|
|
Exam
|
Overall
|
|
Mean
|
50.1
|
51.3
|
|
Std
deviation
|
9.471
|
8.656
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentages
|
|
|
|
Exam
<35
|
5%
|
|
|
Fail
grade <40
|
*7%
|
7%
|
|
Third
|
31%
|
30%
|
|
Lower
second
|
41%
|
47%
|
|
Upper
second
|
14%
|
15%
|
|
First
|
1%
|
+
|
|
|
100%
|
100%
|
*Almost all of these
students passed the module because their coursework grade offset their
exam failure. However, a few other students who passed the examination
failed the module because their coursework grade was below 35.
+One student did
obtain a first-class grade for the module overall.
The first part of this question was adequately answered by most people, who were able to analyse the differentiation strategies used by Dyson, and to show how in particular the product design and development and the after-sales service activities within the value chain were able to give the firm a competitive advantage. Although there was little information about the business environment in the case study, quite a number of students made mature points about how the conservative attitudes of Dyson's competitors had helped the company to establish itself. However, disappointingly few students used the marketing data n the case to identify precisely which customers Dyson was targeting in practice - most contented themselves with repeating Dyson's intention to target a broad market.
A minority of students achieved poor grades because they gave us purely descriptive answers that simply repeated the information in the case study about what Dyson had done, without showing how it was distinctive, or contributed to competitive advantage. These students also failed to make use of concepts such as strategic resources and the value chain in their answers.
The second part of the question was less well answered than the first, with students far too willing to take Dyson's present success at face value and to assume that it would continue, despite the strides being made by competitors, the recent faltering of Dyson's pattern of success and the possibility of a slowing economy. Too few students subjected the elements of Dyson's competitive advantage, such as patented knowledge assets and reputation, to individual scrutiny to see which ones were likely to be sustainable and which were not.
2.What
contribution has Dyson’s culture made to its competitive success? If it
became necessary to move to a more formal culture as the company grew,
which stakeholders might be expected to try to block the changes, and how
likely is it that they would succeed? (30
marks)
Overall, the tools for analysing culture (Goffee-Jones and the cultural web) were more apparent and better used in this examination than has been the case in the past. However, students were too willing to take things at face value.
Most students were able to make some coherent points about Dyson’s culture using the Goffee-Jones framework, most characterising it as a communal culture. Rather too many people simply stated this conclusion without giving the evidence that showed that Dyson was communal. However, disappointingly few students used the full power of Goffee-Jones, which enables us to see whether a particular culture matches the demands of the industry. Most people's reasoning ran along the lines of: Communal cultures are good in innovative organisations, Dyson wants to be innovative, therefore it has the right culture. Very few people queried whether, having established itself in what is basically a mature industry, Dyson really needs as much innovation as it is striving for.
Similarly, a number of students came up with quite respectable cultural webs for Dyson without querying whether the paradigm that they identified was right for this kind of company.
The second part of the question was poorly answered. Disappointingly many students misread it asking whether a more formal structure was a good idea or not, when what you were asked to do was to identify the stakeholders that might resist the change, and to assess their power to resist effectively. Of those who did identify stakeholders, many gave only one, and had not thought through the reasons why they might resist change, or their likely reactions to it.
3.What
are the main strategic options that Dyson might consider for reinforcing
its position in the vacuum cleaner industry and/or for building upon its
established advantages? (Between 3 and 5 options will be sufficient). Which
of your options would you recommend to Dyson’s management, and why?(30
marks)
Another mixed set of answers. On the positive side, almost everyone seemed to have realised the importance of evaluating their options systematically. The RACES framework was used, mostly to very good effect.
However, most students suffered because, despite all the emphasis that had been given to the point during lectures, they produced strategic options out of a hat without grounding them in the issues - that is, without explaining why Dyson might consider them. As in Question 1, too few students used the data in the appendices to identify areas of competitive weakness that needed to be fixed, or to identify segments that Dyson was not addressing properly.
Also, the options that were paraded were often too vague to attract full credit - for example "product development" was given as an option, without telling us which products and which markets they should have been aimed at. Product development or geographical expansion are not strategic options - they are classes of strategic option, and students need to tell us precisely which options within those classes would be appropriate - and why.
Often, too, the options we were given were not strategic - for example, improving marketing (tactics, not strategy) or floating on the stock market (a means of raising capital to implement a strategy, but not a strategy in itself).
Too many students used "carry on as they are" as one of their main options. Formally, this is acceptable - but it did not attract much credit for creativity.