LO1 Apply appropriate theoretical frameworks to critically analyse the strategic position of your selected organisation.

Student Assignment Brief

Contents:

The work you submit for this assignment must be your own independent work, or in the case of a group assignment your own groups’ work. 

More information is available in the Assignment Task section of this assignment brief.

Assignment Information

Module Name: Organisations and Strategy

Module Code: 7043SSL

Assignment Title: Group presentation with individual component (Coursework 2)

Assignment Due: 17/07/2025, 18:00 UK time

Assignment Credit: 5 credits

Word Count (or equivalent): 15 minutes (group presentation) plus 300 words (individual component). 

There will be a penalty of a deduction of 10% of the mark (after internal moderation) for work exceeding the time limit or word count by 10% or more.

Assignment Type:

Percentage Grade (Applied Core Assessment). You will be provided with an overall grade between 0% and 100%.

To pass the assignment you must achieve a grade of 40% or above.

Assignment Task

This assignment is a group assignment (Component A) with a 300-word (or equivalent) individual component (Component B). 

For Component A you will be working in groups of 2-4 members and for Component B you will be working on your own.

This assignment requires you to:

For Component A (80%), this assignment requires your group to select an organisation and answer the following questions:

  1. Apply appropriate theoretical frameworks to critically analyse the strategic position of your selected organisation.
  1. Determine the strategic choices of the organisation based on a critical evaluation of the organisation’s business model and structure.

For Component B (20%), this assignment requires you to critically evaluate the applicability of one theory or framework your group used to analyse the strategic position of the chosen organisation.

Please note that the organisation of choice your group selects will require approval by the module leader after being assessed based on the following criteria:

a) Relevance and topicality

b) Applicability of management theories

c) International context

Guidance for Component A (Group presentation):

You are expected to form yourselves into a group to complete Component A of this assignment. The group is expected to deliver a 15-minute pre-recorded presentation.

  • Groups should preferably be formed by students in their seminars. If you are not in a group, ask your seminar tutor to put you in a group by week 2 of the semester.
  • Groups should not have fewer than 2 students and not more than 4 students.
  • All members of the group will get the same mark except for Component B.
  • All members of the group should work together as a team with individual responsibilities except for Component B.
  • After forming the group, you must inform your seminar tutor and module leader.
  • Your presentation file should not be more than 10-15 slides.
  • Each slide should include only the key points.

Your presentation should follow the below structure:

The front page should include your group name, group members’ names, student IDs and the selected company name. A template will be provided.

Introduction

  • Background of the organisation
  • Overview of the selected organisation (e.g. strategic intent, performance, markets)
  • An overview of the sector it operates in
  • Business-relevant information such as value/percentage of market share against its competitors

Application of strategic management theory frameworks to critically analyse the strategic position

You should identify one or more appropriate management theory frameworks to determine the strategic position. You may wish to consider the resource-based view or the Five Forces framework when carrying out this task. Each has its benefits and limitations. You should justify your choice and provide an in-depth analysis of the organisation by critically analysing the internal or external environment and the resulting strategic position. You should also take into account the international context the organisation operates in or is affected by.

Critical evaluation of strategic choices

You should critically analyse the business model(s) the organisation has adopted and the strategic options that result thereof. While the business model question is part of the business strategy, the strategic options may well shift the debate toward a corporate strategy framework that is being applied. You may wish to consider the extent to which environmental forces have impacted the organisation’s business model and structure and how the organisation has changed and adapted over time or failed to do so. As part of your critical evaluation you should also analyse the sustainability of the business model and the options it offers.

Note: You are expected to apply strategy theories in a selective way and justify your choices.

Guidance for Component B (Individual component):

Your individual component should reflect on one of the key frameworks that have been used in the group presentation and critically evaluate its applicability. Some frameworks are more suitable in particular contexts and less suitable in others. You are expected to present a debate on the theoretical rationale that initiated the popularity of the respective framework, but also its limitations, if any.

  • Note: For both Component A and Component B you are expected to use insight obtained from the core textbook, relevant additional reading from the lectures (available on Aula) and your own research using the University’s library facilities (locate.coventry.ac.uk).

This assessment is in the Amber category for use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), which means that the use of AI is permitted to assist you in the development of the assessment in line with the student guidance. Please note that if using AI tools, you must reference which tools you have used and for what purposes you have used them. This information must be acknowledged in your final submission. The below format is recommended:

Tool

How used in this assignment

e.g. ChatGPT-3.5

Eg Key word search on topics xxx

e.g. Microsoft Copilot

Eg Request for a suggested structure for xxx

Etc.

 

Submission Instructions:

You must submit the pre-recorded presentation on Aula/Handin by the submission deadline. One group member can submit on behalf of the group unless instructed otherwise. You can access the submission link through the module web.

  • Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Aula/Handin. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work.
  • Please ensure that you have submitted your work using the correct file format, unreadable files will receive a mark of zero. We recommend submitting the video presentation in mp4 format and expect the individual component to be submitted in Microsoft Word format (do not submit PDF files).
  • All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero.
  • The University wants you to do your best. However we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control and not easy to predict. If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to 5 working days, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline.
  • You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://share.coventry.ac.uk/students/Registry/Pages/Deferrals-and- Extension.aspx
  • Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.

Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites.

Marking and Feedback

How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked by the module team.

How will I receive my grades and feedback?

Provisional marks will be released once internally moderated.

Feedback will be provided by the module team alongside grades release.

Your provisional marks and feedback should be available within 2 weeks (10 working days).

What will I be marked against?

Details of the marking criteria for this task can be found at the bottom of this assignment brief.

Assessed Module Learning Outcomes

The Learning Outcomes for this module align to the marking criteria which can be found at the end of this brief. Ensure you understand the marking criteria to ensure successful achievement of the assessment task. The following module learning outcomes are assessed in this task:

  1. Develop a critical understanding of the relationship between business models and organisational structures within the decisions required of strategic management.
  2. Critically analyse and apply strategic management theories within an international context and therefore, to assess an organisation’s competitive stance.

Assignment Support and Academic Integrity

If you have any questions about this assignment please see the Student Guidance on Coursework for more information.

Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar:

You are expected to use effective, accurate, and appropriate language within this assessment task.

Academic Integrity:

The work you submit must be your own, or in the case of groupwork, that of your group. All sources of information need to be acknowledged and attributed; therefore, you must provide references for all sources of information and acknowledge any tools used in the production of your work. We use detection software and make routine checks for evidence of academic misconduct.

It is your responsibility to keep a record of how your thinking has developed as you progress through to submission. Appropriate evidence could include: version controlled documents, developmental sketchbooks, or journals. This evidence can be called upon if we suspect academic misconduct.

If using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the development of your assignment, you must reference which tools you have used and for what purposes you have used them. This information must be acknowledged in your final submission.

Definitions of academic misconduct, including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and collusion can be found on the Student Portal. All cases of suspected academic misconduct are referred for investigation, the outcomes of which can have profound consequences to your studies. For more information on academic integrity please visit the Academic and Research Integrity section of the Student Portal.

Support for Students with Disabilities or Additional Needs:

If you have a disability, long-term health condition, specific learning difference, mental health diagnosis or symptoms and have discussed your support needs with health and wellbeing you may be able to access support that will help with your studies.

If you feel you may benefit from additional support, but have not disclosed a disability to the University, or have disclosed but are yet to discuss your support needs it is important to let us know so we can provide the right support for your circumstances. Visit the Student Portal to find out more.

Unable to Submit on Time?

The University wants you to do your best. However, we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you cannot submit your assessment by the deadline or sit a scheduled exam. 

If you think this might be the case, guidance on understanding what counts as an extenuating circumstance, and how to apply is available on the Student Portal.

Administration of Assessment

Assignment Category: Composite Attempt Type: Standard Component Code: Prs (Cw2)

Assessment Marking Criteria  Component A (80% weighting)

 

Theory, concepts and models (30%)

Analysis, evaluation and application (40%)

Critique, conclusions and recommendations (30%)

80 to 100%

Exceptional level of research and engagement with relevant literature.

Exceptional choice of theoretical frameworks with very strong justifications, underpinning strategic position and strategic choice analysis.

Exceptional application and critical evaluation of theories and frameworks.

Exceptional introduction, integrating quality references about the company and industry.

Exceptional evidence of in-depth analyses, supported by rich data and research from legitimate sources.

Exceptional presentation, sources quality and referencing practice.

Exceptional development of arguments with excellent integration of theoretical framework and key findings.

Exceptional conclusions, very insightful takeaways from the work.

Exceptionally well-argued recommendations.

70 to 79%

Excellent level of research and engagement with relevant literature.

Excellent choice of theoretical frameworks with strong justifications, underpinning strategic position and strategic choice analysis.

Excellent application and critical evaluation of theories and frameworks.

Excellent introduction, integrating quality references about the company and industry.

Excellent evidence of in-depth analyses supported by rich data and research from legitimate sources.

Excellent presentation, accurate citations and referencing.

Excellent development of arguments with excellent integration of theoretical framework and key findings.

Excellent conclusions with insightful takeaways from the work.

Excellent recommendations for the chosen company or industry, relevant and applicable.

60 to 69%

Very good level of research and engagement with relevant literature.

Very good choice of theoretical frameworks with sound justifications, underpinning strategic position and strategic choice analysis.

Very good application and critical evaluation of theories and frameworks.

Very good introduction, integrating references about the company and industry.

Very good development of arguments with strong connections to the analysis.

Very good conclusions, highlighting takeaways from the work.

 

 

 

Very good evidence of in-depth analyses, supported by data and research from legitimate sources.

Very good presentation, citations and referencing.

Very good specific recommendations for the chosen company or industry based on analysis and fact.

50 to 59%

Good level of research and engagement with relevant literature.

Good choice of theoretical frameworks with attempted justifications, underpinning strategic position and strategic choice analysis.

Good application and critical evaluation of theories and frameworks.

Good introduction, integrating references about the company and industry.

Good attempt to support the analyses and evaluation with data and research from legitimate sources.

Good presentation, citations and referencing, with minor issues.

Good understanding of knowledge, research and engagement with relevant literature.

Good attempt to summarise the findings and conclude the work.

Appropriate recommendations for the chosen company or industry.

40 to 49%

Outcomes met. Basic level of research and engagement with relevant literature.

Acceptable choice of theoretical frameworks with weak justifications.

Outcomes met. Basic level of application and critical evaluation of theories and frameworks.

Satisfactory introduction with limited references about the company and industry.

Sufficient analyses and evaluation, integrating limited data and research from legitimate sources.

Basic presentation and referencing practice.

Outcomes met. Basic understanding of knowledge and engagement with relevant literature.

Sufficient argumentations leading to a conclusion and recommendations.

Fail

30, 35%

Outcomes not met. Limited research and engagement with relevant literature.

Poor choice of theoretical frameworks with little or no justifications.

Outcomes not met. Limited application and critical evaluation of theories and frameworks.

Generic analysis, lacking depth, with poor structure and delivery.

Outcomes not met. Limited level of argumentation that leads to a poor conclusion with few or no recommendations.

 

 

Poor presentation (video and slides) and referencing practice.

 

Fail

0 to 29%

Outcomes not met. Minimal research and engagement with relevant literature.

Very poor choice of theoretical frameworks with little or no justifications.

Outcomes not met. Minimal application and critical evaluation of theories and frameworks.

Minimal analysis, with very poor structure and delivery.

Very poor presentation (video and slides) and referencing practice.

Outcomes not met. Minimal level of argumentation that leads to a very poor conclusion with no recommendations.

Assessment Marking Criteria  Component B (20% weighting)

 

Theory, concepts and models (35%)

Analysis, evaluation and application (40%)

Critique, conclusions and recommendations (25%)

80 to 100%

Exceptional engagement with relevant literature to assess the applicability of the theoretical framework.

Exceptional critical evaluation of the applicability of one or more theoretical frameworks with exceptionally well- development arguments. Full and accurate referencing.

Exceptional independent conclusion with recommendations based on identified conceptual limitations.

70 to 79%

Excellent engagement with relevant literature to assess the applicability of the theoretical framework.

Excellent critical evaluation of the applicability of one or more theoretical frameworks with well-development arguments. Full and accurate referencing.

Excellent independent conclusion with recommendations based on identified conceptual limitations.

60 to 69%

Very good engagement with relevant literature to assess the applicability of the theoretical framework.

Very good critical evaluation of the applicability of one or more theoretical frameworks with well-development arguments. Accurate referencing.

Very good independent conclusion with recommendations based on identified conceptual limitations.

50 to 59%

Good engagement with relevant literature to assess the applicability of the theoretical framework.

Good critical evaluation of the applicability of one or more theoretical frameworks with well- development arguments. Accurate referencing.

Good independent conclusion with recommendations that attempt to incorporate conceptual limitations.

40 to 49%

Sufficient to meet the learning outcomes. Satisfactory engagement with relevant literature to assess the applicability of the theoretical framework.

Sufficient to meet the learning outcomes. Basic evaluation of the applicability of one or more theoretical frameworks. Acceptable referencing practice.

Sufficient to meet the learning outcomes. Basic conclusion with some recommendations.

Fail

30, 35%

Outcomes not met. Limited engagement with relevant literature to assess the applicability of the theoretical framework.

Outcomes not met. Limited evaluation of the applicability of one or more theoretical frameworks. Poor referencing practice.

Outcomes not met. Conclusion with limited insight and few or no recommendations.

Fail

0 to 29%

Outcomes not met. Minimal engagement with relevant literature to assess the applicability of the theoretical framework.

Outcomes not met. Minimal evaluation of the applicability of one or more theoretical frameworks. Very poor referencing practice.

Outcomes not met. Conclusion with minimal insight with no recommendations.

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