0% Plagiarism Guaranteed & Custom Written

SIM336 – STATEGIC MANAGEMENT

MODULE ASSIGNMENT - TITLE: Strategic Analysis

Submission Deadline:

Module Leader:

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 synthesize 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:

Please carefully read the following instructions:

All students are required to submit their assignment via the module in Canvas. The penalty for students that do not submit their assignments through the module in Canvas 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 recognized 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 recognized 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, 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.

K1. Understanding of the origins and various approaches to strategy

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.

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.

There are several ways you might carry out this assignment. Here are a few ideas:

Compare theory and theory: Using practical examples compare two theories from either the schools of thought or the inside out and outside in approaches and examine success and/or failure. E.g., prescriptive, and descriptive schools.
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.
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.
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 considering their poor performance over recent years.
A risk management strategy: for example, my advice to Tesco’s Chief Executive Officer considering their 2014/15 £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:

The Assessor based on 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 band (see below)	3300
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+

		Categories
	Grade	Relevance	Knowledge	Analysis	Argument and Structure	Critical Evaluation	Presentation	Reference to Literature
Pass	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 most of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation, or discourse. K1. Understanding of the origins and various approaches to strategy
	70 – 75%	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 outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied at this level it is expected that the work will be excellent in most of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
	60 – 69%	Directly relevant to the requirements of the assessment	A substantial knowledge of strategy material, showing a clear grasp of themes, questions, and issues therein	A good strategic analysis, clear and orderly	Generally coherent and logically structured, using an appropriate mode of argument and/or theoretical mode(s)	May contain some distinctive or independent thinking; may begin to formulate an independent position in relation to strategic theory and/or practice.	Well written, with standard spelling and grammar, in a readable style with acceptable format	Critical appraisal of up-to- date and/or appropriate literature. Recognition of different perspectives. Very good use of source material. Uses a range of sources
	50 – 59%	Some attempt to address the requirements of the assessment: may drift away from this in less focused passages	Adequate knowledge of a fair range of relevant strategy material, with intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance	Some analytical treatment, but may be prone to description, or to narrative, which lacks clear analytical purpose	Some attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency, with issues at stake stated only vaguely, or theoretical mode(s) couched in simplistic terms	Sound work which expresses a coherent position only in broad terms and in uncritical conformity to one or more standard views of strategy.	Competently written, with only minor lapses from standard grammar, with acceptable format	Uses a variety of literature which includes some recent strategic texts and/or appropriate literature, though not necessarily including a substantive amount beyond library texts. Competent use of source material.
	40 – 49%	Some correlation with the requirements of the assessment but there are instances of irrelevance	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.	A simple basic style but with significant deficiencies in expression or format that may pose obstacles for the reader	Some up-to-date and/or appropriate literature used. Goes beyond the material tutor has provided. Limited use of sources to support a point.
Fail	35 – 39%	Relevance to the requirements of the assessment may be very intermittent, and may be reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms	A limited understanding of a narrow range of strategic material.	Heavy dependence on description, and/or on paraphrase, is common	Little evidence of coherent argument: lacks development and may be repetitive or thin	Almost wholly derivative: the writer’s contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase	Numerous deficiencies in expression and presentation; the writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using a simplistic or repetitious style	Barely adequate use of literature. Over reliance on material provided by the tutor.
	35 – 39%	The evidence provided shows that most 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.

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

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
Tailored to your instructions

Our Giveaways

Plagiarism Report

for £20 Free

Formatting

for £12 Free

Title page

for £10 Free

Bibliography

for £18 Free

Outline

for £9 Free

Limitless Amendments

for £14 Free

Get all these features for
£83.00 FREE

ORDER NOW

Still Not Convinced?

View our samples written by our professional writers to let you comprehend how your work is going to look like. We have categorised this into 3 categories with a few different subject domains

View Our Samples

Using practical examples compare two theories from either the schools of thought or the inside out and outside in approaches and examine success and/or failure. E.g., prescriptive, and descriptive schools.