business strategies part two an essay of no more than 2500 words worth 50 of t

PART TWO (An essay of no more than 2500 words, worth 50% of the assignment marks) Tasks Portfolio analysis is often criticised for being too simplistic. With reference to at least two portfolio models evaluate this view. Using an organisational example of your choice critically evaluate the appropriateness of using portfolio analysis as a method of determining strategic direction. Your essay must critically analyse the strength and limitations of a range of Portfolio Management models. You must also consider how these theories contribute to the overall strategic direction of the organization you have chosen and show how theoretical foundations can be applied in practical applications. To succeed it is critical that you read both text books and journal articles to see how others have used the Strategic theories you are writing about and use their ideas to underpin your own arguments The choice of which organisation is your own. You may consider using your own organisation for this part of the assignment. Some secondary research for context may be useful, but not essential it is more important that you can demonstrate critical thinking when discussing Portfolio Management. It must be written in essay format and in accordance with the rules relating to using Harvard referencing. This should be included as a subsection of the main report. Notes a) Marks for this element of the assignment will be awarded on your ability to analyse the models effectiveness, not the application of these models. b) The excessive usage of company produced material within the main body (more than 10% of total word count) will be considered as poor academic practice and may result in the award of a fail mark. c) This is an academic discussion and must be underpinned with materials from a range of appropriate academic texts and journals, which must be referenced to Harvard standard. Coursework submission – dates and times The table below provides details of the final date and time by which work must be submitted. Students may hand in work at any time prior to these deadlines, and are encouraged not to wait until the final deadline. Date Time Topic/Title Location 5th September 2019 16.00hrs Business Strategies Report & Essay Canvas FOR ASSESSMENT RATIONALE, ASSESSMENT AND MARKING CRITERIA 2018/19 Assessment Rationale Module Title: Business Strategies 601466 Level: H6 Component 1: Report Weighting: 50% The report draws off Learning Outcomes 1-3 with the environment evaluation (LO1), stakeholder value creation (LO2) and application through the use of recommendations (LO3). Assessment Criteria: Allocation of marks (%) Problem Definition 10 Analysis of the case study using strategic analysis models 20 Evaluation of information gathered 15 Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of literature relating to Business Strategies 20 Recommendations linked to the future development of Coca-Cola 25 Format of the report 10 Total 100 ? Business Strategies CUnsatisfactory Third/poor 2:2/sound 2:1/good 1st/Excellent Problem Definition (10%) Limited attempt to define issue; little or no definition of industry areas selected. Basic definitions given only; limited identification of direction of assignment and industry sectors selected. Reasonably complete definitions; some identification of direction of assignment and industry sectors selected. Comprehensive definitions given; clear identification of direction of assignment and industry sectors selected with some reasoning. Comprehensive definitions given; detailed identification of direction of assignment with clear rationale. Analysis of the case study using strategic models (20%) Limited attempt to analyse case study; few, if any, models used and applied, use of general knowledge or inappropriate data. Some attempt to analyse case study; models used and applied but lack depth, some use of general knowledge or inappropriate data. Reasonable attempt to analyse case study; models used and applied, no use of general knowledge or inappropriate data. Clear engagement with the case study; models used and applied well, no use of general knowledge or inappropriate data. Comprehensive analysis of the case study; models used and applied clearly, no use of general knowledge or inappropriate data Evaluation of information gathered (15%) Little or no evaluation of data in the case study; no conclusions reached Basic data evaluation; limited conclusions made Some data evaluation; conclusions made are relevant but lack depth Good data evaluation; relevant conclusions made from the data Excellent data evaluation; detailed conclusions made Demonstration of knowledge and understanding of literature relating to Business Strategies (20%) Limited attempt to engage with literature; few, if any, references; no evaluation, use of general knowledge. Some attempt to engage with literature; few, references; basic evaluation, some general knowledge. Reasonable engagement with literature; some references; some evaluation, but more needed; little general knowledge. Clear engagement with a range of literature; range of, references; clear evaluation, no general knowledge. Comprehensive use literature; wide range of references; comprehensive evaluation of subject. Recommendations/ Conclusions linked to the future strategic direction of Coca-Cola (25%) No recommendations given; no linkage to future strategic direction; purely descriptive Limited effort made to give recommendations; recommendations lack strategic focus. Basic recommendations provided; recommendations are comprehensive and applied to context. Good range of appropriate recommendations provided; strategic recommendations are comprehensive and justified with literature and evidence. Excellent and appropriate recommendations provided; recommendations are comprehensive and justified with literature and evidence. Format of the report (10%) Little or no effort in presentation/formatting; spelling & grammatical errors; work inappropriately referenced. May be difficult to read or follow in places, evidence hard to find, poor spelling/grammar; poor referencing in places Reasonably well presented throughout; few, if any grammatical/spelling mistakes; adequate referencing apparent. Generally well presented and easy to follow; good spelling/grammar; well referenced Well presented and easy to follow; well written and thoroughly referenced Overall mark Comments: ? Component 2: Essay Weighting: 50% The report draws off Learning Outcomes LO2 and LO4 with a discussion and an analysis of key strategic theories relating to Portfolio Management. Assessment Criteria: 70+ 1st: Thorough comprehension of Business Strategic theories and models on Portfolio Management and related theories. Demonstrates evidence of wide reading of relevant texts and journals. In-depth critical analysis of strengths and limitations of models underpinned by a range of literature. Relevant conclusions drawn evidencing original thinking. 60-69 2:1: Work of good quality showing perception, critical insight and conceptual analysis. A considered argument marshalling some of the pros and cons with well-selected evidence. 50-59 2:2: A pass standard showing knowledge, understanding and application to the question topic. Some evidence of critical analysis underpinned by appropriate academic literature. 40-49 3rd: Demonstrates knowledge and understanding appropriate for the topic but of limited scope or shorter in length than is necessary. Some academic rigour but needs more. Below 40 Fail: Some use of relevant evidence to tackle the question, even though treatment may be one-sided or scanty. Lower marks demonstrate a general lack of understanding of the question, irrelevant content, rudimentary attempt at discussion without a relevant discussion or argument. 0 Non-submission (and one of several potential penalties for plagiarism). Suggested Structure for Part 2: Remember that this is an essay and therefore is written in continuous prose. However, an outline structure and weighting may be as follows: Section Description % Marks 1. Introduction & definition Intro of the question, definition of Portfolio Mgt (PM), where in the strategic process PM may be used, an intro of the different types of PM models 10% 2. Introduction of the org of your choice A brief intro of why you have chosen the org and its relationship with PM 5% 3. Benefits of using PM An explanation of how the models you have chosen work, and an academic discussion of the benefits of their use, relating this to the academic literature and the application (existing or potential use) in your chosen organisation 25% 4. Limitations of PM models When are these models not appropriate? What are the drawbacks of using the models (remember the Greencore case study). Why night this work (or not) in your chosen organisation? 25% 5. Quality of literature chosen and discussed Think of the quantity and quality of the literature you have chosen to use. Sources may include academic texts, journals, articles and quality newspapers 20% 6. A conclusion Go back to the question and see if you have reached some meaningful conclusions. Use the academic literature to help justify your conclusions 10% 7. Quality of discussion and writing 5%

Read less