Chandigarh Assignment Help

India +917015806060


Assessment Brief 2021/22 

A: Assessment Details

Module Title 

Strategic Management

Module Code 


Module Leader 

Tao Chang

Component Number 


Assessment Type, Word Count & Weighting

Written Assessment 

4,000 words 


Submission Deadline 

Before 12 noon 10th Feb 2022

Submission Instructions 

Submit via Turnitin

Feedback Return Date 

10th March 2022


B: Learning Outcomes

1.Critically analyse the characteristics of strategic decisions and explain what is meant by strategy and strategic  management. 

2.Critically evaluate the role of organisational stakeholders, structures and processes and how stakeholders’ expectations shape strategy. 

3.Critically assess and apply appropriate concepts and principles of strategic management in an organisational  context.


C: Assessment Task

Applying what you have learnt from the module content, you are to produce a fully referenced written report of  approximately 4000 words that uses appropriate models, frameworks and concepts to analyse how two strategic  business issues might impact or influence the chosen organisation’s strategy. 

Note: The chosen organisation cannot be one you have already significantly referred to in other assignments or  dissertation.


D: Specific Criteria/Guidance

Students can use their own employer or select a large international organisation and address the following issues: * Brief introduction to the organisation and sector it operates in. 

* Outline of two strategic business issues –explain why they are strategic; contextualised within the organisational  setting, including an overview of relevant strategic decisions that led to the current position (discussed through  relevant literature, tools and techniques).  

You must include critical analysis of the following: 

1 why the issues had strategic implications 

Assessment Brief 2021/22 

2 the impact it had on competitive performance (discussed through relevant literature and supported by other  contemporary examples).  

* Relevant conclusions and recommendations  

* List of References. 

To support your discussion, you may refer to other organisations or industry cases for comparison. However, your  focus should be your chosen organisation for this assignment. Ensure that your work has not even the smallest  element of plagiarism. 

In terms of the content for the report, there are a variety of approaches, as well as issues, which you can discuss.  The lecture and seminar content is a great starting point to consider issues that may be relevant. Try to be direct in  the application of authors’ opinions, theories and models to the case study being analysed. In other words, do not  describe what theories and models are, apply them – this application will demonstrate knowledge (if applied  correctly).  

Report structure: 

• This report should contain an introduction, a conclusion and the main body. 

• Sub-headings are a requirement and you must include numbering for your sections. You should also have a title  page, the main report, a full references list and appendix (if necessary). 

• Write in full sentences and construct paragraphs around the issues you discuss. You should avoid using bullet points. 

• APA referencing is a requirement for this report. Try to use credible academic sources where possible, e.g.  textbooks and journal articles.

E: Key Resources

Key Texts: 

Whittington, R., Regnér, P., Angwin, D., Johnson, G., Scholes, K., Evans, J., & Kerridge, C. (2020). Exploring strategy:  Texts and cases (Twelfth ed.). Pearson. 

De Wit, B. (2017). Strategy: An international perspective (6th ed.). International Thomson Business. 

Recommended reading: journal articles 

Arifin, Z. (2021). Strategic management process: Bank National in improving performance before and during covid 19 pandemic. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 1-9. 

Arsenyev, Y., Danilova, E., Shatskaya, Z., Osetrova, O., & Dzhepa, Y. (2020). Strategic management of the  implementation of potential corporate restructuring projects. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 1-9. 

Hughes, P., & Hodgkinson, I. (2020). Knowledge management activities and strategic planning capability  development. European Business Review, 33(2), 238-254. 

Lin, C., Chiu, Y., Chen, W., & Ting, S. (2020). Exploring differences in competitive performance based on Miles and  Snow’s strategy typology for the semiconductor industry. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 120(6), 1125- 1148.

Assessment Brief 2021/22 

Luciano, M. M., Nahrgang, J. D., & Shropshire, C. (2020). Strategic leadership systems: Viewing top management  teams and boards of directors from a multiteam systems perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 45(3),  675-701. 


Nayan, M. (2021). Impact of strategic management, corporate social responsibility on firm performance in the post  mandate period: Evidence from India. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 6(1), 1-15. 

Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., & Federico, J. S. (2021;2020;). A (re)view of the philosophical foundations of strategic  management. International Journal of Management Reviews : IJMR, 23(2), 151-190. 

Wenzel, M., Stanske, S., & Lieberman, M. B. (2021). Strategic responses to crisis. Strategic Management  Journal, 42(2), O16-O27 

Tawse, A., & Tabesh, P. (2021). Strategy implementation: A review and an introductory framework. European  Management Journal, 39(1), 22-33. 

Understanding strategy. (2020). Strategic Direction (Bradford, England), 36(12), 35-37.

F: Submission Guidance

You must submit assessments in Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint or PDF format. More information,  including the exact accepted file types, can be found here. 

The file must be no larger than 40MB. 

Your writing is expected to conform to Standard English in terms of spelling, syntax and grammar. You must include your Assessment Number (J Number) in the header or footer. 

Include your word count at the end of the assignment or the front cover. 

Set up your page for A4 paper in portrait style. 

The font size must be a minimum of point 12 Calibri (or equivalent) for the body of the assessment and  footnotes must be 2 points smaller. 

Line spacing in the body of the assessment must be 1.5 lines. 

Number the pages consecutively. 

Students should submit work before 12 noon (unless otherwise specified) on the deadline date electronically  via Moodle. Please follow the ‘Turnitin submission’ link on the module space and follow the on-screen  instructions, paying particular attention to any specific instructions for each assignment.  

You must submit your work with the following details written on the first page: 

Title of your work 

Module title and code

Module Leader and Seminar Tutor (if relevant) 

Number of words 

Your student assessment number (J Number) 

Student work that does not have this information on will not be identifiable after marking has taken place  and risks being recorded as a non-submission.

G: Academic Integrity and Penalties

It is your responsibility to ensure that you are familiar with all of the information contained in this brief as failure to  do this may impact on your achievement. 

Please refer to the various Assessment Guidance below for detailed information on: 

Academic Integrity 

Excess Word Count Penalties (found within 5.15 of the handbook) 

Cite Them Right Online guidance 

University Generic Marking Criteria (Found within 5E of the handbook) 

Late Work Penalties: Unless you have an extension, any work submitted past the assessment deadline will be  subject to a penalty as per university regulations (5 marks per day deduction).

F: Rubrics and Criteria 

Please see attached rubric.


Module Title: 

Strategic Management 

Level: 7


Assessment Title: 

Written Submission 

Weighted: 25%

Criteria and weighting 


Highly Exceptional  Work

80 – 90% 

Outstanding Work

70 – 79% 

Excellent Work

60 – 69% 

Very Good  

Quality Work

50 – 59%  

Acceptable work with  some good aspects

40 – 49% 

Work fails to meet 

assessment criteria

30 – 39% 

Work fails to meet assessment  criteria


Work fails to  

meet the  




Work fails to meet the  assessment criteria


Work fails to meet  

the assessment  


Demonstrate knowledge,  

understanding and application of  relevant case studies and  

theories which demonstrates  student’s knowledge and  

understanding and Strategic  Management (30%). 

All relevant  

theories/conceptu al models  

accurately and  




delivery of applied  theory.

All relevant  

theories/conceptu al models  

accurately and  



Excellent delivery  of applied theory.

Virtually all relevant  


models accurately and  extensively presented.  High level delivery of  

applied theory.

Most of the  


theories/conceptu al models  



Good level  

delivery of applied  theory.

Much of the relevant  


models accurately  

presented. A reasonable  delivery of applied  


Some omissions or  

inaccuracies in the presented  theories /conceptual models.  Some level of delivery of  

applied theory.

A number of deficiencies or  

omissions in theories/conceptual  models. Delivery of applied theory  is to an inadequate level or wholly  absent.


deficiencies or  

omissions in  

theories/conceptu al models.  

Delivery of applied  theory is to an  

inadequate level  

or wholly absent.

Poor work. Significant  deficiencies or  

omissions in  


models. Delivery of  

applied theory is poor to  a very inadequate level  or wholly absent.

Extremely poor work.  Significant  

deficiencies or no  

theories/conceptual  models. Delivery of  applied theory is very  poor to an extremely inadequate level or  wholly absent.

Use of a critical analysis and  evaluative approach that reviews  and interprets theories which  demonstrates their application  of Strategic Management  

theories (30%). 

Exceptional grasp  of  

theoretical/concep tual and practical  elements.  


interpretative and  application skills.

Excellent grasp of  theoretical/conce ptual and practical  elements.  


interpretative and  application skills.

Very good grasp of  

theoretical/conceptual  and practical elements.  Very good interpretative  and application skills.

Good grasp of  

theoretical/conce ptual and practical  elements. Good  

interpretative and  application skills.

Adequate grasp of  

theoretical/conceptual  and practical elements.  Good interpretative and  application skills.

Some grasp of  

theoretical/conceptual and  practical elements. Some  

reasonable interpretative and  application skills.

Major deficiencies in  

theoretical/conceptual and  

practical elements. Poor or absent  interpretative and application skills.


deficiencies in  

theoretical/conce ptual and practical  elements. Poor or  absent  

interpretative and  application skills.

Poor work. Significant  deficiencies in  

theoretical/conceptual  and practical elements.  Poor or absent  

interpretative and  

application skills.

Extremely poor work.  Significant  

deficiencies in  

theoretical/conceptu al and practical  

elements. Very poor  or absent  

interpretative and  

application skills.

Identification of past cases and  examples from industry to  

support and justify their  

conclusions (30%). 

Exceptional and  


integration of past  cases and  

examples from  

industry to support  the line of enquiry. 


integration of past  cases and  

examples from  

industry to  

support the line of  enquiry.

Very good integration of  past cases and examples  from industry to  

support the line of  


Good integration  of past cases and  examples from  

industry to  

support the line of  enquiry.

Adequate integration of  past cases and examples  from industry to  

support the line of  


Some integration of past  

cases and examples from  

industry to support the line of  enquiry.

Poor quality of integration of past  cases and examples from industry  to support the line of enquiry

No integration of  past cases and  

examples from  

industry to  

support the line of  enquiry.

Poor work. No  

integration of past cases  and examples from  

industry to support the  line of enquiry.

Extremely poor work.  No integration of  

past cases and  

examples from  

industry to support  the line of enquiry.

Overall presentation of concepts,  models, theories and criticality of  discussion, aligned with the APA  referencing guidance and correct  syntax (10%). 


innovative and  



professional and  


delivery and  

language. APA is  


Highly innovative  and creative. Very  professional and  


delivery and  

language. Harvard  is accurate. 

Very innovative and  

creative. Strongly  

professional and  

appropriate delivery  

and language. APA  

system is very accurate.

High standard of  

innovation and  


Professional and  


delivery and  

language. APA  

system is  



Good standard of  

innovation and  

creativity. Appropriate  delivery and language.  APA system is mainly  


Some reasonable standard of  innovation and creativity.  

Some appropriate delivery  and language. APA is used but  with inaccuracies and  


Low quality of innovation and  

creativity. Poor and inadequate  delivery and language. APA is used  poorly or is absent.

Very low quality of  innovation and  

creativity. Poor  

and inadequate  

delivery and  

language. APA is  

used very poorly  

or is absent.

Poor work. Extremely 

low quality of  

innovation and  

creativity. Poor and  

inadequate delivery and  language. APA is used  very poorly or is absent.

Extremely poor work.  No quality of  

innovation and  

creativity. Poor and  extremely  

inadequate delivery  and language. APA is  used very poor or is  absent.