| HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION |
| Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines | |
| Trimester | T2 2019 |
| Unit Code | HI6006 |
| Unit Title | Competitive Strategy |
| Assessment Type | Individual Assignment |
| Assessment Title | Essay – Key Strategy Development Tools |
| Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping) | Students are required to write a Comprehensive discussion of any three of the strategy models, with practical application to current business examples |
| Weight | 15% of the total assessments |
| Total Marks | 15 |
| Word limit | Not more than 1500 words |
| Due Date | Week 5 [Late submission penalties accrue at the rate of -10% per day] |
| Submission Guidelines | All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers. Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style. |
Page 2 of 3
Assignment 1 Specifications
Purpose:
This assignment aims at ensuring that students have familiarised themselves with the foundational strategy development models and are able to relate them to current practical business examples.
.
Details
Write an essay explaining what the main strategy development tools are and how they are used in business. Your essay must contain a comprehensive discussion of 3 of the following: PESTEL, Five Forces, Resource-Based View, PROFIT, Input/Output, SWOT Analysis (you may include Cross Impact Analysis), Generic Strategies, Ansoff, Ghemawat, with reference to academic journals and practical examples from industry.
In this essay, sub-headings are permitted.
Be sure to use paragraphing.
Be sure to reference your sources in-text and provide a list of references at the end, all in Harvard style.
Your final submission is due Friday of week 5 at midnight.
Assignment Structure
One page for your explanation of each model, including the example.
Thus, a half page introduction, then 3 pages for the explanation of the 3 models, plus a half page conclusion.
Add a cover page at the front.
Add a Reference List at the end.
Page 3 of 3
Marking Rubric
| Excellent 3 | Good 2 | Satisfactory 1 | Unsatisfactory 0 | |
| Strategy Model 1 Max 3 marks | The model is wellunderstood and comprehensively explained | The model is understood and explained | The model is somewhat understood and an attempt has been made to explain it | The model appears to be mis- understood and the attempt to explain it is incorrect |
| Strategy Model 2 Max 3 marks | The model is wellunderstood and comprehensively explained | The model is understood and explained | The model is somewhat understood and an attempt has been made to explain it | The model appears to be mis- understood and the attempt to explain it is incorrect |
| Strategy Model 3 Max 3 marks | The model is wellunderstood and comprehensively explained | The model is understood and explained | The model is somewhat understood and an attempt has been made to explain it | The model appears to be mis- understood and the attempt to explain it is incorrect |
| Introduction and Conclusion Max 3 marks | Well-written – clear and concise | Well-written | An original attempt was made | Unclear or missing |
| Academic Referencing and Practical Examples Max 3 marks | Referencing is correct and complete in all respects. Examples are current, relevant, wellapplied. | Referencing is mostly correct and complete. Examples are mostly current, relevant, applied | Referencing is somewhat correct though possibly incomplete, with some errors in reference style. Examples are somewhat current, relevant, applied | Referencing is not correct, somewhat incomplete. Examples are not current, or not relevant, or incorrectly applied |
| Total 15 marks | Comments | Mark Awarded |