Strategic Management
Learning outcomes
• Evaluate case studies in strategy direction, strategy implementation and strategic management.
• Discuss the strategic directions that can be chosen by organisations through the application of relevant theoretical concepts.
• State the need for strategic alternatives and their selection.
Coursework: Case Study based on key reading – Adnams a living company. (Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D., &Regner, P. (2014). Exploring Strategy: Text and Cases (10 ed.) pages 606-611.
Task: Adnams has a strong iconic brand and wishes to examine its competitive strategy. You have been commissioned by the company to provide a report on their competitive position and make recommendations for their future. The directors have little time to do this at present, so your report must include a critical evaluation and justification of your model prior to using it for your analysis. You are also required to make recommendations for their future from your analysis. These should be well founded and should clearly relate to your analysis.
Suggested structure and approximate weighting of marks
Part 1:Theoretical underpinning for analysis, identification of key issues,justificationand evaluation of the choice of analytical model/s (20%)
Part 2:Strategic analysis with application of the chosen model (s) (60%)
Part 3:Recommendation and Conclusion (20%)
Word count: 2,500 words +/- 10% (tables of content, lists of tables and figures, appendices, list of references, tables and diagrams are not included in the word count). Please take care on the presentation of your submission. Appendices should be used for essential information only and should be clearly referenced in the text. Total word count should be clearly indicated on the front sheet of the assignment. Penalties will apply for exceeding word count.
Essential: the work should demonstrate critical analysis and evaluation, APH6 referencing method should be used where appropriate. There should be an evidence of a wider reading, particularly for the first section, to demonstrate your understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of your analysis (not only textbooks and the company websites but also academic journals).
Submission date: Monday 8th February 2016
Please note you are required to submit Electronically via Turnitinukby11.59pm on 8 February and an identicalhard copy to The Business School by no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 9th Feb 15.Please note that submission of the assignment after the deadline without an approved extension or extenuating circumstances will result in the mark being capped at 40%. Please refer to the student regulations and your student handbook. Please note that extension requests are authorised by Course/Year tutors only, not module leaders.
Notes:
• Your coursework must be word-processed. APA referencing method should be used where appropriate.
• You must include a front sheet to your assignment that contains your name, student number, course, Module code (BHS0027) and your word count.
• Attention is drawn to the rules on academic misconduct (including unattributed citations from textbooks etc), refer to your Student Handbook for the penalties for non-compliance.
Marking Scheme (generic)
Criteria 100% 70+ 60-69 50-59 40-49 Below 40 (Fail)
Knowledge and understanding 15% Excellent research skills demonstrated in a clear understanding of relevant theories/concepts Good research skills used to show knowledge and understanding of relevant concepts An acceptable level of understanding of the concepts of strategy selection and implementation shown The level of research and knowledge/understanding has fallen below expectations Lack of evidence of research on lacks knowledge of relevant concepts
Analysis 30% All relevant theoretical concepts applied effectively A good selection of frameworks applied competently An acceptable level of theoretical frameworks used, but not always applied well. The analytical content has fallen below expectation. Text tends to be descriptive. Little or no evidence of analysis.
Synthesis, creativity, evaluation 25% Shows ability to integrate theory and practice. Good link between theory and practice. An acceptable level of evaluation in evidence. Evaluation has fallen below expectations. Little or no evidence of evaluation
Recommendations and conclusions 20% Conclusions and recommendations based on sound evaluation and logic. Conclusions and recommendations well founded Satisfactory conclusions and recommendations Conclusions and recommendations thin and not well substantiated. No recommendations conclusions, or
Referencing 5% Comprehensive range of references used to support arguments Good range of references used to support arguments An acceptable range of references used to support arguments Use of references fallen below expectations No additional to the main textbook references
Generic communication considerations 5% The answer is excellent in structure, clarity and presentation The answer is well structured. The content is clear and well presented. The answer is of an acceptable standard in clarity, structure and presentation. The answer has fallen below expectations in clarity, structure and presentation. Poor answer in terms of structure and presentation.
TOTAL 100%