Proposal Writing

Assignment title
An analysis of the corporate strategy of IPH Limited (ABN 49 169 015 838) and Xenith IP
Group Limited (ABN 607 873 209).
Word count: 455
Student name: Robert E Pierce
Student number: A001530131
Subject name: 9050PROJ
AQF level: 9
Discipline: Strategic Management
Theme: An analysis of the corporate strategy of two direct competitors.
1
Project Statement Commented [SB1]: Overall, your writing style is good.
No issues with spelling or grammar were noted. Your
Project Statement is easy to read.
Background
Commented [SB2]: Good clear
IPH Limited (ASX:IPH) and Xenith IP Limited (ASX:XIP) are both listed intellectual property
(IP) services firms. Through the services of patent attorneys, trade mark attorneys and IP
lawyers, they provide clients with services and advice relating to the identification,
registration, management, commercialisation and enforcement of IP, both locally and
internationally (XIP 2015).
Following deregulation of the industry in 2013, IPH were the first to list publicly in 2014.
Followed by XIP approximately 12 months later in 2015.
Project topic Commented [SB3]: Issues need to be identified here, I

could not quite get your topic issues. You could improve by
providing evidence of issues with appropriate supporting
When the intellectual property regulations change took effect in April 2013 (Raising the Bar references and include some industry issues here.
2012) patent and trade mark attorneys were given the flexibility of registering as
incorporations, rather than simple partnerships or sole traders.
IPH Limited (IPH) were the first of the IP firms to list on the ASX, stating its strategy was to
be recognised as a leading global firm to secondary markets for IP services. In particular
providing a one stop service across Asia (IPH 2014).
Xenith IP Group Limited (XIP) were the second such IP group to list almost 12 months later.
XIPs strategy was based on a number of initiatives, identified as either organic growth, or
inorganic growth; including expansion into Southeast Asia, but also to increase local market
share and drive technology improvements.
Both firms identified growth as an important objective, and whilst each deployed similar
growth strategies, there were some differences. IPH very aggressively looked to grow
beyond Australia, whilst XIP was much less aggressive in this regard. Both firms looked to
grow acquisitively, with only XIP pursuing a merger option, as opposed to outright
acquisition.
Both firms strategies have evolved since listing, with IPH being the more successful of the
two firms to date, as measured by share price at 30 November 2017 (1).
2
Not only does IPH appear to have formulated the best growth strategies, in appears to have
executed its objectives more successfully than XIP.
Purpose of the research Commented [SB4]: Stated but you could have expanded
it a little by including recommendation etc.
The purpose of this report is to compare the two firms different strategic approaches,
execution and success, since their initial public offerings (IPO).
Literature review Commented [SB5]: LR should include strategic

management relevant to the topic issue as well as industry
issues related to this project.
The theories considered and referenced will be;
Growth strategies, and;
Strategic management.
Research method Commented [SB6]: Please note, in your Final Project

Report you will need to expand on this as the methodology
by justifying your selection with references to the
The research approach will be a multiple case study, with the unit of analysis being the two academic research literature a bit more.
firms, IPH and XIP. Secondary data will be collected from Beaton Benchmarks (Beaton 2015), Commented [SB7]: Data analysis tools should be listed
and justified in the project report
annual reports and shareholder statements for both firms. IPO prospectus for IPH (IPH
2014) and XIP (XIP 2015), IBISWorld industry report (IBIS World 2017) and other relevant
literature as required. Data will be analysed in a qualitative manner to highlight the issues
caused by the differences in strategic approach. Quantitative analysis of the data will seek
to demonstrate the impact of the different approaches.
References
Beaton 2015, Beaton Benchmarks 2015 IP specialist firms, Beaton Research & Consulting,
July 2015, Perth, Australia.
IBOS World 2017, Industry Report OD5161, Trademark and Patent Lawyers and Attorneys in
Australia, Kim Do, July 2017, Australia.
3
IPH 2014, IPH Limited, Prospectus Initial Public Offer of Ordinary Shares, October 2014,
Sydney, Australia.
Raising the Bar 2012, IP Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012, No.35 2012, Canberra,
Australia. Commented [SB8]: Your referencing needs
improvement. Please refer to AIB style guide.
XIP 2015, Xenith IP Group, Prospectus Initial Public Offer of Ordinary Shares, October 2015,
Sydney, Australia.
(1) Share price as at 30 October 2017
IPH AU$5.77 70.7% increase on 2014 offer price of AU$2.10
XIP AU$1.29 60.2% decrease on 2015 offer price of AU$2.72

Proposal Writing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposal Writing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposal Writing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment title

Word count: 455

Student name: Robert E Pierce

Student number: A001530131

Subject name: 9050PROJ

Discipline: Strategic Management

Theme: An analysis of the corporate strategy of two direct competitors.

Project topic Commented [SB3]: Issues need to be identified here, I

Literature review Commented [SB5]: LR should include strategic

Growth strategies, and;

Research method Commented [SB6]: Please note, in your Final Project

(1) Share price as at 30 October 2017

IPH AU$5.77 70.7% increase on 2014 offer price of AU$2.10

XIP AU$1.29 60.2% decrease on 2015 offer price of AU$2.72

You might also like