Assessment: Strategic Analysis Report.
Choice of Companies & Tips on How to Proceed.
Most importance: Assessments must be submitted via Turnitin, and the similarity must below 20%.
T
he module is assessed (100%) by an individual Strategic Report (maximum 3,000 words) involving an in-depth, strategic analysis of a large organisation. The subject of the report will be decided by the module convenor but students will be able to choose from a list of 6 varied examples.
Instructions for assessment
The Strategic Report should strictly NOT exceed 3,000 words and demonstrate clear report style with relevant Harvard references. It is to be a unified whole that answers three questions (see below) focused on the selected organisation. Formative work in weekly seminars will guide students through analytical techniques and processes required to complete the task.
For the selected organisation, assume you are an outside consultancy reporting to the Chief Executive. The Strategic Report should:-
1). Identify 3 key strategic issues facing the organisation with a clear explanation of why they are “strategic” (20%).
2). Analyse fully the resources and key capabilities of the organisation plus key factors that give the company its competitive advantage. (40%)
3). Assess the extent to which the organisation’s competitive strategy
addresses its strategic issues, and suggest improvements where they
might be justified. (30%)
A further 10% is available for clarity, structure, grammar, correct Harvard referencing and overall professional presentation showing clear report style.
Best answers will draw explicitly on strategic concepts and analysis from the module and apply them to the organisation. Clear referencing (Harvard system), professional presentation with appropriate diagrams/tables are required.
Again note the report should not exceed 3,000 words. Appendices are allowed outside this limit but NO MORE than 6 pages.
How will your work be assessed?
Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking scheme indicated below. Feedback will be given in the Turnitin/Grademark system with script comments plus overall points. When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.
In this Strategic Report, high marks come from using strategic concepts and analysis from the module clearly applied to the organisation. Harvard referencing, a professional report style plus appropriate diagrams/tables are also required. Outline marking expectations are as follows:-
Q1: (20%) After a short introduction, we expect 3 key Strategic Issues with explanations and knowledge of why they are “strategic”. The 3 environments (PESTLE, 5 Forces & internal) should be used as a guide.
Q2: (40%) We expect strong course knowledge, clear industry CSFs plus the organisation’s resources & unique capabilities well analysed. Also how unique capabilities link to advantage & CSFs, and their Porter generic strategy.
Q3: (30%) We expect an evaluation of how their strategy addresses their issues using the three SAFe tests – plus how it might be improved. A short overall conclusion completes the report.
PRESENTATION: (10%) We expect a professional report with clear report style (not an essay) e.g. frontsheet, contents, clear sections, tables & diagrams and relevant Harvard referencing. The word count should not be exceeded by more than 10%.
(In addition to marker feedback, a full marking rubric will be available within the Turnitin submission system for student consideration.)
Assignment submissions.
The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not a pdf) and must not include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information via StudentZone
If you cannot submit a piece of work and wish to submit Mitigating Circumstances, the University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website
How will we support you with your assessment?
There will be weekly references to the assessment task in seminars and weekly activities in those seminars will be helpful in creating “scaffolding” for eventual submission. An assessment worksheet will be provided in Wk4 to assist the development of ideas.
The formative mini-casework in seminars will be of direct help in the application of relevant strategic tools. There will be regular Q&A sessions linked to the assessment report and in the final weeks of teaching there will be an opportunity to review and reflect upon work from previous cohorts.
The 6 cases (with initial links) from which you should choose are:-
|
Case study |
Online links for more information |
Johnson et al. |
|
|
1 |
H&M in fast fashion: continued susses? |
http://www2.hm.com/en_gb/home.html
|
Ed. 10: p.575 Ed. 11: p.576 |
|
2 |
Megabrew: creating an undisputed global brewing champion? |
http://www.ab-inbev.com/investors/combination-with-sabmiller.html |
Ed. 11: p.639 Ed. 10: p.647 (SAB Miller) |
|
3 |
All change at Teva |
Ed. 10: p.634 Ed. 11: p.690 |
|
|
4 |
Mondelez International: Are you going to stick around Irene? |
http://www.mondelezinternational.com/investors http://ir.mondelezinternational.com/sec.cfm?DocType=Annual&Year=&FormatFilter= |
Ed. 10: p.686 Ed. 11: p.695 |
|
5 |
CRH plc: leveraging corporate strategy for value creation and global leadership |
|
Ed. 11: p.705 Ed. 10: p.639 |
|
6 |
Flight Centre Limited: competing to provide the lowest air fares |
https://www.flightcentre.co.uk/about-us/our-story |
Ed. 11: p.636 Ed. 10: p.676 |
How will your work be assessed?
Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking rubric provided on Moodle. When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.
Referencing
You MUST use the Harvard System.
Tips for how to do make a good start:-
Tip 1: Read the Assessment Brief to understand clearly what is required.
Tip 2: Use web links to initially research each of the 6 organisations.
Tip 3: Choose your organisation with the assessment task in mind.
Tip 4: Assemble material from a wide range of research sources.
Tip 5: Focus on knowledge & application of relevant module concepts.
Tip 6: Participate in module seminars & draw lessons for your Report.
Criteria |
Outstanding (100-90) 100 |
Excellent (80-89) 85 |
Very Good (70-79) 75 |
Good (60-69) 65 |
Satisfactory (50-59) 55 |
Adequate (40-49) 45 |
Marginal Fail (30-39) 35 |
Fail (20-29) 25 |
Not Done 0 |
|
Q1). (20%) Identify 3 key strategic issues facing the organisation with a clear explanation of why they are “strategic”.
|
Work of outstanding quality that is fluent, extremely well structured & question focused. A concise but very clear introduction to the report & the company using relevant facts. An outstanding grasp of 3 strategic issues using a clear definition plus knowledge & outstanding application of relevant PESTLE, 5 Forces & Internal aspects. Overall a strongly knowledge driven section.
|
High quality work with a clear introduction to the report & company. An excellent grasp of 3 strategic issues supported by a definition & knowledge plus a strong application of PESTLE, 5 Forces & Internal aspects. Overall a focused & robust section. |
Quality work with a sound introduction to the report & company. A very good grasp of 3 strategic issues with reference to a definition plus a very good application of PESTLE, 5 Forces & Internal aspects. Overall a sound & robust section. |
Sound work with a fair introduction to the report & company. A good grasp of 3 strategic issues with possible reference to a definition plus some application of PESTLE, 5 Forces & Internal aspects. Overall a sound section. |
Fair work with a less effective introduction to the report & company. A patchy grasp of 3 strategic issues without much reference to a definition. Some application of PESTLE, 5 Forces & Internal aspects. Overall a fair section. |
Basic work with a minimal introduction to the report & company. Only a common sense grasp of 3 strategic issues without much depth or any reference to a definition. Superficial application of PESTLE, 5 Forces & Internal aspects but lacking depth. Overall only a basic section. |
Inadequate work without a clear introduction to the report or company. A weak choice of 3 strategic issues without using a definition. Little relevant knowledge or application of PESTLE, 5 Forces & Internal aspects. Overall, a weak section. |
Obviously poor work lacking an introduction to the report or company. Incomplete inclusion of 3 strategic issues & no definition used at all. No relevant knowledge or application of PESTLE, 5 Forces & Internal aspects. Overall, an obviously failing section. |
No attempt to include any relevant material. |
Criteria |
Outstanding (100-90) 100 |
Excellent (80-89) 85 |
Very Good (70-79) 75 |
Good (60-69) 65 |
Satisfactory (50-59) 55 |
Adequate (40-49) 45 |
Marginal Fail (30-39) 35 |
Fail (20-29) 25 |
Not Done 0 |
|
Q2). (40%) Analyse fully the resources & key capabilities of the organisation plus key factors that give the company its competitive advantage. |
Work of outstanding quality that is fluent, extremely well structured & question focused. A fully reasoned definition of the relevant industry plus first class understanding of its CSFs. The organisation’s resources clearly analysed using Grant’s three types with unique capabilities identified & analysed using Value Chain, VRIN & other tools. An outstanding grasp of links to advantage by comparing capabilities with CSFs & a correct choice of Porter or Strategy Clock generic. Overall an outstanding demonstration of knowledge & analysis.
|
High quality work with a clear industry definition plus excellent understanding of CSFs. Resources clearly analysed using Grant with unique capabilities identified & analysed using Value Chain, VRIN & possibly other tools. A full grasp of links to advantage via capabilities & CSFs. The Porter or Strategy Clock generic correctly chosen. Overall a complete demonstration of knowledge & analysis.
|
Quality work with a sound industry definition & understanding of CSFs. Resources well analysed using Grant with unique capabilities identified & analysed using Value Chain & possibly VRIN & other tools. An informed grasp of links to advantage via capabilities & CSFs. The Porter generic correctly chosen. Overall a focused & robust analysis.
|
Sound work with a fair industry definition & understanding of CSFs. Resources fairly well analysed using Grant with unique capabilities identified. Value Chain & other tools possibly used. Some grasp of links to advantage via capabilities & CSFs. The Porter generic correctly chosen. Overall a sound section.
|
Fair work with a fair industry definition & some understanding of CSFs. Resources basically analysed using Grant with a patchy attempt to identify unique capabilities. Value Chain & other tools possibly missing. Only a basic grasp of links to advantage via capabilities & CSFs. The Porter generic superficially chosen. Overall a fair section. |
Basic work with a superficial industry definition & common sense understanding of CSFs. Resources basically analysed possibly using Grant with some attempt to identify unique capabilities but lacking Value Chain or other tools. Weak grasp of links to advantage via capabilities & CSFs. The Porter generic superficially chosen. Overall only a basic section. |
Inadequate work with a poor industry definition & little grasp of CSFs. Resources weakly analysed without Grant & only a poor attempt to identify unique capabilities. No Value Chain or other tools. No links to advantage via capabilities & CSFs. The Porter generic superficially chosen. Overall a weak section. |
Obviously poor work with no clear industry definition or CSFs. Resources superficial plus a poor attempt to identify unique capabilities. No depth of knowledge or analysis. No thoughts on advantage. The Porter generic superficial chosen. Overall an obviously failing section. |
No attempt to include any relevant material. |
Criteria |
Outstanding (100-90) 100 |
Excellent (80-89) 85 |
Very Good (70-79) 75 |
Good (60-69) 65 |
Satisfactory (50-59) 55 |
Adequate (40-49) 45 |
Marginal Fail (30-39) 35 |
Fail (20-29) 25 |
Not Done 0 |
|
Q3). (30%) Assess the extent to which the organisation’s competitive strategy addresses its strategic issues & suggest improvements where they might be justified. |
Work of outstanding quality that is fluent, extremely well structured & question focused. There is an outstanding analysis of how strategy addresses strategic issues identified earlier. The suitability test links strategy clearly to the environment & strategic position. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders with the Power/Interest matrix & examines their needs. The feasibility test justifies the strategy & shows sustainability. The tests are used with outstanding knowledge & insightful discussion. Improvements are strongly focused on resources, capability & advantage with a concise conclusion. |
High quality work with an excellent analysis of how strategy addresses the issues. The suitability test links strategy clearly to the environment. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders & their needs. The feasibility test justifies the strategy & shows sustainability. The tests are used with strong knowledge & points whilst Improvements address resources, capability & advantage with a concise conclusion.
|
Quality work with a sound analysis. The suitability test uses sound links to the environment. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders & some of their needs. The feasibility test shows sustainability. The tests are used with sound knowledge & some points. Improvements fairly address resources, capability & advantage with a concise conclusion.
|
Sound work with a fair analysis. The suitability test uses some links to the environment. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders but limits their needs. The feasibility test shows some grasp of sustainability. The tests are used with sound knowledge. Improvements are fair but lacking clarity on resources, capability & advantage. There is a fair conclusion.
|
Fair work with a reasonable analysis. The suitability test uses one or two links to the environment. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders without their needs. The feasibility test shows only a fair grasp of sustainability. The tests are used with reasonable knowledge. Improvements are fair but lack depth. There is a short, general conclusion.
|
Basic work with only a superficial grasp of analysis. The suitability test uses one or two links to the environment. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders without their needs. The feasibility test shows only a fair grasp of sustainability. The tests are used with some knowledge. Improvements are fair but limited. There is a short, general conclusion.
|
Inadequate work with a poor grasp of analysis. The suitability test is not linked to the environment. The acceptability test identifies shareholders only & the feasibility test is probably not understood. The tests are used with little knowledge. Improvements are only common sense. There is no clear conclusion.
|
Obviously poor work with no grasp of the three tests. Suitability, acceptability & feasibility are not understood. Improvements are poor common sense & there is no conclusion.
|
No attempt to include any relevant material |
|
Criteria |
Outstanding (100-90) 100 |
Excellent (80-89) 85 |
Very Good (70-79) 75 |
Good (60-69) 65 |
Satisfactory (50-59) 55 |
Adequate (40-49) 45 |
Marginal Fail (30-39) 35 |
Fail (20-29) 25 |
Not Done 0 |
|
Presentation. (10%) Clarity, structure, grammar, correct Harvard referencing & overall professional presentation showing clear report style.
|
An outstandingexample of a professional report with frontsheet, contents, clear sections, tables & diagrams plus strong Harvard referencing. The word count is respected & there are suitable appendices with a full references section. |
A high quality, professional report with frontsheet, contents, clear sections, tables & diagrams plus relevant Harvard referencing. The word count is correct & references given. |
A quality report with frontsheet, contents, clear sections, tables & diagrams & sound Harvard referencing. The word count is correct & references given. |
A sound report style used with frontsheet, contents, clear sections. Limited tables & diagrams with patchy Harvard referencing. The word count is correct but references limited. |
A fair report style used with frontsheet, limited contents & patchy sections. Generic diagrams with weak Harvard referencing. The word count is not accurate & references limited. |
A basic & scrappy report style used with no frontsheet, limited contents & patchy sections. Limited diagrams & poor Harvard referencing. The word count is not accurate & references very limited. |
A sloppy essay style used with no frontsheet, limited contents & patchy sections. No diagrams & no Harvard referencing. The material is under length & lacking references. |
An obviously inadequate report without contents or question clarity. No attempt at sections or Harvard referencing. The material is unacceptable as a business report.. |