Financial decision making

Strategy.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Accounting homework help >Financial decision making

BPP Coursework Cover Sheet

Please use the table below as your cover sheet for the 1st page of the submission. The sheet should be before the cover/title page of your submission.

Programme

MSc Mgmt

Module name Strategy

Schedule Term

Student Reference Number (SRN)

Report/Assignment Title

Starbucks Business Report

Date of Submission

(Please attach the confirmation of any extension received)

Declaration of Original Work:

I hereby declare that I have read and understood BPP’s regulations on plagiarism and that this is my original work, researched, undertaken, completed and submitted in accordance with the requirements of School of Business & Technology.

The word count, excluding contents table, bibliography and appendices, is words.

Student Reference Number:

Date:

By submitting this coursework, you agree to all rules and regulations of BPP regarding

assessments and awards for programmes. Please note, submission is your declaration you are fit

to sit.

BPP University reserves the right to use all submitted work for educational purposes and may

request that work be published for a wider audience.

BPP School of Business and Technology

Programme: MSc Management

Module: Strategy

Coursework Assessment Brief

Submission deadline: 23:59 hrs on 28th April 2020 Submission

mode: Turnitin online access

1. General Assessment Guidance • Your summative assessment for Summer 2019 Term is made up of this Coursework submission

which accounts for 100% of the marks

• The deadline for submission is 23:59 Hrs on 28th April 2020. Please note late submissions will

not be marked.

• You are required to submit all elements of your assessment via Turnitin online access. Only

submissions made via the specified mode will be accepted and hard copies or any other digital

form of submissions (like via email or pen drive etc.) will not be accepted.

• For coursework, the submission word limit is 3,500 words for the Starbucks Business Report plus

500 words for the Starbucks Stakeholder Report (Total 4,000 words). You must comply with the

word count guidelines. You may submit LESS than 4,000 words but not more. Word Count

guidelines can be found on your programme home page and the coursework submission page.

• Do not put your name or contact details anywhere on your submission. You should only put

your student registration number (SRN) which will ensure your submission is recognised in the

marking process.

• A total of 100 marks are available for this module assessment, and you are required to achieve

minimum 50% to pass this module.

• You are required to use only Harvard Referencing System in your submission. Any content which

is already published by other author(s) and is not referenced will be considered as a case of

plagiarism.

You can find further information on Harvard Referencing in the online library on the VLE. You can

use the following link to access this information:

http://bpp.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=30639385

• BPP University has a strict policy regarding authenticity of assessments. In proven instances of

plagiarism or collusion, severe punishment will be imposed on offenders. You are advised to

read the rules and regulations regarding plagiarism and collusion in the GARs and MOPP which

are available on VLE in the Academic registry section.

• You should include a completed copy of the Assignment Cover sheet. Any submission without

this completed Assignment Cover sheet may be considered invalid and not marked.

http://bpp.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=30639385

2. Assessment Brief

2.1 Part 1 – Starbucks Business Report (3,500 words)

You are required to write a Business Report for the CEO on the performance of Starbucks using

independent research and the case study (case 25) that appears on pages C-200 to C-209 of Part 5

in the Core Textbook, Autumn term 2019:

The case study can be accessed using the following link (you will need your log in details):

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305856271/cfi/648!/4/[email protected]:0.00

Setting the scene: The CEO of Starbucks is considering their options over the next 3 years. Your

Business Report should provide the CEO with clear and concise information that will guide them in

their decision-making process. You should use the Starbucks case study and also provide evidence

of further independent research to support your answers. Your research data must not be older

than 3 years. Data prior to January 2017 will be ignored for marking purposes.

Your Business Report should be structured as follows: • An Introduction (500 words; 10 marks) to Starbucks and its competitive position relative to the

other companies (include data from your research and the case study)

• External Environment analysis (1,250 words; 25 marks) - A critical analysis of the Speciality

Coffee Café Industry as represented by the case study and your independent research

• Internal Environment analysis (1,250 words; 25 marks) - A critical evaluation of the sources of

Starbuck’s competitive advantage (internal analysis) and how these differ from Starbucks

competitors - You should draw upon information and data provided by the case study and

your extensive research (Remember your research data must not be older than 3 years. Data

prior to January 2017 will be ignored for marking purposes).

• Recommendations (500 words; 10 marks) for the CEO that will improve the company’s

performance over the next 3 years. Your recommendations should be commercial, realistic and

justified. You should present your recommendations using SMART objectives (Specific,

measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound).

2.2 Part 2 – Starbucks’ Stakeholder Report (500 words; 20 marks)

a) You should identify (list) the internal and external Stakeholders for Starbucks (Complete

Appendix A; this is not included in your word count; 5 marks)

b) You should then choose One priority Starbucks’ Stakeholder Group from this list and

provide a clear definition of this Group. For example, if you choose “customers” as a

Stakeholder Group you should identify the type of Starbucks customer together with their

characteristics, demographics, size of the stakeholder group etc. Your Priority Stakeholder

Group should be a Starbucks’ Group that is currently the focus of attention (within the last

3 years) from Starbucks due to a specific reason that you must explain in your answer. You

must provide evidence (appropriately referenced) in support of your answer from the case

study and your independent research (335 words; 10 marks).

c) You should then critically analyse the power (influence) and interest of your chosen

Stakeholder Group, using an appropriate academic framework (for example Mendelow’s

matrix) and identify the appropriate communications strategy that Starbucks should adopt

with this Stakeholder Group (165 words; 5 marks).

2.3 Structure of Your Submission

You should submit both reports as a single document structured as follows:

- Business School Cover Sheet

- Report Title Page

- Table of Contents (sections and pages numbered)

- Part 1 – Starbucks Business Report (3,500 words)

o Introduction to Starbucks and its competitors

o The External Environment (Apply a PESTLE analysis, 5 Force Analysis, Industry

Lifecycle model)

o The Internal Environment - Sources of Competitive Advantage (Apply VRIO, Value

Chain, Resources, Capabilities and Competencies framework)

o Recommendations to improve Starbucks performance over the next 3 years

- Part 2 - Stakeholder Report (500 words)

- References

- Appendices

3.0 Marking Guide

The Starbucks’ Business Report is marked out of 80 and will contribute 80% of your overall mark.

The Starbucks’ Stakeholder Report will be marked out of 20 and will contribute 20% of your total

mark. Note: Your research data must not be older than 3 years. Data prior to January 2017 will

be ignored for marking purposes.

The following table shows the mark allocation, word count guidance and the approach required.

Assignment Part Mark Approach

Introduction (Approximately 500 words)

For an excellent mark you will include a detailed and informative introduction to Starbucks and present its relative position (as assessed against Starbucks main competitors). You should draw upon data from the case study and your independent research. Your introduction will set the scene for your report and entice the reader to want to read more (10 marks).

External Analysis – (Approximately 1,250 words) An analysis of the Specialty Coffee Café industry and its External Environment.

For an excellent mark the industry analysis will include a comprehensive assessment of the Specialty Coffee Café Industry. The analysis will look forward and anticipate future demand over the next three years, making use of information that you have researched. There will be a clear indication of opportunities and threats (10 marks)

There will be appropriate use of academic frameworks, for example a Five Force Analysis (Porter’s) will be supported with appropriate data from the case study and your research (5 Marks). The Industry lifecycle position will be identified, and the

implications to Starbucks critically evaluated (5 Marks). Appropriate use of the PESTLE framework will be made (5 Marks). Data will be clearly presented using appropriate charts, tables and graphs.

Internal Analysis - (Approximately 1,250 words) A critical evaluation of the sources of Starbucks’ competitive advantage and how these differ from other firms competing in the industry

For an excellent mark the sources of competitive advantage will be explained using appropriate Academic frameworks (e.g. VRIO, Value Chain etc.), and drawing on information represented in the case study and your research (10 Marks). There will be a clear analysis of the company’s strengths and weaknesses and reference to resources, capabilities and competencies (5 marks). Examples of how some of the competing companies have created competitive advantage should be critically evaluated, with appropriate evidence professionally presented. There should be clear assessment of what the competition did that was better than Starbucks and provide some insight into what Starbucks can do to improve their performance in the future (this should tie in at least in part to your recommendations below) (10 marks)

Recommendations - (Approximately 500 words) For the Starbucks’ CEO that will improve the company’s performance over the next 3 years. Your recommendations should be commercial, realistic and justified

For an excellent mark, students will present 3 detailed recommendations, using the preceding analysis and evaluation to recommend specific steps for the Starbucks CEO to improve Starbucks’ performance over the next 3 years. You should be clear on which areas of performance will be affected (for example, is this about increasing sales? Market share? Profitability? Efficiency? Or other targets/metrics?). For best marks, recommendations should be presented as SMART objectives (Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound). There should be a consideration of cost / benefit, but a detailed financial analysis is not required (10 marks)

Presentation and

Referencing

For an excellent mark the report should have, a clear and logical structure that is easy to read and navigate, and with a professional level of presentation. There should be precise, full and appropriate references and notes. There will be no spelling or grammatical errors. The subtle use of language will express highly nuanced thought with clarity and precision to a level appropriate for submission to a Senior Executive of Starbucks (10 marks).

Total marks for Part 1 – (no

more than 3,500 words)

Stakeholder Report Mark Approach

List the internal and external Stakeholders – Complete Appendix A and add it to your report (Note: This table will not be included in your word count)

For an excellent mark, you will complete Appendix A below and attach this to your report. The Appendix A requires you to complete a comprehensive list of Starbucks’ Stakeholders, indicating whether they are internal or external stakeholders and providing a justification for including them in the list (5 marks).

Priority Group – definition and justification for selecting this group - (Approximately 335 words)

For an excellent mark you will choose One priority Stakeholder Groups from this list and provide a clear definition of this Group. For example, if you choose “customers” as a Stakeholder Group you should identify the type of Starbucks customer together with their characteristics, demographics, size of the stakeholder group etc. A Priority Stakeholder Group is a Group that is currently (within the last 3 years) the focus of attention from Starbucks due to a specific reason that you must explain in your answer. You must provide

evidence (appropriately referenced) in support of your answer from the case study and your independent research (10 marks).

Priority Group – Power / interest and communication strategy - (Approximately 165 words)

You should then critically analyse the power (influence) and interest of your chosen Stakeholder Group, using an appropriate academic framework (for example Mendelow’s matrix) and identify the appropriate communications strategy that Starbucks should adopt with this Stakeholder Group (5 marks).

Total marks for Part 2 - (no

more than 500 words)

TOTAL FOR ASSESSMENT 100

Appendix A – Starbucks’ internal and external Stakeholders with justification

You must complete the table below and attach it to your Stakeholder Report. This Table will not be

included in the 500-word count for part 2.

Stakeholder Group Internal or External

Justification for including them on your list

Appendix B - General grading criteria – Level 7

Criteria Pass Grades Fail Grades

High Distinction

85-100%

Distinction 70-

84%

Merit 60-

69%

Pass 50-

59%

Fail

30-49%

Low Fail 0-

29%

The work displays:

The work displays: The work displays: The work

displays:

The work

displays:

The work

displays:

Knowledge &

Understanding

(a) ystematic

Understanding

(b) merging

Thought

(a) Strong

evidence of a

comprehensive

and systematic

understanding of

an extensive

range of

appropriate

issues,

concepts,

theories and

research

(a) Clear evidence

of a

comprehensive

and systematic

understanding of a

considerable

variety of issues,

concepts, theories

and research

(a) Clear evidence

of a

comprehensive

and systematic

understanding of

all major - and

some minor -

issues, concepts,

theories and

research

(a) Evidence of

a systematic

understanding,

which may

contain some

gaps, of all

major - and

some minor -

issues,

concepts,

theories and

research

(a) Evidence of

understanding of

an appropriate

range of issues,

concepts,

theories and

research but has

significant gaps

misunderstandin

gs.

(a) Evidence

of a limited

understanding

of issues,

concepts,

theories and

research

either major

and/or minor.

(b) Sustained excellence in the

application of

thoughts and

practices at the

forefront of the

discipline

(b) Precise and

well-judged

application of

thoughts and

practices at the

forefront of the

discipline

(b) Some clear

evidence of the

application of

thoughts and

practices at the

forefront of the

discipline

(b) Clear

evidence of an

understanding of

thoughts and

practices at the

forefront of the

discipline.

(b) Unclear or

imprecise

understanding of

thoughts and

practices at the

forefront of the

discipline.

(b) Significant

gaps in the

understanding

of the debates

at the forefront

of the

discipline.

Argument

(a) nalysis,

Synthesis &

Evaluation

(b) Numerical

Analysis

(c)

Argumentation

(d) Independent

Research

(a) Consistently

precise,

accurate and

reasoned

analysis,

synthesis and/or

evaluation;

addressing

issues with

insight or

originality

(a) Consistently

precise, accurate

and reasoned

analysis, synthesis

and/or evaluation

addressing all

issues, some with

creativity

(a) Precision,

accuracy and clear

reasoning

throughout the

analysis, synthesis

and/or evaluation

addressing all

issues

appropriately

(a) Broad levels

of precision,

accuracy and

reasoning in

analysis,

synthesis and/or

evaluation, and

addresses all

key issues

(a) Errors which

affect the

consistency of

the analysis,

synthesis or

evaluation

and/or key gaps

in the issues

addressed

(a) A lack of

precision,

accuracy or

reasoning in

analysis,

synthesis or

evaluation with

significant

gaps in the

issues

addressed

(b) Numeric analysis that is

complete and

free from errors

with application

of methods that

may be insightful

or original

(b) Numeric

analysis that is

complete and

mostly free from

errors with fluent

and appropriate

application of

methods.

(b) Numeric

analysis that is

complete and

mostly free from

errors with

relevant and

effective

application of

methods.

(b) Numeric

analysis that is

mostly complete

and free from

significant or

critical errors

with appropriate

application of

methods.

(b) Numeric

analysis that is

mostly complete

but contains

errors with

significant effect,

or methods that

are applied

inappropriately

(b) Numeric

analysis that is

incomplete or

contains errors

which have

critical effect,

or methods

that are

applied

inappropriately

consistent

argument

making a

convincing

whole with

evidence of

originality.

Impressive

dexterity in the

use of

and consistent

argument that

convincingly

addresses issues

including

uncertainties and

conflicts. Excellent

use of information

gathered which to

support and further

the argument

argument that is

generally

convincing with a

good internal

consistency and

addresses most

issues. Very good

use of information

gathered to

support the

argument.

overall convincing

argument but may

have weaknesses,

gaps or

inconsistencies.

Clear use of

information

gathered but may

have some

weaknesses in the

integration into the

argument.

consistent

argument but

may have

weaknesses,

significant gaps

or be

unconvincing.

Clear use of

information

gathered but

may not be

consistency or

structure in the

argument.

Serious

weaknesses in

the integration

of evidence

and/or no

awareness of

the limitations

Criteria Pass Grades Fail Grades

High Distinction

85-100%

Distinction 70-

84%

Merit 60-

69%

Pass 50-

59%

Fail

30-49%

Low Fail 0-

29%

The work displays:

The work displays: The work displays: The work

displays:

The work

displays:

The work

displays:

information gathered to

support the

argument.

sufficient to sustain the

argument.

weaknesses of

the research.

Argument

(continued)

(d) Independent

Research

(d) Evidence of

an innovative or

original use of

extensive

personal

research which

has been

thoroughly

critically

evaluated both

conceptually and

methodologically

(d) Substantial

research and

evidence of an

innovative use of a

wide range of

personal research

with clear and

consistent critical

evaluation both

conceptually and

methodologically

(d) Clear evidence

of considerable

personal research

and the use of a

diverse range of

appropriate

sources but may

contain problems

with consistency in

the conceptual

and

methodological

critical evaluation

(d) Appropriate

use of a wide

range of

personal

research which

is critically

evaluated for

key conceptual

and

methodological

issues although

this may not be

consistent

throughout

(d) Evidence of

a range of

personal

research but

evidence of

methodological

or conceptual

evaluation may

be limited,

inconsistent or

inappropriate

(d) Over

reliance on

very restricted

range of

personal or

secondary

research much

of which may

not be

evaluated and

may not be

directly related

to the question

or area

Presentation

(a) tructure

(b) Referencing

(a) xcellent

structure and

presentation

(b) recise, full

(a) xcellent

structure and

presentation

(b) recise, full

(a) ood structure

and presentation

(b) ull and

(a) dequate

structure and

presentation

(b) ood

(a) dequate

structure and

presentation

(b) Competent

(a) oor

structure and

presentation

(b) oor

Language and appropriate

references and

notes.

and appropriate

references and

notes.

appropriate

references and

notes with minor

or insignificant

errors

references and

notes with minor

or insignificant

errors or

omissions

references and

notes but may

contain

inconsistencies,

errors or

omissions

references

and notes with

multiple

inconsistencie

s, errors or

omissions

expressing

highly nuanced

thought with

clarity and

precision to a

level appropriate

for submission

for publication.

language

expressing

complex thought

with clarity,

accuracy and

precision which

furthers and

enhances the

argument

precise use of

language allowing

a complex

argument to be

easily understood

and followed

clear use of

language

sufficient for

arguments to be

readily

understood and

followed

understandable

use of language

but significant

errors in

expression

affecting overall

clarity

errors in the

use of

language

which makes

meaning

unclear or

imprecise