SIM336 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

ASSIGNMENT 1 - TITLE: Strategic Analysis

Due Date: 1st October 2013
Learning outcomes:
Strategic analysis of an organization(s).
Synthesis of ideas or solutions relating to strategy
issues
Skills outcomes: Research skills
Critical evaluation
Creativity
Communication
Moderated by:

John Dixon-Dawson

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.

Objectives
To analyse a business policy or strategic management topic, to carry out
individual research or evaluation of an organization.
Requirements
Meet 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. Porters (1985) model
of competition support the experience of practitioners? i.e. use a
practical example /case / issue to reflect on Porters 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
Microsofts 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
News Corporation is i.e. suggest a way forward for the
organization in light of their debacle over the telephone Hacking
scandal and their pursuit of organizational growth.
A risk management strategy: My advice to British Petroleums
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 Criteria
Your 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.

Fail

Pass

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
Categories
Grade
Relevance
Knowledge
Analysis
Argument and Structure Critical Evaluation
Presentation
Reference to Literature
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 also
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
outstanding in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or
discourse.
The work examined is excellent and is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also
70 75% excellent 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 be
excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
Directly relevant to A substantial
A good strategic
Generally coherent and
May contain some
Well written, with
Critical appraisal of up60 69% the requirements
knowledge of
analysis,
logically structured, using
distinctive or
standard spelling
todate
of the assessment
strategy material,
clear and orderly
an appropriate mode of
independent thinking; and grammar, in a
and/or appropriate
showing a clear
argument and/or
may begin to
readable style with
literature. Recognition of
grasp of themes,
theoretical mode(s)
formulate an
acceptable format
different perspectives.
questions and
independent position
Very good use of source
issues therein
in relation to strategic
material. Uses a range of
theory
sources
and/or practice.
Some attempt to
Adequate
Some analytical
Some attempt to construct Sound work which
Competently
Uses a variety of literature
50 59% address the
knowledge of a fair
treatment, but
a coherent argument, but
expresses a coherent
written, with only
which includes some recent
requirements of
range of relevant
may be prone to
may suffer loss of focus
position only in broad
minor lapses from
strategic texts and/or
the assessment:
strategy material,
description, or to
and consistency, with
terms and in uncritical standard grammar,
appropriate literature,
may drift away
with intermittent
narrative, which
issues at stake stated only conformity to one or
with acceptable
though not necessarily
from this in less
evidence of an
lacks clear
vaguely, or theoretical
more standard views
format
including a substantive
focused passages
appreciation of its
analytical
mode(s) couched in
of strategy.
amount beyond library
significance
purpose
simplistic terms
texts. Competent use of
source material.
40 49% Some correlation
Basic understanding Largely
A basic argument is
Some evidence of a
A simple basic style Some up-to-date and/or
with the
of
descriptive or
evident, but mainly
view starting to be
but with significant
appropriate literature used.
requirements of the the strategy but
narrative, with
supported by assertion
formed but mainly
deficiencies in
Goes beyond the material
assessment but
addressing a limited little evidence of
and there may be a lack of derivative.
expression or format tutor has provided. Limited
there are
range of material
analysis
clarity and coherence
that may pose
use of sources to support a
instances of
obstacles for the
point.
irrelevance
reader
35 39% Relevance to the
A limited
Heavy
Little evidence of coherent Almost wholly
Numerous
Barely adequate use of
requirements of the understanding of a
dependence on
argument: lacks
derivative: the writers deficiencies in
literature. Over reliance on
assessment may be narrow range of
description,
development and may be
contribution rarely
expression and
material provided by the
very
strategic material.
and/or on
repetitive or thin
goes beyond
presentation; the
tutor.
intermittent, and
paraphrase, is
simplifying paraphrase writer may achieve
may be reduced to
common
clarity (if at all) only
its vaguest and
by using a simplistic
least challenging
or repetitious style
terms

30 34%
15-29%
0-14%

The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied for compensation consideration.
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.
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.
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.