UOBUSS3097 Strategic Management (UO)
UOBUSS3097 Strategic Management (UO)
Rubrics: Assessment 2: Report
Assessment Rubric
Course learning outcomes:
CO3. Analyze and evaluate a broad set of financial metrics in the context of strategy development and self-directed learning.
CO4. Critically review the strategic implications of corporate social responsibility and sustainability
CO6. Explain the complexity of processes required to implement strategy and control strategic and organizational effectiveness Assessment 2: Report: 65%
Does not meet requirements Meets core requirements Exceeds core requirements Excellent Performance Outstanding performance
Criteria F1-F2 P1-P2 C D HD
Clear description of the industry and the chosen organization with the help of relevant factual references (10%) Industry and/or organization are not described well. References are either missing or not credible at all. Both or one of industry and organization were described. Important information missing, though. References were either too limited or not credible.
Both industry and organization were described reasonably with some important information missing. Credible industry-level and/or firm-level references were used to support the information.
Both industry and organization were described reasonably with some important information missing. Credible industry-level and/or firm-level references were used to support the information.
Both industry and organization were described in-depth. Credible industry-level and firm-level references were used to support the information.
General environment analysis (20%) Not all factors were explored or incorrect framework was used.
Analysis was missing and mostly, the information from various sources was compiled.
References are either non-existent or not credible.
The section mostly talked about implication on the company, while industry level analysis and implications were mostly ignored. Either not all factors were explored, or all factors of general environment of the industry were explored but mostly the information from sources was presented without deep analysis.
References were used, however, either they were not credible or more factual than theoretical.
The analysis was either too little or confused between industry and company level.
The implications on the chosen company were either missing or insufficient.
All factors of general environment of the industry were explored however, greater depth could be achieved.
Credible factual and theoretical references were used, however, focus on factual references was more.
The analysis was mostly industry level, however, in some places, confusion between industry and company level was evident.
The implications on the chosen company were either missing or insufficient.
All factors of general environment of the industry were explored in-depth.
Credible factual and theoretical references were used.
The analysis was industry level and the implications on industry were reasonable albeit with some deficiencies.
The implications on the chosen company were described reasonably albeit with some deficiencies.
All factors of general environment of the industry were explored in-depth.
Credible factual and theoretical references were used.
The analysis was industry level and the implications on industry were explored well.
The implications on the chosen company were described reasonably well.
Industry/ Competitive environment analysis (20%) Not all factors were explored, or incorrect framework was used.
Analysis was missing and mostly, the information from various sources was compiled.
References are either non-existent or not credible.
The section mostly talked about implication on the company, while industry level analysis and implications were mostly ignored. Either not all factors were explored, or all factors of competitive environment of the industry were explored but mostly the information from sources was presented without deep analysis.
References were used, however, either they were not credible or more factual than theoretical.
The analysis was either too little or confused between industry and company level.
The implications on the chosen company were either missing or insufficient.
All factors of competitive environment of the industry were explored however, greater depth could be achieved.
Credible factual and theoretical references were used, however, focus on factual references was more.
The analysis was mostly industry level, however, in some places, confusion between industry and company level was evident.
The implications on the chosen company were either missing or insufficient.
All factors of competitive environment of the industry were explored however, greater depth could be achieved.
Credible factual and theoretical references were used, however, focus on factual references was more compared to theoretical references.
The analysis was clearly industry level, however, the analysis could achieve more depth.
The implications on the chosen company were examined but some deficiencies were observed.
All factors of competitive environment of the industry were explored in-depth.
Credible factual and theoretical references were used.
The analysis was industry level and the implications on industry were explored well.
The implications on the chosen company were described reasonably well.
Integration of content from Assignment 1 Part A (20%) The content from Assignment 1 Part A was not integrated or was superficially mentioned.
There was no discussion on the core competencies.
Business level strategy was either not identified or was randomly selected without any link with resources, capabilities, or core competencies. The resource and capabilities analysis from Assignment 1 Part A has been integrated to some extent.
The core competency (or a lack of it) has either not been used or it does not align with the business level strategy at all or it was not used to reach the business level strategy.
The theoretical link between the core competency and the choice of business level strategy was either weakly explored or not explored at all. The resource and capabilities analysis from Assignment 1 Part A has been integrated reasonably well, however, some points have been missed.
The core competency (or a lack of it) has been utilized but does not align with the business level strategy proposed.
The theoretical link between the core competency and the choice of business level strategy was weakly explored. The resource and capabilities analysis from Assignment 1 Part A has been integrated reasonably well, however, some points have been missed.
The core competency (or a lack of it) has been utilized and it mostly aligns with the final business level strategy.
The theoretical link between the core competency and the choice of business level strategy was weakly explored. The resource and capabilities analysis from Assignment 1 Part A has been integrated with expertise.
The core competency (or a lack of it) has been utilized well in this assignment to reach the final business level strategy.
A strong theoretical link between the core competency and the choice of business level strategy was established.
Overall conclusion and a clear set of recommendations with theoretical justification (20%) The present business level strategy was not clearly identified. The new business level strategy was either not recommended or speculative without any theoretical ground. Even the operational recommendations were not aligned with the external and internal environment of the organization.
The recommendations on organizational structure aligned with the business level strategy was either missing or incorrect or largely speculative.
Referencing was largely non-existent. The present business level strategy has not been identified or not been correctly identified. There seems to be a confusion between strategy, tactic, and operational effectiveness.
Link with orgs internal environment and external environment was missing at many levels.
The recommended business level strategy was somewhat explained. A clear set of recommendations to implement the suggested business level strategy were missing. OR recommendations were largely operational in nature and not strategic.
The recommendations on organizational structure aligned with the business level strategy was either missing or incorrect or largely speculative.
Referencing was present but the credibility was questionable. Conceptual referencing was too weak or non-existent. The present business level strategy has been clearly identified and explained.
A reasonable theoretical and practical justification aligned with orgs internal environment and external environment was given.
The recommended business level strategy was reasonably explained and a clear set of recommendations to implement the suggested business level strategy were given. However, the recommendations could be more specific and strategic in nature.
The recommendations on organizational structure was present but could be better aligned with the business level strategy.
Credible theoretical and practitioner references were used to justify the choice and the explanation. However, theoretical referencing was weak. The present business level strategy has been clearly identified and explained.
A strong theoretical and practical justification aligned with orgs internal environment and external environment was given.
The recommended business level strategy was reasonably explained and a clear set of recommendations to implement the suggested business level strategy were given. However, the recommendations could be more specific and strategic in nature.
The recommendations on organizational structure was present and they were largely aligned with the business level strategy.
Credible theoretical and practitioner references were used to justify the choice and the explanation. However, theoretical referencing was weak. The present business level strategy has been clearly identified and explained with strong justification.
A strong theoretical and practical justification aligned with orgs internal environment and external environment was given.
The recommended business level strategy was thoroughly explained and a clear set of recommendations to implement the suggested business level strategy were given.
The recommendations on organizational structure was present and they were strongly aligned with the business level strategy.
Credible theoretical and practitioner references were used to justify the choice and the explanation.
Professional Presentation
(10%) Language choices are not for the target audience. Content is not presented clearly and/or key points are not communicated effectively.
Recommended referencing/citation style was either not used or used incorrectly.
Does not provide clear and consistent organisational patterns and structure in the presentation of content.
The report does not follow the recommended format.
Appendix was either not present, was incomplete, or had several important aspects missing.
Language and presentation media choices are overall appropriate for the target audience, but sometimes lack clarity, or are too wordy and only partially support effective communication of key points.
Recommended referencing/citation style was either not used or used incorrectly.
Shows attention to the provision of clear and consistent use of organisational patterns and structure in the presentation of content, with few lapses.
The report follows the recommended format. However, some elements were misinterpreted.
Appendix was either not present, was incomplete, or had several important aspects missing.
Language and presentation media choices are appropriate for the task and target audience. Content is presented clearly and creatively, through logical organisation and structure, and employing engaging language and media choices. Uses appropriate headings throughout to aid readabilityUses a reasonable range of credible sources .Adheres to general format, submission, and word-count guidelines. However, some sections do not align with their intent.
The report follows the recommended format, although some elements could be better.
Appendix was included that demonstrated working out with references to suitable factual and conceptual sources of information. Working out, however, was inadequate in some sections.
Recommended referencing/citation style was used correctly.
Language and presentation media choices are appropriate for the task and target audience. Content is presented clearly and creatively, through logical organisation and structure, and employing engaging language and media choices. Uses appropriate headings throughout to aid readabilityUses great range of credible sources .Adheres to general format, submission, and word-count guidelines.
The report follows the recommended format.
Recommended referencing/citation style was used correctly.
Appendix was included that demonstrated high quality of working out with references to suitable factual and conceptual sources of information. Language and presentation media choices are appropriate for the task and target audience. Content is presented clearly and creatively, through logical organisation and structure, and employing engaging language and media choices. Uses appropriate headings throughout to aid readabilityUses great range of credible sources .Adheres to general format, submission, and word-count guidelines.
The report follows the recommended format.
Recommended referencing/citation style was used correctly.
Appendix was included that demonstrated high quality of working out with references to suitable factual and conceptual sources of information.
