June-September 2014
Table of Contents:
1. Assessment type
2. Indicative assessment requirements for the module
3. Maximum word limit and assessment weighting for each aspect within the
assessment
4. Description of assessment requirements (Tasks 1-4)
5. Group Report and PPT guidelines
6. Learning Outcomes
7. Summary of marking scheme (group report and PPT)
8. Grading Criteria
9. Individual supporting contributions to group report and PPT, and marking
scheme.
10. Notes on Plagiarism & Harvard Referencing
11. Module Descriptor
12. Group Assignment Feedback Sheet
13. Individual Supporting Contributions Feedback Sheet
14. Further Guidance Notes
15. Reading list
1 | Page
16.
2 | Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SECTION 1
Assessment Type:
SECTION 3
Maximum Word Limit and Assessment weighting for each aspect within the
assessment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SECTION 4
Description of Assessment Requirements
As strategy consultants, imagine that you have been approached by the Board of
Directors of a company of your choice to advise them on their future strategic
direction. You are required to present your opinion, fully grounded in researched
evidence, in the form of a report covering:
Task 1
3 | Page
Task 2
Using relevant tools, conduct a detailed analysis of the environment and industry in
which the company is operating. In particular, the Board want your team to analyse
the extent to which disruptive innovation will change its future competitive landscape.
(15 marks)
Task 3
Using strategic theory, critically discuss and evaluate the strategic options that the
Board could consider implementing in the light of your internal and external analysis.
Briefly, discuss the implementation issues associated with your proposed
recommendations.
(40 marks)
Task 4
One of the Board members has recently read a text by Jim Collins and
Morten Hansen (2011) entitled "Great by Choice" which identifies a selection
of companies with highly successful strategies.
The Board would like to know:
what lessons they could draw from this text and how to implement
them in their organisation
Whether or not these lessons might be consistent and compatible with
the strategy models proposed by leading authorities such as Porter,
Mintzberg, Ghoshal, Kim and Mauborgne and other commentators.
(20 marks)
Presentation (10 marks)
You may use appendices. These do not affect word count.
(Limit: 6000 words)
______________________________________________________
SECTION 5
Group Report Guidelines
4 | Page
Task 2
Identify and explain the importance of how the synthesise of knowledge
gained from other business modules may be brought together into a
comprehensive understanding of the concepts underpinning
competitive advantage.
Understand and be able to critically analyse the strategic position and
the interrelated functions of Production and Operations Management
(POM) in organisations
5 | Page
_____________________________________________________________
Section 7: Marking Scheme: Group Report and PowerPoint Slides (Also see
the Feedback Sheet for further guidance in Section 12)
Task 1
Use of strategic capabilities concept
Relationship between culture and strategy
Use of relevant models to make recommendations
(15 marks)
Task 2
Competitive analysis and impact of disruptive innovation
(15 marks)
Task 3
Discussion and application of strategic choice models
Resource implications of the selected strategy
Use of academic concepts and models to demonstrate
relationship among key resource areas: HR,
operations, finance, technology
(40 marks)
Task 4
Critical discussion of Collin's thesis
(20 marks)
Quality, creativity and coherence of PowerPoint slides
Evidence of teamwork
Overall Presentation, referencing,
visual aids, professionalism,
6 | Page
(10 marks)
evidence of teamwork
Total:
(100 marks)/value=50%
29 or less
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 - 59
60 - 69
70 +
CONTENT:
Has the question been
answered?
Vague,
random,
unrelated
material
Some
mention
of
the
issue,
but
a
collection of
disparate
points
Some
looseness/
digressions
Well focused
Highly focused
No
evidence
of reading.
No use of
theory
not
even
hinted
at
implicitly.
No theory
included.
No evidence
of reading.
An
implicit
hint at some
knowledge
of
theory,
etc.
Barely
answers the
question
just
reproduces
what knows
about
the
topic
No evidence
of
reading.
Very
basic
theories
mentioned
but
not
developed or
well used.
Long winded
descriptions
of theory.
Some reading
evident,
but
confined
to
core texts.
Good reading.
Good range of
theories
included.
Excellent
reading.
Well
chosen
theories.
Some
long
winded
sections.
Some
quotations,
but
stand
alone.
Some
interconnections.
Good
summary
of
theory.
Good use of
quotations
that flow with
narrative.
Good
interconnections.
Succinct,
effective
summaries
of
theory.
Excellent choice
and threading of
quotations into
argument.
Good
counterpoising
of a range of
perspectives.
No
example
s
No/limited
/
inappropri
ate
examples
Few
examples
Uneven
examples
Good
examples
Excellent
range
of
examples.
Vague
assertions
about
issues.
Largely
descriptive
with
no
identification
and analysis
of
central
issues.
Uncritical
acceptance
of material.
Limited
insight into
issues.
Some
good
observations.
Good, detailed
analysis.
Comprehensive
range of issues
identified
and
discussed fully.
Some
evaluation
but
weak.
Little insight.
Good
interpretation.
Some
but
limited
sophistication
in argument.
Good
critical
assessment.
Independent
thought
displayed.
Full
critical
assessment and
substantial
individual
insight.
No
referencing
Limited/poor
referencing
Some
inconsistencie
s
in
referencing
Appropriate
referencing
Appropriate
referencing
Is there evidence of
having read widely
and use of appropriate
and up to date material
to make a case?
UNDERSTANDING
&
SYNTHESIS
Are ideas summarized
rather
than
being
reproduced, and are
they inter-related with
other ideas?
APPLICATION
Does
it
show
appropriate use of
theory in a
practical situation?
ANALYSIS
Does it identify the key
issues, etc in a given
scenario, proposal or
argument?
EVALUATION
&
CONCLUSION
Does it critically assess
material?
Are there a workable
and
imaginative
solutions?
REFERENCING
Thorough and accurate
citation and referencing
7 | Page
No
evaluation.
No
referencing
Vague
assertions/p
oor
explanations
.
PRESENTATION
Logical and coherent
structure to argument
and
effective
presentation
No
structure
apparent.
Poor
presentatio
n.
Poor
structure.
Poor
presentation
.
Acceptable,
but uneven
structure.
Reasonable
presentation
.
Reasonable
structure.
Good
presentation.
Good
argument.
Well presented
material.
Excellent
argument.
Very
effective
presentation
format.
___________________________________________________________________________
Each student will receive an individual mark for their submission of their
individual supporting contributions and documentation. It is emphasised that
this aspect of the assignment is to be the work of the individual student and
should reflect individual researches; comprehension of the tasks involved;
views; critical awareness; use of theory; interpretation and judgements; use of
evidence; evaluation and a systematic approach to the use of research
The page number or page range is omitted if the entire work is cited.
The authors surname is omitted if it appears in the text. Thus we may
say : Jones (2001) revolutionized the field of trauma surgery.
Two or three authors are cited using and or & : (Deane, Smith, and
9 | Page
Jones, 1991) or (Deane, Smith & Jones, 1991). More than three authors
are cited using et al. (Deane et al. 1992).
If an author published two books in 2005, the year of the first (in the
alphabetic order of the references) is cited and referenced as 2005a, the
second as 2005b.
Examples
Examples of book references are :
Smith, John Maynard. The origin of altruism, Nature 393, 1998, pp.
639-40.
10 | P a g e
Module Title
Strategic Management
Level (4-6 u/g;
Credits
7
p/g;
8
doctorate)
7
20
Module Value
ECTS
Credit
Mervyn Sookun
% Taught in Welsh
Module Type
10
Teaching Period
One trimester
Module Leader
JACS
Subject
Code(s) and % of ASC Category(ies)
each subject
Pre-requisites
None
School(s)
Campus
London School of Commerce
London
Assessment Methods
Assessment Type
Duration/Length
Assessment Type
of Weighting
Assessment
maximum 100%
of Approximate Date of
Submission
Week 12
Aim(s)
The module aims to:
Provide students with a detailed integrative framework for understanding the role and functions of Strategic
Management within contemporary business organisations.
Enable students to comprehend how organisations formulate, implement, and evaluate strategies and how
they consider the strategic alternatives available to them.
Develop in students and provide them with a comprehensive understanding of strategic management
concepts and the techniques which are used in the development and formation of strategies.
Provide a framework and context within which knowledge acquired across the programme may be coupled
11 | P a g e
with new strategic-management techniques and how this may be synthesised to chart the future potential
direction of different organisations.
Enhance understanding of how, in the formulation of strategy for an organisation, the different functional
areas of business (e.g. accounting, finance, human resources, information systems, marketing, operations
management, etc.) are required to be considered as part of an integrative approach.
Consider how management tools (e.g. SWOT/PESTEL analysis) may be used to formulate strategy and
position the organisation internally and in the external environment
Examine the contribution which business organisation, operations and circumstances make to strategic
development and their relationship and significance to customer service; the supply chain; provision of
goods and services; total systems approaches; value chains and value concepts; client and customer
perceptions; the manufacturing and operations plan, and global environments,
Learning Outcomes
Upon successful completion of this module the students will be able to:
Demonstrate, understand and critically explain the importance of integrational
thinking in their understanding of strategy and its formation and development in
complex organisations
Identify and explain the importance of how the synthesise of knowledge gained from
other business modules may be brought together into a comprehensive
understanding of the concepts underpinning competitive advantage.
Critically analyse a case situation in terms of strategic issues and make justified
recommendations.
Evaluate and develop the ability to identify strategic issues and design appropriate
courses of action.
Understand and be able to critically analyse the strategic position and the
interrelated functions of Production and Operations Management (POM) in
organisations
Demonstrate a critical awareness of research in the evolution of strategic
management
24
48
128
200
Indicative Content
The strategy concept; corporate strategy.
Models of how organisations formulate strategy.
Environmental analysis.
Strategy formulation.
Forms of organisational structure; organisational analysis
Setting strategic direction
Process by which strategy is formulated and formed in particular situations.
Strategic changes; leadership requirements for strategic change.
Implementing strategic change.
Strategic Management: Manufacturing
Inventory Control
Facilities location planning
Control of processes, operations and operations management
None
SECTION 12: Feedback Sheet for Group Report and PPT slides
Is there evidence of
14 | P a g e
15
sound application of
models (cultural web,
culture typologies,
national culture:
Hofstede,
Trompenaars, Adler
&Laurent,Hall,
Usinier)? Have clear
conclusions been
drawn in terms of
relationship between
culture and strategy?
Task 2
Competitive analysis:
Has the full range of
competitive tools been
applied (e.g. PESTLE, 5
forces, Value Net, CAGE,
Yip's drivers, Porter's
Diamond )? Discussion of
disruptive innovation?
15
Task 3
Use of relevant
models to make
recommendations:
Is there evidence of
appreciation and
application of business
strategy models,
corporate strategy,
entrepreneurial
strategy and
international strategy?
(i.e. Bowman's Clock,
Porter's Generic, Blue
Ocean, Bertrand's Best
Response, Game
theory, Cournot's
Quantity Dynamics,
Corporate Parenting
styles, BCG matrix,
Shell-GE, Ashridge,
Yip's drivers, Diamond,
CAGE, Gupta's model,
Entrepreneurial models
etc). Are the
recommendations fully
grounded in reliable
evidence?
15 | P a g e
40
Use
of
academic
concepts
and
models
to
demonstrate
Relationship among
key resource areas:
HR, operations,
finance, technology.
Have members
demonstrated an
appreciation of other
modules on the MBA
programme in relation
to this assignment?
Critical analysis and
application of change
management models
(Forcefield, culture
change models, Hope
and Balogun, Lewin,
Dyer, Gigliardi, etc
Task 4
Critical discussion
Great by Choice
of 20
PowerPoint slides:
Creativity, consistency
between Group Report
and PPTs, likely impact
on audience
Overall
Presentation,
referencing, visual
aids, professionalism,
evidence of teamwork
Overall comment:
10
Total
100
16 | P a g e
Allocated mark/comment
for
the
corporate
parent/directors.
How
realistic
are
the
conclusions? Do they
reflect the content of the
group report? Is there a
consistency
between
their
individual
conclusions and those of
their colleagues?
Identification of the key 10 marks
issues and conclusions
which the student has
learned as a result of
undertaking the group
assignment on the topic
set and an identification
of the success or failure
of
their
group-team
endeavours. Has the
student drawn on the
other modules of the
MBA
programme
to
make
meaningful
conclusions?
Relevant
concepts include Belbin's
team roles, Tuckman's
group
development,
conformity, risky shift etc
10 marks
Total
100
19 | P a g e
Task 1
.
PP 04
20 | P a g e
Task 2
D. Competitive Analysis : PP 02
Task 3
D. Business Strategy PP 06
to
competitors
in
terms
of
their
E. Corporate Strategy PP 07
21 | P a g e
the
opportunities
and constraints an organisation faces.
Acceptability: whether a strategy meets the expectations of
stakeholders.
Feasibility: whether a strategy could work in practice.
For each of these use a range of different techniques for evaluating
strategic options, both financial and non-financial.
B. Resourcing the Implementation Process PP 012, PP013
22 | P a g e
Note
23 | P a g e
Task 4
Critical discussion of the
conventional frameworks?
text.
How
does
it
challenge
Evidence of the following will be sought in the assessment of your PPT slides.
Consistently clear, concise, well organized. Points are easy to follow because of the
organization. Transitions between sections are smooth and coordinated.
Very creative and original. Imaginative design and use of materials. Visual aids, or
methods.
Simple, clear, easy to interpret, easy to read. Well coordinated with content, well
designed, used very effectively. Excellent example of how to prepare and use good
visual aids
24 | P a g e
Favoro, K., Romberger, T. & Meer, D., (2009). Five rules for retailing in a
recession. Harvard Business Review, pp. 64-72.
Ferraro, C. & Sands, S., (2010), Retailers' strategic responses to economic
downturn:insights from down under. International Journal of retail and
distribution management , 38(8), pp. 567
Franco, L., F. OBrien, et al. (2011). "Supporting strategy: Contributions
from OR, The Journal of the Operational Research Society (editorial)."
Journal of the Operational Research Society 62(5): 815-816.
Grant, R. M. (2006). Contemporary strategy analysis (Fifth edition). Oxford,
Blackwell. Grinyer, P.
Jarzabkowski, P. and A. P. Spee (2009). "Strategy-as-practice: A review
and future directions for the field." International Journal of Management
Reviews 11(1): 69-95.
Johnson, G., K. Scholes, et al. (2012). Exploring corporate strategy
(Seventh edition). London, Prentice Hall.
Jones, B. & Temperley, J., 2011. Waitrose :an emporium for the middle
classes broadens its appeal. International Journal of management cases,
pp. 341-346.
Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton (1992). "The Balanced Scorecard Measures That Drive Performance." Harvard Business Review 70(1): 71 79.
Kowalski, K., S. Stagl, et al. (2009). "Sustainable energy futures:
Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multicriteria analysis." European Journal of Operational Research 197(3): 1063.
Moreau, R., 2010. Private label and discounters shaping grocery retailing
in Europe. Euromonitor International, pp. 86-89.
Morrow, J., Hitt, D. & Holcomb, T., 2007. Creating value in the face of
declining performance - firm strategies and organizational recovery.
strategic management journal, Volume 28, pp. 271-283.
McGee, J., H. Thomas, et al. (2010). Strategy: Analysis and practice (2nd
edition). London, McGraw
Hill.
Meadows, M. and F. O'Brien (2007). Visioning: A process for strategic
development Supporting Strategy: Frameworks, methods and models. F.
O' Brien and R. Dyson. Chichester, Wiley: 27-54.
Montibeller, G. and A. Franco (2011), "Raising the bar: strategic
multi-criteria decision analysis." Journal of the Operational Research
Society 62(5): 855-867.Piercy, N., Cravens, D. & Lane , N., 2010. Thinking
26 | P a g e
28 | P a g e
Page 29 of 29