Marker 1: you identified an appropriate topic to research and develop the strategic context of the study in good detail. You have included a comprehensive and well- explained Literature Review which conveys a good degree of analysis (a) but the sources of information are fairly old in general. You set out a good overview and market penetration strategies and barriers to entry.

(b)The discussion around Research methodology was limited in scope and depth, you have stated the chosen methodology but (c) could have developed the rationale for this in more detail. The Data collection section drew on more recent publications. You did well to draw on a comparative case study to develop your discussion (d) but this is limited in application. (e) The data analysis section is very limited, (f) you have not evidenced the results of the questions sent to Managers at Turkcell. You did well to apply the REM model to the cases study. You have included a detailed explanation of the market environment within the UK (f) but have relied heavily on Johnson’s work to do this. (g) The conclusion is very long and recaps what you have covered, not your findings. (h) The recommendations should be more clearly focused on your summary conclusion.

Overall, while the report includes some relevant information, it would be improved if you clearly defined the key objectives and made concise links between sections to integrate your discussion.

Marker 2: (i) This account requires proof reading, see page 3 for example. Some background information is given (j) but sources for assumptions i.e. on UK expansion need to be included. However, this research has a strong strategic angle (k) but where are the research objectives?

Models are presented and attempts are made to evaluate (l) but more reference to the organization under study would have illustrated points further. (m) Chapter 3 needs to begin on a new page. While Yin is appropriately cited, (n) a stronger rationale for the research approach is required. (o) Is the data collection solely one interview? (p) More effort to access primary data could have been considered. While negotiating access can be problematic (see page 22-23), we do encourage an emphasis on primary data. (q) Chapter 3 is weak. (r) The (one) interview data could have been better presented (see page 32). (s) The final sections require theorizing. There is a PDP. This account, due to the reasons given above, does not meet the requirements to pass.

Assessor signature

Linda Sharp

30%

Moderator Signature