FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION
HI6006 Competitive Strategy
Trimester 3 2017
Group Assignment Requirements
Suggested report word limit: 2000 words (±10%)
Component Weighting: 20%
Due Date: 5pm Friday Week 11
Submission format: Soft copy of a Word.docx to be uploaded on Blackboard through 'Assignments and due dates' menu
Component Weighting: 10%
Due Date: Weeks 10-12 in-class presentation
Note: all students must have their presentations ready to present if required by the first week of the presentation schedule
Submission format: Soft copy of powerpoint.pptx plus in-class
presentation to be scheduled by the lecturer during weeks 10-12
Important Please note:
1. Any assignments where plagiarism or collusion is detected will be awarded a mark of zero. You will need to contact your tutor if you wish to discuss this.
2. Failure to upload the correct document to the assessment link will result in late penalties being applied to documents which are later submitted for marking of that assignment.
3. SafeAssign takes at least 24 hours to return a report. If you wish to check your assignment prior to submission, please allow plenty of time to use the self-check before the final submission deadline arrives; SafeAssign not returning a self-check report WILL NOT be considered a valid reason for an extension.
Choose 2 of the topics that have been covered in lectures 4-9 from the following list:
• Lecture 4 - global strategy as business model change
• Lecture 5 - target markets and modes of entry
• Lecture 6 - globalising the value proposition
• Lecture 7 - global branding
• Lecture 8 - globalising the value chain infrastructure
• Lecture 9 - Globalising the supply chain
Select 2 organisations from any 2 service industries (4 organisations in total). For each organisation explain how they have applied your chosen theory(ies) and critically evaluate their approach and the reasons behind their successes/failures with respect to the theory.
Your evaluation should include counter arguments where available, which consider alternative views on the theory topic or address situations in which an organisation has been successful or unsuccessful, contrary to the theory’s recommendations and why this has been the case.
YOU SHOULD CHOOSE DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS TO THOSE COVERED IN THE LECTURES/LEARNING ACTIVITIES or MINI CASE STUDIES
This is a group assignment. Every member of the group is expected to be able to discuss all areas of the report and be a fully active participant in the presentation. You should meet many times and discuss the issues identified in the report.
Your assessment should be submitted in formal report format with an Executive Summary, Main Body, Conclusion and Bibliography. You are recommended to use, at the very least, a Word (or similar) report template to give your report a professional look and feel.
You do not need to define the concepts in detail. Descriptive material has negligible value and should be avoided. The report should focus on analysis, discussion and recommendation, enriched by ideas found in journal articles.
In business you will be expected to produce short well-argued reports. This is where you demonstrate that skill.
Your group will be required to do an in-class presentation during the tutorials. The presentation will last no more than 10 mins and all members are required to present.
Students should consult the marking rubric (see below) to see exactly what is required and how your assignment will be marked.
You should enrich this assignment with ideas from other materials such as journal articles. This additional research will be necessary to obtain the best marks.
All ideas in the report must be referenced using Harvard Referencing (in-text citations and full references at the back).
This assignment will include an element of peer assessment.
Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
Application of selected theory to organisations of your choice and evidence of synthesis
(8 marks) No evidence of any synthesis between argument, theory and/or
Limited evidence of synthesis between argument, theory and/or
Some evidence of synthesis between argument, theory and/or examples within defined
Clear evidence of synthesis between argument, theory and/or examples within context.
Contextual issues have been identified and discussed Clear evidence of synthesis between argument, theory and/or examples within context. Contextual issues have been identified, discussed and critically evaluated
Quality of argument / Use
of theory with examples
No justification of opinions or position taken. Unsupported by
theory and/or examples.
Limited argument supported by seminal theory and/or
Clear argument supported by relevant theories. Examples used to support
and explore argument
Clear, balanced argument supported by a broad range of relevant theories.
Theories and examples evaluated and selection
Clear, balanced evaluative argument supported by a broad range of relevant theories.
Theories and examples critically evaluated and selection justified
Quality and justification
No conclusion or conclusion unsupported by argument
Safe and predictable conclusions that answer the question.
Some evidence of original thought and insight.
Good evidence of original thought and insight. Introduction of innovative models
Good evidence of original thought and insight. Development and evaluation of innovative models /theories
Quantity and quality and presentation of references using Harvard Referencing
throughout (2 marks)
Only 0, 1 or 2 relevant references given.
Referencing is unclear. At least 3 relevant references. Referencing mostly clear but inconsistent. At least 5 relevant references given, mainly drawn from provided sources e.g lectures. Clear systematic referencing of all sources.. At least 7 relevant references including at least 5 from own research including page no’s for all
articles Bibliography includes at least 10 relevant references from good sources i.e. journals rather than popular computing press. Very clearly presented.
Professional Report Formatting, Structure and approach
Poorly presented, no apparent structure and/or confused writing style Limited attempt at formatting, Well structured, clear writing style Page numbering, front cover, bibliography with some attempt at formatting. Well structured, focus explicit and clear, style appropriate Good attempt at report formatting incorporating all elements at credits level. Clear focus, structure and style used to emphasise discussion Excellent attempt at formatting report. Focus clear and justified, structure and style used to emphasise argument and discussion
Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
(1 mark) No evidence of distinct introduction/conclusion Introduction or Conclusion evident but don’t really add to the presentation Introduced and concluded but don’t really add value to the presentation Good introduction and Conclusion that adds to the audience experience Excellent introduction & conclusion, addressing any queries the audience have making the presentation appear polished
Reading from notes/
Audience engagement (1 mark) Minimal eye contact by more than one member resulting in lack of audience engagement. Presenters spoke too quickly or quietly making it difficult to understand.
Inappropriate/disinterested body language. Sporadic eye contact by more than one presenter.
The audience was distracted,
difficult to hear, body language distracting. Good eye contact by members but presentation lack lustre Most members
spoke to majority of audience; steady eye contact.
The audience was engaged by the presentation. Majority of presenters spoke at a suitable volume. Regular/constant eye contact, The audience was engaged, and presenters held the audience’s attention.
Appropriate speaking volume & body language.
Visual aids (PP
(2 marks) Many errors in spelling/grammar/punctuation. No attention to detail. Slides inconsistent /difficult to read with too much information.
Lacking visual appeal. Some errors in spelling/grammar/punctuation. Too much information was contained on many slides.
Slides contain few errors or inconsistencies but more effort is required to make them look
professional/polished Slides contain no errors, good formatting, significant visual appeal. Excellent slides, no errors/ inconsistencies. Information is clear & concise on each slide.Visually appealing/engaging adding to the audience experience
Research/Content (4 marks) The presentation was a brief look at the topic but many questions were left unanswered.
Majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out. The presentation was informative but several elements went unanswered. Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of some of major points. The presentation was a good summary of the topic.
Most important information covered; little irrelevant info. The presentation gave good insight into the topic. Most important information covered; little irrelevant info. The presentation was a concise insightful overview
of the topic with all questions answered. Comprehensive and complete coverage of information.
(2 marks) Late, disorganised, Multiple group members not
participating /interrupting/ inattentive/chatting during presentation. Evident lack of preparation/rehearsal. Over dependent on slides. Significant controlling by some members with one minimally contributing. Primarily prepared but with some dependence on just reading off slides. Slight domination of one presenter.
Members helped each other. Evidence of sound preparation. Well prepared, organised, all group members attentive during presentation. All presenters knew the information, participated equally, and helped each other as needed. Extremely prepared and rehearsed with no hitches