MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Assignment 1, Version 1a
© Southern Institute of Technology 2020
MGT303 ASSIGNMENT 1
| Activity Title: | Assignment 1 |
| Paper Number and Title: |
MGT303 – Strategic Management Level 7, 15 credits, Version 1 |
| Assessed Learning Outcome: |
LO.1 Critically evaluate theories that have influenced approaches to strategic management. LO.2 Analyse an organisation’s internal and external environment. |
| Conditions: | This is a compulsory assignment. It must be submitted and makes up 22% of your final result for this paper. The completed assignment is to be submitted to your facilitator via Blackboard by the due date. |
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Due date: midnight Sunday, Week 6, via Blackboard
Word Count: 1800 words (+/- 10%), excluding referencing and appendices.
Contribution: 22%
Style: Report
Qualification outcome expectations
Research and referencing: You are required to engage in some research into the theories
underpinning the topic and other sources beyond the provided reading material in order to successfully
complete this assignment. Ensure you include a full reference list, including all sources, using APA
guidelines (latest edition). Correct referencing is an expectation of tertiary study.
Presentation guidelines: Work is expected to be word-processed and submitted as a Word document
or PDF, use a clear, readable font and be within 10% of the given word count (excluding any
referencing). Include your name, student number and the paper code and assignment number as a
header or footer. Reports should include headings or subheadings as required. Essays should include
an introduction, body and conclusion. Spellchecking and proofreading of work prior to submission is
strongly encouraged.
MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Assignment 1, Version 1a
© Southern Institute of Technology 2020
ASSIGNMENT TASK
For this assignment you will submit an evaluation report of the holding company, Restaurant Brands
New Zealand Limited. You will need to substantiate your findings by referring to source materials and
theoretical models. You are required to engage in considerable research into the company and theories
underpinning strategic management in order to successfully complete this assignment.
Your report should cover:
The company’s vision and/or mission in relation to its core values
How does the organisation manage and prioritise stakeholders.
Over the first three weeks your course work discussed two major contrasting models used to assess a
firm’s external environment and its internal organisation. Discuss how those models can be used to
explain Restaurant Brands’ pursuit of competitive advantage. How effective are these models and
theories at enabling strategic competitiveness and sustainable above-average returns.
Make sure you reference all of your sources using the latest APA referencing conventions.
Make sure you read the Marking Schedule below carefully before embarking on the assignment.
It will give you clear idea of what we are looking for in the submission!
Collaboration:
You might at times feel isolated and feel the need to run ideas by your fellow students. Make sure you
use the Discussion Board to communicate with your peers and exchange resources and ideas. There
is a Forum available just for that purpose. Please use it. If you have questions which you want to address
to your facilitator, don’t hesitate to contact them. You will find their contact details on the announcement
page.
The report of course will have to be your own work but collaboration at the planning stages and
sharing of resources is encouraged.
MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Assignment 1, Version 1a
© Southern Institute of Technology 2020
Marking schedule
| Criteria | E (0-39) | D (40-49) | C (50-64) | B (65-79) | A (80-100) |
| Vision and/or mission, core values Weighting 10% |
Clear evidence of lack of understanding, fails to identify and elaborate on the vision and/or mission, values of the organisation. |
Evaluation lacks depth and the links between vision and / or mission, values are tenuous. |
Good evaluation. Vision and/or mission, core values could be linked more clearly. |
Comprehensive evaluation. Vision and/or mission, core values are linked. |
Exceptional, insightful and comprehensive evaluation. Vision and/or mission, core values are explicitly linked. |
| Stakeholder analysis Weighting 15% |
Clear evidence of lack of understanding, fails to identify most of the stakeholders. Lack of understanding of stakeholder influence. Evaluation flawed. |
Poor analysis of the stakeholders, lacks depth and not inclusive. Fails to correctly identify power and influence. Evaluation is shallow and unconvincing. |
Reasonable analysis of stakeholders, their grouping, influences and power over organisation. Maybe not all stakeholders or groups identified. Could benefit from more depth. Reasonable evaluation including organisational strategies to manage stakeholders. Could benefit from more depth and authority. |
Inclusive analysis of stakeholders, their grouping, influences and power over organisation. Sound evaluation including organisational strategies to manage stakeholders. |
Inclusive high level analysis of stakeholders, their grouping, influences and power over organisation. Insightful and inspired evaluation including organisational strategies to manage stakeholders. |
| External environment Weighting 15% |
Evaluation is highly flawed, muddled and evidences lack of understanding. No evidence of understanding of industry environment analysis. Completely fails to identify strategic group and competition. |
Evaluation is flawed and unconvincing. Segmentation is not clear. The five forces model is mostly not covered resulting in an incomplete and weak evaluation that clearly lacks clout. Strategic group and competitor analysis are incomplete and flawed. |
Reasonable evaluation of the general environment, segmentation could be clearer. Industry environment analysis partially relates to the five forces model but the evaluation lacks depth, and at times is not convincing and lacks authority. Reasonable evaluation of strategic group and competitor analysis. But lacks depth and clout. |
Comprehensive evaluation of the general environment, clearly segmented. Complete industry environment analysis related to the five forces model resulting in and supporting a sound evaluation. Sound evaluation of strategic group and competitor analysis. |
Comprehensive and insightful evaluation of the general environment, clearly segmented. Complete and insightful industry environment analysis explicitly related to the five forces model resulting in and supporting a highly insightful evaluation. Insightful and inspired evaluation of strategic group and competitor analysis. |
| Internal organisation Weighting 15% |
Flawed evaluation of the organisations core competencies. Clear lack of understanding. Evaluation fails to reveal how the organisation builds a sustainable competitive advantage through value creation. No attempt at linking competencies and |
Partial and somewhat flawed evaluation of the organisations core competencies in relation to tangible and intangible resources and the resulting capabilities. Clearly lacks depth and clout. Not convincing. Evaluation largely fails to reveal how the organisation |
Reasonable evaluation of the organisations core competencies in relation to tangible and intangible resources and the resulting capabilities. Would benefit from more depth and authority. Evaluation partially reveals how the organisation builds a sustainable competitive advantage |
Sound evaluation of the organisations core competencies in relation to tangible and intangible resources and the resulting capabilities. Evaluation reveals how the organisation builds a sustainable competitive advantage through value creation. Reveals a link between |
Excellent evaluation of the organisations core competencies in relation to tangible and intangible resources and the resulting capabilities. Inspired evaluation that reveals how the organisation builds a sustainable competitive advantage through value creation. |
MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Assignment 1, Version 1a
© Southern Institute of Technology 2020
| strategic judgments. |
builds a sustainable competitive advantage through value creation. The link between competencies and strategic judgments is not clear. |
through value creation. The link between competencies and strategic judgments is not very clear. |
competencies and strategic judgments. |
Reveals an explicit link between competencies and strategic judgments. |
|
| Evaluation of theoretical models Weighting 20% |
Link between the models and the analysis is confused. The validity is not discussed or the discussion muddled and clearly evidences lack of understanding. |
Link between the models and the analysis is not very clear. The validity is not discussed convincingly and the findings are superficial. |
Theoretical models are linked (i/o and resource based model) to the analysis with reasonable clarity and their validity is partially discussed although lacking depth. |
Theoretical models are linked (i/o and resource based model) to the analysis and their validity is discussed and clearly outlined. |
Theoretical models are clearly linked (i/o and resource based model) to the analysis and their validity is discussed with authority delivering exceptional insight. |
| Writing Weighting 10% |
No consideration for presentation. Little evidence of clear writing or structure, very difficult to follow. Argument very unsound or weak. Numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors that have a significant impact on readability. |
Acceptable presentation. Some evidence of clear or structured writing. Argument weak or unconvincing. Some grammatical and/or spelling errors that impact noticeably on readability. |
Tidy presentation. Mostly clear writing that shows acceptable organisation and structure. Argument is generally clear. Few issues around grammar and/or spelling, some of which have a minor impact on readability. |
Good presentation. Clear writing mainly to the point. Mostly well organised and structured writing. Most arguments are sound and convincing. Good spelling and grammar with only minor oversights that do not impact on readability. |
Polished presentation. Clear, concise and well-structured writing throughout. All arguments are sound and convincing Excellent spelling and grammar, correct in all aspects. |
| Research Weighting 10% |
No scholarly sources, no evidence of research or not relevant for the task. Very limited understanding. The research has not been linked to the main text. |
Less than 3 scholarly sources or sources are not relevant for the task. Limited understanding. Little evidence of meaningful integration of the research with the main text. |
3-4 scholarly sources. Some sources lack relevance or authority but are still appropriate for the task. Adequate understanding. The research could be incorporated with the main text more consistently. |
5-6 scholarly sources. Sources are mostly well-chosen, authoritative and appropriate for the task. Good understanding. The research is integrated with the main text. |
7+ scholarly sources. Sources are well chosen, authoritative and are appropriate for the task. Excellent understanding. The research is very well integrated with the main text. |
| In-text citations and Reference list APA formatted Weighting 5% |
Citations and references not given or follow no APA guidelines. |
Citations and references are not give or mostly do not follow APA guidelines. |
Citations and references follow some APA guidelines. |
Citations and references follow most APA guidelines. |
Citations and references follow all APA guidelines. |
The post MGT303 – Strategic Management appeared first on My Assignment Online.