Refer to attached assignment brief

SM9636 Assessment Brief

SM9636 Assignment Brief

Programme: Various – this is a Core Level 6 Module.

Module Code: SM9636

Module Title: Strategic Management for Sustainable Leadership

Distributed on: TBD

Submission Time and Date: To be submitted by TBD

Word Limit: 3000 words (+/- 10%) i.e. within the range 2700 - 3300 words

Weighting This coursework accounts for 100% of the total mark for this module

Submission of Assessment

Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA): Please note your assignment is submitted electronically. It will be submitted online (via Blackboard/TurnItIn) by the given deadline. You will find a Submission Folder on the module’s eLP site.

It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that the assignment arrives before the submission deadline stated above. See the University policy on late submission of work.

Instructions on Assessment:

The Assignment Task: You MUST choose one company from the official list of companies provided on your eLP for this semester. Explain how successful you think that company is, and discuss the strategic reasons behind that success.

Your explanation will include analysis of the contribution made by the leadership of the company, and will go on to suggest strategies and/or actions for ensuring future success in a sustainable manner.

You should read the Guidance on pages 2-4 and the Marking Rubric on pages 7-8 of this brief to understand how you should approach the assignment and how marks will be allocated.

Further guidance, including examples of marker feedback (shown in Lecture 8) and Revision Audio-Visual Presentations will appear on the eLP.

Format for Submission:

• The assignment should be written in Arial, 11pt, left-justified, 1½ spacing.

• DO NOT put Your Name (or any Tutor’s Name) anywhere on your assignment.

 Every page should be numbered (in header or footer) and show your student ID.

• DESIRABLE – Please leave approximately 5cm of ‘white space’ at the end of each section. This is the space for your marker to write feedback comments about the preceding section. Please note that we may not use all of the 5cm – it depends what type of feedback we think is needed for each answer. If you do not leave space; we will be forced to leave a marker icon, and list the feedback comments at the end of the document.

 All academic and other sources must be cited and included ONCE in a single reference list at the end of the document. Do not cite Northumbria Lectures, Seminars or Workshops.

• The VRIN Summary Table (Barney, 1991) is usually shown in journals and textbooks with ticks and crosses. We require you to use the letter “Y” for “Yes” and the letter “N” for “No” (please do not use a font that includes ticks or crosses as they are not visible in the marking software and just appear as location boxes).

SM9636 Assessment Brief

SM9636 Assignment Brief

Assessment Guidance

Full Assessment Guidance will be given in Lecture L08 (please make sure that you attend).

The Module eLP will also provide a download link to “SM9636 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)”. This is an evolving Word Document containing answers to the most common student questions regarding a Core Level 6 Assessment in Business Strategy. Please consult this in the first instance. Only if the question is not answered there, should you email the Module Tutor with your question. If your question is new it will be answered and added to the document to benefit other students.

We will provide you with an official list of companies for your semester on this module (it will be released in the fourth week of the semester). You must select one of the companies on the official list for your assignment. No other companies will be allowed. Using any company that is not on the official list will result in zero marks.

You will create a written strategic analysis (structure outlined below) that informs the reader about how the company can create (or retain) sustained competitive advantage into the future. The majority of your analysis will be based on the theory and techniques taught as part of this module. Your structured report will contain expert opinions from authoritative sources (all referenced and cited in the APA style) that you will use in your strategic analysis.

Your strategic recommendation will refer back (by page number) to your analysis and the collected expert opinions. Your Strategic Recommendation will contain various suggestions and some consideration will be given to ways in which future success can be achieved in a sustainable business environment.

Assignment Structure

Your assignment will contain the following sections (in the order shown). Mark range allocations are shown in the marking scheme on pages 7-8 of this brief. To save words, you only have to use the numbered section and title words shown in capitals (below); you do not have to use the prompting questions (shown in italics).

1. INTRODUCTION What is contained in the document? Why should someone read it? This should be a brief (maximum 100 words) introduction to the company and highlighting your key recommendations. Please note that the introduction is not given any marks. We restrict it to 100 words so that you do not waste valuable words from your assignment word-limit on a protracted introduction.

It is best practice to write the introduction last.

2. MEASURES OF SUCCESS What measures should be used to assess the relative success of your chosen company?

Financial and non-financial metrics should be suggested (with a preference for any data that are ‘benchmarked’ against direct competitors). Show example data for the company in question (in tabular or graphical form) that ideally spans four or five financial years to the present day.

Include in this section a brief discussion concerning the difficulties in determining and measuring business success (cite some of the key authors that have written about this subject).

3. REASONS FOR SUCCESS What do experts suggest as the reasons for this company’s relative business success? An outline of 6 to 10 business reasons behind the success stated in a simple, straightforward way with a brief (4 or 5 sentence) explanation of each reason. Each reason should be sub-titled in this section (i.e. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 etc.). Cite the expert source(s) that have the opinion that you are listing. Do not speculate yourself in this section; just collect and sort the opinions of third-party experts. Do not rely solely upon the company’s own website or its publications. All company “jargon” and “acronyms” must have a brief explanation in brackets at the point of their first usage; thereafter they can be used without explanation.

SM9636 Assessment Brief

SM9636 Assignment Brief

4. STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (AVC+VRIN) What are the possible internal success factors and where might they be located in the company’s activities? This will be a detailed dual analysis of the company’s strategic capabilities starting with an Adapted Value Chain (AVC) and followed by a VRIN evaluation. This section carries the most marks. To score well in Section 4, you must also synthesise the AVC with the VRIN. This is achieved by demonstrating clear linkages between the two so that you can answer the two questions “What internal factors are contributing to future success?” (using VRIN); combined with, “Where are they happening within the activities of the company?” (using the AVC to show location, or locations).

The synthesis of AVC and VRIN is an iterative process (multi-pass), so we only need you to show the end result. To save words, only use additional textual description to make key points to which you refer in your Section 7 Recommendations, or where something is not obvious in the diagram or table of the AVC+VRIN synthesis.

5. LEADERSHIP CONTRIBUTION How is the current leadership guiding towards success? Is there a leadership legacy from a predecessor? An evaluation of the contribution of leadership to the company’s success, basing this on appropriate leadership theory (as taught on this module). A wide range of topics will be acceptable including (but not limited to):

o Leadership Attributes or Styles o Organisational Culture o Decision-making Theory

6. STRATEGY FOCUS Which particular strategic factor of this company deserves closer scrutiny? A detailed analysis and interpretation based on one additional topic area from the following list:

o Business Strategy (consistent with strategic capabilities) o International Strategy o Innovation Strategy o Collaboration Strategy (alliances, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions) o Sustainability (can the company gain competitive advantage this way) Choose just one of the above to demonstrate your ability to conduct more in-depth research on one aspect of the company’s future.

7. STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATION With page referencing to your previous sections, can explain your strategic recommendation for this company? In this section, you make your strategic recommendation (which might encompass more than one particular suggestion to the company). Using the SAFe criteria (from your textbook); consider how Suitable your suggestions are to achieve the desired outcome of Sustained Competitive Advantage. Further estimate how Acceptable your suggestions might be to key stakeholders, and finally comment on the Feasibility of your suggestions.

Your recommendation must also demonstrate an awareness of future Sustainability issues.

SM9636 Assessment Brief

SM9636 Assignment Brief

Notes on the Assignment Structure:  ALL sections should cite sources of research data and theories/concepts on which your analysis is based.

The only exception to this are the suggestions contained in your strategic recommendation that you make in Section 7; these should be YOUR original ideas and therefore citations are not expected. However, we do expect you to refer to elements of your previous analysis (by page number) to support your arguments.

 All cited sources should be listed in APA format in the References section at the end of your assignment.

 Cutting and pasting material directly from sources without citation is Plagiarism.

 Cutting and pasting material directly from sources with citation is Poor Scholarship.

• Short quoted extracts from cited sources are permissible – use double quotation marks”” and citation that includes the page number of the cited document.

 The vast majority of your assignment word count should use your own words or paraphrase reputable sources. Large and frequent amounts of direct quotation text will be included in the word count.

SM9636 Assessment Brief

SM9636 Assignment Brief

Mapping to Programme Goals and Objectives

Module Level Objectives:

Knowledge & Understanding:

MLO-1: Know how leaders and various stakeholder groups measure and appreciate business success.

MLO-2: Understand how to critically evaluate endogenous and exogenous strategy perspectives for a sustainable business environment.

Intellectual / Professional Skills & Abilities:

MLO-3: Develop Desk Research skills in preparing and writing a thoroughly researched and compelling strategic argument for a company.

MLO-4: Ability to critically analyse business strategies and present suitable, feasible, acceptable and sustainable recommendations to business leaders in a succinct manner.

Programme (Level) Learning Outcomes that this module contributes to:

Knowledge and Understanding:

6.1.1 Assess knowledge of contemporary professional practice in business and management informed by theory and research.

6.1.2 Critically apply knowledge of business and management to complex problems in or related to professional practice in order to identify justifiable, sustainable and responsible solutions.

Intellectual / Professional Skills and Abilities:

6.3.2 Critique their personal skills and attitudes for progression to post-graduate contexts including professional work, entrepreneurship and higher level study.

Personal Values Attributes (Global / Cultural awareness, Ethics, Curiosity):

6.1.3 Appraise an awareness of the cultural and ethical contexts in which international business operates.

6.2.2 Critique creative and critical thinking skills that involve independence, understanding, justification and the ability to challenge the thinking of self and others

SM9636 Assessment Brief

SM9636 Assignment Brief

Module Specific Assessment Criteria and Rubric

 No print copy will be accepted for SM9636, it is on-line submission to TurnItIn ONLY.

• We strongly recommend that you do not leave submission to the final hour.

• This module requires only one submission to the eLP Assignment FINAL Submission Folder before the Module Submission Deadline.

• You must submit an electronic copy of your assignment in PDF format.

• Check that all of your tables, diagrams, charts and images are represented correctly in PDF (using a PDF file viewer before submitting).

• Do not submit in Word (or any other Word Processor file format).

 You will not receive a TurnItIn Similarity Report for a Final Submission.

 You must obtain (and safely retain) a receipt from TurnItIn with a timestamp showing that you submitted before deadline.

 If you encounter difficulty in getting the receipt with a valid timestamp, you must contact the Module Tutor by email before the deadline expires; otherwise we have no evidence that you were prevented from submitting.

• If you miss the deadline (and have no approval for an extension) you must submit to the “24 HOURS LATE” Folder that opens after the deadline closes. See section on penalties for lateness.

 Students with Approved Extensions will find that a special APPROVED EXTENSION submission folder will be available after the normal deadline has expired.

SM9636 Assessment Brief RUBRIC SHEET 1 of 2

SM9636 Assignment Brief Page 7 of 9

Grade Bad Inadequate Adequate Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding Exemplary

Nominal % Integer Range 0 – 29% 30 – 39% 40 – 49% 50 -59% 60 – 69% 70 - 79% 80 – 89% 90 -100%

A pp

ro pr

ia te

M ea

su re

s of

S uc

ce ss

10

% w

ei gh

tin g

Almost no relevant measurement data of business success.

Inadequate and very little relevant measurement data. No attempt at evaluation of business success.

An adequate statement of how successful the company is consistent with only one type of relevant measurement data

A good statement of how successful the company is consistent with two types of appropriate measurement data.

A very good discussion of how successful the company is consistent with at least two types of appropriate measurement data. Recognises that “success” can be difficult to evaluate.

An excellent discussion of what is meant by “business success” for this particular company. Argument demonstrated by different data types. Includes cited academic discussion of how success can be measured in firms. Some alignment with strategic recommendations.

An outstanding discussion of what is meant by “business success” for this particular company. Argument demonstrated by a range of data types. Includes cited academic discussion of how success can be measured in firms. Mostly aligned with strategic recommendations.

An exemplary discussion of what is meant by “business success” for this particular company. Argument demonstrated by a range of key data types. Appropriate measures nominated with data samples shown. Includes cited academic discussion of how success can be measured in firms. Closely aligned with strategic recommendations.

0 – 2.5 marks 3 – 3.5 4 – 4.5 5 – 5.5 6 – 6.5 7 – 7.5 8 - 8.5 9 - 10

B us

in es

s R

ea so

ns fo

r Su

cc es

s ci

te d

by e

xp er

ts

10 %

w ei

gh tin

g

No understanding of the reasons underpinning success. Very poor research. Fails to demonstrate any significant business knowledge.

Inadequate set of reasons. Either rather limited or else a scattergun list with weak explanations that are mostly uncited. Research very limited – does not demonstrate adequate business knowledge.

Adequate set of reasons but either too few or too many to be considered a set of key reasons. Basic explanation, basic research, adequate business knowledge.

A good set of reasons, some less than key, but good explanations. Reasonable research and demonstration of business knowledge.

A very good set of reasons with good explanations. Very good research and demonstration of business knowledge.

An excellent set of key reasons with clear explanations. Excellent research conducted into authoritative sources. An excellent demonstration of business knowledge.

An outstanding set of ranked key reasons with very clear explanations and reasons for ranking. Outstanding research conducted into authoritative sources and expert opinion. An outstanding demonstration of business knowledge.

An exemplary set of ranked key reasons with very clear explanations and coherent reasons for ranking. Exemplary research conducted into the best of authoritative sources and expert opinion. An exemplary demonstration of business knowledge.

0 – 2.5 marks 3 – 3.5 4 – 4.5 5 – 5.5 6 – 6.5 7 – 7.5 8 - 8.5 9 - 10

En do

ge no

us

St ra

te gi

c A

na ly

si s

(A VC

+ V

R IN

) 30

% w

ei gh

tin g

No evidence that the student understands endogenous strategy. Attempted use of incorrect exogenous tools. Analysis is of very poor quality.

Inadequate analysis with poor use of endogenous strategy tools. Poor quality, partial analysis that does not support any further discussion.

Adequate analysis use of individual endogenous strategy tools. Analysis that is competent, but no more. No apparent attempt made to synthesise the AVC with VRIN.

Good analysis using endogenous strategy tools, but has an occasional gaps or minor errors. Some AVC and VRIN synthesis attempted in words but rather difficult to understand.

Very Good analysis using endogenous strategy tools, with no occasional gaps or minor errors. Some AVC and VRIN synthesis attempted in words which can be mostly understood.

Excellent analysis using endogenous strategy tools. The AVC and VRIN synthesis is demonstrated in a clear manner to the reader.

Outstanding analysis with extended use of endogenous strategy tools. The AVC and VRIN synthesis is demonstrated in an easily assimilated manner. Results ranked in terms of importance to the strategic suggestions. Near professional consultancy quality.

Exemplary analysis with innovative use of endogenous strategy tools. The AVC and VRIN synthesis is demonstrated in a concise and compelling manner. Results ranked in terms of importance to the strategic recommendations to come. Professional consultancy quality.

0 – 8.5 9 - 11.5 12 – 14.5 15 – 17.5 18 – 20.5 21 – 23.5 24 – 26.5 27 - 30

Goal 1 Obj 3 not met Goal 1 Obj 3 not met Goal 1 Obj 3 met Goal 1 Obj 3 met Goal 1 Obj 3 met Goal 1 Obj 3 exceeded Goal 1 Obj 3 exceeded Goal 1 Obj 3 exceeded

* “Goal / Objectives” relate to Assurance of Learning (AoL) data collected for our Degree Accreditation Bodies.

SM9636 Assignment Brief Page 8 of 9

SM9636 Assessment Brief RUBRIC SHEET 2 of 2

Grade Bad Inadequate Adequate Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding Exemplary

Nominal % Integer Range 0 – 29% 30 – 39% 40 – 49% 50 -59% 60 – 69% 70 - 79% 80 – 89% 90 -100%

Le ad

er sh

ip c

on tr

ib ut

io n

to S

uc ce

ss

15 %

w ei

gh tin

g

No evidence the student understands any relevant theory. No evaluation.

Inadequate evaluation – either the theory is not relevant or the analysis is of poor quality.

Adequate evaluation based on relevant theory. Analysis competent but no more.

Good evaluation based on relevant theory with good data.

Very good evaluation with careful analysis based on relevant theory with well- researched data

An excellent evaluation supported by rigorous analysis based on relevant theory. The data has been collected from a wide range of sources.

An outstanding evaluation supported by rigorous analysis based on relevant theory. The data has been collected from a wide range of sources.

An exemplary evaluation supported by rigorous analysis based on relevant theory. The data has been collected from a wide range of sources.

0 – 4 marks 4.5 – 5.5 6 - 7 7.5 – 8.5 9 - 10 10.5 – 11.5 12 - 13 13.5 - 15

St ra

te gi

c Fo

cu s

C ho

ic e

15 %

w ei

gh tin

g

No evidence the student understands any relevant topic areas. Analysis of very poor quality.

Either the topic area is not relevant or the analysis is of poor quality.

Basic discussion based on analysis that is competent but no more.

Good discussion based on analysis that is generally good but has gaps or small errors.

Very good discussion based on accurate analysis.

An excellent focused evaluation of a strategically important factor supported by rigorous and detailed analysis.

An outstanding focused evaluation of a strategically important factor supported by rigorous and detailed analysis.

An exemplary focused evaluation of a strategically important factor supported by rigorous and detailed analysis.

0 - 4 4.5 – 5.5 6 - 7 7.5 – 8.5 9 - 10 10.5 – 11.5 12 - 13 13.5 - 15

St ra

te gi

c Re

co m

m en

da tio

n( s)

20

% w

ei gh

tin g

Bad strategic recommendation that lacks any suitable suggestions for the company.

Inadequate strategic recommendation. Suggestions lack relevance and are not supported by evidence from previous sections.

Adequate strategic recommendation with one relevant suggestion. A brief rationale that is insufficiently based on evidence from previous sections.

Good strategic recommendation containing one relevant suggestion with good rationale based on identified factors OR two relevant suggestions with brief rationales.

Very good strategic recommendation containing two good suggestions appropriate to the company. Very good rationales based on identified factors from previous sections (referred by page number).

Excellent strategic recommendation with more than two good suggestions. Excellent rationales based on identified factors from previous sections (referred by page number).

Outstanding strategic recommendation with more than two good suggestions. Outstanding rationales based on identified factors from previous sections (referred by page number).

Exemplary strategic recommendation with more than two good suggestions. Exemplary rationales based on identified factors from previous sections (referred by page number).

0 – 5.5 6 – 7.5 8 – 9.5 10 – 11.5 12 – 13.5 14 – 15.5 16 – 17.5 18 - 20

Goal 2 Obj 4 not met Goal 2 Obj 4 not met Goal 2 Obj 4 met Goal 2 Obj 4 met Goal 2 Obj 4 met Goal 2 Obj 4 exceeded Goal 2 Obj 4 exceeded Goal 2 Obj 4 exceeded

* “Goal / Objectives” relate to Assurance of Learning (AoL) data collected for our Degree Accreditation Bodies.

SM9636 Assignment Brief Page 9 of 9

SM9636 Assessment Brief

ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS

You are advised to read the guidance for students regarding assessment policies. They are available online here.

Late submission of work

Where coursework is submitted without approval, after the published hand-in deadline, the following penalties will apply.

For coursework submitted up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without approval, 10% of the total marks available for the assessment (i.e. 10 marks) shall be deducted from the assessment mark.

Coursework submitted more than 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in deadline without approval will be regarded as not having been completed. A mark of zero will be awarded for the assessment and the module will be failed, irrespective of the overall module mark.

These provisions apply to all assessments, including those assessed on a Pass/Fail basis.

The full policy can be found here.

Word limits and penalties

If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply.

The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment and the assignment cover sheet. The word count does not include:

The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment and the assignment cover sheet. The word count does not include: • Title, Contents and Glossary of Terms • Cited Quotations • Tables, Figures, Diagrams, Charts and Illustrations • Reference List • Bibliography • Headers or Footnotes (with Student ID number on each page).

Please note, in text citations [e.g. (Smith, 2011)] and direct secondary quotations [e.g. “dib-dab nonsense analysis” (Smith, 2011, p.123)] are INCLUDED in the word count.

Students must retain an electronic copy of this assignment (including ALL appendices) and it must be made available within 24 hours of them being requested by the Module Tutor or an Administrator.

The full Word Limit Policy is available here.

Academic Misconduct

The Assessment Regulations for Taught Awards (ARTA) contain the Regulations and procedures applying to cheating, plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct.

You are reminded that plagiarism, collusion, using a “ghost writer” and other forms of academic misconduct (as referred to in the Academic Misconduct Procedure of the Assessment Regulations) are taken very seriously. Assignments in which evidence of Academic Misconduct is found may receive a mark of zero.

The full policy is available here.