You are the newly appointed CEO of your organisation. At a recent board meeting, the directors responded to your previous ‘State of Play’ document (Assignment 1). They have discussed the potential need for change to the organisation’s structure/design as a possible solution to your identified key challenges, trends, and opportunities (Assignment 1). You must now investigate whether change to the organisation structure/design is warranted and justify your earlier recommendations. Do this by preparing a proposal (4000 words with 10% variance) that focuses on the structure/design of your organisation. It must include recommendations for change or not to change and must further examine the various alternatives to possible structural change while including the benefits and drawbacks in addressing/tackling the identified challenges/opportunities. Your written response must cover the following:

1. An integration of theory, as presented throughout the unit, relating to context, structure/design, and process as it relates to your chosen sport organisation (to be integrated throughout sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).
2. An extensive use of academic references (i.e., from the textbook and assigned readings) including a reference page. Please note, use of the terms “context”, “structure/design” and “process” have specific meanings that relate to organisation theory as presented throughout the unit. It is expected that your use of these terms in your assessment work will take into account theoretical meanings of the terms.
3. A summary of the highlights from your Assignment 1 to set the context for your evaluation.
4. A brief description and analysis of the organisation’s context specific to its goals, effectiveness, and organisation strategy (i.e., identification of the situation).  What is the context: effectiveness ratio?
5. A clear articulation of the alternatives and the pros/cons of change/no change related decisions (regardless of your intention to recommend to change or not to change).  At least three (3) alternative scenarios should be provided (to not change can count as one of these alternatives).
6. A comprehensive rationale as to why change to organizational structure should or shouldn’t occur (i.e., the case for change, or a contrary argument).
7. In your explanation of change, please address what change might entail (i.e., the proposed solution), address assessment of structure, process and context in support of no change/change.
8. An outline of the anticipated outcomes/impacts of your decision (i.e., risks and benefits). In other words, if XYZ is changed, XYZ will happen.