Assessment Brief 2021/22
A: Assessment Details | |
Module Title | Strategic Management |
Module Code | BU7405 |
Module Leader | Tao Chang |
Component Number | 1 |
Assessment Type, Word Count & Weighting | Written Assessment 4,000 words 100% |
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. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2522858226?accountid=14620&pq-origsite=summon 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. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2414423278?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=14620 Hughes, P., & Hodgkinson, I. (2020). Knowledge management activities and strategic planning capability development. European Business Review, 33(2), 238-254. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EBR-03-2019-0034/full/html 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. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2415202796?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:summon&accountid=14620 |
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. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=c94dadc5-4313-4876-95f7- 2f2f0b7224b5%40sessionmgr102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=144822783&db=bsh 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. https://www.proquest.com/publiccontent/docview/2474981125/abstract/46C6B88955B54A14PQ/1?accountid=14620 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. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12244 Wenzel, M., Stanske, S., & Lieberman, M. B. (2021). Strategic responses to crisis. Strategic Management Journal, 42(2), O16-O27 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.3161 Tawse, A., & Tabesh, P. (2021). Strategy implementation: A review and an introductory framework. European Management Journal, 39(1), 22-33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237320301316?via%3Dihub Understanding strategy. (2020). Strategic Direction (Bradford, England), 36(12), 35-37. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SD-10-2020-0180/full/html |
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 | 90-100% 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 | 20-29% Work fails to meet the assessment criteria | 10-19% Work fails to meet the assessment criteria | 0-9% Work fails to meet the assessment criteria |
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 extensively presented. Exceptional delivery of applied theory. | All relevant theories/conceptu al models accurately and extensively presented. Excellent delivery of applied theory. | Virtually all relevant theories/conceptual models accurately and extensively presented. High level delivery of applied theory. | Most of the relevant theories/conceptu al models accurately presented. Good level delivery of applied theory. | Much of the relevant theories/conceptual models accurately presented. A reasonable delivery of applied theory. | 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. | Significant 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 theories/conceptual 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. Outstanding interpretative and application skills. | Excellent grasp of theoretical/conce ptual and practical elements. Excellent 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. | Significant 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 outstanding integration of past cases and examples from industry to support the line of enquiry. | Excellent 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 enquiry. | 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 enquiry | 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%). | Exceptionally innovative and creative. Outstanding professional and appropriate delivery and language. APA is accurate. | Highly innovative and creative. Very professional and appropriate 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 creativity. Professional and appropriate delivery and language. APA system is consistently accurate. | Good standard of innovation and creativity. Appropriate delivery and language. APA system is mainly accurate. | Some reasonable standard of innovation and creativity. Some appropriate delivery and language. APA is used but with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. | 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. |