Module Code: BMA6104

Module Code: BMA6104

Module Title: Organisational Strategy

Assignment: S1. Individual Case Study Report (50%)

Word Count: 2,500 words

Contribution to Module Mark: 50%

Deadline 7th October 2024, at 23:59 pm

Learning outcome assessed: A systematic understanding of the strategy-making process.

Your self-directed learner skills.

Critical evaluation skills that use academic and practitioner concepts and practices.

An ability to work collaboratively.

Assessment Brief 1

This is an individual case study report addressing all learning outcomes. You may choose either the private sector case study organisation OR the public sector case study outlined below. Choose only one of the case studies.

PRIVATE SECTOR CASE STUDY (Business and Management Students)

The case study company is Unilever United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. See https://www.unilever.co.uk/You are a junior analyst and have been asked to investigate the consumer goods industry in the UK and in particular the rising cost of living and availability of varieties. You will, therefore:

Consider the macro-environmental (PESTLE), Micro-environment (5 forces Porters analysis by evaluating each force as high, moderate, or low), internal analysis of strategic capability (using Resources and capabilities analysis with the use of Jay Barneys VRIO framework Or Michael Porters Value Chain Analysis) and undertake a TOWS analysis using a diagram to determine the Unilevers current situation vis a vis their competitors.

Provide a consideration of their competitive strategies applying Porters Generic Strategies of competition framework and state the future methods of strategic expansion and directions available to Unilever.

Identify and discuss one of the potential business and corporate level strategies that can be pursued by Unilever to combat the weaknesses, threats, and opportunities identified for ensuring sustainable market share and growth.

Note that this report is about applying and interpreting theory, models, and concepts from the module to the case study drawing on professional and academic resources. Your discussion should not focus on the description of the framework alone but on the implications this analysis does have for Unilever in the face of the rising cost of living and availability of varieties.

To be successful, you will need to access the respective corporate websites, relevant annual reports and analyst reports from the university online library. See https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/library/library-databases/ This is a level 6 advanced module. At this stage you are expected to identify, critically evaluate, and apply relevant theory to business issues with insight and an evaluative stance. You will have a sound knowledge of secondary research, graphs, charts and will be able to intelligently make use of multiple sources of academic journals and professional resources from the online library.

Assignment 1 (S1): Your Individual Report needs to be submitted through Turn-It-In, in Microsoft Word format.

Deadline Time: 23:59

Deadline Date: 7th October 2024

Word Count: 2,500 words (+ or - 10%). Word count excludes the cover page, a one-page (maximum) executive summary, a table of contents (that should include a list of figures and a list of tables), a relevant reference list and if necessary, a maximum of three, relevant, appropriate appendices.

OR

PUBLIC SECTOR CASE STUDY (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE STUDENTS)

The case study organisation is NHS England in the United Kingdom (UK) which is the corporate headquarters overseeing all healthcare organisations in England (not Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland which operate different systems). See https://www.england.nhs.uk/

You are a junior analyst and have been asked to investigate the healthcare industry in England and in particular the shift to integrated care. You will, therefore:

Consider the macro-environmental (PESTLE), Micro-environment (5 Porter forces analysis by evaluating each force as high, moderate, or low), internal analysis of strategic capability (using Resources and capabilities analysis with the use of Jay Barneys VRIO framework Or Michael Porters Value Chain Analysis) and undertake a TOWS analysis using a diagram to determine the NHS England current situation vis a vis their competitors.

Provide a consideration of their future competitive strategies applying Porters Generic Strategies of competition framework and state the future methods of strategic expansion and directions available to the NHS.

Identify and discuss one of the potential business and corporate level strategies that can be pursued by NHS to combat the weaknesses, threats, and opportunities identified for improving efficiency and ensuring sustainability.

Note that this report is about applying and interpreting theory, models, and concepts from the module to the case study drawing on professional and academic resources. Your discussion should not focus on the description of the framework alone but on the implications this analysis does have for NHS in the UK in the face of the shift to integrated care.

To be successful, you will need to access the respective corporate websites, relevant annual reports and analyst reports from the university online library. See https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/library/library-databases/ This is a level 6 advanced module. At this stage you are expected to identify, critically evaluate, and apply relevant theory to business issues with insight and an evaluative stance. You will have a sound knowledge of secondary research and will be able to intelligently make use of multiple sources of academic journals and professional resources from the online library.

Assignment 1 (S1): Your Individual Report needs to be submitted through Turn-It-In, in Microsoft Word format.

Deadline Time: 23:59

Deadline Date: 7th October 2024

Word Count: 2,500 words (+ or - 10%). The word count excludes the cover page, a one-page (maximum) executive summary, a table of contents (including a list of figures and a list of tables), a relevant reference list, and if necessary, a maximum of three relevant, appropriate appendices.

Assessment Guidelines

Your work should follow a business report structure. The following outline is a suggestion of what your report might contain.

Cover Page

Executive summary

Table of contents

Introduction to report (brief background on the company and the market where they operate)

The purpose of the report (students should also give a brief account here of the research process focusing primarily on the secondary data collection)

Evaluative discussion of Unilever/NHS, Macro-environment, Micro-environment, internal analysis of strategic capability, and TOWS

Future competitive strategies

Future methods of strategic expansion and directions available

Potential business and corporate level strategies

Conclusion and recommendation based of analysis of Unilever/NHS strategic position and choices.

Reference list

Relevant, necessary appendices (maximum of three)

Relevant tables and charts are encouraged in the main body, if there is a clear heading, source, and discussion of the relevance of each.

Academic writing support

Professional reports should be grammatically correct, using UK English spelling, and be error-free with comprehensive in-text citations of all sources using the Harvard system.

It is strongly recommended that you make use of the university's academic writing and support services. Individual appointments are available from the university library and daily online Harvard referencing workshops are offered on a drop-in basis. See https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/library/writing-and-learning-centre/

In addition, your lecturer will be available for assessment workshops during class times during the final weeks of the course. You should not expect your lecturer to review an entire draft or give feedback by email.

For all policies regarding the submission of your work please refer to the Programme and Student Handbooks available on VLE. See https://minerva.bathspa.ac.uk/ultra/institution-page

Assessment 1 Criteria: Individual Case Study Report

0% 39% 40% 49% 50% 59% 60% 69% 70% 84% 85% 100%

Knowledge of concepts and contexts

Very weak understanding, based on little or no research into case and sector. Descriptions of concepts and context lack accuracy and relevance. The source material is very weak or non-existent. Generally weak understanding of core concepts, with weak research into the case and/or sector. Some limited evidence of understanding concepts and relevance in use. The source material is weak.

Some understanding of core concepts is shown, also demonstrating some exploration of the case and sector issues. Generally clear and coherent, limited in range and depth. The source material is moderate, providing some adequate support. Competent understanding of core concepts shown, along with a good breadth and depth of investigation into details of case and sector. Some critical reflection and consideration of alternatives are evident. The source material is good, providing strong support. Excellent understanding of core concepts shown coupled with extensive and insightful details on case and sector. Wide-ranging and critical reflections strongly in evidence. The source material is excellent, providing very strong support. Exceptional understanding of core concepts shown, together with comprehensive coverage of the relevant case and sector details. The source material is extremely well chosen throughout.

Analysis There is no or very little evaluation or analysis; the work is almost entirely descriptive. Very limited evidence of the ability to apply concepts and tools in analysis appropriately and meaningfully. The analysis is largely descriptive and there is a little developed argument. Key concepts are used to structure and develop analysis, though this is limited in the range and depth of issues being considered. A reasonable attempt is made at developing a coherent argument. Uses key concepts effectively to generate robust and well-focused insights into case and context, leading to a coherent analysis. Some evidence of further critical reflection and evaluation. Key concepts are used very effectively, and these are complemented with clearly supported independent judgement, original insights, and critical reflections. The overall argument is coherent and wide-ranging. There is a sophisticated use of core concepts, combining insightful analysis with well-supported critical reflection and generation of original ideas. The argument is comprehensive and compelling.

Communication Lacking clarity in delivery. Frequently difficult to understand or follow the argument. Weak structure and over/under length. Numerous instances of errors in the quality of presentation including spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. Basic delivery, acceptable overall but with some confusion and lack of clarity. There are noticeable errors in the quality of the presentation including spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. Provides a fair level of clarity, occasionally lacking in coherence. Generally appropriate in length and focus. Limited errors in spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. Quality overall is standard. Provides a good level of clarity, only minor aspects may lack some coherence. Good attention to length and focus, there are only occasional errors in spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. Quality shows some originality and careful attention to detail. Provides an excellent level of clarity, covering complex issues very clearly. No noticeable errors in spelling, grammar, legibility and referencing. Arguments are coherent and well-focused throughout, and the quality shows professionalism and originality. Provides an outstanding level of clarity, without errors of any kind. Complex issues are succinctly covered, and the presentation provides a comprehensive and compelling exploration of core issues. The style is exciting and engaging throughout.

Qualities for sound, good, excellent, and outstanding classifications include all lower classification qualities.