Strategic Management
Module Title: Strategic Management
Word Limit: 3000 words (+/- 10%) i.e. within the range 2700 – 3300 words Weighting
The Assignment Task:
You MUST choose one company from the official list of companies provided on your eLP for this semester. Explain how successful you think that company is, and discuss the strategic reasons behind that success.
Your explanation will include analysis of the contribution made by the leadership of the company, and will go on to suggest strategies and/or actions for ensuring future success in a sustainable manner.
You should read the Guidance on pages 2-4 and the Marking Rubric on pages 7-8 of this brief to understand how you should approach the assignment and how marks will be allocated.
Further guidance, including examples of marker feedback (shown in Lecture 8) and Revision Audio-Visual Presentations will appear on the eLP.
Format for Submission:
- The assignment should be written in Arial, 11pt, left-justified, 1½ spacing.
- DO NOT put Your Name (or any Tutor’s Name) anywhere on your assignment. Every page should be numbered (in header or footer) and show your student ID.
- DESIRABLE – Please leave approximately 5cm of ‘white space’ at the end of each section. This is the space for your marker to write feedback comments about the preceding section. Please note that we may not use all of the 5cm – it depends what type of feedback we think is needed for each answer. If you do not leave space; we will be forced to leave a marker icon, and list the feedback comments at the end of the document.
All academic and other sources must be cited and included ONCE in a single reference list at the end of the document.
- The VRIN Summary Table (Barney, 1991) is usually shown in journals and textbooks with ticks and crosses. We require you to use the letter “Y” for “Yes” and the letter “N” for “No” (please do not use a font that includes ticks or crosses as they are not visible in the marking software and just appear as location boxes).
Full Assessment Guidance will be given in Assignment Lecture 01, 02 and 03 (please make sure that you review this material).
This is an evolving Word Document containing answers to the most common student questions regarding a Core Level 6 Assessment in Business Strategy. Please consult this in the first instance. Only if the question is not answered there, should you email the Module Tutor with your question. If your question is new it will be answered and added to the document to benefit other students.
We will provide you with an official list of companies for your semester on this module (it will be released in the third week of the semester). You must select one of the companies on the official list for your assignment. No other companies will be allowed. Using any company that is not on the official list will result in zero marks.
You will create a written strategic analysis (structure outlined below) that informs the reader about how the company can create (or retain) sustained competitive advantage into the future. The majority of your analysis will be based on the theory and techniques taught as part of this module. Your structured report will contain expert opinions from authoritative sources (all referenced and cited in the APA style) that you will use in your strategic analysis.
Your strategic recommendation will refer back (by page number) to your analysis and the collected expert opinions. Your Strategic Recommendation will contain various suggestions and some consideration will be given to ways in which future success can be achieved in a sustainable business environment.
Assignment Structure
Your assignment will contain the following sections (in the order shown). Mark range allocations are shown in the marking scheme on pages 7-8 of this brief. To save words, you only have to use the numbered section and title words shown in capitals (below); you do not have to use the prompting questions (shown in italics).
- INTRODUCTION
What is contained in the document? Why should someone read it?
This should be a brief (maximum 100 words) introduction to the company and highlighting your key recommendations. Please note that the introduction is not given any marks. We restrict it to 100 words so that you do not waste valuable words from your assignment word-limit on a protracted introduction.
It is best practice to write the introduction last.
- MEASURES OF SUCCESS
What measures should be used to assess the relative success of your chosen company?
Financial and non-financial metrics should be suggested (with a preference for any data that are ‘benchmarked’ against direct competitors). Show example data for the company in question (in tabular or graphical form) that ideally spans four or five financial years to the present day.
Include in this section a brief discussion concerning the difficulties in determining and measuring business success (cite some of the key authors that have written about this subject).
- REASONS FOR SUCCESS
What do experts suggest as the reasons for this company’s relative business success?
An outline of 6 to 10 business reasons behind the success stated in a simple, straightforward way with a brief (4 or 5 sentence) explanation of each reason. Each reason should be sub-titled in this section (i.e. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 etc.). Cite the expert source(s) that have the opinion that you are listing. Do not speculate yourself in this section; just collect and sort the opinions of third-party experts. Do not rely solely upon the company’s own website or its publications. All company “jargon” and “acronyms” must have a brief explanation in brackets at the point of their first usage; thereafter they can be used without explanation.
- STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (AVC+VRIN)
What are the possible internal success factors and where might they be located in the company’s activities?
This will be a detailed dual analysis of the company’s strategic capabilities starting with an Adapted Value Chain (AVC) and followed by a VRIN evaluation. This section carries the most marks. To score well in Section 4, you must also synthesise the AVC with the VRIN. This is achieved by demonstrating clear linkages between the two so that you can answer the two questions “What internal factors are contributing to future success?” (using VRIN); combined with, “Where are they happening within the activities of the company?” (using the AVC to show location, or locations).
The synthesis of AVC and VRIN is an iterative process (multi-pass), so we only need you to show the end result.
- LEADERSHIP CONTRIBUTION
How is the current leadership guiding towards success? Is there a leadership legacy from a predecessor?
An evaluation of the contribution of leadership to the company’s success, basing this on appropriate leadership theory (as taught on this module). A wide range of topics will be acceptable including (but not limited to):
o Leadership Attributes or Styles
o Organisational Culture
o Decision-making Theory
- STRATEGY FOCUS
Which particular strategic factor of this company deserves closer scrutiny?
A detailed analysis and interpretation based on one additional topic area from the following list:
o Business Strategy (consistent with strategic capabilities)
o International Strategy
o Innovation Strategy
o Collaboration Strategy (alliances, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions)
o Sustainability (can the company gain competitive advantage this way)
Choose just one of the above to demonstrate your ability to conduct more in-depth research on one aspect of the company’s future.
- STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION
With page referencing to your previous sections, can explain your strategic recommendation for this company?
In this section, you make your strategic recommendation (which might encompass more than one particular suggestion to the company). Using the SAFe criteria (from your textbook); consider how Suitable your suggestions are to achieve the desired outcome of Sustained Competitive Advantage. Further estimate how Acceptable your suggestions might be to key stakeholders, and finally comment on the Feasibility of your suggestions.
Your recommendation must also demonstrate an awareness of future Sustainability issues.
Notes on the Assignment Structure:
ALL sections should cite sources of research data and theories/concepts on which your analysis isbased. The only exception to this are the suggestions contained in your strategic recommendation that you make in Section 7; these should be YOUR original ideas and therefore citations are not expected. However, we do expect you to refer to elements of your previous analysis (by page number) to support your
arguments.
All cited sources should be listed in APA format in the References section at the end of yourassignment. Cutting and pasting material directly from sources without citation isPlagiarism. Cutting and pasting material directly from sources with citation is PoorScholarship.
- Short quoted extracts from cited sources are permissible – use double quotation marks”” and citation that includes the page number of the cited document.
The vast majority of your assignment word count should use your own words or paraphrase reputable sources. Large and frequent amounts of direct quotation text will be included in the wordcount.
Mapping to Programme Goals and Objectives Module Level Objectives:
Knowledge & Understanding:
MLO-1: Know how leaders and various stakeholder groups measure and appreciate business success.
MLO-2: Understand how to critically evaluate endogenous and exogenous strategy perspectives for a sustainable business environment.
Intellectual / Professional Skills & Abilities:
MLO-3: Develop Desk Research skills in preparing and writing a thoroughly researched and compelling strategic argument for a company.
MLO-4: Ability to critically analyse business strategies and present suitable, feasible, acceptable and sustainable recommendations to business leaders in a succinct manner.
Programme (Level) Learning Outcomes that this module contributes to: Knowledge and Understanding:
Assess knowledge of contemporary professional practice in business andmanagement informed by theory and research.
Critically apply knowledge of business and management to complex problems in or relatedto professional practice in order to identify justifiable, sustainable and responsible solutions.
Intellectual / Professional Skills and Abilities:
6.3.2 Critique their personal skills and attitudes for progression to post-graduate contexts including professional work, entrepreneurship and higher level study.
Personal Values Attributes (Global / Cultural awareness, Ethics, Curiosity):
6.1.3 Appraise an awareness of the cultural and ethical contexts in which internationalbusiness operates.
6.2.2 Critique creative and critical thinking skills that involve independence,understanding, justification and the ability to challenge the thinking of self andothers
Module Specific Assessment Criteria and Rubric
it is on-line submission to TurnItIn ONLY. e•sWtrongly recommend that you do not leave submission to the final hour.
h•isTmodule requires only one submission to the eLP Assignment FINAL Submission Folder before the Module Submission Deadline.
o•uYmust submit an electronic copy of your assignment in PDF format.
h•eCck that all of your tables, diagrams, charts and images are represented correctly in PDF (using a PDF file viewer before submitting).
o•nDot submit in Word (or any other Word Processor file format).
You will not receive a TurnItIn Similarity Report for a Final Submission.
You must obtain (and safely retain) a receipt from TurnItIn with a timestamp showing that you submitted before deadline.
If you encounter difficulty in getting the receipt with a valid timestamp, you must contact the Module Tutor by email before the deadline expires; otherwise we have no evidence that you were prevented from submitting.
- If you miss the deadline (and have no approval for an extension) you must submit to the “24 HOURS LATE” Folder that opens after the deadline closes. See section on penalties forlateness.
Students with Approved Extensions will find that a special APPROVED EXTENSION submission folder will be available after the normal deadline has expired.
Nominal %
Integer Range 0 – 29% 30 – 39% 40 – 49% 50 -59% 60 – 69% 70 – 79% 80 – 89% 90 -100%
s
s
e
c
c
u
S
f
o
s
e
r
u
s
a
e
M
e
t
a
ir
p
o
r
pp
Almost no relevant
measurement data of
business success.
g
n
i
t
h
g
i
e
w
%
0
1
Inadequate and very little relevant
measurement data. No attempt at
evaluation of
business success.
An adequate
statement of how successful the
company is
consistent with only one type of relevant measurement data
A good statement of how successful the company is consistent with two types of appropriate
measurement data.
A very good
discussion of how successful the company is consistent with at least two types of
appropriate
measurement data. Recognises that
“success” can be
difficult to evaluate.
An excellent
discussion of what is meant by “business success” for this
particular company. Argument demonstrated by different data types. Includes cited academic discussion of how
success can be
measured in firms.
Some alignment with strategic
recommendations.
An outstanding
discussion of what is meant by “business
success” for this particular company. Argument demonstrated by a range of data types. Includes cited academic discussion of how success can be measured in firms. Mostly aligned with strategic recommendations.
An exemplary discussion of what is meant by
“business success” for this particular company.
Argument demonstrated by a range of key data types. Appropriate measures nominated with data
samples shown. Includes cited academic discussion of how success can be
measured in firms. Closely aligned with strategic
recommendations.
0 – 2.5 marks 3 – 3.5 4 – 4.5 5 – 5.5 6 – 6.5 7 – 7.5 8 – 8.5 9 – 10 A
r
o
f
s
n
o
s
t
r
e
px
e
g
n
i
No understanding of the reasons
underpinning success. Very poor research. Fails to demonstrate
Inadequate set of reasons. Either
rather limited or else a scattergun list with weak explanations
Adequate set of reasons but either too few or too many to be considered a set of key reasons.
A good set of reasons, some less than key, but good explanations. Reasonable research and demonstration of
A very good set of reasons with good explanations. Very good research and demonstration of
An excellent set of key reasons with clear explanations. Excellent research conducted into authoritative sources.
An outstanding set of ranked key reasons with very clear explanations and reasons for ranking. Outstanding research
An exemplary set of ranked key reasons with very clear explanations and coherent reasons for ranking.
Exemplary research
s
y b
t
any significant
that are mostly
Basic explanation,
business knowledge.
business knowledge.
An excellent
conducted into
conducted into the best of
ae
R
s
se
n
is
u
B
d
e
ti
c
s
s
e
c
c
u
S
h
g
i
e
w
% 0
1
business knowledge.
uncited. Research very limited – does not demonstrate adequate business knowledge.
basic research, adequate business knowledge.
demonstration of business knowledge.
authoritative sources and expert opinion. An
outstanding
demonstration of business knowledge.
authoritative sources and expert opinion. An
exemplary demonstration of business knowledge.
0 – 2.5 marks 3 – 3.5 4 – 4.5 5 – 5.5 6 – 6.5 7 – 7.5 8 – 8.5 9 – 10
s
u
o
n
e
go
d
n
E
s
i
s
y
l
a
n
A
c
i
g
e
t
a
r
t
S
)
N
I
R
V
+
C
V
A
(
g
n
i
t
h
g
i
e
w
%
0
3
No evidence that the student understands endogenous strategy. Attempted use of incorrect exogenous tools. Analysis is of very poor quality.
Inadequate analysis with poor use of endogenous strategy tools. Poor quality, partial analysis that does not support any further discussion.
Adequate analysis use of individual endogenous
strategy tools.
Analysis that is competent, but no more. No apparent attempt made to synthesise the AVC with VRIN.
Good analysis using endogenous strategy tools, but has an
occasional gaps or minor errors. Some AVC and VRIN
synthesis attempted in words but rather difficult to understand.
Very Good analysis using endogenous strategy tools, with no occasional gaps or minor errors. Some AVC and VRIN
synthesis attempted in words which can be mostly understood.
Excellent analysis using endogenous strategy tools. The AVC and VRIN synthesis is demonstrated in a clear manner to the reader.
Outstanding analysis with extended use of endogenous strategy tools. The AVC and VRIN synthesis is demonstrated in an easily assimilated manner. Results ranked in terms of importance to the strategic suggestions. Near professional
consultancy quality.
Exemplary analysis with innovative use of
endogenous strategy tools. The AVC and VRIN
synthesis is demonstrated in a concise and compelling manner. Results ranked in terms of importance to the strategic recommendations to come. Professional consultancy quality.
0 – 8.5 9 – 11.5 12 – 14.5 15 – 17.5 18 – 20.5 21 – 23.5 24 – 26.5 27 – 30 Goal 1 Obj 3 not met Goal 1 Obj 3 not met Goal 1 Obj 3 met Goal 1 Obj 3 met Goal 1 Obj 3 met Goal 1 Obj 3 exceeded Goal 1 Obj 3 exceeded Goal 1 Obj 3 exceeded
* “Goal / Objectives” relate to Assurance of Learning (AoL) data collected for our Degree Accreditation Bodies.
Grade Bad Inadequate Adequate Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding Exemplary
Nominal %
Integer Range 0 – 29% 30 – 39% 40 – 49% 50 -59% 60 – 69% 70 – 79% 80 – 89% 90 -100%
n
oi
tu
bi
r
g
n
s
No evidence the student understands any relevant theory. No evaluation.
Inadequate
evaluation – either the theory is not relevant or the
analysis is of poor
Adequate
evaluation based on relevant theory. Analysis competent but no more.
Good evaluation based on relevant theory with good data.
Very good evaluation with careful analysis based on relevant theory with well
researched data
An excellent
evaluation supported by rigorous analysis based on relevant theory. The data has
An outstanding
evaluation supported by rigorous analysis based on relevant theory. The data has been collected
An exemplary evaluation supported by rigorous analysis based on relevant theory. The data has been collected from a wide range
t
n
o
c
pi
h
s
r
e
da
e
s
e
c
c
u
S
o
t
it
h
gi
e
w
%5
1
quality.
been collected from a wide range of sources.
from a wide range of sources.
of sources.
0 – 4 marks 4.5 – 5.5 6 – 7 7.5 – 8.5 9 – 10 10.5 – 11.5 12 – 13 13.5 – 15 L
c i
g
e
s
u
c
o
g
n
i
t
e
h
c
g
i
i
o
e
h
w
No evidence the student understands any relevant topic areas. Analysis of very poor quality.
Either the topic area is not relevant or the analysis is of poor quality.
Basic discussion based on analysis that is competent but no more.
Good discussion based on analysis that is generally good but has gaps or small errors.
Very good discussion based on accurate analysis.
An excellent focused evaluation of a
strategically important factor supported by rigorous and detailed analysis.
An outstanding focused evaluation of a
strategically important factor supported by rigorous and detailed analysis.
An exemplary focused evaluation of a strategically important factor supported by rigorous and detailed analysis.
F
t
a
r
t
S
C
%
5
0 – 4 4.5 – 5.5 6 – 7 7.5 – 8.5 9 – 10 10.5 – 11.5 12 – 13 13.5 – 15 1
)
s
(n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R
c
i
g
n
i
t
h
g
i
e
w
%
0
2
Bad strategic
recommendation that lacks any suitable suggestions for the company.
Inadequate strategic recommendation. Suggestions lack relevance and are not supported by
evidence from
previous sections.
Adequate
strategic
recommendation with one relevant suggestion. A brief rationale that is insufficiently based on evidence from previous sections.
Good strategic
recommendation containing one relevant suggestion with good rationale based on identified factors OR two relevant
suggestions with brief rationales.
Very good strategic recommendation containing two good suggestions appropriate to the company. Very good rationales based on identified factors from previous sections (referred by page
number).
Excellent strategic recommendation with more than two good suggestions. Excellent rationales based on identified factors from previous sections (referred by page
number).
Outstanding strategic recommendation with more than two good suggestions. Outstanding rationales based on identified factors from previous sections
(referred by page
number).
Exemplary strategic
recommendation with more than two good suggestions. Exemplary rationales based on identified factors from previous sections (referred by page number).
0 – 5.5 6 – 7.5 8 – 9.5 10 – 11.5 12 – 13.5 14 – 15.5 16 – 17.5 18 – 20
g
e
t
a
r
t
Goal 2 Obj 4 not met Goal 2 Obj 4 not met Goal 2 Obj 4 met Goal 2 Obj 4 met Goal 2 Obj 4 met Goal 2 Obj 4 exceeded Goal 2 Obj 4 exceeded Goal 2 Obj 4 exceeded S
* “Goal / Objectives” relate to Assurance of Learning (AoL) data collected for our Degree Accreditation Bodies.
