|
|
Exam
|
Overall
|
|
Mean
|
52.6
|
53.5
|
|
Std
deviation
|
9.9
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentages
|
|
|
|
Exam
<35
|
4%
|
|
|
Fail
grade <40
|
*5%
|
6%
|
|
Third
|
21%
|
22%
|
|
Lower
second
|
47%
|
52%
|
|
Upper
second
|
21%
|
20%
|
|
First
|
2%
|
+0%
|
|
|
100%
|
100%
|
*Many 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.
1.What
are the most distinctive features of Singapore Airlines’ business strategy,
and why are they important? To what extent do current trends in the business
environment seem likely to threaten the sustainability of its competitive
position?(35 marks)
This question was disappointingly answered, given that it covered much the same territory as the assignment. Many answers were very descriptive – they repeated what was said in the case study about what Singapore Airlines did, without showing why it was important. Too little use was made of concepts like competitive stance, differentiation and cost advantage and the value chain. The students who wrote anything about the second part of the question often gave little more than PEST analysis, without demonstrating what the impact would be on Singapore Airlines or questioning whether the airline had strategic resources that would enable it to stay competitive.
2.How
have Singapore Airlines’ culture and architecture contributed to its competitive
success? Which elements of these would need to change if competitive pressures
forced the airline to focus more on cost reduction? (30
marks)
This question was better answered than has usually been the case with questions relating to culture and architecture in previous years. Most students were able to use models like the Goffee-Jones matrix and (more rarely) the cultural web to analyse the culture, and most had something useful to say about the organisation’s systems and structure as well. Quite often, though, students classified the culture and architecture but did not go on to evaluate it and show how it had contributed to competitive success.
The second part of the question was not well answered, however. Many students realised that, although the airline is already quite cost-conscious in some ways, it invests a fair amount in a highly differentiated level of customer service. However, they had difficulty in envisaging how the culture or architecture might need to alter if the strategy were to focus more on efficiency.
3.A
European government has approached Singapore Airlines. It would like them
to take over the management of its national airline, which has a poor reputation
for service and has not made a profit for 20 years. Should the board of
Singapore Airlines pursue this strategic option, and why (or why not)?
(Note: SA will be confronting a range of strategic issues at the time of
the case, January 2001. Your answer should consider whether any of those
issues takes priority over the European government’s proposal). (35
marks)
In the front page attached to the two examination
case studies, students were told that they would be expected
to assess certain options that were open to Singapore Airlines in January
2001, including possible opportunities in markets outside Asia. Since one
of the cases said quite a lot about market conditions in Europe, it should
have been possible to answer this question quite fully. In fact, few students
answered it particularly well.
Most students fulfilled the basic requirement – they evaluated the option of taking over the management of the European airline, mostly using the RACES framework, and added something on the other strategic priorities. Too often, however, the evaluations were rather skimpy, with students either assuming that SIA’s skills would translate easily to Europe or that they had no chance whatsoever, without allowing for any position in between. A few students failed to read the question properly and insisted on trotting out all their prepared strategic options, whether or not they had anything to do with SIA becoming involved in Europe. Such answers achieved low grades.