Demonstrate a critical awareness of current strategic issues facing managers in a chosen field

2024-11-28 15:41:26

 

Module Title:

Strategic Management Research

Module Code:

7BSM2004

Assignment Format & Maximum Word count

Individual Coursework 4,000 words (Part A) AND Individual Reflection 1,000 words (Part B)

 

Part A 80%

Part B 20%

Coursework Submission:

Time:

Date:
Method: Canvas

Coursework return Date returned to students:



Module leader 

 

First marker  

Module Team

Internal Moderator

Approved ☐
Date:

Module Board name

 

External Examiner

Approved ☐
Date:

Module Board date

 

 

Assessment Criteria

Learning Outcomes: Knowledge and Understanding tested in this assignment:
  • Demonstrate a critical awareness of current strategic issues facing managers in a chosen field
  • Understand how to apply a range of strategic tools, theoretical frames and perspectives to enhance decision making in a complex environment
  • Demonstrate understanding of strategic options, and develop an ability to critically evaluate these in relation to the internal and external analyses of an organisation

Learning Outcomes: Skills and Attributes tested in this assignment:
  • Research, analyse, and evaluate information from a range of sources, synthesising this to investigate the current issues in a business context that shape strategy formulation.
  • Critically evaluate the application, relevance and impact of different approaches to strategic thinking within a business context
  • Reflect on practical experiences of leadership or management, and how these impact on organisational outcomes
  • Demonstrate the ability to communicate ideas and findings in an effective manner through a range of methods

Feedback /Marking criteria for this Assignment

Performance will be assessed using HBS Grading Criteria and Mark scheme.
Guidance for improvement will be given in writing on the Assessment Feedback Form or via Canvas within 4 weeks of submission.

For each day or part day up to five days after the published deadline, coursework submitted late will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until or unless the numeric grade reaches 40 for levels 4, 5 and 6 or 50 for level 7 (PG).  Where the numeric grade awarded for the assessment is less than 40 for level 4, 5 and 6, or 50 for level 7, no lateness penalty will be applied.  However, if a submission is more than 5 working days after the published deadline, a grade of zero will be awarded.

Assignment Title:

PART A: Strategic Analysis of a chosen organisation. This will include analysis of the environment as well as evaluation and selection from available strategic options (4,000 words).

Description of the assignment, task, content and structure:
Undertake a situation analysis for an organisation of your choice listed in any stock exchange around the world. It could be the UK, your home country or any other listed organisation you are familiar with.

Provide your analysis using evidence from annual reports, the company’s website, news stories (e.g. Financial Times, Guardian, BBC etc.), integrated with module tools, frameworks and theory. Conclude your report by providing an analysis of available strategic options—as covered in the module.

In the case you have a selected field in the programme, your selection needs to be justified accordingly. Similarly, your answer needs to provide information and have a focus relevant to the selected field (to demonstrate understanding of specific characteristics of the field).

Specific instructions:
Undertake a situation analysis, which includes external and internal analysis factors (4,000 words ±10%). This should include:

  • A brief description of mission and vision statements.
  • An analysis of macro environment and industry factors (i.e. PESTLE analysis and Porter’s 5 forces).
  • An analysis of internal factors (i.e. resources and competences—VRIO framework and/or Value Chain analysis).
  • An identification of key stakeholders and evaluation of these using a power and interest grid.
  • A conclusion with a summary from the analyses and whether the external environment appears to be attractive and whether the company (internal analysis) has some important strengths that can lead to competitive advantage.
  • The summary should briefly describe available strategic options that may allow the company to grow. These can be existing strategies in place that you need to describe and/or additional strategies that can be implemented. In any case, provide a justification of thought.
  • As part of your analysis critically evaluate the strategy tools and approaches, including their usefulness and limitations, and appropriateness in the particular context.

Formatting:

  • A cover page should be included with a table of contents with numbered sections (of your choice) and page numbers.
  • A clear reference list (following Harvard system) should be provided.
  • The assignment should be submitted in a doc or pdf format.

Referencing:

Referencing is of vital importance in order to avoid the serious academic offence of plagiarism. This is defined in The Cambridge international dictionary of English as ‘Plagiarise - To use another person`s idea or part of their work and pretend that it is your own’. RKC reserves the right to use electronic means to identify plagiarism and collusion. Wherever possible we prefer you to develop your own ideas and to express them in your own words. You must use Harvard referencing system to acknowledge all of your sources of data AND all of the theories, models and frameworks even when paraphrasing. 

A complete list of references must be included at the end of your assignment. Where you use direct quotes or show diagrams, keep them short and ensure you explain their contribution to your arguments.

Mark scheme:

e.g.

Weighting

Presentation and Structure

10%

Harvard Referencing

15%

Content and findings

20%

Business Application

25%

Analysis

30%

Total

100

Please add the relevant HBS Grading Criteria to your assignment on the next page.

PG Grading Criteria for HBS Individual Report

REPORT

Presentation & structure

 

 

Intellectual Curiosity (Quality of academic sources)

Use & presentation of Harvard Referencing

Content/ Terms/ Findings/ Definitions/ Calculations

Business Application & Integration of Data/Literature

Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation &/or Reflection

Task details

lecturer to  amend to suit

 

Follows report structure & keeps to word limit of ...

Follows Harvard style for in-text citation & Reference List

Use a minimum of ... sources 

Content included - specify requirements as in module site & coursework guidance

 Integration & application of information from coursework guidance/module site

Line of argument, development of discussion add instructional verbs to suit the task & level

Marks

 

 

 

 

 

 

90 - 100

 

Outstanding

Outstanding presentation & report structure, with numbered paragraphs, list of contents/figures &appendices.

Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. No grammatical / spelling errors.

Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core & recommended resources.

Outstanding standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Outstanding exploration of topic showing excellent knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research.

Impressive choice and range of appropriate content.

Outstanding business insight & application.

Outstanding integration of literature/data into work.  Very impressive breadth and depth. 

Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection.

Highly developed/ focused work, with thorough consideration of all possibilities and aspects of the topic.

80 - 89

 

Excellent

Excellent presentation & report structure, with numbered paragraphs, list of contents/figures, appendices & cross referencing.

Articulate & fluent academic writing style. Only minor errors.

Excellent selection of quality sources. Evidence of independent searching beyond core & recommended resources.

Excellent standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Excellent level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated.

Evidence of appropriate reading.

Covers all relevant points & issues.

Excellent business insight & application.

Excellent integration of literature/data into work.  Impressive breadth and depth. 

Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. Clearly developed points all of which are relevant to the topic

70 - 79

 

Very Good

Very good presentation & report structure, paragraphing, use of numbering, list of contents/figures, appendices & cross referencing.

Fluent academic writing style.

Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes.

Very good selection of mostly quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used.

Very good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated.

Covers most relevant points & issues.

Few errors / omissions in content/calculations.

Very good business insight & application.

Very good integration of literature/data into work. Very good use of literature/data with breadth and depth.   

Very good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. A few less relevant ideas/points or would benefit from further development &/or evaluation/comparison.

60 - 69

 

Good

Good clear presentation & report structure, use of numbering & appendices.

Writing is mainly good with some flow and spelling &/ or grammatical errors seldom impede understanding.

Good selection of quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading. Good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented.

Good knowledge & understanding is demonstrated.

Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations.

Good business insight & application.

Good integration of literature/data into work. Good use of literature/data with adequate breadth and depth. 

Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but more ideas/points could be addressed or developed further.

50 - 59

 

Clear Pass

Satisfactory basic report structure.

Not always written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors which impede understanding.

 

See CASE with feedback

Satisfactory: Some quality sources used. Research did not go beyond the recommended sources.

Satisfactory referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

 

See CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic.  Addresses most of the task. Some errors / omissions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research.

Satisfactory business insight & application. Limited integration with literature/ data. 

Use of literature/data but limited in breadth or depth.

Satisfactory: basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but some points irrelevant or superficially made so need further development.

See CASE with feedback

40 - 49

 

Marginal Fail

Weak report format. Limited or poor structure.

Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors.

 

Must see CASE with feedback

Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality.

Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Weak: limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question.

Does not meet all the learning outcomes.

Weak: unsatisfactory evidence of business application & insight

Work needs to show better links between practical application and theory.

 

Weak: limited evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection.

More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe.

Must see CASE with feedback

20 – 39

 

Clear Fail

Inadequate report format and poor paragraphing / signposting.

Inappropriate writing style

Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar.      

Must see CASE with feedback

Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading. Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies.

 

 

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes.

Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application & insight. Some literature missing or irrelevant to topic.

Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & /or reflection. Descriptive.

 

Must see CASE with feedback

0 – 19

 

Little or Nothing of merit

Nothing of merit: Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting.

Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar.         

Must see CASE with feedback

Nothing of merit: No evidence of research. No use made of recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. No or little attempt to use the recommended Harvard referencing system.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated.

Content used irrelevant / not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes.

Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate business application & insight.

 

Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of discussion/analysis/critical evaluation &/or reflection

 

Must see CASE with feedback

 

KEY

ACTIONS

To achieve a higher grade, next time you need to… (Where to go?) Who can help?)

 

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

PG Grading Criteria for HBS Reflections

REFLECTIONS

Presentation & structure

Intellectual Curiosity

Content/ Terms/ Findings/ Definitions/ Calculations

Application & Integration

Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation & Reflection

Task details

lecturer to amend to suit

Follows prescribed structure & keeps to word limit of ...

Follows Harvard style for in-text citation & Reference List

Use a minimum of ...  sources 

Content included - specify task requirements as in module site & coursework guidance

 Integration & application of information - from coursework guidance /module site

Line of argument, development of discussion and instructional verbs to suit the task & level

Marks

 

 

 

 

 

90-100

 

Outstanding

Outstanding presentation & structure. 

Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. No grammatical / spelling errors.

Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core & recommended resources.

Outstanding standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Outstanding exploration of topic showing outstanding knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research. Impressive choice and range of appropriate content.

Outstanding business insight & application.  Outstanding integration of literature/data into work.  Very impressive breadth and depth.

Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection.

Highly developed/ focused work, with thorough consideration of all possibilities and aspects of the topic.

80-89

 

Excellent

Excellent presentation & structure.  Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. Only minor errors.

Excellent selection of quality sources.  Evidence of independent searching beyond core & recommended resources.

Excellent standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Excellent level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated.

Evidence of appropriate reading.

Covers all relevant points & issues.

Excellent business insight & application.  Excellent integration of literature/data into work.  Impressive breadth and depth. 

Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection.  Clearly developed points all of which are relevant to the topic. 

70-79

 

Very Good

Very good presentation & structure.   Fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes.

Very good selection of quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used.

Very good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated.

Covers most relevant points & issues.

Few errors / omissions in content/calculations.

Very good business insight & application.

Very good integration of literature/data into work. Very good use of literature/data with breadth and depth.   

Very good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection.  A few less relevant ideas/points or would benefit from further development &/or evaluation/comparison.

60-69

 

Good

Good presentation & structure.

Writing is mainly good with some flow and spelling &/ or grammatical errors seldom impede understanding.

Good selection of mostly quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading.

Good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented.

Good knowledge & understanding is demonstrated.

Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations.

Good business insight & application. Good integration of literature/data into work. Good use of literature/data with adequate breadth and depth.

Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection but more ideas/points could be addressed or developed further.

50 - 59

 

Clear Pass

Satisfactory basic structure.

Not always written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors which impede understanding.

See CASE with feedback

Satisfactory: Some quality sources used.  Research did not go beyond the recommended sources.

Satisfactory referencing within text & some inconsistent use of Harvard referencing system.

See CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic.  Addresses most of the task. Some errors / omissions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research.

Satisfactory business insight & application. Limited integration with literature/ data. 

Use of literature/data but limited in breadth or depth.

Satisfactory basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection but some points irrelevant or superficially made so need further development.

See CASE with feedback

40-49

 

Marginal Fail

Weak format. Limited or poor structure.

Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors.

 

Must see CASE with feedback

Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research.  Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality.

Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Weak: Limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question.

Does not meet all the learning outcomes.

Weak: Unsatisfactory evidence of business application & insight

Work needs to show better links between practical application and theory.

Weak: Limited evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection.  More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe.

Must see CASE with feedback

20 – 39

 

Clear Fail

Inadequate format and poor paragraphing / signposting. Inappropriate writing style. Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar.       

Must see CASE with feedback

Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading.

Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes.

Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application & insight. Some literature irrelevant to topic.

Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & reflection. Descriptive.

Must see CASE with feedback

0 – 19

 

Little or Nothing of merit

Nothing of merit: Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting.

Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar.         

Must see CASE with feedback

Nothing of merit: No evidence of research.  No use made of recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. No or little attempt to use the Harvard referencing system.

 

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback

Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated.

Content used irrelevant / not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes.

Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate business application & insight.

 

Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of discussion/analysis/critical evaluation & reflection

 

Must see CASE with feedback

KEY

ACTIONS

To achieve a higher grade, next time you need to… (Where to go?) Who can help?)

 

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions