UGB319 - CORPORATE STATEGY

ASSIGNMENT TITLE: Strategic Analysis

Issue Date:

Week 3 (29 September 2014)

Due Date:

Part 1 - Week 9 (Group A - 10 Nov 2014; Group B - 11 Nov 2014)

Part 2 - Week 14 (19 Dec 2014)

Learning outcomes:

Strategic analysis of an organisation

Synthesis of ideas or solutions relating to strategy issues

Skills outcomes:

Research skills
Critical evaluation
Creativity
Communication

Moderated by:
All students are required to submit their Part 1 in class in Week 9.
All students are required to submit their Part 2 assignment to the Faculty of
Business, Accounting and Management (FoBAM) counter by 5 pm on 19
December 2014.
You must submit your assignment in paper copy and electronically by the stated deadline:

Electronically through SEGiSphere for checking with Turnitin

-

The penalty for students that do not submit their Part 2 assignments through
Turnitin is that they will fail the assignment.

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

In hard copy through the FoBAM counter

-

You should bind your assignment with the Assignment Cover Sheet at the
1st page followed by all pages of the Turnitin Originality Report showing the %
similarity and a CD containing your full assignment and Turnitin Originality
Report.

All work submitted must adhere to the University Policy on Cheating, Collusion and
Plagiarism

Outline
This assessment is divided into two parts, the first part is designed to assist and guide you
in the development of your assignment. Please note that no marks are awarded for Part 1, it
is an opportunity for you to take some observations / guidance from your tutor. The tutor
must approve your idea. Approval of your chosen topic is not automatic and is conditional
upon your tutor being satisfied that the analysis will offer a level of rigour commensurate
with the final level of an Honours Degree:

Part 2 will be assessed and will contribute to 100% of the marks.

Assignments may fail because they are inappropriate topics.

Task: Part 1 (Summary)

For this task you must work on an individual basis. You must submit a paper based
summary of no more than 300 words outlining the focus of your analysis.
You will receive feedback on your Part 1 submission from your tutor to assist you with the
focus of your analysis for Part 2 of your assessment.

Task: Part 2
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.
The assignment (Part 2) you submit, as part of the final submission may be a slightly
modified version of the initial idea because as you progress, your research may cause you
to re-think your ideas. Minor changes are allowed to give you some freedom. Major
changes of the idea (e.g. changing the whole topic) should not be necessary, as your initial
research should have got you beyond any major stumbling blocks with your topic.
The report must be written in a recognised style, i.e. table of contents, introduction, main
analysis, conclusions, recommendations and references. You must apply the Harvard
system of referencing in your report.
Objectives
2

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 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.

The assignment will be graded for individuals on the basis of the specific criteria outlined
in Appendix B.
The Presentation element of the Generic Assessment Criteria will be used to assess the
report structure.
4

Appendix A

BA (HONS) BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

ASSESSMENT COVER SHEET / FEEDBACK FORM
Student ID:
Module
Name:

Corporate Strategy

Student
Name:
Module
Code:
Due Date:

UGB 319
19 Dec 2014

Hand in
Date:

Assessment Title: Strategic Analysis

Learning Outcomes Assessed:
Feedback relating learning outcomes assessed and assessment criteria given to
students:
Contents
Assessment
Relevance
20%
Knowledge
20%
Analysis
20%
Argument and structure

20%

Critical evaluation

10%

Presentation

5%

Reference

5%

Total

Marks:

100%

Areas for Commendation:

Area for Improvement:

General Comments:

Assessors Signature:

Overall Mark (Subject to ratification

by the assessment board)

Moderators Signature:

Students Signature: (You must sign this declaring that it is all your own work and all sources of
information have been referenced)

Appendix B
Generic Assessment Criteria Undergraduate
Categories
Grade
86 100%
76-85%

70 75%

Pass

60 69%

50 59%

Relevance
Knowledge
Analysis
Argument and Structure
Critical Evaluation
The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to t
showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the wor
demonstrate a particularly compelling evaluation, originality, and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
The work examined is outstanding and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qual
excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At this level it is exp
outstanding in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, in
The work examined is excellent and is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualifi
excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied At this level it is expected
excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, inter
Directly relevant to
A substantial knowledge A good strategic
Generally coherent and logically
May contain some
the requirements
of strategy material,
analysis,
structured, using an appropriate
distinctive or independen
of the assessment
showing a clear grasp of clear and orderly
mode of argument and/or
thinking; may begin to
themes, questions and
theoretical mode(s)
formulate an independen
issues therein
position in relation to
strategic theory
and/or practice.
Some attempt to address Adequate knowledge of a Some analytical
Some attempt to construct a
Sound work which expre
the requirements of
fair range of relevant
treatment, but may be coherent argument, but may suffer a coherent position only
the assessment:
strategy material, with
prone to description, or loss of focus and consistency, with broad terms and in uncri
may drift away
intermittent evidence of
to narrative, which
issues at stake stated only
conformity to one or mo
from this in less
an appreciation of its
lacks clear analytical
vaguely, or theoretical mode(s)
standard views of strateg
focused passages
significance
purpose
couched in simplistic terms
Some correlation with
the requirements of the
assessment but there are
instances of irrelevance

35 39%

Relevance to the
A limited understanding
Heavy dependence on Little evidence of coherent
Almost wholly derivativ
requirements of the
of a narrow range of
description, and/or on argument: lacks development and the writers contribution
assessment may be very strategic material.
paraphrase, is common may be repetitive or thin
rarely goes beyond
intermittent, and may be
simplifying paraphrase
reduced to its vaguest
and least challenging
terms
The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied for comp
The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. T
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 qu
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 t
outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the indicators.

Fail

40 49%

30 34%
15-29%
0-14%

Basic understanding of
the strategy but
addressing a limited
range of material

Largely descriptive or
narrative, with little
evidence of analysis

A basic argument is evident, but

mainly supported by assertion
and there may be a lack of clarity
and coherence

Some evidence of a view

starting to be formed but
mainly derivative.

These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working and related to the assessment criteria for
the module