London School of Business & Finance (LSBF)

Module: Assignment Title: Assignment Type: Word Limit: Weighting: 50% Student Intake: Issue Date: Submission Date Feedback Date: Issued by (Assessor) Internal Verifier Plagiarism

MSc Marketing/MBA

Strategic Planning
Longitudinal Strategic Development Study Individual Course Work 3500 + / - 10% Intake 6 Tuesday 1 June 2011 Thursday 7 July 2011 WC 22 August 2011 Cliff Glover Kulbir Basra When submitting work for assessment, students should be aware of the LSBF guidance and regulations in concerning plagiarism. All submissions should be your own, original work. You must submit an electronic copy of your work. Your submission will be electronically checked. The Harvard Referencing System must be used. The Wikipedia website must not be referenced in your work. On successful completion of this assignment you will be able to LEARNING OUTCOMES: 1. Develop critical appreciation of current strategic management concepts 2. Develop an in-depth understanding of the complexity of the environment and its applications on decision-making process 3. Integrate and apply strategic approaches to practical situations in various types of organisations 4. Assess current developments in the organisational environment and alternative responses related to strategy by using case studies 5. Critically analyse and evaluate strategic management practices in organisations in different sectors 6. Resolve complex management problems in the area of strategic management by critical evaluate alternatives outcomes COURSE WORK TABULATED TO LEARNING OUTCOMES

Harvard Referencing Learning Outcomes

Section Part 1 Corporate Strategic Development History Part 2 Current Strategic Situation Part 3 The Way Forward

Matched Learning Outcomes 1,2.3,4,5,6

1,2.3,4,5,6

1,2.3,4,5,6

Scenario See Your Task Below Your Task

Longitudinal Strategic Development Study Selecting one company from the list at the end of this section, undertake the following: 1. RECENT PAST: (assessment criteria 1,2,3,5,6) Strategies deployed and resulting outcomes- recent strategic development history. Research, describe and give a succinct account of the strategic development history of the company you choose set within the context or the industry to which it belongs over the past 5 to 25 years, choosing the duration of time for the study most appropriate for understanding the recent strategic development of the company. Avoid making just chronological lists of events from websites and in particular identify the strategy(ies) that the company has been pursuing and any changes in strategy that the company has made during the period under consideration and their outcomes and consequences for the strategic situation which is the subject of the following section(1000 to 1500 words) 2. CURRENT: Current Strategic Situation. (assessment criteria 1,2,3,4,5,6) Undertake an evaluation and appraisal of the companys current strategic situation at the time of writing which relates to the previous section, using any research sources appropriate to support your analysis. Pay particular attention to the companys strategic macro, industry and competitive environment, changes and trends in that environment and the companys endowment of internal and external resources, capabilities and organisational structure emanating from decisions made in the recent past. Give a synopsis of the companys strategic situation in a way which is meaningful for the strategic choices it is able to make for the future which are the subject of section 3 below (1000 to 1500 words) 3. FUTURE: Strategic Direction for the future (assessment criteria 2,3,4,5). Based on your research and analysis undertaken for sections 1 and 2 above, explore a limited range of distinctively different choices of your own creation available to the company for the future. Evaluate and assess the choices available leading to recommendations for the company of your choices strategic route forward. Make clear the assumptions you have made and present your recommendations in a way that accommodate uncertainties and changes that might occur to the recommendations in the event of the occurrence of specified contingencies or changes in assumptions (1000 to 1500 words) The Companies you may choose from and for which case studies are available and will be issued to provide a starting point (NOT the finish point) for the study as enumerated under 1 to 3 above are:

Proctor and Gamble Eastman Kodak Raisio Group Vodaphone

You may also choose a company of your own choice but this must be listed on the UK Stock Market either as one of the FTSE top 200 or 250 companies (good sources Financial Times or Sunday Times Business Section or CityAM (free newspaper available every morning at many London underground station exits) BUT IF YOU DO be sure you are a) able to research this company in sufficient depth b) choose a company which is amenable to strategic analysis of the nature delivered over the duration of the course. DO NOT choose a company which is a pure investment vehicle, such as 3i, or other private equity group whose interests may span a range of minority or majority holdings in a number of related or unrelated businesses mainly for the equity fund performance purposes, or a company which is more in the nature of a vehicle for trading in or capturing returns from financial instruments or securities such as hedge investment or unit trust funds.

London School of Business & Finance (LSBF)

Module Assignment Title Grade 70%+

MSc Marketing / MBA Strategic Planning Longitudinal Strategic Development Study Description of Achievement

1.Excellent Research and factual information 2. Excellent Analysis and Evaluation 3. Excellent Logic and Reasoning 4. Excellent Synthesis and Creativity 5. Excellent Coherence and Integration 6. Excellent Sources and Referencing
The Harvard Referencing System has been both used and applied correctly.

60%-69%

1.V. Good Research and factual information

2. V. Good Analysis and Evaluation 3. V. Good Logic and Reasoning 4. V. Good Synthesis and Creativity 5. V. Good Coherence and Integration 6. V. Good Sources and Referencing
The Harvard Referencing System has been used and applied, but with minor errors.
50%-59%

1. Good Research and factual information 2. Good Analysis and Evaluation 3. Good Logic and Reasoning 4. Good Synthesis and Creativity 5. Good Coherence and Integration 6. Good Sources and Referencing
The Harvard Referencing System has been used and applied but some mistakes have been made

40%-49%

1. Moderate Research and factual information 2. Moderate Analysis and Evaluation 3. Moderate Logic and Reasoning 4. Moderate Synthesis and Creativity 5. Moderate Coherence and Integration 6. Moderate Sources and Referencing
The Harvard Referencing System has been used and applied but mistakes have been made.

30%-39%

1.Poor Research and factual information 2. Poor Analysis and Evaluation 3. Poor Logic and Reasoning 4. Poor Synthesis and Creativity 5. Poor Coherence and Integration 6. Poor Sources and Referencing
The Harvard Referencing System has been used and applied sporadically but major mistakes have been made.

Below 0-29%

1. V. Poor Research and factual information 2. V. Poor Analysis and Evaluation 3. V. Poor Logic and Reasoning 4. V. Poor Synthesis and Creativity 5. V. Poor Coherence and Integration 6. Sources and Referencing
The Harvard Referencing System has not been used.

See Standardised Feedback Comments at the end of the template for assignment specific assessment criteria.

Guidelines See section above.

Feedback based Assessment Criteria

Corporate Development History

Corporate Development History Strategic Situation analysis and synopsis Direction Forward-Strategy for future Coherence, Integration and Logic Total

Weight 20% 30% 30% 20% 100%

Grade Awarded

Weighted Grade

1. Corporate Development History section entirely absent or lacking in strategic relevance (less than 30%) 2. Inadequate historical content, lacks relevance to assignment, strategic content, analytical depth or appreciation of strategies adopted (30% to 39%) 3. Some good factual narrative but insufficient strategic content or appreciation of strategies adopted and outcomes and consequences of those strategies (40% - 49%) 4. Good factual narrative with some appreciation of strategies adopted but lacks analytical depth or articulation of the consequences of the strategic decisions made (50% - 59%) 5. Strong factually sound narrative and good appreciation of the strategies adopted but more depth needed and evidence of the understanding of the causal processes leading to the outcomes of strategies adopted (60% - 69%) 6. Overall very good thorough account of the development process, strategies adopted and the consequences of strategies adopted and implications for the current strategic situation (70%+) Strategic Situation 1. Section on Strategic Situation either missing or lacking in strategic relevance or content (less than 30%) 2. Lacks relevance to assignment, depth of analysis or strategic content (30% - 39%) 3. Some strategic tools used but inadequately applied to understand implications for the strategic decision and lacks a clear succinct synopsis of the strategic situation (40% - 49%) 4. Some good analytical content, but threads need drawing together into a better synopsis of the strength or vulnerability of the current strategic situation and implications for strategy (50% - 59%) 5. Good understanding and articulation of strategic situation with good application of strategic analytical tools but needs clearer synopsis of the implications for future strategy (60% - 69%) 6. Very good appreciation of analysis of strategic situation, good application of analytical tools, clear synopsis of the strength or problems of the strategic situation with explanation of implications for future strategy (70%+) Strategic Choice-Direction for the Future 1. Strategic Choice section either missing or absence of content relating to strategic choice (less than 30%) 2. Poor or absent range of distinct strategic options of your own creation or from your own ideas. No attempt made at either articulating your choice of options or evaluating these (30% - 39%) 3. Some strategic content included but lacks originality in choice and statement of distinctly different options or clear evaluation of each option and implications for strategic choice (40% - 49%) 4. Some good ideas and expression of options for strategic choice but options not sufficiently distinctly different or each option inadequately evaluated without clear implications for strategic recommendations (50% - 59%) 5. Good range of distinctive options well articulated but more needed on the evaluation of each option and the relationship between the evaluation and the strategy recommended (60% - 69%) 6. Very good range of distinctively different options well articulated with well chosen tests and method of evaluating and comparing each leading into clear recommendations for strategic choice (70%+) Cohesion, logic and Integration 1. One or more section of the report missing and/or total disjuncture between different sections (less than 30%) 2. There is little or no relationship between the individual sections of the report. One section of the report needs to lead naturally on to the next section showing how the development history impinges on and is a factor contributing to the current strategic situation which should then lead to the choices that are available for the future and their evaluation (30% -39%) 3. There is some continuity between the sections but little relationship between your strategic choice section (Strategy for the Future) and your analysis of the companys Strategic Situation. You need to show how your strategic analysis leads to the choices for the company and their evaluation (40% - 49%) 4. There is some integration, logical development and coherence between at least two parts of the report and one section has logical consequences for the content of the next section (50% - 59%) 5. Good coherences and continuity between all 3 parts of the report with one section naturally flowing into the next with persuasive arguments leading naturally to recommendations (60% - 69%) 6. Exceptionally incisive analysis and well reasoned argument based on a factual basis from research and understanding of the application and outcomes of application of analytical techniques and tools with the analysis leading persuasively into recommendations for Strategic Choice (70%+)

Some Commonly Occurring Feedback Comments: (ranked in order from very poor to very good) Corporate Development History - Your corporate development history has inadequate strategic substance and analysis and does not meet the requirements for this section given in the briefing notes. Make sure you analyse the strategies your chosen company has deployed and their consequences for the organisations current strategic situation - Your development history is little more than a catalogue of events with dates. This section needs more than a diary of key events and milestones - You have copied too much from internet sources with little sign of your own analysis - You write a good narrative of the corporate development history but insufficient analysis of the strategies which the company deployed, changes in those strategies and their outcomes - Your corporate development history shows a good understanding of the strategies the company deployed and the outcomes these produced but does not lead naturally on to the following sections - Your corporate development history is a comprehensive and thorough investigation and shows good insight and understanding of the strategies deployed by the company which lead well into the following sections Strategic Situation and Synopsis - Your strategic situation analysis lacks understanding and analysis which show an appreciation developing situation in terms of the strengths, vulnerabilities, opportunities or constraints of its actual and developing situation - Your choice of analytical tools is not the best for the company you have chosen and its strategic environment so do not provide any useful insights or conclusion on the companys strategic situation which can help inform its strategic choice in the following section - You use analytical tools but fail to apply these in a meaningful way to the companys strategic situation and changes to that situation. You need to apply the tools in a way that shows an understanding of the strength or vulnerability of the situation in which the company finds itself - You strategic situation analysis relies too heavily on a static analysis and pays too little attention to trends and changes which are occurring which have important implications for the choice of strategy for the companys future - Quite good environmental analysis, but you need to identify the strategic assets, distinctive capabilities or core competences of the company on which the company can build its strategic investment decisions for the future explaining why these are of strategic importance rather than just make a list of resources and capabilities - You need to identify developments in the strategic environment which have important implications for the companys strategic choice in terms of responding to opportunities, adversities, vulnerabilities and constraints with which the company is presented as well as listing the resources and capabilities of the company - A good and comprehensive analysis but you fail to provide a succinct synopsis of the dynamically developing situation of the company and the environment in which it is operating or important trends and development to which the company must respond - In general a very good thorough and well research strategic situation section identifying those developments of strategic importance and the strategically important resources and capabilities which leads on to and relates well the following section on strategic choice Direction Forward-Strategy for future - Your section on Strategy for the Future is almost entirely absent or quite inadequate and does not meet the requirement set out in the assignment briefing notes - Your section on strategy for the Future is over-reliant on the companys own sources and declared strategy stated on the internet or elsewhere. You need this section on Strategy for the Future to be from your own thinking and your own choices and defined using your own words - You fail to generate a limited range of distinctively different strategic options or choices from your own thinking for evaluation which the company could adopt for its strategy for the future - You successfully identify a small number of options or choices for the company but fail to adequately evaluate or assess each option in a rigorous manner using criteria or tests which relate to your section on the companys strategic situation -You successfully identify a range of strategic choices and apply accepted tests and criteria but the conclusions do not correspond or relate closely to your analysis in your strategic situation section

- Your section on the Direction forward and Strategy for the future is well done and well thought through using good criteria and tests for supporting your arguments although you do not clearly articulate the strategic recommendations you would make for the company for its future development - Your section on the Direction Forward and Strategy for the Future is well done and well thought through using good criteria and tests for supporting your arguments and you also clearly articulate the strategic recommendations you would make for the companys future development Cohesion, Integration and Logic - There is little or no relationship between the individual sections of the report. One section of the report needs to lead naturally on to the next section showing how the development history impinges on the current strategic situation which should then lead to the choices that are available for the company for the future and evaluation - There is some relationship between the first two sections of the report but very little relationship between your strategic choice section (Strategy for the Future) and your analysis of the companys Strategic Situation - There is a good continuity between the 3 sections of your report showing a clear relationship between history, current situation and choices for the future although your choice argument and evaluation are not always consistent with the conclusions of the situation analysis - There is good strong integration and coherence between all parts of the report and one section naturally flows on to the next giving good cohesion and persuasive arguments leading naturally into your recommendation for the future