher than at any point in more than half a million years.

Data presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report, a 6-year study on
global warming involving 2,500 leading scientists from 100
countries, provided even more alarming statistics. For example:
Greenhouse gases rose 70% between 1970 and 2004 (28.7 to 49
billion tones per year in carbon dioxide). CO2, which
accounted for more than 75% of emissions, increased by 80%
between 1970 and 2004. Developed countries while accounting
for 20% of the global population, contributed 46% of global
greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases were projected to
increase between 20% and 90% by 2030 unless significant
changes in global energy policies were made.
Looking longer-term, many studies suggested that increasing
concentrations of green house gases greatly increased the odds
of catastrophic climate change. One study published in the
journal Nature predicted that temperature increases of 3.24–
3.6°F and CO2 increases to 500–550 ppmv would result in the
extinction of 1,000,000 terrestrial species (25% of all land
animals and plants) by 2050.1 Meanwhile, average global
temperatures had already risen 1.33°F since 1906—and polar
temperatures were rising faster still.
Most scientists believed that the stabilization of CO2 levels was
urgently required, but just what concentration constituted a
“sustainable” CO2 level was a matter of some uncertainty. The
IPCC report suggested three scenarios (Table A) for emission
stabilization by 2030 and the impact such cuts would have on
global warming and world GDP growth.
Table A Stabilization Scenarios Emission Output Rise in Global
Warming Cost to Annual GDP Growth in 2030 Scenario A 445-
535 parts per million (ppm)3.6 - 5.0°F0.12% Scenario B 535-
590 ppm5.0 - 5.8°F0.1%Scenario C 590-710 ppm5.8 -
7.2°F0.06%
31 Marinez Ferreira de Siqueira, Alan Grainger, et al.,
“Extinction Risk from Climate Change,” Nature, January 8,
2004, 427, p. 145-148. 2 Cited in B. Gaiddon, M. Jedliczka,
Environmental Benefits of PV Systems in OECD Cities,

September 2006. 3 Economist, “Selling Hot Air”, September 7,
2006. 4 “Sunlit Uplands,” The Economist, June 2, 2007. 5
“Sunlit Uplands,” The Economist, June 2, 2007. 6
http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_photovoltaics.html 7 Vaclav
Smil, 2003. Energy at the Crossroads, Cambridge: MIT Press, p.
288. 8 “Bright Prospects,” The Economist, March 8, 2007. 9
“Sunlit Uplands,” The Economist, June 2, 2007. 10 Liz Skinner,
“Sun Will Shine on Solar-Energy Investing, Report Says,”
Investment News, June 18, 2007. 11 Cassidy Flanagan, “New
Light on Solar Energy,” Business Week, May 17, 2007. 12 Gail
Roberts, “Production Trends and New Technologies Could Push
Solar Energy into Mainstream,” Electric Utility Weekly, May
28, 2007. 13 Gail Roberts, “Production Trends and New
Technologies Could Push Solar Energy into Mainstream,”
Electric Utility Week, May 28, 2007. 14 Million Roofs handout
15 Policysilicon: Supply, Demand, & Implications for the PV
Industry, Prometheus Institute, 2006. 16 Brian Womack,
“Alternative Energy Sun Shines on Clean Energy,” Investor’s
Business Daily, May 21, 2007. 17 Smil, p.285 18 Ibid. 19 Simil,
p. 47. 20 Brian Womack, “Alternative Energy Sun Shines on
Clean Energy,” Investor’s Business Daily, May 21, 2007. 21
Solar concentrators use optics, such as mirrors or lenses, to
focus sunlight onto the solar cells that convert light to
electricity. By magnifying light, designers can generate more
power from solar cells made of silicon and other expensive
materials. 22 Multicrystalline cells are produced using
numerous grains of monocrystalline silicon. While
multicrystalline cells are cheaper to produce than
monocrystalline ones, due to the simpler manufacturing process,
they tend to be slightly less efficient, with average efficiencies
of around 12%.(http://www.flasolar.com/pv_cells_arrays.htm)
23 These cells are made from very pure monocrystalline silicon
which has a single and continuous crystal lattice structure with
almost no defects or impurities. The principle advantage of
monocrystalline cells are their high efficiencies, typically
around 15%, although the manufacturing process required to

produce monocrystalline silicon is complicated, resulting in
slightly higher costs than other technologies.
(http://www.flasolar.com/pv_cells_arrays.htm) 24 J.R. Wu,
“China SunTech Ups Output, but Prices Pressured,” Dow Jones
Interantional News, June 19, 2007. 25 Martin LaMonica, “Start-
up Citizenre Thinks the Solar Power Industry Is Ready for a
Radical New Way of Doing Business,” CNET News.com,
February 21, 2007.
Scenario A, involving the most aggressive action, would result
in a 3% cumulative cost to annual world GDP growth by 2030.
At 2006 growth rates, however, global concentrations would
reach 800 ppmv by the end of the 21st century.
A sense of urgency about global warming had prompted many
countries to search for aggressive, coordinated strategies to
reduce CO2 emissions. (Table B gives CO2 emissions for
electricity production by fuel type.) The most far-reaching
attempt, the Kyoto Protocol, committed a number of countries
to modest CO2 reductions by a 2012 deadline. As part of this
“emission cap” approach, some signatories allocated CO2
emissions allowances to individual firms. The Kyoto Protocol
permitted these allowances to be traded across borders, creating
a “carbon market.” For example, a Spanish factory might find it
profitable to reduce its emissions by a given amount and sell the
allowances to another factory in Italy that planned to exceed its
own quota. Even signatories that had not committed to
emissions cuts could participate. These countries—mainly large
developing countries such as China and India—could forgo
emissions and sell them as credits to customers in other
countries.
Table B CO2 Emissions for Electricity Production Generation
Type Tons CO2 per MWh Nuclear 0Hydro power 0Coal
0.999Oil 0.942Gas 0.439Geothermal, Solar, Tide, Wave, Ocean,
Wind, Waste and other 0
Source: CANMET Energy Technologie Centre2
The advent of carbon trading in Europe had generated a large

market. In the first half of 2006, over US$15 billion worth of
carbon emissions were traded, five times more than the amount
the year before,3 and CO2 trading schemes in the United States
were being developed at the state level. As of 2006, renewable
sources provided 13% of the world’s energy needs,4 while
photovoltaic systems provided a mere .04% of the world’s
electricity. The U.S. Department of Energy estimated that the
country could supply its entire energy needs by covering .5% of
its land area with solar cells.5 Solar Power Industry
Solar cell, or photovoltaic (PV) systems converted energy from
the sun into electric current. Solar cell performance was
measured in terms of conversion efficiency, the proportion of
solar energy converted to electricity. The first commercial solar
cells were introduced in the 1950s by Bell Labs, and had
efficiencies below 4%.6 In 2006, PV efficiencies ranged from
10%-20% and some scientists believed that further research,
combined with advances in installation methods, could push
conversion efficiencies well over 20%, with 50% seen as the
long-term “holy grail.”7
A typical solar cell produced about 0.5V — roughly one-third of
a regular AA battery, far too small to be of any practical use by
itself — and cells were thus combined in larger blocks, called
modules. Although modules varied in size, they typically
included 72 cells, and yielded between 30-45V. Once
constructed, modules were typically combined in arrays or
panels which were then integrated with “inverters” –
sophisticated devices that converted the DC power output of the
solar panels or
arrays into the AC power used in conventional electrical
appliances.
While solar power was two to three times as expensive as the
retail cost of electricity,8 the market continued to grow at a
steep upward trajectory. As Figure 1 shows, module
manufacturing began to ramp up a few years after module prices
hit a plateau. (Exhibit 1 provides yearly production and price
data spanning 1975 to 2005.) Solar photovoltaic power grew an

average of 41% each year between 2003 and 2006,9 and was
expected to grow 40% annually through 2011. Industry profits
were expected to top $7.7 billion in 2007 and $11.5 billion by
2011.10 Roughly $1.7 billion in private equity and venture
capital funds went into the industry in 2006 and another $4.5
billion was invested in publicly traded solar companies, most of
it going toward expanding manufactu
Figure 1 PV Module Price and Production History, 1975-2005
Source: Maycock.
Producers and Consumers
Japan was the world’s PV shipment leader, shipping more than
five times the volume of the United States (Figure 2). Since
2002, Europe had held the number two position after it passed
the United States and by 2005, Europe was shipping three times
the volume of the United States. Analysts blamed the erosion of
U.S. PV market share to a lack of manufacturing incentives and
high manufacturing costs.
Figure 2 Global PV Shipments, 2000-2005
Source: Paula Mints, “PV in the U.S.: Where is the market
going and how will it get there?”, Renewable Energy Watch,
September 2006.
Analysts’ expectations that China was the market to watch due
to its growing energy needs, large work force and strong
industrial base were proven correct in 2006 when China
surpassed the United States as the world’s third largest producer
of PV cells, behind Germany and Japan. Lacking any kind of
domestic incentive/subsidy policy, more than 90% of China’s
PV products were exported. Chinese PV producers raised
billions of dollars in international IPOs in 2005 and 2006 to
build capacity and increase scale with the goal of driving down
costs.12
On the consumer side, global PV demand had grown from 114
MWp in 1997 to 505 MWp in 2002 to 1,408MWp in 2005 and
2,500MWp in 2006 and demand was accelerating rapidly
particularly in Europe (most especially Germany) and Japan as

shown in Figure 3. One prominent analysis of potential demand
at 2006module prices—i.e., around $3.50-$4.50/W with policy
support—estimated that there was potential worldwide demand
of approximately 5,000MWp, or double 2006 industry sales.
Meanwhile, global grid-connected solar capacity was about
5,000MWp. In contrast, installed wind capacity in the United
States alone was 9,149MWp.13
Figure 3 Global PV Demand, 2000-2005
Source: Paula Mints, “PV in the U.S.: Where is the market
going and how will it get there?”, Renewable Energy Watch,
September 2006. The Solar Value Chain
There were five key stages in solar power’s value chain: silicon
production, ingot/wafer manufacture, solar cell manufacture,
solar module manufacture, and system installation. Firms in the
industry differed dramatically in the degree to which they
participated in each stage. (Table C shows revenues and profits
across the chain.)
Table C PV Industry Value Chain Snapshot Year: 2006 Silicon
Ingots/Wafers Cells Modules Installation # of players 20 40 100
500 5,000 Revenues ($m) 1,400 4,500 7,700 10,200 3,200 Pre-
tax margin (%) 53 36 21 5 20 Capital costs ($/w/year) 0.65 0.50
0.05
Source: Solar Annual 2006
Silicon The key feedstock in the PV industry was high-purity
silicon, which was the basis for more than 90% of solar
modules. Silicon was obtained from sand through a complex
process using numerous purification steps and temperatures up
to 1,100ºC which would turn sand into the high purity silicon
known as polysilicon.14
As recently as the early 2000s, solar cell producers sourced
silicon feedstock mainly from waste silicon discarded during
semiconductor manufacturing. This “leftover” silicon supply
included high-purity silicon that was slightly above or below
the quality specified for semiconductor production, or off-cuts
(tops or tails) of monocrystalline ingots. For their part, silicon
producers had historically considered solar cell makers a market

of last resort, useful for stabilizing fluctuations in the overall
semiconductor market but unlikely to amount to meaningful
scale.
The explosive growth of PV cell manufacturing, however, had
transformed the role of solar power in the silicon business. In
2005, the solar industry used approximately 47% of available
silicon, and in 2006 it would likely account for the majority
share. These fast growing needs had stretched global silicon
supply and prices had risen dramatically from $32/kilogram in
2004 under a long-term contract, to $45/kg in 2005, to a
predicted $55/kg in 2006 with short-term contracts exceeding
$200/kg. However, current investment plans would triple
capacity, from 31,000 tons per year in 2005 to 100,000 tons or
more by 2010,15 despite the fact that a 5,000 tons/year
expansion cost roughly $300 million. The silicon shortage was
expected to end around 2008 when supply was estimated to
grow 70%.16
Ingots / Wafers Many large solar cell manufacturers had in-
house ingot production and wafer sawing capabilities, including
REC, SolarWorld, Kyocera, and BP Solar. Dedicated ingot and
wafer manufacturers supplied wafers to the solar cell
manufacturers that did not have their own ingot and wafer
capabilities. Technical progress in the industry had been rapid.
In 2004 typical wafers were 250-300 microns thick, and by 2006
they were around 190 microns. However over the same period
prices had risen dramatically. In 2004 wafers were sold for
around $1.00/watt, while in 2005 the average price was
$1.25/watt and in 2006 it was expected to be $1.90/watt. Cells
and Modules Solar cell manufacturing was a widely understood
process that involved less than ten steps. The largest producers,
which included Sharp Solar (Japan), Q-Cells (Germany),
Kyocera (Japan), Sanyo (Japan), and Mitsubishi Electric
(Japan), together accounted for roughly 58% of the market.
Sharp was the clear market leader, with 427.5 MW of
production in 2005, nearly three times that of its nearest
competitor. Between 50 and 100 manufacturers made up the rest

of the industry’s production capacity.
Due to the global silicon shortage, solar cell prices rose from
$2.70/watt in 2004 to $2.50/watt in 2005, and were forecast by
Photon Consulting to rise to $3.25/watt in 2006. At expected
2006 prices, pre-tax cell manufacturing profit margins were
expected by Photon Consulting to be 21%. While there were
roughly 500 smaller module manufacturers in operation in 2006,
most of the top cell manufacturers made modules as well. In
parallel with increases in PV cell prices, average module prices
had also risen from $3.20/watt in 2004 to $3.75/watt in 2005,
and were expected to reach $4.30/watt in 2006.
System Installation / Integration The most advanced systems
integrators had expertise in installing megawatt-scale solar
systems at low costs in fields and on large commercial roofs.
Competition for these large projects was fierce, and margins
were tight even for the best integrators. On the other side of the
installation spectrum, small residential installers made up the
majority of the 5,000+ solar installers and integrators in
operation. In general costs and prices varied widely, depending
on the application and geographical region. Total installation
costs ranged from $1/watt to $3/watt, and consumer prices
ranged from $1.25/watt to $4/watt. For dual-axis trackers in
large field installations, area-related costs could reach $1.50-
$2.00 per watt, while commercial flat roofs, where aesthetics
were less important, were usually around $0.60 per watt.
Residential roof installations cost approximately $1.00 per watt
for area related costs.
While solar installation was fairly simple at a very basic level
(one secured racks to the roof and then attached modules to the
racks and plugged them in), there could be meaningful first
mover advantage for installers that developed expertise in an
end-consumer market. For example, the installer that put a
system in for a Best Buy could be rewarded with lower costs
selling to other ‘big box’ retailers because it understood both
the sales process and the needs of that type of customer.
Similarly an installer that developed expertise in, for example,

residential installations in San Diego, could develop lower costs
in residential installation in San Diego than potential entrants.
Pricing
Deriving an exact price for solar generated electricity was
tricky. While conventional power was sold as a flow of power
from the grid in units of $/kWhr, solar power was typically sold
as an installed system with an upfront capital cost measured in
units of $/peak watt. Deriving a flow cost — how much the user
would actually pay for kWhrs and how much they would pay per
installed watt of generating capacity — depended on a wide
range of factors including the life of the system, interest rates,
subsidies (if any), hours of sunshine and so on. Hours of
sunshine, for example, ranged from nearly six per day in parts
of Southern California to 2.5 hours per day in parts of Northern
Europe, with important seasonal variation – and both interest
rates and the subsidies given to solar power varied widely
across the world.
In general, however, the average price of solar power ranged
from US 25-50¢ per kWh. For example, as Exhibit 2 suggests,
the average cost of a residential PV system in California
translated into an electricity price, without subsidies, of roughly
31¢/kWh. In contrast, one could generate electricity using
conventional power sources for between 4¢/kWh and 6¢/kWh
(Exhibit 3). Final prices to the consumer could be significantly
higher because electricity was expensive to distribute, but on
average conventionally generated electricity was still
significantly cheaper than solar power. According to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), prices for household customers started at just several
cents per kWh in areas of Scandinavia and rose to over
25¢/kWh in the highest-priced markets such as Japan. The U.S.
average was 9.6¢/kWh in early 2006, with California prices
averaging over 13¢/kWh.
As Exhibit 4 suggests, however, the average price of electricity
told only part of the story. In markets around the world, some

customers paid significantly more than the average price of
electricity. In California, for example, commercial customers
paid 24% more per kWh than residential customers. Meanwhile,
the state further stratified prices into five tiers based on total
electricity usage per month. As Figure 4 shows, a California
customer that consumed more than 34 kWh per day would pay
37¢, Tier 5 prices, for every kWh over the 34 kWh/day limit of
Tier 4.
Figure 4 California Residential Power Pricing Structure,
September 2006
Source: Pacific Gas and Electric.
Given its high cost, up until the late 1990s, most PV power was
used to meet the demands of “off the grid” users. Since that
time, however, more solar panels had been sold to residential
customers than any other single segment. Panels, attached to the
roof of a house or apartment building, could in many cases give
households full or near self-sufficiency in power supply. In
markets that permitted net metering, households also had the
option to sell their excess power to the grid. Under favorable
pricing (“feed-in tariffs”), this option could dramatically
improve the economics of a home PV system.
Increasingly, solar systems were also finding a market among
large commercial facilities such as big box retail stores,
shopping malls, hospitals, and airports. In most cases, solar
cells were not substituted completely for grid-based electricity,
and customers continued to purchase from the commercial grid.
Some commercial customers installed PV systems as a hedge
against high electricity prices while others recognized the
potential public relations benefits of a “green power”
investment. Utility-scale applications were once regarded as the
main potential market for solar power. Until the late 1990s, for
example, parabolic concentrators at three sites in California’s
Mojave Desert accounted for more than 90% of the world’s
installed solar capacity.17 However operational and financial
challenges had made this vision obsolete. The firm that built the
Mojave facilities, Luz International, went out of business. Solar

towers were also slow to take off and only a few experimental
facilities, mostly under 1 MW, had opened in California, Spain,
Israel, Germany, and Australia.18
Policy Support
Solar power’s potential to increase energy independence and
reduce carbon emissions had led to a wide variety of public
subsidies. Around the world, there were more than 1,000
various pro-solar policies put in place by international, national,
and local authorities. California’s “Million Solar Roofs”
initiative, for example, had allocated $3.2 billion for solar
power “buy-downs” through 2016. (A buy-down reduced the
upfront capital expenditure required to install a solar system.)
In some jurisdictions, customers could sell excess solar power
back to their utility at favorable prices. Some governments had
set specific targets for the number of households with PV
systems, or renewable portfolio standards (RPS) which required
utilities to derive a targeted percentage of power from
renewable sources and/or solar power. In South Korea, for
example, government mandated a target of 1,300 MW of solar
power installations by 2012 and in the United States, 24 states
had implemented their own RPS. (See Exhibit 5 for list of
standards by state.)
The U.S. solar market was highly diverse. State regulations and
policies toward solar power ranged from the supportive to the
non-existent, and power prices, the availability of solar
radiation, and public attitudes toward the environment also
varied dramatically across states. Exhibit 6 compares the costs
and savings for a solar system installed in California, Texas and
Massachusetts based on the same monthly electric usage. While
a California resident’s estimated net cost would be roughly
$17,480, a Massachusetts resident would likely pay nearly twice
that amount. Meanwhile, rebates and credits in the state of
California ($18,250) equaled half of the installation price. In
Texas they were 38% and in Massachusetts 23%.
Quantifying public subsidy policies into a global total of pro-

solar spending was difficult, but one analysis estimated that a
total of $1.7 billion was spent by governments worldwide in
2005 in supporting solar power, and that this figure would
surpass $3 billion in 2006.19 For companies like SunPower
subsidy programs were critical in generating demand. But
analysts believed that the industry would be able to prop itself
up without subsidies by 2012.20 Of course the key to doing so
was lowering costs and scaling up production. SunPower
SunPower was founded in 1987 by Dr. Richard Swanson, a
professor of electrical engineering at Stanford University. At
the time it closed its Series A round of VC financing in 1989,
SunPower’s goal was to commercialize solar concentrator21
technology. However, according to Swanson, the company
ended up going in a different direction:
We realized that solar concentrators were a bad idea.
Conceivably, someday concentrator systems could be a lower-
cost PV alternative, but they are not now and they have a long
way to catch up with continually improving flat-plate systems.
Moreover, concentrators are not well suited for many small
distributed, remote applications. We wrestled with whether we
should give the money back to the VCs or not. Ultimately, we
chose not to. Starting in about 1991, SunPower went through a
long period of trying to find its way.
In the early 1990s, the Honda Motor Company approached
SunPower asking if the company, known for its efficient solar
cells, could make cells big enough to cover Honda’s solar
powered race car. After agreeing to Honda’s request, Swanson
realized there was one barrier standing in the way of
SunPower’s ability to deliver: “We were all from academia. We
argued for about four hours one day about whether we needed
two shifts or one shift and realized after a while we had no idea
how to figure out whether we needed two shifts or one shift.”
After hearing about SunPower’s dilemma, Swanson’s friend T.J.
Rodgers had the answer. Rodgers, founder and CEO of Cypress
Semiconductors, suggested that SunPower tap into some of his
company’s talent that had been recently laid off, particularly his

former VP of operations. “He’s kind of a drill sergeant,”
Rodgers warned Swanson, “but that’s what you academic types
need.”
Within three weeks SunPower had been transformed from an
R&D fab into a full-blown solar cell manufacturer operating 24-
hours a day. Powered by SunPower’s cells, Honda went on to
win the race across Australia by more than a day over the
second place car.
After the Honda experience, NASA approached SunPower to
provide cells for a solar powered airplane. The plane was called
Helios, and it had set a record for highest sustained level flight,
at 96,500 feet. SunPower provided a 35 kW array of hand-made
solar cells at $200/watt. NASA wanted to order more, but asked
SunPower to try to reduce the cost.
Based on NASA’s request, it became obvious to Swanson that in
order to survive, SunPower would have scale up its production.
“We decided that the secret was to do what we know best, and
that was calculating things,” Swanson recalled. “We built a
factory model, and tried to figure out how much it would really
cost us if we made solar cells in volume. Because of the
efficiency of our cells which allow us to get more watts for each
process step and more watts for each gram of silicon, we
believed that we could compete.”
While SunPower was unable to convince many investors about
its potential, T.J. Rodgers believed that Cypress and SunPower
were a match made in heaven, and proposed a partnership to
Swanson: “We’ll marry our expertise in semiconductor
manufacturing that we have honed over 25 years of world class
competition, our understanding of how to run a fab, and our
knowledge of how to transfer products from R&D into
manufacturing with your technology. Together we’ll create a
great solar company.”
The partnership with Cypress, which began in 2001, allowed
SunPower to begin solar cell commercial production in late
2004, and in November 2005, the company went public on the
NASDAQ stock exchange. Resulting from a large investment by

T.J Rodgers, Cypress retained a majority stake.
Within one year, SunPower produced approximately 20 MW of
solar power, and in 2006 the company expected to produce
around 65 MW (Figure 5). Revenues rose from $6 million in
2004 to $78.8 million in 2005, and were projected to surpass
$220 million in 2006. The second quarter of 2006 was the first
profitable quarter in company history. (See Exhibit 7 for
financials.)
Figure 5 SunPower Production Volume
Source: SunPower, Photon Consulting
While SunPower initially focused on the production of solar
cells, the firm soon integrated into the manufacture of modules,
followed by a move into wafer manufacturing. In July 2006,
SunPower signed an agreement with the South Korean company,
DC Chemical, to support the construction of DC’s first silicon
production facility. In return, SunPower gained a substantial,
long-term source of silicon supply, at a time when there was a
shortage of silicon. In September 2006, SunPower invested in a
joint venture with a Chinese company to manufacture ingots and
in December 2006 it acquired PowerLight, a California-based
installer that specialized in large installations over 100 kWp,
for $335 million. SunPower’s Core Capability
SunPower produced the highest efficiency solar cells
commercially available in 2006. By focusing early on
developing cells for solar concentrator technology, SunPower
was able to create a differentiated type of solar cell in which the
metal contacts and grids were located on the back side of the
cell. This design improved efficiency by allowing more sunlight
to hit the silicon material in the cell rather than bouncing off
the metal grids, and also allowed for a more uniform all black
appearance which some customers found aesthetically
preferable.
Higher efficiency and improved aesthetics, however, came at a
cost. SunPower’s manufacturing process required approximately
twice as many steps as the typical solar cell manufacturing
process. Meanwhile, some of these steps were unique to

SunPower, raising capital expenditure per watt. The firm
estimated capital expenditure per watt was around $1.00, while
the cost of manufacturing a cell was roughly $2/watt. Of that
cost, $1.20 was for the silicon wafer, while the remaining $0.80
covered the cost of processing the wafer into a cell. A good
portion of SunPower’s process development was carried out in
the Philippines in order to take advantage of the increased
technical capabilities and low cost of Filipino engineers.
Manufacturing, meanwhile, was done in the United States.
To the extent that SunPower’s processes mirrored the typical
production process, the company benefited from manufacturing
equipment innovations. Many industry players believed that
crystalline manufacturing costs could see cost reductions of
25% by 2010. (See Exhibit 8.) As Werner explained:
Generic advances move quite rapidly across the industry as they
do in all industries now. We use approximately 2/3 of the same
equipment vendors as our competitors. So inevitably vendors
sell improvements that we give them to our competition, and
vice versa. Manufacturing excellence is partially about how
quickly you adapt those advances, and how aggressively you try
to find out about the advances.
SunPower’s high efficiency cells also gave it a competitive
advantage in the systems installation segment of the value chain
due to the fact that higher efficiency cells and modules packed
more power production capacity into a given space. Therefore a
house with limited roof space could install more solar capacity.
Fewer modules and less covered area also meant less
installation cost, and SunPower’s customers, the installers, were
reportedly willing to pay a higher price for the panels. “Our
channel checks tell us that [the premium] is at least 10%,”
Werner stated.
SunPower had publicly committed to increasing the average
efficiency of its solar cells from its 2005 level of 20.7% to at
least 22% by the first quarter of 2007. Some of these
efficiencies, it was hoped, would come from reducing the grams
of silicon per watt from its 2005 level of 7.5 grams per watt (the

industry average was approximately 10 grams per watt) and
reducing wafer thickness from 190 microns to 170 microns or
below. But, as Werner noted, it would not be an easy goal to
achieve: “I think it’s like losing weight. Those last two pounds
are really tough. That could stretch out over a number of years.”
Speaking about SunPower’s technology advantage, Werner
commented:
The great internal debate is how long SunPower's lead is. Are
we Intel where we can focus on this and drive this for 10 years
or more, much like they did for decades in the microprocessor
industry, or are we like many other industries where you have
an advantage that is perishable in a timeframe such that you had
better find a new innovation plane….
Downstream, SunPower intended to help squeeze costs out of
the residential retrofit installation and integration business,
which accounted for around half of the final selling price of an
installed system. SunPower believed that the installation
segment of the value chain was underscaled, and intended to
help its installer partners scale the fixed cost aspects of their
businesses. In the industry as a whole, the final assembly and
installation of solar systems (the so-called “Balance of
System”) had seen dramatic cost reductions. Standardization via
the emergence of “cookie cutter” applications, such as a 2 kW
standard roof-mounted system, had brought some consistency to
planning, mounting, and materials use. Improvements in other
installation costs was difficult to document, but some solar
analysts believed that costs had fallen by at least the same
amount as PV modules. The Competition
SunPower’s competition consisted of 15-20 established cell
manufacturers, a handful of silicon-based cell manufacturing
upstarts, and a number of thin film solar companies offering
potentially disruptive technologies.
Sharp Solar Headquartered in Japan and with significant
operations and market share in Germany and California, Sharp
Solar was the industry market leader with a 26% market share—
427.5 MW of cell and module production in 2005—, and 32%

year-on-year growth over 2004. Its cell production processes,
based on standard technology, were the result of over 40 years
of research and development. Sharp operations spanned wafer,
cell and module production, and it was pursuing R&D in thin
films, concentrator technology, and solar integrated products.
Its modules had been characterized as reliable, workhorse solar
modules, “the Chevy of the solar industry.”
Sharp solar modules were primarily based on multicrystalline
solar cells22 with efficiencies of 14-15%. Due to standard
module efficiency losses, the modules were approximately 13%
efficient. While Sharp derived the majority of its revenue from
basic modules, it had also introduced a range of low volume,
innovative products, including triangular modules to fit in tight
corners and translucent solar window glass with integrated LED
lights. Sharp had also researched back contact solar cells,
similar in nature to the cells produced by SunPower.
Q-Cells Germany-based Q-Cells was the industry’s second
largest player by market share, producing 165.7 MW of solar
cells in 2005, good for 118% year-on-year growth. As the
industry’s fastest growing company, Q-Cells primarily produced
multicrystalline solar cells with efficiencies of 14.5%-15.5%, as
well as monocrystalline cells23 with efficiencies of 16%-17%.
The company had developed large format cells (8” square
instead of the standard 5” or 6” squares) in order to reduce
processing cost per watt, but, as of 2006, these cells were not in
large scale production.
Q-Cells had taken a portfolio approach to emerging solar
technologies with minority investments in a range of potentially
disruptive companies, including a joint venture Evergreen Solar
and investments in a number of thin film solar companies.
REC Group Renewable Energy Corporation (“REC Group”) was
the only fully-integrated solar company, with production along
the entire value chain from silicon production to module
manufacturing. The company’s silicon and wafer manufacturing
volumes placed it among the industry leaders, while its cell and
module production was still developing. REC Group was also

the only major silicon manufacturer which produced silicon
only for the solar industry.
REC Group began operations in Norway in 1994 as ScanWafer.
Up until 2002, the company primarily produced wafers, after
which time it entered a joint venture with a silicon
manufacturer, and eventually bought out its JV partner to fully
own the silicon plant. In 2003, REC expanded into cell and
module manufacturing and in 2005 it purchased another silicon
manufacturing facility, placing it solidly among the top five
silicon manufacturers in the world.
REC Group produced more silicon than it used to manufacture
wafers, and produced more wafers than it used in its cell and
module manufacturing, putting the company in the unique
position of both supplying and competing with its customers at
the wafer, cell and module level. The company intended to
reduce the cost of producing a solar module 50% by 2010.
First Solar Based in Arizona, First Solar was one of the more
mature thin film solar manufacturers in the industry. The
company relied on a compound of Cadmium Telluride (CdTe)
instead of silicon to produce its modules, and as a result its
modules were 8%-10% efficient instead of the 13%-18%
efficiencies found in silicon-based modules. In an IPO
registration statement filed in the summer of 2006, the company
reported module manufacturing COGS of $1.59/watt.
Industry watchers and competitors expressed concern over the
toxicity of the cadmium contained in its modules. First Solar
contended that the concerns were exaggerated, given that the
amounts were so small and so unlikely to enter the environment.
SunTech In 2005, China-based SunTech was the world’s 8th
largest PV producer and by the end of 2006 the company had
moved into 4th place with 240 MW of photovoltaic cell
capacity. Meanwhile, SunTech’s production topped 160.1 MW
in 2006 and was estimated to more than double in 2007 to 325
MW.24 While the company exported more than 90% of its
products, mainly to Germany and Spain, it hoped that by 2015,
20% of its products would be sold in China. SunTech’s CEO

was pressing the Chinese government to start offering
incentives for the photovoltaic cell industry.
Citizenre Industry newcomer Citizenre, based in Delaware, was
attempting to disrupt the industry by offering a new business
model by which the company would manufacture, pay for,
install, own, maintain and operate the solar PV system
installation while homeowners would be required to pay for the
electricity generated by the PV panels at a fixed rate for a set
period of time. Many industry veterans were skeptical about
Citizenre’s ability to deliver as the company did not yet have a
product to sell nor had it disclosed information on those
investors who had purportedly committed $650 million to the
company.25 Conclusion
SunPower had come a long way from the days when it was
making solar cells that powered Honda’s solar powered race car
to victory. In 2006, the company found itself competing in an
industry experiencing tremendous growth and increasing public
and private sector support whether in the form of subsidies or
direct investment. However, in light of the varied and
continually evolving competitive scenario that SunPower had
become a part of, company CEO Tom Werner was aware that
the road ahead would likely be a challenging one.
The key was choosing and formulating the right strategy.
Should, for example, SunPower’s strategy focus on the pricing
of modules? Or should it focus more on investing in process
improvements? Or should the strategy be some combination of
the two? If so, what was the right formula based on the
multitude of variables that solar cell producers like SunPower
faced?
Exhibit 1 PV Module Manufacturing Volume and Price History
Annual ProductionCumulative Production Average Price* (MW)
Growth (%) (MW) Growth (%) (US$/watt) Growth (%) 1975 2
$30.00 1976 2 4 100% $25.00 -17% 1977 2 13% 6.25 56%
$20.00 -20% 1978 3 11% 8.75 40% $15.00 -25% 1979 4 60%
12.75 46% $13.00 -13% 1980 7 63% 19.25 51% $12.00 -8%
1981 8 19% 27 40% $10.00 -17% 1982 12 55% 39 44% $9.00 -

10% 1983 20 67% 59 51% $7.75 -14% 1984 22 10% 81 37%
$7.00 -10% 1985 26 18% 107 32% $6.50 -7% 1986 28 8% 135
26% $5.00 -23% 1987 29 4% 164 21% $4.00 -20% 1988 34 17%
198 21% $3.75 -6% 1989 40 18% 238 20% $4.25 13% 1990 47
18% 285 20% $4.75 12% 1991 55 17% 340 19% $4.50 -5% 1992
60 9% 400 18% $4.25 -6% 1993 60 0% 460 15% $4.25 0% 1994
70 17% 530 15% $4.00 -6% 1995 80 14% 610 15% $3.75 -6%
1996 89 11% 699 15% $4.00 7% 1997 126 42% 825 18% $4.15
4% 1998 153 21% 978 19% $4.00 -4% 1999 201 31% 1179 21%
$3.50 -13% 2000 288 43% 1467 24% $3.50 0% 2001 399 39%
1866 27% $3.50 0% 2002 560 40% 2426 30% $3.25 -7% 2003
759 36% 3185 31% $3.00 -8% 2004 1195 57% 4380 38% $3.25
8% 2005 1727 45% 6107 39% $3.50 8%
Source: Maycock
Exhibit 2 Breakdown of Typical Average System Price in
California
Source: Pacific Gas & Electric.
Exhibit 3 Power Generation Cost by Technology

Source: Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Exhibit 4 California Average Retail Electricity Prices by Sector
(US cents/kWh)
Source: California Energy Commission (
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/statewide_weightavg_sect
or.html)
Exhibit 5 Renewable Portfolio Standards State % from Renewed
Source Year Arizona 15% 2025California 20% 2010Colorado
20% 2020Connecticut 10% 2010Delaware 10% 2019Hawaii 20%
2020Illinois 8% 2013Iowa 105 MW Maine 20% 2000Maryland
9.5% (at least 2% from solar) 2022Massachusetts 4% new
2009Montana 15% 2015Nevada 20% 2015New Hampshire 25%
2025New Jersey 20% 2020New Mexico 20% 2020New York
25% 2013Oregon 25% 2025Pennsylvania 18% 2020Rhode
Island 16% 2020Texas 5,880 MW 2015Vermont Equal to load
growth 2005-2012Washington 15% 2020Washington D.C. 11%
2022Wisconsin 10% 2015

Source: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Exhibit 6 Solar Electric Estimates for California, Texas and
Massachusetts California Texas Massachusetts Building Type
Residential Residential Residential State & County CA, Los
Angeles TX, Austin MA, Middlesex Utility City of Los Angeles
Austin Energy NSTAR Utility Type Municipal Utility Municipal
Utility Investor-owned Utility Assumed Average Electric Rate
$0.11 $0.09 $0.08 Assumed Average Monthly Electric Usage
983 983 983 Average Monthly Electricity Bill $110 $92 $80
Solar Rating Great (5.996 kWh/sq-m/day Great (5.192 kWh/sq-
m/day) Good (4.311 kWh/sq-m/day) Solar System Capacity
Required 4.00 kW of peak power (DC watts) 4.50 kW of peak
power (DC watts) 5.50 kW of peak power (DC watts) Roof Area
Needed 400 sq-ft 450 sq-ft 550 sq-ft Estimated Installation Cost
(before rebates, incentives, tax credits) $36,000 ($9/watt)
$40,500 ($9/watt) $49,500 ($9/watt) Expected Utility Rebate
$16,250 $13,500 ($4.5/watt installed, maxiumum $13,500,
limited to 80% of cost) $0 Expected State Rebate $0 (state
incentive does not apply to this utility) $0 (state incentive does
not apply to this utility) $8,910 ($2/watt installed, maximum:
$20,000) State Tax Credit/Deduction $0 $0 $1,000 (15% of net
system cost, maximum: $1000) Federal Tax Credit $2,000
$2,000 $2,000 Income Tax on Tax Credit $0 $0 $280 Estimated
Net Cost $17,480 $25,000 $37,870 Monthly Payment (6.5% apr,
30 years) $110 $158 $239
Exhibit 6 (con’t) Solar Electric Estimates for California, Texas
and Massachusetts Califonia Texas Massachusetts Savings and
Benefits Increase in Property Value $11,460-$22,341 $9,480-
$17,770 $8,200-$14,973 First-year Utility Savings $573-$1,117
$474-$889 $410-$749 Average Monthly Utility Savings (over
25-year expected life of system) $80-$156 $66-$124 $57-$105
Average Annual Utility Savings (over 25-year expected life of
system) $962-$1,875 $796-$1,491 $688-$1,257 25-year Utility
Savings $24,044-$46,874 $19,890-$37,283 $17,204-$31,420
Return on Investment (with solar system average cost set as
asset value) 338% 191% 107% Years to Break Even (includes

property value appreciation) <1 to 4 years 3 to 12 years 11 to 33
years Greenhouse Gas (C02) Saved (over 25-year system life)
121.0 tons (242,000 auto miles) 121.0 tons (242,000 auto miles)
121.0 tons (242,000 auto miles)
Source: Findsolar.com
Findsolar.com is a joint partnership between the American Solar
Energy Society, Solar Electric Power Association, Energy
Matters LLC, and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Exhibit 7 SunPower Financial Statements SunPower Corp.
Balance Sheet 30-Jun-0631-Dec-05 Assets Current assets Cash
and cash equivalents $277,493 $143,592 Short-term investments
19,900 Accounts receivable, net 34,263 25,498 Inventories
21,566 13,147 Prepaid expenses, net of current portion 19,888
3,236 Total current assets 373,110 185,473 Property and
equipment, net 136,436 110,559 Goodwill 2,883 2,883
Intangible assets, net 16,389 18,739 Advances to suppliers, net
of current portion 13,429 Total assets $542,247 $317,654
Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity Current liabilities Accounts
payable $22,173 $14,194 Accounts payable to Cypress 3,262
2,533 Accrued liabilities 10,878 4,541 Current portion of
customer advances 11,504 8,962 Total current liabilities 47,817
30,230 Deferred tax liability 336 Customer advances, net of
current portion 30,609 28,438 Total liabilities 78,426 59,004
Total stockholders' equity 463,821 258,650 Total liabilities and
stockholders' equity $542,247 $317,654
Source: Edgar Online.
Exhibit 7 (con’t) SunPower Financial Statements SunPower
Corp. Income Statement (in thousands, except per share data)
Three months ended, June 30, Six months ended June 30,
200620052006 2005Revenue $54,695 $16,400 $96,653 $27,492
Costs and expenses Cost of revenue 43,248 17,585 79,514
30,678 Research and development 2,588 1,360 4,584 3,027
Sales, general and administrative 4,985 2,203 9,366 4,003 Total
costs and expenses 50,821 21,148 93,464 37,708 Operating
income (loss) 3,874 (4,748)3,189 (10,216)Interest income
(expense), net 1,569 (1,398)2,403 (3,184)Other income

(expense), net 353 (190)490 (173)Income (loss) before income
tax provision 5,796 (6,336)6,082 (13,573)Income tax provision
412 443 Net income (loss) $5,384 ($6,336)$5,639 ($13,573)Net
income (loss) per share: Basic $0.08 ($0.36)$0.09
($1.29)Diluted $0.08 ($0.36)$0.08 ($1.29)Weighted-average
shares: Basic 64,040 17,614 62,583 10,508 Diluted 69,408
17,614 68,172 10,508
Source: Edgar Online.
Exhibit 8 Key Drivers of Crystalline Module Cost Reductions
Driver of cost savings Economies of scale Gains in purchasing,
efficiency improvements and reduction of overall
breakage/downtime due to economies of scale (often >3
cents/watt/year for largest players) Module efficiency
improvements Slow but steady reduction of ~1/2 kilogram of
silicon per watt each year as module efficiency increases and
wafers get thinner (1-2 cents/watt/year in cost savings). Lower
cost materials Shifts to lower cost materials for stringing,
framing, backing, and packaging (1-2 cents/watt/year) Lower
depreciation Lower depreciation expenses with lower capital
costs for manufacturing equipment (varies by company and by
accounting standards; often >2 cents/watt difference
depreciation expense for new, lower cost/watt manufacturing
equipment and previously purchased equipment) Lower wages
Move to lower wage locations such as China or India (cost
reduction >2 cents/watt for some manufacturers) Narrower
range of technologies/customers Standardization of process by
focusing on narrow range of technology (e.g. "we want to be the
lowest cost producer of multicrystalline cells anywhere in the
world") or focusing on specific customers when
manufacturing/delivery logistics are easier
Source: Michael Rogol, SunScreen.
Communicating professionally and ethically is an essential skill
set we teach at

Strayer. The following guidelines ensure:
· Your writing is professional
· You avoid plagiarizing others
· You give credit to others in your work
t
Handbook.
Spring 2020
Strayer University Writing Standards 2
� Include page numbers.
� Use 1-inch margins.
� Use numerals (1, 2, 3, and so on) or spell out numbers (one,
two, three, and so on).
� Double space body text in the assignment.
� Use consistent 12-point font.
� Use section headings to divide separate content areas. Center
the section headings on
the page, be consistent, and include at least two section
headings in the assignment.
� Include the assignment title, your name, course title, your

professor’s name, and the date
of submission on a separate page (first page of submission).
� Use appropriate language and be concise.
� Write in active voice when possible. Find tips here.
� Use spelling/grammar check and proofread to keep work
error free.
� Choose a point of view (first, second, or third person) as
required by assignment guidelines.
� Provide credible sources to support your ideas/work when
required. Find tips here.
� Cite sources throughout your work when you borrow
someone else’s words or ideas.
� Don’t forget: Cite and add your textbook to the Source List
if used as a source.
� Include a Sources List when the assignment requires research
or if you cite the textbook.
� Type “Sources” centered horizontally on the first line of the
Source List page.
� Record the sources that you used in your assignment in a
numbered list (see Giving
Credit to Authors and Sources section).
Essay/Paper Guidelines
Design

Title Page
Develop
Cite Credible
Sources
Build a
Sources List
Use these rules when working on an essay!
� Use the provided template to format the assignment.
� Generally not required. If it is required, include the
assignment title, your name, course
title, your professor’s name, and the date of submission on a
separate page (first page of
submission).
error free.
� Choose a point of view (first, second, or third person) as
required by assignment guidelines.
� Specific assignment guidelines may override these standards.
When in doubt, follow

specific assignment guidelines first.
� Complete the provided Source List when the assignment
requires research or if you cite
the textbook.
� If no specific area exists in the template, consult the
assignment and instructor guidelines
for appropriate source credit methods.
� Cite sources throughout your assignment when you borrow
� When quoting or paraphrasing a source, include the source
number in parentheses after
the body text where you quote or paraphrase.
Templated Assignment Guidelines
Design
Title Page
Develop
Cite Credible
Sources

Build a
Source List
Use these rules when working on a written assignment that is
not explicitly an essay!
� Use a background color or image on slides.
� Use Calibri, Lucida Console, Helvetica, Future, Myriad Pro,
or Gill Sans font style.
� Use 28–32-point font size for the body of your slides (based
on your chosen font style).
Avoid font sizes below 24-point.
� Use 36–44-point font size for the titles of your slides (based
on chosen font style).
� Limit slide content (7 or fewer lines per slide and 7 or fewer
words per line).
� Number slides when the assignment requires 3 or more
slides. Place numbers wherever
you like (but be consistent).
� Include appropriate images that connect directly to the slide
content or presentation content.
� Include the assignment title, your name, course title, your
professor’s name, and the date
of submission on a separate slide (first of submission).

error free.
� Sources may be provided on a slide-by-slide basis (providing
Source List entries at
bottom of slide where source referenced) or in a comprehensive
Source List at the
end of slideshow.
� Include a Sources List slide when assignment requires
research or if you cite the textbook.
� Type “Sources” centered horizontally on the first line of the
Source List slide.
� Provide sources used in your assignment in a numbered list
(see Giving Credit to Authors
and Sources section).
PowerPoint/Slideshow Guidelines
Design

Title Page
Develop
Cite Credible
Sources
Build a
Sources List
Use these rules when working on a PowerPoint or slideshow
assignment!
� Use consistent 12-point font.
� Include appropriate images or media links that connect
directly to discussion topic/content.
error free.
� Cite sources throughout your discussion response when you
borrow someone else’s
words or ideas.

� Cite quotes and paraphrases correctly: Include the source
number in parentheses after
the body text where quotation or paraphrasing occurs.
� Don’t forget: Cite and add your textbook to the Sources List
� Type the word “Sources” at the end of your post, and below
that include a list of any
sources that you cited.
� Number all sources in the order they appear.
Discussion Post Guidelines
Design
Develop
Cite Credible
Sources
Use these rules when working on a Discussion Forum post or
response!
For more information on building a Source List Entry, see
Source List section.
SAMPLE POST:
The work is the important part of any writing
assignment. According to Smith, “writing things
down is the biggest challenge” (1). This is significant
because…

Sources
1. William Smith. 2018. The Way Things Are. http://
www.samplesite.com/writing
If you pulled information from more than one source,
continue to number the additional sources in the order that
they appear in your post.
SAMPLE POST:
The work is the important part of any writing
assignment. According to Smith, “writing things
down is the biggest challenge” (1). This is significant
because…
The other side of this is also important. It is noted
that “the act of writing isn’t important as much as
putting ideas somewhere useful” (2).
Sources
1. William Smith. 2018. The Way Things Are. http://
www.samplesite.com/writing
2. Patricia Smith. 2018. The Way Things Really Are.
http://www.betterthansample.com/tiger
Credit to Authors and Sources

Option #1: Paraphrasing
Rewording Source Information in Your Own Words
· Rephrase source information in your own words. Avoid
repeating the same words of the author.
· Remember, you cannot just replace words from the
original sentence.
· Add the author’s last name and a number to the end of
your paraphrase as a citation (which will be the same on
your Source List).
ORIGINAL SOURCE
“Writing at a college level requires informed
research.”
PARAPHRASING
As Harvey wrote, when writing a paper for higher
education, it is critical to research and cite
sources (1).
When writing a paper for higher education, it is
imperative to research and cite sources (Harvey, 1).
Option #2: Quoting
Citing Another Person’s Work Word-for-Word
· Place quotation marks at the beginning and end of
quoted information.
· Limit quotes to two or fewer sentences (approximately 25
words) at a time.

· Do not start a sentence with a quotation.
· Introduce and explain quotes within the context of your
paper.
· Add the author’s last name and a number to the end of
the quote as a citation (which will be the same on your
Source List).
ORIGINAL SOURCE
research.”
QUOTING
Harvey wrote in his book, “Writing at a college level
requires informed research” (1).
Many authors agree, “Writing at a college level
requires informed research” (Harvey, 1).
Use these rules for using evidence and creating in-text citations!
General Credit
· Credit quoted or paraphrased sources using an in-text
citation. An in-text citation includes the primary author’s last
name
and the number of the source from the Source List.
· Before using any source, first determine its credibility. Then
decide if the source is appropriate and relevant for your
project. Find tips here.

· Well-researched assignments have at least as many sources as
pages (see assignment instructions).
Web sources are accessed through an internet browser.
Home Pages
A home page loads when typing a standard web address. For
instance, typing Google.com into any web browser will take
you to Google’s home page.
Cite a homepage when using information from a news thread,
image, or basic piece of information on a company’s website.
Find Tips Here.
Specific Web Pages
If using any web page other than the home page, include the
specific page title and direct link (when possible) in the Source
List entry.
If the assignment used multiple web pages from the same
source, create separate Source List entries (if the title and/or
web
address is different).
Effective Internet Links
When sharing a link to an article with your instructor and
classmates, start with a brief summary of the article and why
you chose to
share it.
Share vs. URL Options

Cutting and pasting the URL (web address) from your browser
may not allow others to view your source. This makes it hard
for
people to engage with the content you used.
To avoid this problem, look for a “share” option and choose that
when possible. Always test your link(s) before submitting.
If you cannot properly share the link, include the article/source
as an attachment. Interested classmates and your professor can
reference the article shared as an attachment. Find tips here.
Credit for Web Sources
Charts, images, and tables should be centered horizontally on
the page and should be followed by an in-text citation. Design
your page and place a citation below the chart, image, or table.
When referring to the chart, image, or table in the body of the
assignment, use the citation.
Do not include a chart, image, or table without introducing it in
the assignment and explaining why it is necessary.
On your Source List, provide the following details of the visual:
· Author’s name (if created by you, provide your name).
· Date (if created by you, provide the year).
· Type (Chart, Image, or Table).
· How to find it (link or other information; see Source List
section for additional details).
Charts, Images, and Tables

Traditional Sources
Page Numbers
When referencing multiple pages in a textbook or other
print book, consider adding page numbers to help the
audience understand where the information is found. You
can do this in three ways:
a. by including it in the body of your assignment; or
or b. by using an in-text citation;
or c. by listing page numbers in the order used in your
assignment on the Source List.
Check with your instructor or the assignment guidelines to
see if there is a preference based on your course.
IN-TEXT CITATION
(Harvey, 1, p. 16)
In the example, the author is Harvey, the source list number
is 1, and the page number where this information can be
found is page 16.
Multiple Sources (Synthesizing)
Synthesizing is the use of multiple sources in one
paraphrased sentence or paragraph to make a strong point.
While this is normally done in advanced writing, it could be
useful for any writing where you use more than one source.
Find tips here.

The key is clarity. If you paraphrase multiple sources
in the same sentence (or paragraph if most of the
information contained in the paragraph is paraphrased),
you should include each source in the citation. Separate
sources using semi-colons (;) and create the citation in
the normal style that you would for using only one source
(Name, Source Number).
SYNTHESIZED IN-TEXT CITATION
(Harvey, 1; Buchanan, 2)
In the example, the authors Harvey and Buchanan were
paraphrased to help the student make a strong point.
Harvey is the first source on the Source List, and Buchanan
is the second source on the Source List.
Advanced Methods
Some assignments require more advanced techniques. If
necessary, these guidelines help with special
case scenarios.
Substitution and Ellipsis
Omitting unnecessary information from a direct quotation
is often required. To omit information, delete the
unnecessary information and replace it with an ellipsis
inside of square brackets, like this: […]. Find tips here.
There are times when a quality source has made a mistake,
but you still value the information that the source provides.

To solve this issue, change elements of the source (noting
what additions or changes were required). When changing
elements within a direct quotation, delete the original
information and surround the new wording or spelling with
square brackets, like this: “[W]riting”.
The bracket here shows that the original source may have
misspelled “writing” or that the “W” has been capitalized
and was lowercase in the source material.
NOTE: Ellipsis and square brackets cannot be used in
paraphrased source material.
ORIGINAL SOURCE
research.”
ELLIPSIS
Harvey wrote that writing “at a college level
requires […] research” (1).
SUBSTITUTION
Many authors agree that “[w]riting at an [under-
graduate] college level requires informed re-
search” (1).
Footnotes and Additional Content
Written assignments may benefit from including relevant
background information that is not necessarily important
for the main body of the assignment.
To include extra secondary evidence or authorial

commentary, insert a numeral superscript into the text of
the assignment and add the extra evidence or commentary
in the footer of the page as a footnote. (Note: Microsoft
Word’s “Insert Footnote” function is the preferred method.)
When writing a paper for higher education,4 it is
imperative to research and cite sources (Harvey,
1). This suggestion applies to both undergraduate
and graduate students, and it is the first thing that
beginning students must internalize.
4 Mathews has pointed out that this suggestion is
appropriate for all levels of education, even those outside
of university, and is in fact best practices for any form
of professional writing (2). However, this paper focuses
specifically on writing in college-level education.
Appendices
An assignment may require an appendix following the Source
List. The appendix is meant to declutter the assignment body
or provide relevant supplemental information for the audience.
If there is only one appendix, it is labeled, Appendix. More than
one appendix may be required. Label the first appendix
Appendix A, the second Appendix B, and so on. Each chart,
graphic, or photograph referred to in the body of the
assignment requires its own listing in the appendices.
Use descriptive labels in the body of your written assignment to
link each chart, graphic, or photograph to its place in the
appendices. For example, when referring to a chart found in
Appendix B, a student would include (see Appendix B, Cost of
Tuition in Secondary Education, 2010-2019) after referring to
data drawn from that chart.

Source List
The Source List includes all sources used in your assignment. It
is a new page added at the end of your
assignment. The list gives credit to authors whose work
supported your own and should provide enough
information so that others can find the source(s) without your
help.
Build your Source List as you write.
� Type “Sources” at the top of a new page.
� Include a numbered list of the sources you used in your
paper (the numbers indicate the
order in which you used them).
1. Use the number one (1) for the first source used in the paper,
the number two (2) for
the second source, and so on.
2. Use the same number for a source if you use it multiple
times.
� Ensure each source includes five parts: author or
organization, publication date, title,
page number (if needed), and how to find it. If you have trouble
finding these details, then
re-evaluate the credibility of your source.
� Use the browser link for a public webpage.

� Use a permalink for a webpage when possible. Find tips
here.
� Instruct your readers on how to find all sources that do not
have a browser link or a
permalink.
� Separate each Source List element with a period on your
Source List.
AUTHOR PUBLICATION DATE TITLE PAGE NO. HOW TO
FIND
The person(s) who
published the source. This
can be a single person,
a group of people, or an
organization. If the source
has no author, use “No
author” where you would
list the author.
The date the source was
published. If the source
has no publication date,
use “No date” where you
would list the date.
The title of the
source. If the
source has no title,
use “No title”
where you would
list the title.
The page
number(s) used. If

the source has no
page numbers,
omit this section
from your Source
List Entry.
Instruct readers how to find
all sources. Keep explanations
simple and concise, but
provide enough information
so the source can be located.
Note: It is your responsibility
to make sure the source can
be found.
Michael Harvey
In the case of multiple
authors, only list the first.
2013
This is not the same as
copyright date, which is
denoted by ©
The Nuts &
Bolts of College
Writing
p. 1
Include p. and
the page(s) used.

http://libdatab.strayer.edu/
login?url=http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx
Setting Up the
Source List Page
Creating a
Source List Entry
Source List Elements
NOTE: For the example, Harvey is the first source used in the
assignment.
1. Michael Harvey. 2013. The Nuts & Bolts of College Writing.
p. 1. http://libdatab.strayer.edu/
login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx
Sources
1. Michael Harvey. 2013. The Nuts & Bolts of College Writing.
p. 1. http://libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=590706&
site=eds-live&scope=site
2. William R. Stanek. 2010. Storyboarding Techniques chapter
in Effective Writing for Business, College and Life. http://

libdatab.strayer.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login
.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=359141&site=eds-li
ve&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_23
3. Zyad Hicham. 2017. Vocabulary Growth in College-Level
Students’ Narrative Writing. http://libdatab.strayer.edu/
login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d
b=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.9b7fad40e529462bafe3a936aaf
81420&site=eds-live&scope=site
4. Anya Kamenetz. July 10, 2015. The Writing Assignment That
Changes Lives. https://www.npr.org/sections/
ed/2015/07/10/419202925/the-writing-assignment-that-changes-
lives

PAGE ASSIGNMENT 3 .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to PAGE ASSIGNMENT 3 .docx

Similar to PAGE ASSIGNMENT 3 .docx (15)

More from aman341480

More from aman341480 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PAGE ASSIGNMENT 3 .docx