7BE002 Strategic Mangement

Module code and title

    7BE002    Strategic Mangement

Module leader

 Dr Shaukat Ali         

Diet

First attempt  & Resit

Assessment type

Portfolio      

Submission date

 Varies as per iteration ie sem 1, sem 2, block, DL, TNE. Students should refer to their canvas module for the submission date     

Submission method

e-submission (plus, in addition hard copy if partner colleges ask for it). Emailed copies will not accepted 

Assessment limits

 6,000 words (excluding appendices & references, with an allowance of +/-10% allowed.  Any excess will not be taken into account in grading. Excessive appendices and references to be avoided.    

Assessment weighting

        100%            

Assessment brief  (if appropriate, please refer to module assessment briefing document)

 The portfolio is comprised of the following tasks

·       A Strategic Professional Development Portfolio (PDP) – 2000 words including action plan, appendices but including references. This aligns with CMI PDP template

·       A Strategic Management (consultancy) Project- 4000 words excluding appendices but including references

This module is accredited and linked to the Chartered Management Institute Level 7 Diploma. The PDP is based around their self-development template (attached) and a webinar.

The final assessment will consist of submission of both tasks of the portfolio together, as a single MS Word document. Appropriate cover sheet should be used, stating your ID number stating word count for each piece of assessment.  Presentation should be of professional quality. Referencing and citations must adhere to Wolverhampton version of Harvard Referencing style. Do remember that the final portfolio size file Size is maximum 15MB so keep the PDP to 2-3MB maximum so that you do not have to undertake too many adjustments later when you add it to the portfolio submission.

Assessed task No 1
 A Strategic Professional Development Portfolio (PDP)

Professional development plans are commonly used in management. There are many ways to craft development plans as you will know, 360 degree feedback, various psychometric tests, inventories etc. You may have already done a personal development plan as part of your course (e.g. for 7MG001).

This PDP in this module focuses on your development and goals as a manager – hence this is a professional development plan and supported by the CMI. The PDP compliments the development of your consultancy skills in the second part of the assessment.

To help you to reflect and craft your PDP it will be necessary to view a CMI webinar and incorporate your reflection on these self-assessments into your PDP template.

As with the project, the PDP will be incrementally developed as soon as you begin the module over the course of several weeks.

You will craft interim components (which you may be asked to present or discuss in some form during class seminars/tutorials).

The PDP will have following main sections

1 – Introduction (up 500-750 words on critical evaluation of professional development plans, what they, how they help managers to reflect etc.)

2 – A critical reflection of what you have learnt in the webinar, how it will aid your development as a manager via the development of your PDP (circa 1000 words). Split this into 2 sub-sections. A reflection on how the webinar has been informative in your understanding of you as a manager, and then something more focused on the areas for development that will be included in the action plan.

The action plan, base around the CMI PDP template, too needs to show thought having gone into it. Your tutor will be looking to see how reflective and realistic it is, how realistic and appropriate the development is, and how well it is presented (ie professionally laid out etc). 

Assessed task No 2 , Strategic Management Project

The purpose of the strategic management project is to apply the concepts and techniques learnt in the module to the analysis of real-world situations or problems, and to critically evaluate different approaches to addressing managerial problems. So you are effectively acting as an internal consultant.

Note: You must use an organisation you are familiar with personally. Most student taking this module will either be working professionals (full or part time), others will have had some working experience. Use these organisations. Multinationals and random organisations are not to be used, and the task will be graded fail if it does not meet this requirement. You are therefore asked to seek the approval of your instructor that the organisation selected is suitable.

Context

At the managerial level, strategic organisational failures (of whatever type e.g falling sales, internal conflict, high staff turnover, etc) are symptoms, due to a combination of failures in one or more of the 4Cs – Communication, Collaboration, Coordination, and Control.

Your task is to identify a major area of weakness in a unit of your organisation (not the whole organisation). This can be either in your own department or unit, or your boss has asked you to look at another part of a business, as an internal consultant.

The task has to be organisation design related and cannot be to do with corporate strategy, strategic planning, change management nor generic issues such as falling performance, falling sales etc. The lack of focus, or an inability to clear state it, is likely to result in a failed task.

The unit of analysis MUST be for a unit of the company you work for. (If your company is a large one, then focus on a strategic business unit or department. The structure will be aimed at your designation level ie supervisor, team leader, unit head, head of strategic business unit, CEO etc. Frame the issue at your level so that you are familiar with the issues. For example if you are a supervisor it would be inappropriate for you to look at International diversification but this might be something if you are the CEO. Also this would be about corporate strategy and not part of your remit anyway for this assignment.

If you are not employed currently, use your previous employer. Exceptionally if this not possible, (permission from the module leader will need to be sought) select a well-known local company that you can access to and use the same criteria. Delve down to the lowest level commensurate with your designation.

The organisation used must give signed consent to the project as you will need detailed information/data.

Under no circumstances are you allowed to choose multinationals about which you have no connection. Doing so will result in a failed assignment.

Your remit, in the form of a strategic management project will be to examine what the problem(s) is/are (you must provide evidence of this via board or team meetings, internal records etc), identify the likely causes and the reasons for it (in light of your understanding from this module) and propose a new design, approach (solution) that would overcome that strategic failure. You then justify and explain how your design will overcome the failure and put in place appropriate monitoring system to evaluate outcomes from the redesign.

Also note, this module and assessment is DIFFERENT from change management and transformation literature which relates to “how” change should be undertaken, what is good practice, what to avoid, role and types of leadership ie the psychology of change. What students are looking in this module is the physiology and sociology of organisations ie design for strategic effectiveness. If you turn this into a change management assignment (and use change management tools) you will likely fail or secure bare pass grade.

The project is to be undertaken in a number of formative phases, culminating in a final written report.

In phase 1 you will write proposal for your tutor to set the parameters and scope of the project. You will discuss this with your classmates in seminars and get feedback. In this phase you will state what the organisation is and what your designation is, what the strategic failure is. Your tutor will record all this information in a table and supply it to the module leader for approval. 2-3 pages maximum.

Phase 2 will be a critical literature review.  Your task will be to review research from a range of scholarly articles that relate to organisational structure design issues you are addressing. This is an opportunity to strengthen the project rigour with further theoretical insights. The core text books and supplied articles will form the backbone of the literature review but other strategy literature can supplement this too. This informs your thinking on and about the restructure before, during and after the redesign.

You will have learnt from the research methods classes in the module 7MG001, a literature review is a critical discussion of the published information on your topic area. It is also a critical, evaluative synthesis, showing the relationships between various writings and how they relate to your own work. A literature review is not a simple summary of a series of articles. A good literature review will look at the research that has been done and synthesise or pull together those elements that are similar or most pertinent to the themes you have chosen. The alignment of literature to issues looked will form a key part of the grading for this part.

Phase 3 will be the analysis/redesign. First you will give a pen portrait of the business unit under investigation (only write one paragraph on the company itself) by analysing your chosen unit’s internal structures and its external environment using some of the frameworks studied that you consider most relevant to your particular situation e.g. Daft’s structural dimensions, Daft’s contingency framework, Porter’s five forces model or any other model, such SWOT etc.  Don’t do these just for the sake of it. These are tools to understand the business unit and not part of the analysis itself. The tools need to be relevant to the issues explored.

If the issue is/are wholly internal for example it would not make sense to use porter’s 5 forces because that is about the external industry analysis. If the issues arise due to forces in the external environment or is boundary spanning than the 5 forces may be suitable or perhaps stakeholder analysis or any other similar tool but each tool needs to be pertinent to the issues of the restructure. Grading will reflect if you have not seriously thought about the tools you are using.

All the tools you used must go in the appendices and NOT in the main body. Only take a paragraph or two of what each tool is showing. Remember the tools used equip you to undertake the analysis. They are not the analysis itself. Using the tools will get you some marks but on their own will not be sufficient to pass the task.

Your tutor will ask you to present your findings at interim points during the seminar sessions (details will vary depending on iteration and delivery format. The presentations will not be part of the assessment.

Phase 4 will the final Project Report.

The final report should take the form of a maximum 4000 word business report to the organisation’s management team. A business report is a functional piece of writing usually written to communicate recommendations with the appropriate rationale, illustrations and evidence.

Your report should be written in standard business English that favours ease of comprehension. In general, your sentences and paragraphs will be shorter compared to academic English. It is also acceptable to use a limited number of bullet points in your report.

Use the literature review as well as the theoretical foundations given in the core text and additional readings to strengthen your arguments and move beyond subjective opinions. You are also encouraged to support your arguments and analyses with limited amount of visuals, such as charts and diagrams.

NOTE: Visual must be used very sparingly. Do not include financial data, company charts, blank images of analytical tools or irrelevant junk. It is unlikely visuals will exceed more than 5-6 and most of these will be in the appendices. You will be heavily penalised if you turn your submission that is more of an art show than a report.

Business reports do not have a set number of sections, nevertheless guidelines are provided as below. Make sure you clearly delineate and label your sections with appropriate headings. As a guide, some sections that most reports tend to include are Executive Summary, Introduction, Findings, Recommendations and Conclusion. Use the Business Report Help Sheet from University of Melbourne provided for you under resources.

Advice: Make it concise, to the point and convincing. Try to write with a specific audience in mind, and try as best as you can to generate a genuine buy-in from stakeholders. Suggested structure as follows:

Executive summary

1 Introduction

1 1.introduction to the company
1.2 Business Case (remember to include evidence for the need to redesign)

2 Literature review (this informs your thinking on and about the restructure before, during and after

3 Analysis/Restructure

Design and restructure
Monitoring

4 Conclusions  

Assessment Criteria (The actual assessment components for this assignment)

Criteria

Weighting (If applicable)

         PDP              

25%

         Project      

75%

See performance descriptors at the end of this document.                      

Pass mark

Postgraduate                                                                                                                           50%

Performance descriptors in use;

·       University of Wolverhampton                                                                                                Yes 

·       Professional or Statutory Body                                                                                             No 

·       Module specific                                                                                                                       Yes

·       Other (specify below)                                                                                                                               No 

Return of assessments

(Instructions for return / collection of assessments)

Assessments will be not returned to students but feedback sheets will be available via canvas

This assessment is testing Module Learning outcomes

Tick if tested here

LO1

Critically evaluate the underlying concepts and theories of strategic management and the relationship between strategy, stakeholder aspirations and governance           

Ö      

LO2

Demonstrate understanding and awareness of current and emerging Economic, Political, Legal and Cultural factors and critically evaluate those which will have an impact on strategic management in an international context              

Ö      

LO3

Formulate business strategies in a systematic way , and develop criteria in order to evaluate and select those most likely to prove successful for a particular organisation

Ö

LO4

Develop plans for the implementation of business strategies, presenting strategic proposals to stakeholders in a persuasive and authoritative manner.

Ö

L7 (Masters Level)

90-100%

This work is outstanding and is of a standard which could be considered for future publication in a professional journal. The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic debate which presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and a totally justified position. The work demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to current theory and/or practice and specific, focused examples of contestability. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplars, underpinning principles and practical interpretation.

No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.

80-89%

The work is of an excellent standard and has the potential for future publication in a professional context. The work demonstrates engagement in an academic debate which presents clear evidence of a considered understanding of the professional issues studied, the approach adopted and the position taken. The work enhances current theory and/or practice and displays a range of examples of contestability. There is evidence of clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of theoretical models and/or practical applications has resulted in a distinct level of originality.

Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.

70-79%

There is evidence of analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates together with some evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the complexity of the context in which it is situated and the impinging external factors; it takes cognisance of differing perspectives and interpretations and recognises dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows an ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which current views are based and to challenge received opinion.

Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.

60-69%

The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and issues. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to professional practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and a comparative review of key authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within a given professional context.
Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate

50-59%

50% Pass mark

The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning outcomes.

Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.

40-49% Fail

Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address each of the outcomes for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence of an ability to apply the principles of the module to a wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered.

There is evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes to suggest that the participant will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.

30-39% Fail

The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. There are fundamental misconceptions of the basis of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory.

There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the author will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.

20-29% Fail

This work shows little or no understanding of relevant theory. There is little reference to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought or criticality. Overall the work is unduly descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the essential issues.

10-19% Fail

This work is not coherent and shows severe faults in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate. It includes unsubstantiated statements or assertions. It is unstructured and extremely badly presented. It is totally descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis.

0-9% Fail

No real attempt to address assignment brief or learning outcomes.

Criteria

70-100%

Work of an outstanding, standard

60-69%

Work of a good standard.

Pass 50-59%

Work of a pass standard.

40-49%

Soft FAIL

0-39%

Hard FAIL

PDP:

An innovative, well-structured document which synthesises insights from the webinar, readings and action plan. Well-written, & well-presented.

A balanced, well-structured document.  The PDP may not be innovative but will be sound overall, showing insights from the webinar, readings and action plan. Well-written, & well-presented.

The PDP is cohesive but may be hindered by insufficient synthesis and reflection. It reasonably well-written, shows awareness of key elements and is well presented

Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address the requirements of the task brief.   There is little or no evidence of learning from the webinar, readings. The PDP is poorly crafted.

Significant failings in the pdp balance, structure or writing style.  Significant flaws in reflection.  Lacking in coherence, the plan is unstructured and/or badly presented.

Project

The project demonstrates
originality, innovation and depth in the content and theory. It is reflective of a professional consultancy report. The work clearly demonstrates application of theories and provides an overwhelmingly convincing case to management.

In the main the project is insightful and has an appropriate selection of content and theory in key areas identified in the brief.

The work demonstrates application of theory and gives management some good insights.

Key theories and ideas are
included in the report in an appropriate manner although not consistently across all area. The work demonstrates basic application of theories worthy of presentation to management but has low credibility

Appropriate selection
of content/theories but some key aspects missed/misconstrued. Lack of theory in most areas. The work does not sufficiently demonstrate basic application through. The work is not worthy of presentation to management in its current form

Does not address the assignment brief. Uses Inaccurate or inappropriate
content/theory. The work does not create a link between theory and practice.

The complete portfolio –

Presentation and Harvard Referencing

Presentation standard of the portfolio is excellent.  Extensive referencing which is clear, relevant and consistently accurate using the Harvard system

The bibliography is comprehensively annotated.

Content is  formatted for easy reading with a clear structure delineated by subheadings and paragraph structures

Presentation overall of good standard with few errors in grammar and syntax.

Referencing is relevant and accurate using the Harvard system.

Good evidence of reading round the subject. The bibliography contains appropriate annotations.

Content is formatted for easy reading with clear paragraph structures.

Presentation has limitations including some errors in grammar and syntax Minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing using the Harvard system.

Evidence of reading round the subject other than just set texts and websites.

The bibliography contains few annotations

Content may not be formatted, but still readable

Presentation is poor in structure and includes errors in grammar and syntax. Referencing present
having many inconsistencies
and inaccuracies.  Little evidence of reading other than set texts & websites

The bibliography contains no annotations.

No attempt to format for readability.

Structure and presentation is not of an acceptable standard including faulty grammar and syntax. Referencing mainly from set text.

inaccurate references or bibliography absent.

Presentation is slapdash