Strategic Analysis

ASSIGNMENT 1 - TITLE: Strategic Analysis

All work submitted must adhere to the University Policy on ‘Cheating, Collusion and Plagiarism’

You must not submit an assignment that analyses the mobile phone industry and or a mobile phone company.

Task:

You are required to submit an individual report of 3,000 ± 10% words, on the Business Strategy of a major publicly listed organisation in Singapore. The strategic analysis should focus on a strategic business unit (SBU). This usually means one SBU in a publicly listed corporation. Undertake the following tasks:

• Describe briefly the background information of the organization selected. This information should be relevant to the discussion of your assignment and thus may include ownership, history, size, business scope, major products/services, and major markets of the organisation selected.

• Conduct a macro-environment analysis for the industry within which the business organization operates. Emphases should be placed on the understanding of the purpose of this analysis, the interconnectedness of the different environmental factors, and their overall impact, in terms of key opportunities and threats, on the industry. Draw your conclusion based on your analyses;

• Carry out an industry or competitive analysis using Porter’s 5 forces model. Again, you are also required to pay attention to the purpose of this analysis, the inter-connectedness of different aspects of the competitive forces, the links between the competitive forces and macro-environment, and their overall impact on the industry and the organization selected in terms of main driving forces in the competitive environment.

• Identify core competences of the organization. Justify why the competences identified can be regarded as core competence for the organization based on the four criteria covered during the workshops. You can use the activity mapping technique to logically reason out the skills and resources that support the key activities, which underpins the reasons for success.

• Describe the content of the current business strategy deployed by the organization through:

– Identifying and briefly discussing the contents of the business strategy; and

– Explaining how the strategy has been identified (i.e., is it intended as a written document (as a plan), or emergent as a pattern of decision-making/activities/behaviours (you can use value chain analysis to help identify the patterns of the organisation’s activities and processes.

• Evaluate the suitability of the strategy identified in the light of the outcomes of your analyses on the environment (both macro and industry environments), and the organization’s core competence.

 Provide recommendations accordingly.

The report must be written in a recognised style, i.e. table of contents, introduction, main analysis, conclusions, recommendations, references and bibliography. You must apply the Harvard system of referencing in your report.

Objectives

To analyse a business policy or strategic management topic, to carry out individual research or evaluation of an organization.

Requirements

Meet the learning outcomes listed above, identify and critically analyse fundamental issues related to strategic management. Undertake a study that shows clear evidence of synthesis and evaluation.

Assessment Criteria

Your seminar tutor on the basis of the following general criteria will assess the paper:

 Content - the quality of research and analysis undertaken and the use of initiative in finding sources of information;

 Process - the quality and clarity of the assignment and your ability to demonstrate command over the subject area and the development of a case or argument;

 Discretion - additional credit may be awarded to a student who tackles a difficult subject well.

The assignment will be graded for individuals on the basis of the specific criteria outlined on the following page.

The “Presentation” element of the Generic Assessment Criteria will be used to assess the report structure.

Generic Assessment Criteria – Undergraduate

These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working and related to the assessment criteria for the module

Categories

Grade

Relevance

Knowledge

Analysis

Argument and Structure

Critical Evaluation

Presentation

Reference to Literature

Pass

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.

Fail

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.