Business Strategy

shahew

Assessmentitem2.docx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Business Strategy

Assessment item 2

Strategic analysis

Value: 40%

Due date: 24-Dec-2017

Return date: 18-Jan-2018

Length: 2500 words

Submission method options

Alternative submission method

Task

You will present a report covering a strategic analysis of an organisation that you will choose. You are required to select the organisation then undertake the analysis. This work will help you achieve an understanding of the key strategic issues that are likely to influence the performance of the company into the future. These concepts look both externally and internally to the company.

You should also complete the following tasks:

1. Describe briefly the background information of the organisation (or Strategic Business Unit - SBU) you have chosen. This should be brief and relevant to your assignment. It may include ownership, history, size, business scope, major products/services, and major markets of the organisation (or SBU) selected.

2. Conduct external environment analysis including a macro-environment analysis and Porter's 5 forces analysis:

· Conduct a macro-environment analysis for the entire industry within which the firm (or SBU) operates. Use the PESTEL model and focus on: the understanding of the purpose of this analysis, the identification of key factors impacting on the organisation, the implications of the purpose and the factors in terms of key opportunities and threats, and the discussion of the overall impact of the above on the industry's prospects for growth or shrinkage in the future. Draw your conclusion based on your macro-environment analysis.

· Undertake a competitive analysis using Porter’s 5 forces model. You are required to pay attention to, the purpose of this analysis, the inter-connectedness of different aspects of the competitive forces, and their overall impact on the industry and the organisation selected in terms of main driving forces in the competitive environment. Draw your conclusions based on your five-force analysis.

3. Conduct internal environment analysis. You should identify key resources and competencies of the firm (or SBU) that are likely to provide sustainable competitive advantage.

4. Summarise your findings based on your external and internal environment analysis. Identify the key issues that the organisation (or SBU) faces and give your recommendations.

In this report, you are required to write a 2500 word report including 200 words as an executive summary - the count excludes references and appendices.

You may select any organisation (local or international) but choose one with enough publicly available information to enable you to address the assessment criteria. If you choose a large organisation e.g. Wesfarmers, make sure you select one of the company's divisions for your analysis, such as Bunnings or Coles, to make sure your organisation only covers one industry.

While working on this task assume your report will be presented to senior management to inform the strategy team of the key strategic issues facing the organisation.

Rationale

This assessment aims to address the following learning outcomes:

· LO2: be able to apply and critically analyse strategic management concepts and models;

· LO3: be able to reflect on learning, and integrate prior knowledge and skills, to develop strategic recommendations; and

· LO4: be able to evaluate alternative courses of strategic action to justify choices of select/implement/monitor strategies for organisations.

Marking criteria

Remember; you are required to use the APA 6th edition style of referencing and citation - CSU's referencing tool can assist here https://apps.csu.edu.au/reftool/apa-6 .Those that do not comply with this standard will not be considered to be part of the assignment.

Marking criteria Assignment 2
	HD (85% - 100%)	DI (75% - 84%)	CR (65% - 74%)	PS (50% - 64%)	FL (0 - 49%)
1. Executive summary (5 marks)	Provides a sophisticated but succinct summary of the report with a clear identification of the critical elements as well as alternatives available both to the organisation as well as the process of th planning plus an explanation as to why with alternatives available.	Provides a comprehensive but succinct summary of the report with a clear identification of the elements critical to the organisation's future as well as to processes of planning providing an explanation as to why.	Provides an adequate summary of the report structured against the expectations of such a section. The summary identifies the significant aspects addressing what the organisation needs as well as how to do the process of planning but with a limited explanation as to why that is so.	Provides a simple description of what was done and found - little identification of the implications from what was found for the organisation or understanding of the process of planning.	The Executive Summary does not conform to that expected and/or provides a limited description of the content of the report.
2. Identification, use, application, and critical analysis of theory. (10 marks) [meets subject LO2]	Concise explanation and critical evaluation of relevant theory identifying reasons to its relevance and alternative ways of undertaking planning articulated. Theory is integrated exceptionally well into argument.	Concise explanation and critical analysis of relevant theory. Theory is integrated and linked well to argument as well as application to the organisation	An explanation of relevant theory. Theory linked to point of view and/or argument and relevance to the organisation identified.	Includes descriptions of the relevant theory and makes attempts to use theory to support point of view and/or argument. Limited application to the organisation.	Relevant theory on the topic missing and/or none/ poor attempt to use theory to support point of view and/or argument.
3 .Critical reflection and discussion. (15 marks) [meets subject LO3, 4]	A sophisticated explanation of agreements/disagreement with the ideas/concepts presented providing reasoning behind those conclusions as well as a process on how to think through issues uncovered within the dynamic organisation being addressed.	A thorough explanation of agreements/disagreement with the ideas/concepts presented providing both reasoning behind those conclusions as well as an identification of options to exploit or overcome opportunities/limitations.	An explanation of agreements/disagreement with the ideas/concepts presented providing reasoning behind those conclusions.	Some attempt at critical/reflective analysis.	Does not demonstrate any attempt at critical/reflective analysis.
4 .Conclusion (5 marks)	Clearly and logically structured conclusions that explain what improvements can be brought for the organisation and process of planning - the argument is succinct and incisive identifying range of options.	Well-constructed and clear conclusion supported by evidence and logically argued - they are insightful in terms of identifying what improvements are critical and which ones have greatest impact.	Conclusions reflect evidence, provide value to the organisation provides a logical reasoning for improving process skills.	Conclusion reflects main arguments in report and link explicitly to the evidence gathered - they address both the needs of the organisation as well as development of process skills.	Conclusion not evident and/or does not relate to evidence gathered and/or not relevant to either the needs of the organisation of development of process skills in planning.
5. Reference and Presentation (5 marks)	The argument is logically structured, the argument flows and wording is succinct. An economy of words is achieved with minimal material that contributes little to the argument. 15+ highly relevant refereed journal articles demonstrating insightful research on this topic. A polished and imaginative approach to the topic.	The argument is structured on the basis of logic as well as generates a transparent flow of ideas within the assignment. 10+ very relevant refereed journal articles presented in perfect APA style. Articles used to very good effect in the response.	The argument is structured on the basis of a logical flow of ideas and evidence gathered. 10+ relevant refereed journal articles presented in APA style. Articles used to good effect in the response. Adequate organisation and coherence.	The argument is transparently structured against the task posed. References are appropriate for an assignment (in terms of relevance or academic standing). Approximately 10 relevant resources that are appropriate.	The argument lacks structure, logic and flow. References are either inappropriate for an assignment (in terms of relevance or academic standing) or not appropriately used. <10 relevant sources - many references that are inappropriate or misused will also generate a fail here. .

Presentation

This is a third year subject and a high standard of presentation is expected for this assignment. The following factors will influence your assessment grade:

- Grammar and syntax; - Clarity and coherence of arguments; - Structure, organisation, sentence and paragraph construction; - In-text citations and end-text referencing (APA 6th)

Succinct, brief writing takes longer than verbose, disorgansed work.

Requirements

To complete your report for Senior Management you will need to include the following sections:

1. Executive Summary 2. Background - Give a brief account of the background of the company/organisation 3. External Analysis – Conduct an analysis of the organisation’s external environment and competitive landscape 4. Internal Analysis – Conduct an analysis of the organization’s internal environment including its resources/capabilities identify the company’s core competencies and resulting ability to outperform competitors 5. Identify and analyse the issues in the internal and external environments and prioritize them in the order you feel are most critical 6. Conclusion – Summarise your findings.

Assessment item 3b

Strategic evaluation

Value: 40%

Due date: 02-JAN-2018

Return date: 23-Feb-2018

Length: 2500 words

Submission method options

Alternative submission method

Task

You are required to write a 2500 word report including 200 words of an executive summary, but excluding references and appendix. This is a brief report - you are being challenged to be clear, to be concise in that you deal with what matters not add padding, and to be incisive. This takes more thought and time than an extensive work which attempts to include everything just in case it "scores runs".

There are 2 parts to this report:

1. Evaluate your organisation's strategy 2. Reflect on the process of planning, draw conclusions as to the: i) Effectiveness (what is the right thing to do) - does the process help organisation really 'see' what it should do?; ii) Efficacy (will the desired outcomes be realised) - will the strategy work in practice?; iii) Efficiency (wise use of resources) - was the process excessive in use of resources?; iv) Ethicality (are the strategies found and process used morally acceptable) - is the whole in practice moral?; and v) Elegant (is the whole pleasing in how it was done and what was produced) - will stakeholders see process and outcome as being well done? Checkland P, Forbes P, and Martin S (1990). Techniques in soft systems practice part 3: Monitoring and control in conceptual models and in evaluation studies. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 17: 29-37

Part 1 - evaluation: 1500 words Part 2 - reflection: 1000 words

1. Evaluate your organisation's strategy

You are required to select an organisation of your choice and to evaluate the organisation's strategy. You can use the same organisation identified for your report in Assessment Item 2.

You should also perform the following tasks:

I. Identify and examine strategies for the firm (or SBU) of your choice. Strategies could include:

· Business-Level Strategies

· Corporate-Level Strategies

· Networks, Partnerships and Alliances

· Global Strategies and the Multinational Corporation

II. Evaluate the suitability of the firm’s current business strategy based on the outcomes of your analysis (e.g., the identification of the firm’s current strategy and the most significant factors affecting the firm’s performance, and your understanding of strategy). If the current strategy is not suitable, please recommend no more than two alternative strategic initiatives that the firm should pursue and justify your recommendations.

III. Draw your conclusion.

2. Reflect on the process of planning, draw conclusions

Answer the following:

i) Effectiveness (what is the right thing to do) - does process help the organisation really 'see' what it should do?; ii) Efficacy (will the desired outcomes be realised) - will the strategy work in practice?; iii) Efficiency (wise use of resources) - was the process excessive in use of resources?; iv) Ethicality (are the strategies found and process used morally acceptable) - is the whole in practice moral?; and v) Elegant (is the whole pleasing in how it was done and what was produced) - will stakeholders see process and outcome as being well done?

Rationale

This assessment aims to address the following learning outcomes:

· LO2: be able to apply and critically analyse strategic management concepts and models;

· LO3: be able to reflect on learning, and integrate prior knowledge and skills, to develop strategic recommendations; and

· LO4: be able to evaluate alternative courses of strategic action to justify choices of select/implement/monitor strategies for organisations.

The reflection process in part 2 above is of the greatest value in this assessment ask. You are doing an analysis on relatively dead information - to a large degree anyone can come to conclusions when they do not have to carry it out. BUT, even within the limits of this experience are you looking forward to when you will next need to strategically and have an improved process so as to be efficacious in what you do.

Part 1 shows you tried out the tools and thought about application of the ideas. Part 2 shows you've learnt from the experience.

Marking criteria

You are being asked to demonstrate you have tried the tools given to you and from that experience you can see ways to improve how you do strategic planning in the future - this is the essence of the criteria being applied. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat"; supposedly articulated by George Santayana (philosopher, 1863-1952 http://www.iep.utm.edu/santayan/ ). An exhaustive description of the theory, no matter how complete or how much effort was put into writing it, will gain a pass and no more. What insights have you come to as to why things work or why they have limited use and what else can be done. The technically perfect plan that cannot be implemented is an abject failure worthy of consignment to the dust bin of history. Does your process and plan make a difference in practice?

Marking criteria assignment 3b
	HD (85%-100%)	DI (75% - 84%)	CR (64% - 74%)	PS (50% - 64%)	FL (0 - 49%)
1. Understanding of strategic management theory and tools, and the quality of Information sources (5 marks) [meets subject LO2]	Provides a thorough explanation of the theories, tools and information sources incisively illustrated from the experience that also critiques those things - that critique transparently points to improvement in process skills including alternatives to received wisdom.	Provides an insightful explanation covering theories, tools and information sources well illustrated from the experience but adding critique that will lead to improvement in process skills.	Provides a sound explanation of the theories and tools giving insight into why it works and illustrates that explanation from the experience. It also soundly uses appropriate information sources. The explanation, however, lacks critical insights leading to future improvements.	A complete description of the theory and tools encountered, a basic understanding of their application to organisations is illustrated. Information sources and interpretation of that information provided is present at a basic level - complete but lacking in insight.	A limited description of the theory and tools encountered, lacking understanding of their application to organisations. Poor identification of information sources and interpretation of that information.
2. Critical analysis and synthesis of argument (10 marks) [meets subject LO2, 3]	Critical analysis and evaluation provides an explanation of this area of activity. It is backed by evidence showing why one thing led to the other; it shows understanding of complex issues. It shows how the apparent complexity of ideas can be bought into a coherent, logical and convincing argument. The critical analysis transparently points to developments to improve future performance.	Good critical analysis and evaluation of issues and synthesis of ideas and information transparently derives from the experience. It is also transparent as to how the evidence leads to the conclusion.	Critical analysis and evaluation is demonstrated showing a sound grasp of what was uncovered during the investigation. An efficacious list of issues and synthesis of ideas and information into an argument that shows utility value. Argumentation refers to evidence.	An adequate level of analysis and evaluation of issues is evident - the obvious factors arising in the experience are covered. Synthesis is patchy or argument is not well developed or lacks coherence that is sufficient to justify argument. Minimal independent thinking demonstrated.	Little or no analysis or synthesis evident in the assignment, argument lacks logic.
3. Application of strategic management theory and tools (5 marks) [meets subject LO3, 4]	A clear explanation of strategic thinking rather than merely following prescribed steps in tools applied - choice and application of tools driven by working with the context rather than being a detached expert giving a blind technical analysis. Work is insightful as to the benefit and limitations of the tools to making improvements in 'real world'.	Clear evidence of the use of tools appropriate to the organisation in a manner that understands the context rather than blindly use the tool. Evidence of application of thinking rather than merely following steps in the tool being used.	Evidence of the application of the tools based on incisive choices as to the tools sued and the manner they are applied - that shows some awareness of thinking over planning and wisdom in selecting which tools contribute, how they are applied and what limits they face.	A sound application of the tools to the organisation studied - the tools used are those called for and are appropriate to the organisation Little evidence of an understanding of the difference between strategic planning and strategic thinking.	Little or no application of strategic management theoretical frameworks or tools, or inappropriate tools used that did not assist strategic analysis.
4. Reflection on process used to do planning. (15 marks) [meets subject Lo2]	A comprehensive explanation of proposed changes to processes used in planning transparently derived from the evidence generated during the experience. This explanation is insightful as to the difference between strategic thinking versus strategic planning and what that means in practice.	An explanation of the experience which provides and logical and transparent basis for improving process skills into the future - a clear awareness of the difference between strategic thinking versus strategic planning and how that impacts on future development.	Reflections driven by explicit evidence showing an understanding of cause and effect in the experience which leads to improvements to develop better process skills.	A recount of process followed with minimal thought on the efficacy of the process. Some pointers to what can be improved; but limited suggestions as to improvements in process skills. Little awareness of the difference between thinking over following prescribed steps.	A limited recount of the process experienced - no issues found or identification of difficulties faced.
5. Referencing and presentation (5 marks)	The argument is logically structured, the argument flows and wording is succinct. An economy of words is achieved with minimal material that contributes little to the argument. 25+ highly relevant refereed journal articles demonstrating insightful research on this topic showing breadth of fields looked into as well as depth. A polished and imaginative approach to the topic. The work is transparent, can be understood in a single pass read and implications of the argument is plainly put.	The argument is structured on the basis of logic as well as generates a transparent flow of ideas within the assignment. 15+ very relevant refereed journal articles. Articles used to very good effect in the response and show a range of fields were considered. The work is clear, can be understood with simple effort and implications of the argument is understandable.	The argument is structured on the basis of a logical flow of ideas and evidence gathered. 10+ relevant refereed journal articles presented in APA style. Articles used to good effect in the response. Adequate organisation and coherence in the argument. The work is clear with a little effort, can be understood and implications of the argument is included.	The argument is transparently structured against the task posed. References are appropriate for an assignment (in terms of relevance or academic standing). 10+ relevant resources that are appropriate. The work can be understood - but it is not simple to find the logic or meaning.	The argument lacks structure, logic and flow. References are either inappropriate for an assignment (in terms of relevance or academic standing) or not appropriately used. <10 relevant sources - having many references that are inappropriate or misused will also generate a fail here. Meaning unclear and/or grammar and/or spelling contain frequent errors. No consideration given to the reader. Poor presentation e.g. single spacing, no paragraphs.

Presentation

This is a third year subject and a high standard of presentation is expected for this assignment. The following factors will influence your assessment grade:

- Grammar and syntax; - Clarity and coherence of arguments; - Structure, organisation, sentence and paragraph construction; - In-text citations and end-text referencing (APA 6th)

Requirements

To complete your report for Senior Management you will need to include the following sections:

1. Evaluation of the organisation's strategy:

i. Executive Summary

ii. Background - Give a brief account of the background of the company/organisation, identify the organisation’s current strategic direction that is being undertaken

iii. Evaluate the suitability of the organisation’s current strategy

iv. Conclusion – Summarise your findings.

2. Reflection on the process

Organisations need to both get good outcomes but also get better at how they do their job over time. Organisations are either growing or dying - staying still is dying.