SIM336 – STATEGIC MANAGEMENT

MODULE ASSIGNMENT - TITLE: Strategic Analysis

Submission Deadline: Tue, 1 December 2020 14:00

Learning outcomes:

Knowledge
K1. Understanding of the origins and various approaches to strategy
K2. Understanding of the complexity of the relationships between the organisation and its
environment
K3. Understanding of international/global strategic thinking
K4. Understanding of the application of strategy ideas in practice

Skill
S1. The ability to analyse the complexity of organisations and their environments
S2. The ability to synthesise earlier, diverse and possible piecemeal studies of the organisation
and assimilate new theoretical models and offer solutions relative to strategic issues
S3. The ability to evaluate existing models and methodologies against observations of the
practices of real organisations

Moderated by: Augustus Osseo-Asare Jr

Please read carefully the following instructions:

All students are required to submit their assignment via the module in Canvas and JIRA. The
penalty for students that do not submit their assignments through the module in Canvas and
JIRA is that they will fail the assignment.

Students may submit assignment drafts prior to the submission date to generate originality
reports. The last submission of the assignment prior to the submission date will be deemed as
the final submission for assessment purposes.

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 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 do not submit a functional analysis; for example, do
not submit a strategic marketing analysis or a strategic human resource analysis. You should
be applying the concepts and models from the topics that are within the module to your chosen
organisation.
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. The word count must be stated on the front page
of your assignment. The word count includes the introduction, main analysis, conclusions,
recommendations, diagrams, tables, figures and graphs; the word count does not include the
front page, executive summary and or abstract, contents page, references, bibliography and
appendices. A penalty will be applied for exceeding the word count. The penalties that will be
applied for exceeding the word count can be found in Table 1.

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.

1. Compare theory and practice: for example; does M.E. Porter’s (1985) model of
competition support the experience of practitioners? i.e. use a practical example/case/
issue to reflect on Porter’s model(s) and examine success and/or failure.
2. A case study approach: for example, is Satya Nadella, C.E.O. managing Microsoft as
effectively as he might? i.e. do an analysis of Microsoft’s performance in relation to
declared (or undeclared) strategy and the efficacy of his strategy.
3. A recovery plan: for example, my advice to the Chief Executive Officer of the Toshiba
Corporation is i.e. suggest a way forward for the organization in light of their poor
performance over recent years.
4. A risk management strategy: for example, my advice to Tesco’s Chief Executive
Officer in light of their 2014/5 £6.4 Billion trading loss.

These are merely examples of approaches you might take; thinking up your own ideas might
be more productive and fun. You are encouraged where practical to discuss your ideas with
your tutor prior to commencing the assignment.
Assessment Criteria:
Your seminar tutor on the basis of the following general criteria will assess the paper:
• The university generic assessment criteria
• Discretion - additional credit may be awarded to a student who tackles a difficult
subject well.
• The “Presentation” element of the Generic Assessment Criteria will be used to assess
the report structure.
Table 1 Applied Penalties for exceeding the word count.
Word limit Penalty Actual Word Count
Exceeds limit by up to 10% No penalty – tolerance 3300
band (see below)
Exceeds limit by 10.1-20% -5% 3301 – 3600
Exceeds limit by 20.1-30% -10 % 3601 - 3900
Exceeds limit by 30.1-40% -15 % 3901 - 4200
Exceeds limit by 40.1-50% -20 % 4201 - 4500
Exceeds limit by more than 50% Mark of zero 4501+
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 excellent evidence showing that all the learning
70 – 75% 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 knowledge A good strategic Generally coherent and logically May contain some Well written, with Critical appraisal of up-todate
60 – 69% the requirements of strategy material, analysis, structured, using an appropriate distinctive or independent standard spelling and and/or appropriate literature.
of the assessment showing a clear grasp of clear and orderly mode of argument and/or thinking; may begin to grammar, in a readable Recognition of different
themes, questions and theoretical mode(s) formulate an independent style with acceptable perspectives.
Pass

issues therein position in relation to format Very good use of source material.
strategic theory Uses a range of sources
and/or practice.
Some attempt to address Adequate knowledge of a Some analytical Some attempt to construct a Sound work which expresses Competently written, with Uses a variety of literature which
50 – 59% the requirements of fair range of relevant treatment, but may be coherent argument, but may suffer a coherent position only in only minor lapses from includes some recent strategic
the assessment: strategy material, with prone to description, or loss of focus and consistency, broad terms and in uncritical standard grammar, with texts and/or appropriate literature,
may drift away intermittent evidence of to narrative, which with issues at stake stated only conformity to one or more acceptable format though not necessarily including a
from this in less an appreciation of its lacks clear analytical vaguely, or theoretical mode(s) standard views of strategy. substantive amount beyond library
focused passages significance purpose couched in simplistic terms texts. Competent use of source
material.
40 – 49% Some correlation with Basic understanding of Largely descriptive or A basic argument is evident, but Some evidence of a view A simple basic style but Some up-to-date and/or
the requirements of the the strategy but narrative, with little mainly supported by assertion starting to be formed but with significant appropriate literature used. Goes
assessment but there are addressing a limited evidence of analysis and there may be a lack of clarity mainly derivative. deficiencies in expression beyond the material tutor has
instances of irrelevance range of material and coherence or format that may pose provided. Limited use of sources
obstacles for the reader to support a point.
35 – 39% Relevance to the A limited understanding Heavy dependence on Little evidence of coherent Almost wholly derivative: Numerous deficiencies in Barely adequate use of literature.
requirements of the of a narrow range of description, and/or on argument: lacks development and the writer’s contribution expression and Over reliance on material
assessment may be very strategic material. paraphrase, is common may be repetitive or thin rarely goes beyond presentation; the writer provided by the tutor.
intermittent, and may be simplifying paraphrase may achieve clarity (if at
reduced to its vaguest all) only by using a
and least challenging simplistic or repetitious
terms style
Fail

The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied – for compensation consideration.
30 – 34% 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.
15-29% 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.
0-14% 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.