Assignment Paper

Applied Corporate Strategy Assessment: Strategic Analysis Report

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 several examples.

Instructions for assessment

This assignment is focused on the selected organisation, its industry and business environment. By week 2 you will be given a list of organisations (cases) to choose from. Please choose one case (featuring an organisation) for the purposes of this assignment.

Formative work in weekly seminars will guide students through analytical techniques and processes required to complete the task.

The Strategic Report should address the following:

1) Carry out external analysis (business environment and industry) to identify a set of Opportunities and Threats and assess industry attractiveness. (30%)

2) Analyse the resources and key competences of the organisation and identify core competences (key factors that may give the company its competitive advantage). (30%)

3) Choose one strategy that the company implemented recently and evaluate it using SAFe criteria. (30%)

A further 10% is available for clarity, structure, grammar, correct Harvard referencing and overall professional presentation showing clear report style.

Please note that the emphasis is on application (strategic models should be applied to the organisation)! Appropriately referenced data should be used in support of your arguments and discussion.

The report should not exceed 3,000 words + 10%. Appendices are allowed outside this limit but NO MORE than 6 pages.

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.

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.

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: (30%) External analysis.
Discuss the business environment and identify a number of Opportunities – Os and Threats – Ts (we expect 6 issues from business environment to be discussed in total each of which concluded as an O or a T). Industry analysis (5 Forces) should be applied to assess industry attractiveness (each force should be discussed and assessed as High, Moderate or Low and industry attractiveness should be assessed having those forces in mind).

Q2: (30%) Internal analysis.
Identify and discuss organisation’s resources & unique capabilities (at least 6 Strengths and Weaknesses should be covered in total). Demonstrate how unique capabilities link to competitive advantage (use VRIO to identify Core Competences for the organisation).

Q3: (30%) Strategy Evaluation
Choose a recent strategy that the company undertook and evaluate it using the three SAFe tests.

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 02/04/2020. For further general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information via StudentZonehttp://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/howtostudy/index.html.

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 – Mitigating Circumstances Policy

Marking and feedback process

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below:-

• Step 1 – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided.

• Step 2 – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.

• Step 3 – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback.

• Step 4 – Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair.
• Step 5 – The Office process your mark & feedback & it is made available to you.

Resit instructions to Students

If you need to resit this assessment, the requirements are as follows:

You are required to re-work your original submission in line with the original assessment brief and criteria. Your re-submission must address the feedback comments provided by the marker on the original submission. You should provide a summary of the marker’s original feedback from your first submission together with a commentary [between 400 and 500 words) that explains how your revisions improve the original submission by addressing the original feedback.

In brief your re-sit submission MUST include:

• A summary of the original feedback,
• A reflective account [400-500 words] detailing how your revisions have addressed the feedback, and
• The reworked assignment.

Marking Grid
Applied Corporate Strategy 100 85 (80-89) 75 (70-79) 65 (60-69) 55 (50-59) 45 (40-49) 35 (30-39) 25 (20-29) 0
External analysis (30) Work of outstanding quality. All appropriate models correctly applied and an in-depth discussion provided. Outstanding conclusion clearly linked to the analysis. Outstanding use of data in support of arguments. High quality work. Most appropriate models correctly applied and an excellent discussion provided. Excellent conclusion well linked to the analysis. Excellent use of appropriate data. Most data was properly referenced. Quality work. A number of appropriate models applied reasonably well and a very good discussion provided. Very good conclusion linked to the analysis. Very good choice of data from generally reliable sources. Sound work. A number of appropriate models applied reasonably well and a good discussion provided. Good conclusion reasonably well linked to the analysis. Good choice of reasonably appropriate data from reliable sources. Fair work. Some appropriate models applied reasonably well and a satisfactory discussion provided. Satisfactory conclusion. An attempt made to link it to the analysis. Some use of data but more data or more reliable data (from better sources) would have been better. Basic work. Some appropriate models applied (not clearly understood). Adequate discussion provided. Adequate conclusion. Limited linkages to the analysis made. Sufficient data used to support arguments but much more data (or data from better sources) required for a better mark. Inadequate work. Very few appropriate models applied (most of them misunderstood). Inadequate discussion provided. Inadequate conclusion. Very limited or no linkages to the analysis made. Little data used to support arguments. Much more reliable and properly referenced data from reliable sources required for a better mark. Poor work. Some useful elements but overall a rather poor analysis carried out. Poor discussion provided. Poor conclusion. Some useful elements but largely no linkages to the analysis provided. Very little or no data used to support arguments. No attempt to include any relevant material.
Internal analysis (30) Work of outstanding quality that is fluent, extremely well structured and question focussed. The organisation’s resources clearly analysed and well discussed with unique capabilities identified and analysed using Value Chain, VRIN and other tools. Outstanding use of data in support of arguments. Overall an outstanding demonstration of knowledge and analysis. High quality work. Resources clearly analysed using Grant with unique capabilities identified and analysed using Value Chain, VRIN and possibly other tools. Extensive use of data in support of arguments. Overall a complete demonstration of knowledge and analysis. Quality work. Resources well analysed with unique capabilities identified and analysed using Value Chain and possibly VRIN and other tools. A very good use of data in support of arguments. Overall a focussed and robust analysis. Sound work. Resources fairly well analysed with unique capabilities identified. Value Chain and other tools possibly used. Overall a sound section. Fair work. Resources basically analysed with a patchy attempt to identify unique capabilities. Value Chain and other tools possibly missing. Overall a fair section. Basic work. Resources basically analysed with some attempt to identify unique capabilities but lacking Value Chain or other tools. Limited use of data in support of arguments. Overall only a basic section. Inadequate work. Resources weakly analysed and only a poor attempt to identify unique capabilities. There is no application of Value chain or other tools. Rather limited (or missing) use of data in support of arguments. Overall a weak section. Obviously poor work. Resources superficial plus a poor attempt to identify unique capabilities. No depth of knowledge or analysis. Poor or missing use of data in support of arguments. Overall an obviously failing section. No attempt to include any relevant material.
Evaluation (30) Work of outstanding quality that is fluent, extremely well structured and question focussed. There is an outstanding discussion about how the evaluated strategy addresses strategic position discussed earlier and affects key stakeholders. Strong links between evaluated strategy and the business environment and industry clearly established while addressing suitability. Key stakeholders identified with the Power/Interest matrix or similar and their needs and reactions to the evaluated strategy clearly discussed while addressing acceptability. The feasibility test justifies the strategy from the perspective of resources and competences (capabilities). The tests are used with outstanding knowledge and insightful discussion. High quality work with an excellent discussion about how strategy addresses strategic position discussed earlier and affects key stakeholders. Sound links between evaluated strategy and the business environment and possibly industry clearly established while addressing suitability. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders and discusses their reactions to the evaluated strategy. The feasibility test justifies the strategy from the perspective of resources and competences. Strong knowledge demonstrated while using these tests. Quality work with a sound analysis/discussion. Links between evaluated strategy and the business environment and possibly industry clearly established while addressing suitability. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders and some of their reactions. The feasibility test covers the strategy from the perspective of resources and competences. Sound knowledge demonstrated while using these tests. Sound work with a fair analysis. Some links between evaluated strategy and the business environment and possibly industry established while addressing suitability. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders but the discussion about their reactions to the evaluated strategy is limited. The feasibility test shows some grasp of resources and competences in relation to the evaluated strategy. The tests are used with reasonably sound knowledge. Fair work with a reasonable analysis. Limited links between evaluated strategy and the business environment established while addressing suitability. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders without their reactions to the evaluated strategy. The feasibility test shows only a fair grasp of resources and competences in relation to the evaluated strategy. The tests are used with reasonable knowledge. Basic work with only a superficial grasp of analysis. Rather limited links between evaluated strategy and the business environment established while addressing suitability. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders without much discussion about their needs or reactions. The feasibility test shows only a very fair grasp of resources and competences in relation to the evaluated strategy. The tests are used with some knowledge. Inadequate work with a poor grasp of analysis. The suitability test is not linked to the environment. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders only and the feasibility test is probably not understood. The tests are used with little knowledge. Obviously poor work with no grasp of the 3 tests. Suitability, Acceptability and Feasibility are not understood. No attempt to include any relevant material.
Presentation and layout (10) Outstanding presentation reflecting professional norms. Outstanding, clear, concise English with faultless grammar and spelling. Excellent presentation reflecting professional norms. Excellent, clear, concise English with faultless grammar and spelling. Very good presentation reflecting professional norms. Very good, clear, concise English with almost faultless grammar and spelling. Good presentation reflecting professional norms. Good, clear, concise English, possibly with an occasional spelling mistake. Satisfactory presentation reflecting professional norms. Satisfactory English with a few spelling or minor grammatical mistakes. Presentation which adequately reflects professional norms. Reasonable English but containing mistakes in grammar and spelling. Presentation which displays little more than cursory to professional norms. Understandable, but containing many mistakes in grammar and spelling. Difficult to understand in places. Containing many mistakes in grammar and spelling. Poor presentation.