Average mark 51
Standard Deviation 9
Median mark 52
Average 51Exam firsts - 9. Exam fails – 19 Number of candidates - 158
Standard deviation 14
Median 54
Good agreement between exam and module averages suggests reasonable
general correlation between coursework and individual prowess. However
wider variance when coursework taken into account plus higher median indicates
that this is by no means true in all cases. Average of 51 for the exam
compares well with that for previous outcomes in BAS.
This question was intended to test analysis chiefly of environmental factors. The word "circumstances" refers to events surrounding the company’s growth, rather than actions taken by the company. Sadly few understood this and most answers went on at length about the company, its actions and competencies and completely ignored the external environment. (The key issues here were the fact that the market was fragmented, favouring growth by acquisition, and that the era of rationalisation led many organisations to contract out their cleaning and other non-core activities.) Marks were given for well-argued internal analyses, but at best these were apportioned out of 50% if they failed even to mention the world outside ISS.
It is hard to understand how so few saw any application at all for their PEST and P5 analyses in this question, especially since 1b was very clearly about internal issues.
Indeed many went on more or less to repeat themselves in 1b with no apparent sense of absurdity. The few who did understand the question were able to gain very high marks, it being intended as a vehicle for all to demonstrate a grasp of comparatively straightforward principles.
One might have expected sheer guesswork would have driven students to throw in something external, if only as an insurance policy! A tragically wasted opportunity
Most answers were better for this than for 1a, though even here,
few went further than rather generalised descriptions of ISS’ resources.
Few referred to value-added as a test of the strength of resources. Fewer
still bothered to use the Value-Chain concept and the issue of sustainability
was largely ignored. In fact reference to theory or models
was rare, despite very clear guidance being given on what would constitute
a good answer.
On the whole this question was handled better by most candidates.
In particular most managed to find cons as well as pros in
the case and seemed able to balance them in terms of competitive advantage
with some degree of objectivity. Most also were able to find ways to categorise
both structure and culture. Rather fewer discussed the extent
to which structure and culture worked in harmony and fewer still referred
to the evolution of both, in particular the flirtation with a matrix, later
abandoned. Thus although many picked up on the disparity between entrepreneurialism
and
communications,
few were able to show convincingly how the problem had grown in the first
place (and therefore how it might be dealt with in the future).
After the relative depth of analysis shown in some answers to Q3 it was disappointing to see a return to superficiality in Q3.
Very few acknowledged the central role played by Andreasson, so missed an obvious theme suggested by the question itself, namely the difficulty any successor would have replacing a leader who had stamped so much of his own personality on the Business.
Thereafter the question was about options, and offered pretty free rein to anyone willing and able to have a few ideas and then subject them to Suitability/Feasibility/Acceptability analysis. Unfortunately, very few got as far as SFA and most of the options discussed were generic in essence and scarcely appropriate to the specifics of this particular company. Even fewer attempted to show how those options might secure the future of the company. Here the lack of rigour in testing for Suitability, Feasibility etc (or at least thinking in terms of what might or might not work) was most telling. those few really good marks for Q3 invariably came out of SFA or equivalent thinking.
Even sadder and more puzzling was the lack of effort shown by many to get as much as possible of the 40 marks available for this question. Indeed many seemed to have fallen into the classic error of not leaving enough time to do justice to Q3. Surely by level 3, students have learned the basic exam skill of allocating time to questions in direct proportion to the marks available for each one?