Strategy in Context

 

Assessment: 2500-word researched and referenced individual analytical case study

This assessment is worth 70% of your final mark.

 

Your task in this assignment is to compose an analytical case study about a specific strategic decision made by a particular organisation. Your specific objectives are to:

1.     Describe the decision.

2.     Explain how and why the organisation made it.

3.     Evaluate the decision-making process and suggest alternatives.

To achieve these objectives, you must apply the theoretical perspectives we discussed in class. You must also conduct careful research into organisation’s activities and the internal and external environmental factors that may have shaped its decision. You must provide references to all your sources.

Task specific guidance:

 

Selecting the organisation and the strategic decision

As you are expected to provide a detailed analysis of an organisation’s strategic decision-making process, you should select an organisation with sufficient information about its activities available to the public. The most natural choice is a large multinational or a major domestic organisation. The organisation does not have to be a commercial one. You can also select a public sector or a civil society organisation such as a government agency, educational institution, or an NGO.

You must also focus your report on a specific strategic decision made by this organisation. This should be a decision made at a specific point in time. Examples of possible decisions include but are not limited to:

  • A decision to launch a particular product/service line.
  • A decision to move into a particular new market.
  • A decision to form a strategic alliance with another organisation.
  • A decision to sell off part of operations.
  • A decision to initiate a specific sustainability programme.
  • A decision to allow/supress labour union activity.
  • A decision that involved unethical activity (e.g. ignoring product safety defects, disregarding the wellbeing of specific stakeholders, etc.).

The decision you write about has to be specific. For example, writing about ‘Volkswagen deciding to cheat on emissions tests’ is appropriately specific. Writing about ‘Volkswagen’s Corporate Social Responsibility policy’ is not as it is too general.

 

Elements to be addressed

The following table outlines the elements you are required to include in your case study.

 

An Introduction –         Briefly explain what your selected organisation does (e.g. nature of activities, location, ownership structure).

–         Briefly describe the decision you will analyse. Was it a good decision? E.g. is there evidence that it improved/weakened the organisation’s position, did any stakeholders support/oppose it?

–         Outline the structure of your case study.

 

An explanation of why and how your selected organisation reached its decision –         Briefly explore the decision-making process: who were the key people involved, when did it happen, where, was it a planned and deliberate move or was it emergent/reactive?

–         If you are writing about a commercial context: did the decision involve defensive or offensive strategy?

–         Identify key specific factors and/or social actors in internal and/or external environment of the organisation influenced or forced the decision.

–         Reflect on the power structures and relations within which the decision was made. These could include broad ideological constructs, internal and external institutional and value systems, resources and/or influential stakeholders.

 

Recommendation of an alternative strategic decision-making process and strategy.

 

–         If you were a manager making this decision, would you have used a different decision-making process?

–         Would this different process have led you to a different decision?

–         Base your discussion here on the results of your analysis from the previous section and your learning in such areas as stakeholder theory, innovation, business models, inter-organisational collaboration and alternative organisational forms.

 

Conclusion

 

Clearly summarise your key findings and recommendations from the previous two sections.

 

 

 

Task specific guidance:

 

Selecting the organisation and the strategic decision

As you are expected to provide a detailed analysis of an organisation’s strategic decision-making process, you should select an organisation with sufficient information about its activities available to the public. The most natural choice is a large multinational or a major domestic organisation. The organisation does not have to be a commercial one. You can also select a public sector or a civil society organisation such as a government agency, educational institution, or an NGO.

You must also focus your report on a specific strategic decision made by this organisation. This should be a decision made at a specific point in time. Examples of possible decisions include but are not limited to:

–         A decision to launch a particular product/service line.

–         A decision to move into a particular new market.

–         A decision to form a strategic alliance with another organisation.

–         A decision to sell off part of operations.

–         A decision to initiate a specific sustainability programme.

–         A decision to allow/supress labour union activity.

–         A decision that involved unethical activity (e.g. ignoring product safety defects, disregarding the wellbeing of specific stakeholders, etc.).

The decision you write about has to be specific. For example, writing about ‘Volkswagen deciding to cheat on emissions tests’ is appropriately specific. Writing about ‘Volkswagen’s Corporate Social Responsibility policy’ is not as it is too general.

 

Elements to be addressed

The following table outlines the elements you are required to include in your case study.

 

An Introduction –         Briefly explain what your selected organisation does (e.g. nature of activities, location, ownership structure).

–         Briefly describe the decision you will analyse. Was it a good decision? E.g. is there evidence that it improved/weakened the organisation’s position, did any stakeholders support/oppose it?

–         Outline the structure of your case study.

 

An explanation of why and how your selected organisation reached its decision –         Briefly explore the decision-making process: who were the key people involved, when did it happen, where, was it a planned and deliberate move or was it emergent/reactive?

–         If you are writing about a commercial context: did the decision involve defensive or offensive strategy?

–         Identify key specific factors and/or social actors in internal and/or external environment of the organisation influenced or forced the decision.

–         Reflect on the power structures and relations within which the decision was made. These could include broad ideological constructs, internal and external institutional and value systems, resources and/or influential stakeholders.

 

Recommendation of an alternative strategic decision-making process and strategy.

 

–         If you were a manager making this decision, would you have used a different decision-making process?

–         Would this different process have led you to a different decision?

–         Base your discussion here on the results of your analysis from the previous section and your learning in such areas as stakeholder theory, innovation, business models, inter-organisational collaboration and alternative organisational forms.

 

Conclusion

 

Clearly summarise your key findings and recommendations from the previous two sections.

 

Case study structure and formatting

The case study has to have an identifiable introduction and conclusion sections.

The case study has to be written in a narrative form. You should tell the story of how an organisation made a particular decision. Writing narratives/stories is a complex skill, so be prepared to go through several drafts of your work before you make a final submission.

Ensure that your writing is clear and logical. Your ideas should be interlinked, with points and arguments arranged in a logical order. You may consider splitting your case study into sections. You are also encouraged to use figures, tables and graphs to illustrate your arguments.

Remember basic rules of good writing, such as:

–         Each paragraph should contain just one specific idea or point.

–         Sentences should not be too long.

–         Check your grammar, style, spelling and punctuation.

–         All tables and illustrations should be clearly formatted.

–         Your work should have a clean and professional appearance.

 

Required research

Your case study must be based on thorough theoretical and empirical research.

 

Use of theory:

–         Every argument you make in your case study must be grounded in one of the theoretical perspectives we discussed in class. You do not need to use all the perspectives we covered. Instead, you should select perspectives most helpful in the context of your case study.

–         Your use of theory should be creative, demonstrate wider academic reading and show understanding of how different perspectives are linked.

–         Please note that limiting your theory choice to the most basic strategy models such as PESTLE, SWOT and Porter’s models you will only gain you a basic pass mark (40% – 45%) at best.

 

Organisation/decision research:

–         Your case study should also be based on thorough and detailed empirical research of the activities of your organisation.

–         Your final case study may not present all of the research that you conducted. You only need use evidence most relevant to supporting your arguments. For instance, you may conduct extensive research into the external environmental factors and find that only one or two of them played an important role. In this case, you should only write about these relevant factors and exclude other less relevant information.

–         Your sources of information about the organisation and its environment can include the following:

–         Organisation’s website and press releases, annual reports, CSR/sustainability reports, organisational structure charts, mission statements, etc. available on it.

–         Reputable newspapers and magazines.

–         Business history journals such as Business History, Business History Review and Enterprise and Society.

–         Books written about the organisation.

–         Government and international organisation websites – e.g. OECD, UNCTAD (The World Investment Report in particular), WTO, WHO, relevant NGO websites, etc.

–         Your sources must be trustworthy and reputable (avoid tabloids, ‘yellow press’, consulting company websites and papers written by other students).

–         It is not appropriate to use Wikipedia as a source at your level of study. If you find yourself reading Wikipedia articles, please go to the reference list and the end and explore the original sources instead.

 

Word count

The maximum word count for this assignment is 2500 words. There is no minimum word count, but it is likely that you will need to be close to the maximum word count to produce a work of sufficient depth and detail.

Tables, figures, the list of references and appendices are not included in the word count. Be judicious with the use of tables and appendices. They should not be used to circumvent the word count. This means that tables should not be overly long or detailed, and appendices should only be used to provide brief supplementary information. Any information central to your argument should be put in the main body of your case study and not in the appendices.

Do not exceed the word count! A mark penalty of 5% will be applied to submissions that exceed the word count.

 

How to obtain help with your assignment

If you have questions about your assignment or have difficulty completing it, please post it on the assessment discussion board on the module Brightspace site. If you send your question by e-mail to any of the module staff, it will be answered on the discussion board. Only questions of confidential and personal nature will be answered through e-mail.

Module staff will answer your questions within 48 working hours (staff will not be available during evenings after 5 pm and weekends).

Please note that tutorial leaders and the module leader will not be able to read case study drafts prior to their submission. However, you can obtain help with your assignment by doing one or more of the following:

–         Post the organisational decision you are planning to analyse on the Brightspace discussion board. This will allow the module tutors to advise you on whether this decision is appropriate for the assignment.

–         Post specific questions about your coursework on the Brightspace discussion board.

–         Attend the coursework consultation sessions that will be timetabled in your tutorial hours towards the end of the semester.

–         Study all the materials posted in the Assessment section on Brightspace carefully.

Please do not leave it too late to ask for help if you run into difficulties.

 

 

General study guidance:

 

·        Cite all information used in your work. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are cited in the text of your work, and all sources cited in the text of your work appear in your reference list.

 

·        Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style.  For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link:

o   APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/

 

  • The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct. You can contact them at busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk.

 

·        If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation Development Centre team busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk. It is possible to arrange 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop.

·        Do not exceed the word limit.

 

Assessment criteria
 

  • The Assessment Criteria are shown the end of this document.  Your tutor will discuss how your work will be assessed/marked and will explain how the assessment criteria apply to this piece of work.  These criteria have been designed for your level of study.

 

  • These criteria will be used to mark your work and will be used to support the electronic feedback you receive on your marked assignment. Before submission, check that you have tried to meet the requirements of the higher-grade bands to the best of your ability. Please note that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
  • The Learning Innovation Development Centre can help you to understand and use the assessment criteria.  To book an appointment, either visit them on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk

 

 

This section is for information only.

 

The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.

 

On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:

 

2.       Reflect on the complexity and uncertainty inherent in strategy-making in organisations.

4.     Identify, describe and critically evaluate strategies and strategy-making processes in specific organisations using relevant theoretical tools.

5.       Produce recommendations on the development of strategy-making and strategic directions in specific organisations.

 

 

Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.

 

Appendix 1 Assessment criteria

 

These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed.  They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.

 

Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.

 

 

The grades between Pass and Very Good should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module.  The Exceptional and Outstanding categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the Excellent requirements, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding

(Excellent +)

Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes Met Met Met Met Met Met Not met or partially met Not met or partially met Not met or minimal Not met or minimal
Response to the question /task Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach Very good response to task; elements of sophistication in response Well-developed response to assessment task with evident development of ideas Secure response to assessment task but not developed sufficiently developed to achieved higher grade Adequate response that meets minimum threshold, but with limitations of development Nearly a sufficient response but lacks key aspects. Insufficient response Little response No response
 

Knowledge and understanding

 

Conceptual and critical understanding of contemporary knowledge in the subject and its limitations (H) Skilfully integrates conceptual knowledge from

other modules or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative critical insights into the subject and its ambiguities in a considered individual voice

Excellent conceptual knowledge and critical appreciation of the key tensions, controversies disagreements and disputes drawing on ideas from beyond the module bounds. Offers original, compelling, insightful or interesting additional perspectives. Draws on an extended conceptual knowledge

 

Shows very strong ability to apply/ critique ideas and a well-developed consideration of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Performance at this level and above shows intellectual comfort with doubt, ambiguity, controversy, uncertainly and complexity -rather than seeking certainty and a single right answer.

Demonstrates competent conceptual knowledge drawing on a broader knowledge base. A good attempt at integrating and critiquing. Some solid insights into the limitations of knowledge.

 

No major errors or misunderstanding.

Demonstrates secure conceptual knowledge, conventional critical understanding of relevant knowledge.  Some awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

 

 

Few inaccuracies.

 

 

Demonstrates adequate basic conceptual knowledge, some formulaic critical understanding and awareness of limitations of knowledge.

 

No integration of ideas.

 

Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance

Mentions some terminology relating to theories, concepts

 

Demonstrates insufficient grasp of a basic knowledge.  Very limited critical understanding and awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Many errors in understanding and omissions.

Demonstrates little core knowledge.  No critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Major misunderstandings and significant omissions.

Demonstrates virtually no core knowledge or critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

 

Many errors in understanding and extensive omissions.

Wholly irrelevant.
 

 

Cognitive / Intellectual skills

 

Application of knowledge / skills to practice / a solution(s) / proposal / conclusion Creative & original application of knowledge /skills to produce new insights and offers a novel and comprehensive solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the boundary of the brief. Applies knowledge / skills to develop a comprehensive solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the original boundary of the brief.

 

Extended insights.

Applies knowledge / skill in a sophisticated manner to develop a well conceptualised and solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Alternative approaches might be considered.

 

Thoughtful and developed insights/ creativity.

Applies knowledge/skill in a logical and developed manner to provide a considered solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some good insights /creativity

 

No logical errors.

Applies knowledge/skill in a logical manner to provide a more developed solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some but limited insights/creativity.

 

Few logical errors

Applies knowledge/skills in a basic manner to develop a simple but limited solution/ proposal/conclusion.

No insights / creativity

Logical errors evident.

Use of some knowledge to provide a solution / proposal / conclusion, but limited solution/ proposal / conclusion Some use of knowledge, but mostly insufficient. Weak use of knowledge / skills evident.  Very limited solution / proposal / conclusion. No evidence of attempt to analyse or interpret information or provide a solution/proposal/ conclusion.
Argument, reasoning Intellectually coherent and comprehensive argument that articulates authentic, considered stance in own voice Compelling argument that shows intellectual agility and captures ambiguity.  Wholly relevant. Sharply focused and complex argument.

 

All points wholly relevant

 

Convincing and coherent reasoning.

Clearly articulated argument with consideration of different perspectives.

 

Mostly relevant points.

 

 

Logically coherent reasoning.

Satisfactory argument but limited in complexity.

 

Broadly relevant points.

 

Some limitations in terms of reasoning

Adequate basic level of argument provided.

Some relevant points but also a number of irrelevant points

Errors in reasoning.

Weak argument with substantial errors in reasoning. Descriptive or largely incoherent Largely incoherent No argument is offered
Use of referenced* evidence and sources to support task

 

*Normally APA 7th or OSCOLA

Systematic and rigorous use of evidence/ sources beyond the normal bounds of the module to robustly support purpose of the work. Evidence of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Comprehensive use of high-quality evidence and sources beyond the normal bounds of the module and shows evidence of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is very well supported by very extensive use of evidence / sources.

 

All points fully substantiated.

 

No unsubstantiated points.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

Task is well supported by more developed use of sources/evidence

 

Most points are substantiated and no major unsubstantiated points

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate.  Some minor errors in citations or references.

Task is supported by several sources /evidence.

 

Some points are unsubstantiated.

 

Referenced appropriately

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate but may include errors

Task supported by basic evidence and sources but is over-reliant on very few sources.

 

Significant number of points are unsubstantiated.

Some effort to reference, but frequent errors and omissions

One or two apparent references to concepts introduced in the assessment task

 

Very few points are substantiated using evidence / sources.

 

Significant errors and omissions in referencing

Little or no evidence

 

Significant errors and omissions in citation and application of referencing

Unsupported

 

Very little attempt to cite or reference

No evidence

No citations

Structure and, style in supporting the development of ideas

(criteria relevant for essay-style work)

Elegant flow and structure is integral to the argument. An exceptional demonstration of academic writing which effectively guides the reader. Elegance of flow that skilfully through the work and excellently supports key message.

 

 

Well-ordered logical flow of material in a fluid style which contributes well to the development of the key messages and guides the reader through the writer’s thinking.

 

Clear logical and structured flow of material that guides the reader and supports the development of key messages. Basic logical flow of material with elements of signposting for the reader which supports key messages to some extent, but which can lapse in places. Some logical flow of material with some observable elements of signposting for the reader but elements of disorganisation

May contain repetition or irrelevant material which obscures the key messages.

Some attempt at structure, but disorganized and ineffectual in reflecting argument or analysis. No evident intent of structure.  Disorganised, irrelevant or repetitive content. None Insufficient evidence
Language and style Lucid, fluent, elegant, and compelling, using a distinctive and individual voice Clear and fluent with a breadth of vocabulary. Discernible author voice. Clear functional writing with a discernible author voice. Clear and straightforward use language.

 

Largely error free

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax.

Limited flaws.

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that conveys the meaning of the text.

 

Many vocabulary, grammar and syntax errors that obscure meaning Extensive flaws in vocabulary, grammar and syntax that prevent the text from being understandable. Unacceptable Insufficient evidence
Formatting of work (font, pagination, labelling) Impeccable formatting entirely consonant with assessment brief expectations Excellent formatting.  Polished and consonant with the assessment brief expectations. Formatting consonant with assessment brief expectations.  No formatting issues. Formatting very largely free from major presentational problems and consonant with assessment brief. Formatting broadly consonant with assessment brief but some breaches of guidance. Acceptable formatting, but some breaches of guidance.  Some unprofessional aspects Formatting not sufficiently consonant with assessment brief. Multiple formatting issues. Formatting not consonant with assessment brief. Very poor with multiple formatting issues No discernible attempt format work. No formatting

 

 

STRATEGY IN CONTEXT BHS0035

Marking Criteria

                           Criteria EXPLANATION
Case Study Content
Your case study answers the questions set out in the assignment brief. The assignment asks you to explain why a particular organisation made a particular strategic decision AND evaluate the decision-making process and suggest alternatives to the decision. Your case study must focus on addressing these issues. Simply describing the decision, providing an external and/or internal analysis of the organisation, or evaluating the quality of the decision will not answer the assignment question.
The discussion in the case study is informed by relevant theory. All arguments you make must be grounded in theory. For instance, when searching for explanations of the decision, you must consider factors set out in the various theoretical perspectives we discussed in this module. You are expected to use a minimum of three or four different theoretical perspectives.

Please avoid exclusively relying on basic planning models such as PESTLE and SWOT. Using basic planning models only will result in a basic pass mark at best.

Your writing demonstrates a solid understanding of the theoretical perspectives you are using. Please make sure that you understand the theoretical perspectives and models you use very well – e.g. what they are intended for, how they work and how they are related to other perspectives.

You are not required to explain in your case study the theoretical perspectives you use. However, the way you use concepts and ideas from those perspectives will provide an indication of your understanding.

Your case study is based on thorough research of your organisation’s decision, the organisation itself and the situation within which the decision was made. You are expected to use a variety of sources to obtain information about your chosen organisation, about the decision that you are analysing and about any relevant circumstantial factors (e.g. various aspects of the external and internal environment, important stakeholders, organisational processes, etc.). Relying on just one or two sources will most likely not be enough.

Please also be aware of potential biases – e.g. your organisation’s own accounts of how the decision was made may not be objective.

Your case study should address the power dimension of organisational decision-making. In your analysis, you should consider how the various forces both in the internal and external environment of the organisation forced or encouraged the organisation to make the decision. These forces may have exerted a direct coercive impact on the organisation (e.g. stakeholder demands), facilitated the decision (e.g. existence of particular resource sets), or set out the boundaries for organisational imagination (e.g. organisational culture and structure). You should also consider the relationships between the various forces.
Case Study Structure
Your case study has a clear introduction. The introduction should provide a brief overview of the organisation that you chose and the decision that you will be explaining and evaluating. You can also provide a brief list of the theoretical perspectives you will use.
Your case study is a coherent narrative. You present your points/arguments in a logical sequence. The structure of the case study itself should support a clear communication of the results of your analysis. As this is a fairly long case study, you should split it into several sections. Each section should deal with a specific topic – e.g. background information, the description of the decision-making process, a particular influencing factor, or the discussion of the relationship between particular influencing factors.

Please do not title the main body of your case study “Main body”. The words “main body” are simply used to denote the main substantive section of a piece of writing. They are not an appropriate section title.

The case study must have a clear conclusion, summarising the findings of your analysis. In your conclusion, you should provide a clear outline the key reasons why your organisation made the decision, why the organisation did or did not follow a good decision-making process, and whether this decision should have been different.
Evidence and Referencing
All arguments you make must be supported by evidence, either theoretical or empirical. Your arguments and explanations should be based on thorough research and careful consideration of relevant evidence. Avoid making arguments without supporting them with relevant evidence.
All non-common-knowledge facts and arguments are referenced. You should provide a clear indication of the sources of your evidence by thoroughly referencing your writing. Please use either an APA referencing style.
The sources used are up-to-date and appropriate for an academic work Avoid using blogs, social media, ‘yellow press’ newspapers and consultancy websites as your sources. Reputable national and regional newspapers and magazines, websites of reputable non-governmental organisations and commercial and non-profit organisations, government sources and academic journals and books are acceptable.
The references are formatted correctly both in the text and the references pages. Please use either an APA referencing style and make sure that you use correct formatting (e.g. the sources should be listed in the reference page in an alphabetical order).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRATEGY IN CONTEXT BHS0035

Expectations for assessment grade categories

 

Grade Category Expected case study quality
70% and over Your case study entirely focuses on the assignment questions and provides a clear and comprehensive explanation of how and why a specific company made a specific strategic decision. The explanations are informed by several different relevant theoretical perspectives that were discussed in the module. Your approach is creative and imaginative and goes beyond the basic strategic planning models. The work demonstrates an excellent understanding of theory, is thoroughly researched, clearly structured and appropriately referenced.

Overall, your work demonstrates an excellent understanding of how organisations may make strategic decisions and the factors that impact this process.

60%-69% Your case study mainly focuses on the assignment questions and provides a clear explanation of how and why a specific company made a specific strategic decision. The explanations are informed by several different relevant theoretical perspectives that were discussed in the module. You go well beyond the basic strategic planning models in your theory use. The work demonstrates a good understanding of theory, is well researched, mainly clearly structured and appropriately referenced.

Overall, your work demonstrates a good understanding of how organisations may make strategic decisions and the factors that impact this process.

50%-59% More than half of the case study focuses on the assignment questions and provides a clear explanation of how and why a specific company made a specific strategic decision. The explanations are informed by at least one or two different relevant theoretical perspectives that were discussed in the module and that are not the basic strategic planning models such as SWOT, PESTLE and Ansoff’s Matrix. The work demonstrates a basic but good understanding of most theoretical perspectives that you use. You provide evidence for most of your arguments. There is some logic to the case study structure and most of it is referenced.

Overall, your work demonstrates a basic but still solid understanding of how organisations may make strategic decisions and the factors that impact this process.

40%-49% The case study at least partially focuses on the assignment questions and provides some clear explanations of how and why a specific company made a specific strategic decision. The explanations are informed by basic strategic planning models such as SWOT, PESTLE and Ansoff’s Matrix. The work demonstrates a basic understanding of these models. You provide evidence for most of your arguments. There is some logic to the case study structure and most of it is referenced.

Overall, your work demonstrates only a basic understanding of how organisations may make strategic decisions and the factors that impact this process.

below 40% The case study is not on the assignment questions and/or does not provide clear explanations of how and why a specific company made a specific strategic decision. If explanations are provided, they are not informed by relevant theory. The work demonstrates a little understanding of relevant theory. Evidence is sparse, there is little logic to the case study structure and references are either lacking or entirely absent.

Overall, your work demonstrates a severely limited understanding of how organisations may make strategic decisions and the factors that impact this process.