Strategic management
sarik 
StrategicManagementQ.pdf
UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND
AND
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE OF SINGAPORE
___________________________________________________________________________
Course : Bachelor of Arts (Hons) Business and Marketing
BMTD5 2123A_ BAMD5 2106A_ BAMD2 2008A_ BAMD2 2009A
Module : SIM336 Strategic Management
MDIS Module Tutor : Mr. Ho Soo Kwang
Assessment : Individual Assignment
Due Date : Marketing students -22 Oct 2021
Business & Management: 26 Nov 2021
Word Length : 3,000 words +/- 10% Please refer to AQH-F15 Guidance for Students on the Penalty for Exceeding the Limit for Assessed Work.
Weighting within Module : 100%
___________________________________________________________________________
Assignment Submission
Students are required to submit their coursework through JIRA. Only assessments submitted
through JIRA will be marked. Any other submission including submission to your study
centre in hard copy will be treated as a non-submission.
If your centre supports Turnitin©, a copy of your Turnitin© originality report must be
submitted in conjunction with your assignment.
PLAGIARISM/INFRINGEMENT STATEMENT
All Assessments are subject to the University’s Policy on 'Cheating, Collusion and
Plagiarism'. Students found guilty of this are subject to severe penalties.
This is an INDIVIDUAL piece of work - If there is evidence that the work is not wholly
attributable to you, the University's policy on 'Cheating, Collusion and Plagiarism' will
be applied
Link to University Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy • https://docushare.sunderland.ac.uk/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-8155
SIM336 Strategic Management_
Page 2 of 5
ASSIGNMENT TITLE: Strategic Management Report
Learning outcomes: To strategically analyse an organization.
To synthesise ideas or solutions relating to strategic issues
Skills outcomes: Research skills
Critical evaluation
Creativity
Communication
All work submitted must adhere to the University Policy on ‘Cheating, Collusion and
Plagiarism’
Assignment Task:
Deliverable: One written individual report; Submission; You must submit the assignment
as a word-compatible document. When you submit the document, *name your file with the
full name e.g. JaneLee.doc*. This way I can identify you.
You are required to conduct a strategic analysis and construct strategic recommendations for
your chosen company based on current information. A key outcome with this report is to ensure
that you are able to construct plausible strategies grounded on solid research, thorough analysis
and logical argument, all presented them in a report that is persuasive and clear.
This report, as is obvious from the mark allocation, is going to require considerable work from
you. In addition to the use of all matrices and strategic tools taught in the course, you will also
be expected to seek out data on your own. The report is expected to be clear and concise. Length
is NOT an indicator of quality. Any padding will be frowned upon. The format of the report is
given below. The maximum length of the report is 3,000 words, excluding cover sheet,
executive summary, contents page and references. In addition, you are permitted to have up to
5 pages of appendices. Your appendices are to be comprised of tables, figures, charts and
diagrams only. Penalty for exceeding the word limit can be found on page 4.
One often neglected aspect of case studies is the inclusion of the theoretical underpinnings of
your recommendations. This aspect will be covered in the lectures but it is worth mentioning
that this unit, while recognising the role of trade publications, places special emphasis on
refereed journal articles.
SIM336 Strategic Management_
Page 3 of 5
• citations from trade journals and the like will be acceptable only to provide examples
to support your argument;
• theory must be cited from textbooks and refereed sources;
• Wikipedia, CIA, essay site fee or free and blog references are banned
As this is an individual assignment, it is in your interest to ensure that the report is fully
and properly referenced. If intellectual dishonesty is established beyond any reasonable
doubt, academic misconduct proceedings will be enacted. I will also penalise poor
referencing (i.e. the effort was made but referencing was poorly done).
Required format for case report:
1. Executive summary
2. Introduction
3. Current Company Situation a. Company profile b. Financials c. Manpower strength d. Turnover e. Country/countries of operation f. Number of divisions g. etc
4. External analysis: a. identify trends, opportunities and threats b. If necessary, define the scope of (a): e.g., Asia only or B2B only
5. Internal analysis; a. Identify the capabilities behind the competencies that create value b. Will this endure into the future?
6. Issue/Problem definition: a. What issue/s is/are you trying to resolve? b. Given this issue what goal(s)/objective(s) must be set?
7. From (6), briefly describe your recommended strategy, based on your SWOT analysis, that will resolve the issue/s
8. Appendices:
SIM336 Strategic Management_
Page 4 of 5
a. E.g. Ratio analysis (place conclusions stemming from this analysis in your main body)
b. Tabulate your Porter’s analysis, SWOT, PEST. c. Others as appropriate
Objectives and Requirements
This assignment is to be undertaken individually. It is primarily designed for you to
demonstrate your understanding of key concepts, theories, or models covered in this unit and
apply/link them to business reality/your personal experience to facilitate your learning. Be
assertive to draw conclusions for your analyses and evaluations. You are strongly encouraged
to reflect on your own managerial experience, if you have, in developing business strategy in
your organisation. Using secondary data in the form of literature or publications is expected.
The length of this part of the assignment should NOT exceed 3,000 +/- 10% word count, double
spaced, Times New Roman 12 point font, 2.5 cm margins all sides.
Assessment Criteria
The assignment will be graded for individuals on the basis of the specific criteria outlined
below.
SIM336 Strategic Management_ Page 5 of 5
Categories
Grade Relevance Knowledge Analysis Argument and Structure Critical Evaluation Presentation Reference to Literature
P a ss
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 the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
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 the majority 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.
F a il
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.
The evidence provided shows that the majority 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.
