ASSESSMENT BRIEF
| Academic year and term: | 2021/22 |
| Module title: | Sustainable Business Strategy |
| For further module description see Module Brief. | |
| Assessment deadlines: | Formative assessment(One page overview): refer to moodle Summative assessment (Individual report): refer to moodle |
Instructions for assessment: Summative components overview
| Components of summative assessment | Individual or group submission ? | Word count | Weighting | Must Attempt Y/N | Must Pass Y/N | Sub- components |
| Report (Case study analysis) | Individual | max. 3,500 words | 100% | Yes | Yes | n/a |
Note that above table does not include the formative assessments and that formative assessments are not marked.
Instructions for assessment: Case study analysis/report
Before working on this applied assignment, please make sure that you are aware of the basic Bachelor level strategy concepts. If required revisit the Pre-Induction module which introduced the concepts PESTLE, 5-Forces, SWOTand Value chain.
For the purpose of this assignment you should select an industry and, in that industry’s context, a company of your choice. Address the following analyses for the chosen industry and company:
Section 1 of your paper – The Industry
Task 1 (20%)
An analysis of the industry structure and forces in strategy context.
External analysis. Systematically identify and critically discuss:
- Growth Opportunities and current emerging Threats in the chosen industry environment. Apply PESTEL model to identify and discuss a number of important external strategic issues each concluded as an Opportunity (O) or a Threat (T). Use appropriately referenced data (figures, charts etc.) to support your arguments.
- Industry attractiveness (including competition pressures in the industry in setting). Apply 5 Forces model to discuss industry attractiveness (each force should be concluded as High, Moderate or Low and industry attractiveness should be assessed having these forces in mind.
Note: marks are not assigned for description but for the in-depth analysis of the above highlighted external aspects.
Section 2 of your paper – Sustainability
Task 2 (10%)
Outline issues of environmental or social sustainability in the chosen industry and reflect, which ethical dilemmas society and governments are imposing on the strategy, if any.
Section3 of your paper – The company’s dynamic capabilities
Task 3 (20%)
Internal analysis. Address the following:
- Identify and discuss a number of unique resources (human, physical and intangible) for the organisation (approximately 5-6). Discuss financial resources by calculating financial ratios (ROCE, Current, Gearing and Interest Cover) for the last two years and interpreting these (year on year performance).
- Use the Value Chain concept to map and discuss company’s activities (construct a Value Chain for the organisation and list 5 -10 activities within). The emphasis should be on distinctive (rather than threshold) competences.
- Use the VRIO concept to identify their core competences: Select the most important 5 activities from the Value Chain and copy these to the VRIO table (testing each for all 4 criteria – V, R, I and O). Select two distinctive activities (competences) of the 5 listed in VRIO and discuss these two in detail (explain the activity and your reasoning behind V, R and I – assume that all competences have organisational support). Identify and discuss dynamic capabilities the company possesses. While addressing Dynamic capabilities remind yourself that dynamic capabilities are about a company’s capacity to purposefully create, extend, or modify its resource base. According to Teece, that means companies have to be agile and, when necessary, reconfigure the business enterprise’s intangible and tangible assets. Thus please provide a dynamic analysis looking into the future and highlighting the development and further growth of the company through strategy. A good assignment will not just describe concepts and it will use real facts, figures and data where available.
- Discuss the generic strategy and strategic group the company would typically chose based on this preliminary analysis (use either Porter’s model or Bowman’s strategy clock).
You may attach a SWOT matrix as Appendix. Please note for marking purposes that a SWOT matrix is only a summary of company’s strengths and weaknesses and does not substitute for an in-depth discussion of dynamic capabilities.
Section 4 of your paper – Strategy evaluation
Task 4 (40%)
Address the following tasks:
- Recommend a set of new strategic options (at least TWO) for the organisation from 2021– 2026. Construct a TOWS matrix (populate fully outer sections – all Os and Ts from Task 1 (Q1) should be listed in O and T sections of TOWS; all unique resources and distinctive competences/activities discussed in Task 3 (Q3) and identified as Ss and Ws should be listed in S and W section of TOWS; two or more strategic recommendations should be placed in one or more of the four inner sections of TOWS – each recommendation should be made as a combination of external and internal issues – e.g. a recommendation made in S-O intersection should clearly indicate what S or Ss were combined with what O or Os). The idea is to take external and internal issues into account while making strategic recommendations (proposed recommendations need to make sense).
- Then choose one of the new strategic options (clearly state the option you are evaluating) and evaluate it using SAFe criteria. While making suggestions name a new option/strategy in terms of a direction and a method (no need to produce an analysis or discussion, just state the direction and method). Steps a) and b) address Suitability (recommending a strategy that
makes sense). It is important to apply all 3 criteria (S, F and A) to the same strategic recommendation. Acceptability is concerned with 3Rs. Reactions – stakeholder reactions: construct a Power/Interest matrix and list a number of relevant stakeholders in it, then select 3 that may be greatly affected by your recommendation and for each state if the recommendation is acceptable or not and why; Return should be addressed by commenting on ROCE year on year performance; Risk should be addressed by commenting on Current Ratio year on year performance (for risk and return refer to your financial ration analysis). Feasibility is concerned with identifying issues that may affect strategy implementation (funds and skills). Financial aspects should be addressed by looking at Gearing ratio and Interest cover discussing organisation’s ability to borrow more if necessary. Think about any skills that are required but the organisation does not have and how these may be obtained.
Note: While justifying your recommendations (evaluating the strategy), make references to findings from Task 1 (reflect upon identified Opportunities and Threats) and Task 3 (reflect upon what resources/asset and competences/activities the company should utilise). That is why using TOWS matrix is very important (if used properly it will guarantee that this aspect is addressed well).
The paper should begin with a short introduction as first section. We do not require a conclusions section and no abstract.
Further marks for Presentation of writings
Remaining 10% will be allocated for presentation including academic standards of referencing.Also make sure that you provide above sections and an introduction. This marking criteria does not apply to the re-sit.
Formative feedback
The purpose of the formative submission is to receive feedback and to be advised what are the point with most radical potential to improve the work.
You may also seek oral feedback for your summative draft in progress.
Note however that we will not provide any written or marks indicative feedback on drafts for summative assessment at any time. Should you perceive any formative feedback such way, then please note that it is not binding for your marking. Markers can also always change and you have no entitlement to be marked by the module convener or tutors.
Additional instructions for Re-sit
The same assignment task as for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit, with further instructions see below.
Re-sit deadlines will be published via Moodle. Visit the module’s Moodle site and check your Roehampton email account on a regular basis. The school is not obliged to check whether you have noticed re-sit deadlines.
You are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective commentary in form of a 400-700 words Essay. You must resubmit your work using the specific re-sit Turnitin link on Moodle. This additional word count can be added on top of the original word count of this assignment, if you used the full word count.
The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid in Appendix) except that the 10% weighting for Presentation will be awarded instead to your additional Reflective Essay section.That is, a statement demonstrating how you learnt from the feedback and what you did differently the second time. Also reflect how the module contents could be beneficial as knowledge of best practices for a future management, public administration or advisory career.
If you did not submit work at the first opportunity, you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, in such case, your Reflection Essay section should reflect upon a) how the module’s concepts are informing the professions and open up areas of future empirical research and b) how the module contents could be beneficial as knowledge of best practices for your future management, public administration or advisory career.
If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece as this is a first submission at a later date, not a re-sit.
The Reflective Essay is marked based on the criteria of Criticality and Evidence-based Logic of arguments. It is an independent writing task and no supervision will be provided for conducting the essay.
Structure and presentation
You should produce a professional, well written and organised report (not an essay) with clear report style (e.g. frontsheet, contents, clear sections, tables and diagrams). The word count should be clearly stated. You are advised to provide plenty of evidence to support your arguments (all data should be appropriately referenced).
Any written work should be spell-checked and a contents page should be included. Do not use various font sizes and colours Black ink, Arial, size 11, 1.5 lines spaced is recommended. Use DIN A4 format and page margins of 2.5 cm or 1 inch.
Appendix: Marking rubric for Summative assessment
| Rubric category (range) Assigned mark >> | Outstanding 100 | Excellent (80-89) 85 | Very Good (70-79) 75 | Good (60-69) 65 | Adequate (50-59) 55 | Marginal Fail (40-49) 45 | Fail (30-39) 35 | Fail (20-29) 25 | Not done 0 |
| Relates to Task 1 – Analysis and discussion of context that demonstrates criticality, original thinking and reflection (10%) | Excellent level of analysis, critical evaluation throughout and in-depth discussion. Well focused work. | Excellent level of analysis, critical evaluation throughout and some discussion. | Rigour analysis, critical evaluation and some discussion | Competent task coverage. Good level of analysis,discu ssion and critical evaluation. | Still adequate task coverage. Some analysis, discussion and evaluation. | Basic evidence of analysis, discussion and evaluation.So me points might be superficially made, so that further development needed. | Inadequate or incomplete task coverage. Weak analysis and weak evidence. Clearly more development of arguments and criticality needed. | Inadequate or incomplete task coverage. Poor description and no criticality and discussion evident. | Nothing of merit or task not provided. Poor addressing of task and analysis throughout. |
| Relates to Task 1 – Demonstrating the ability to relate concepts and data to real world contexts, evidencing depth and breadth in argumentation(1 0%) | Excellent breadth and depth of arguments in all aspects of the task.Excellent research using concepts and use of data. | Excellent breadth and depth of key arguments. Excellent research using conceptsor use of data. | Very good breadth and depth of key arguments. Very good research using concepts or use of data. | Good breadth and depth of arguments using some appropriate concepts and data in fruitful way. | Adequate breadth and depth. Adequate research quality and some use of data. | Limited breadth or depth. Limited use of data or evidence. | Weak breadth and depth. Lack of research and evidence. | Weak addressing of task in various aspects.Clearl ack of research and evidence throughout. | Nothing of merit or task not provided. Poor addressing of task and concepts throughout. |
| Relates to Task 2 – Focused application of relevant theoretical concepts and appropriate use of data to illustrate issues and its impact(10%) | Faultless level of analysis, critical evaluation and/or discussion. Highly developed andhighly focused work. Outstanding use of theoretical concepts and highly appropriate use of well- chosen data. | High quality task coverage. Excellentlevel of analysis, discussion and critical evaluation. Focused work.Excellent use of theoretical concepts to illustrate well- chosen issues and impact of potential solutions, and very good use of data. | Very good task coverage. Very goodlevel of analysis, discussion and critical evaluation. Convincing use of theoretical concepts to illustrate well- chosen issues and impact of potential solutions, and good use of data. | Competent task coverage. Good level of analysis,discu ssion and critical evaluation. Good use of theoretical concepts to illustrate issues and impact of potential solutions, and appropriate use of data. | Adequate task coverage and level of analysis,discu ssion and critical evaluation but several points could be developed further. Adequate use of theoretical concepts and reasonably good use of data. | Basic evidence of analysis, discussion and evaluation. Some points might be superficially made, so that further development needed.Limite d use of data. | Inadequate or incomplete task coverage. Weak analysis and weak evidence. Clearly more development of arguments and criticality needed. No appropriate use of any data. | Inadequate or incomplete task coverage. Poor description and no critical application evident. | Nothing of merit or task not provided. Poor addressing of task and concepts throughout. |
| Relates to Task 3 – Focused application of relevant theoretical concepts and appropriate use of data to discuss specific dynamic capabilities(10% ) | Excellent task coverage and level of analysis, discussion and critical evaluation.Hig hly developed, faultless and focused work. Outstanding reflection of the concept of dynamic capabilities and highly appropriate, focussed and detailed use of data. | High quality task coverage and level of analysis, discussion and critical evaluation.Cle arly developing points in the appropriate way. Excellent use of the concept of dynamic capabilities and in the context of relevant strategy tools. Very appropriate | Very good task coverage and level of analysis, discussion and critical evaluation. Very good use of the concept of dynamic capabilities and in the context of relevant strategy tools. Appropriate use of data. | Competent task coverage and level of analysis, discussion and critical evaluation. Good use of the concept of dynamic capabilities and in the context of relevant strategy tools. Appropriate use of data. | Adequate task coverage and level of analysis, discussion and critical evaluation but several points could be developed further. Adequate use of the concept of dynamic capabilities and in the context of relevant strategy tools. Reasonably good use of data. | Basic evidence of analysis, discussion and evaluation. Some points might be superficially made, so that further development needed.Limite d use of data. | Inadequate or incomplete task coverage. Weak analysis and weak evidence. Clearly more development of arguments and criticality needed. No appropriate use of any data. | Inadequate or incomplete task coverage. Poor description and no critical application evident. | Nothing of merit or task not provided. Poor addressing of task and concepts throughout. |
| use of data. | |||||||||
| Relates to Task 3 – Demonstrating the ability to relate concepts and data to real world contexts, evidencing depth and breadth in argumentation (10%) | Excellent breadth and depth of arguments in all aspects of the task. Excellent research using concepts and use of data. | Excellent breadth and depth of key arguments. Excellent research using concepts or use of data. | Very good breadth and depth of key arguments. Very good research using concepts or use of data. | Good breadth and depth of arguments using some appropriate concepts and data in fruitful way.. | Adequate breadth and depth. Adequate research quality and some use of data. | Limited breadth or depth. Limited use of data or evidence. | Weak breadth and depth. Lack of research and evidence. | Weak addressing of task in various aspects.Clear lack of research and evidence throughout. | Nothing of merit or task not provided. Poor addressing of task and concepts throughout. |
| Relates to Task 4 – Understanding of relevant strategy concepts and models (20%) | Faultless representation of concepts; excellent application; and critical real case description. | Impressive choice and range of appropriate content. Impressive application of TOWS matrix criteria to chosen real case. | Very good representation of concepts and very good application of TOWS matrix criteria to chosen real case. | Good representation of concepts and good application of TOWS matrix criteria to chosen real case. | Adequate representation of concepts and some valid application of TOWS matrix criteria to chosen real case. | Addresses part of the task in appropriate manner. Still some omissions in understanding . | Limited and muddled understanding of the topic and used concepts. Weak but attempt of description and of relevant use of concepts. | Limited and muddled understanding of the topic and used concepts. No description and no attempt of relevant use of concepts. | Content used is irrelevant or not appropriate for the learning outcomes. Concepts misinterpreted . |
| Relates to Task 4 – Demonstrating critical and independent use of concepts and ability to reflect new contexts; make recommendatio ns (20%) | Excellent task coverage and excellent level of discussion and analysis. Highly developed and focused work, where arguments are excellent device of reflection. Excellent recommendati ons in regards to directions | High quality task coverage and excellent level of discussion and analysis. Clearly developing points in the appropriate way, demonstrating strong skills of reflection. Excellent recommendati ons in regards | Evidence of appropriate discussion, good use of concepts and strong evidence of reading. Consistently good attempt of reflection. Convincing recommendati ons in regards to directions and methods of growth. | Competent evidence of discussion and use of concepts in critical manner. Some good attempt of reflection. Overall valid recommendati ons in regards to directions and methods of growth. | Some evidence of discussion and use of concepts in critical manner. Some attempt of reflection. Basic recommendati ons in regards to directions or methods of growth. | Basic evidence of discussion and use of concepts in critical manner, whilst overall too descriptive. Weak recommendati ons in regards to directions and methods of growth. | Inadequate or incomplete addressing of task in various aspects.Still poor line of arguments. Weakreflectio n. No recommendati ons in regards to directions and methods of growth. | Inadequate or incomplete addressing of task in various aspects.No coherent line of arguments. Clear lack of reflection. | Content used is irrelevant or not appropriate for the learning outcomes. |
| and methods of growth. | to directions and methods of growth. | ||||||||
| Relates to all tasks – Presentation (10%) (Does not apply to / No marks for re- sit.) | Outstanding and flawless. | Professional presentation. Clear, concise, and effectively argued within the length allowed; skilled use of academic conventions; accurate proofreading. Excellent referencing. Follows required report structure, respects word count limit and excellent flow of argument. | Very good presentation, control of length; skilled use of academic conventions; nearly all errors eliminated in proofreading. Follows required report structure, respects word count limit and very good flow of argument. | Competent presentation, control of length; good use of academic conventions; accurate spelling, grammar, etc.; careful proofreading. Follows required report structure and respects word count limit. | Length requirements observed; appropriate use of academic conventions; minor errors in spelling, grammar etc.; quite careful proofreading. Follows required report structure. | Presentation is either too long or too short; some errors in application of academic conventions; some errors in spelling, grammar etc.; some indication of proofreading. | Poorly presented work; presentation is either too short or too long (waffling); missing several elements or parts; major errors in spelling, grammar etc.; little indication of proofreading. | Very poorly presented work; presentation is inadequate, unfocused, and not at all clear; missing several key elements or parts; poor spelling; no indication of proofreading. | Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted. |
Get expert help for Sustainable Business Strategy and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
