Level of Detail: Q: In relation to RBT, how much detail should we include?

Some of the readings are very economics based. Are we going to need those details? A: You should look to draw out a summary of key points, issues and considerations as they relate to the issues at hand. There will not be much time to go into too much detail, and remember the question will often be asking you to critically discuss/ compare and contrast. Therefore, you want to show you have a detailed knowledge of the key issues and considerations the question relates to, but should look to use these as a basis for discussion, with possible critique, examples etc. Q: How much detail are we going to be required to draw out in relation to Pettigrews work on Strategic change programmes? A: Specific cases, no. However, some examples would be useful. Focus on the key issues and models, again in relation to the issues at hand (in this case the importance of context in change management). There will not be much time to go into too much detail, and remember the question will often be asking you to critically discuss. Therefore, you want to show you have a detailed knowledge of the key issues and considerations the question relates to, but should look to use these as a basis for critical discussion, with possible critique, examples etc. Misc. Q: Could a question specifically focus on a reference identified in the reference notes? A: Yes, a question may ask you about a significant piece of work as a way into a discussion of the issues at hand. Q: Is it necessary to refer/ make linkages to other themes in our answers? A: In a critical discussion of a particular issue/ subject, this would potentially add value to an answer, yes, if done effectively. For example, drawing on conserved issues or using aspects/ examples from other themes to critique or take arguments to another level. Theme 1: Q: I n a question relating to RBT vs. Porter, what should we focus on? Q: Can you tell us how you might answer a question of Porter vs. RBT? A: Q1 on the sample paper requires consideration of their different approaches to the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the fundamental platform to strategy formation presented by the Design School. This would require discussion of various concepts and frameworks they suggest for the respective analysis of SW and OT, before consideration of their respective advantages and limitations, their different views on strategy formation, the barriers to imitation for competitive advantage sustainability, and the extent to which you felt they could be considered complementary or contradictory. Q: Any specific examples in comparing Porter vs. Mintzberg? A: The issue in theme 1 relates to their significance in relation to planned vs. emergent approaches, so you would look to consider their work in relation to this. An introduction to this was presented in Term 1/ Week 8 (Strategy Development Processes).

Theme 2: Q: When looking at Pettigrews work on history, culture and founders, how much do we need to focus on the Pettigrew and Whipp reading? A: This would be less important than the others, but it would be worth knowing how they collectively illustrate Pettigrews view of strategic management. Q: There is no example of a Pettigrew question. Can you provide one? A: Behaviour is more important than structure in the dynamics of the Board. Discuss. Theme 3: Q: Can you give an example of Karreman and Alvesson question that might be asked? A: Why do management consultants work so hard? Theme 4: Q: Do you need to diagnose strategic capabilities? A: Yes, in relation to the distinction between threshold and distinctive capabilities: identifying the key consideration and issues at hand; with some examples of frameworks that could be used; their possible benefits/ limitations; as well as how the internal scabbing process feeds in/ relates to other aspects of the environmental scanning/ strategy formation processes.