UGB319 – CORPORATE STRATEGY

ASSIGNMENT 1 - TITLE: Strategic Analysis

Issue Date: 23rd October 2013

Due Date: 16th December 2013Learning outcomes: Strategic analysis of an organization(s).

Synthesis of ideas or solutions relating to strategy issues

Skills outcomes: Research skillsCritical evaluationCreativityCommunication

Moderated by: John Dixon-Dawson

All students are required to submit their assignment via Turnitin.The penalty for students that do not submit their assignments through Turnitin is that they will fail the assignment.Students may submit assignment drafts through Turnitin prior to the hand in date to generate originality reports. The last submission of the assignment prior to the hand in date will be deemed to be the final submission for assessment purposes.

All work submitted must adhere to the University Policy on ‘Cheating, Collusion and Plagiarism’You must not submit an assignment that analyses the mobile phone industry and or a mobile phone company.

Task:

You are required to submit an individual report of 3,000 ±10% words, which can be based on an organization or idea of your own choice.The strategic analysis must be related to a recognised aspect of business policy, strategic management or the philosophical underpinning of a particular methodology within the public or private sector strategic management domain.If your analysis is of an organisation then it must contain a minimum of two organisation functions, examples would be, Leadership and Marketing or Marketing and Manufacturing or Finance and Leadership or Leadership and Human Resource Management or Marketing and Human Resource Management, etc.. Your strategic analysis may contain two or three functions however more than three functions would make it difficult to achieve a good depth to the analysis.At the functional level, in your analysis, you would need to consider the impact of how one function would impact / does impact upon the other function(s).For example in a manufacturing organisation if the Marketing function develops a strategy to increase sales by 20% then this may have a detrimental impact upon the organisation if it is already running at maximum capacity. The organisation would need to increase its capacity by perhaps purchasing new machines or even new premises.

The report must be written in a recognised style, i.e. table of contents, introduction, main analysis, conclusions, recommendations, references and bibliography. You must apply the Harvard system of referencing in your report.

ObjectivesTo analyse a business policy or strategic management topic, to carry out individual research or evaluation of an organization.

RequirementsMeet the learning outcomes listed above, identify and critically analyse fundamental issues related to strategic management. Undertake a study that shows clear evidence of synthesis and evaluation.

There are a number of ways you might carry out this assignment: here are a few ideas: Use a theoretical model to reflect upon the reality (practice) of a situation. Use

theory to predict the outcomes of practice. Use practice to reflect upon / modify theory;

Compare theory and practice: Does M.E. Porter’s (1985) model of competition support the experience of practitioners? i.e. use a practical example /case / issue to reflect on Porter’s model(s) and examine success and / or failure.

A case study approach: Is Steve Ballmer, C.E.O. managing Microsoft as effectively as he might? i.e. do an analysis of Microsoft’s performance in relation to declared (or undeclared) strategy and the efficacy of his strategy.

A recovery plan: My advice to the Chief Executive Officer of the Sony Corporation is ……i.e. suggest a way forward for the organization in light of their poor performance over the last 5 years.

A risk management strategy: My advice to British Petroleum’s Chief Executive Officer in light of their environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

These are merely examples of approaches you might take; thinking up your own ideas might be more productive and fun.

Assessment CriteriaYour seminar tutor on the basis of the following general criteria will assess the paper:

Content - the quality of research and analysis undertaken and the use of initiative in finding sources of information;

Process - the quality and clarity of the assignment and your ability to demonstrate command over the subject area and the development of a case or argument;

Discretion - additional credit may be awarded to a student who tackles a difficult subject well.

2

The assignment will be graded for individuals on the basis of the specific criteria outlined on the following page.

The “Presentation” element of the Generic Assessment Criteria will be used to assess the report structure.

3

Generic Assessment Criteria – Undergraduate These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working and related to the assessment criteria for the module

CategoriesGrade Relevance Knowledge Analysis Argument and Structure Critical Evaluation Presentation Reference to Literature

Pas

s

86 – 100% The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also ample excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be exemplary in all the categories cited above. It will demonstrate a particularly compelling evaluation, originality, and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.

76-85% The work examined is outstanding and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is alsoexcellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will beoutstanding in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.

70 – 75%The work examined is excellent and is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is alsoexcellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied At this level it is expected that the work will beexcellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.

60 – 69%Directly relevant tothe requirementsof the assessment

A substantial knowledge of strategy material,showing a clear grasp of themes, questions andissues therein

A good strategic analysis,clear and orderly

Generally coherent and logically structured, using an appropriate mode of argument and/ortheoretical mode(s)

May contain some distinctive or independent thinking; may begin toformulate an independent position in relation to strategic theoryand/or practice.

Well written, with standard spelling and grammar, in a readable style with acceptable format

Critical appraisal of up-todateand/or appropriate literature. Recognition of different perspectives.Very good use of source material. Uses a range of sources

50 – 59%Some attempt to address the requirements ofthe assessment:may drift awayfrom this in lessfocused passages

Adequate knowledge of a fair range of relevant strategy material, with intermittent evidence of an appreciation of itssignificance

Some analytical treatment, but may be prone to description, or to narrative, whichlacks clear analyticalpurpose

Some attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency, with issues at stake stated onlyvaguely, or theoretical mode(s) couched in simplistic terms

Sound work which expresses a coherent position only in broad terms and in uncriticalconformity to one or more standard views of strategy.

Competently written, with only minor lapses fromstandard grammar, with acceptable format

Uses a variety of literature which includes some recent strategic texts and/or appropriate literature, though not necessarily including a substantive amount beyond librarytexts. Competent use of source material.

40 – 49% Some correlation with the requirements of the assessment but there areinstances of irrelevance

Basic understanding ofthe strategy but addressing a limited range of material

Largely descriptive ornarrative, with little evidence of analysis

A basic argument is evident, but mainly supported by assertionand there may be a lack of clarity and coherence

Some evidence of a view starting to be formed but mainly derivative.

A simple basic style but with significant deficiencies in expression or format that may pose obstacles for the reader

Some up-to-date and/or appropriate literature used. Goes beyond the material tutor has provided. Limited use of sources to support a point.

Fai

l

35 – 39% Relevance to the requirements of the assessment may be veryintermittent, and may be reduced to its vaguest and least challengingterms

A limited understanding of a narrow range of strategic material.

Heavy dependence ondescription, and/or onparaphrase, is common

Little evidence of coherent argument: lacks development and may be repetitive or thin

Almost wholly derivative: the writer’s contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase

Numerous deficiencies inexpression and presentation; the writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using a simplistic or repetitious style

Barely adequate use of literature. Over reliance on material provided by the tutor.

The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied – for compensation consideration.30 – 34% The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence provided shows that some of the learning outcomes and

responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in some of the indicators.15-29% The work examined is unacceptable and provides little evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence shows that few of the learning outcomes

and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in several of the indicators.0-14% The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence fails to show that any of the learning

outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the indicators.

4

5