|
|
Exam
|
Overall
|
|
Mean
|
46.6
|
48.0
|
|
Std
deviation
|
10.1
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentages
|
|
|
|
Exam
<35
|
13%
|
|
|
Fail
grade <40
|
11%
|
16%
|
|
Third
|
28%
|
31%
|
|
Lower
second
|
39%
|
44%
|
|
Upper
second
|
9%
|
9%
|
|
First
|
0%
|
0%
|
|
|
|
|
This was an extremely disappointing set of scripts, with hardly any first class answers to individual questions, and no first class papers. Very few students attempted any real critique of Nouvelles Frontières’ strategy or performance, or introduced any ideas that were not already mentioned in the case study. Sloppy examination technique, including failure to read the questions properly, let many students down; very little notice seemed to have been taken of the advice given in the final lecture. For example, quite a number of people appeared to come to the examination room with a set of prepared answers that they seemed intent of getting down on paper, regardless of whether they matched the questions or not.
1.Nouvelles
Frontières has integrated vertically in several areas, including
passenger airline and travel agency services. Critically evaluate the contribution
that vertical integration makes to the company’s competitive advantage.
(Note:
An in-depth critique of two or three uses of vertical integration will
earn higher marks than a shallower review covering more areas. Answers
that do no more than list the theoretical advantages and disadvantages
of vertical integration will achieve a poor grade.)(35
marks)
There were very few good answers to this question which, although it was worded rather differently from questions on past papers, should have been easy for any student who had prepared a value chain for Nouvelles Frontières (and that should have included everybody!) or who had given any thought to whether their strategy made sense.
Although the question asked for a critical evaluation of the firm’s use of vertical integration, critical insights were in distressingly short supply. Most students were content to parrot the firm’s own rationale for vertical integration, as given in the case study. Answers like this, if they included some points on why vertical integration gave the company advantage and were supported by quantitative data, would normally have earned a 2.2 provided that they examined, as a minimum, both the areas of vertical integration mentioned in the question. Quite a number of students only looked at either the airline or the travel agencies, and most confined themselves to these two areas without mentioning the resorts.
A number of students did look at whether the supposed advantages of vertical integration would be sustainable, and good analyses of this kind would have earned a 2.1. But only two or three students appeared to have thought in any depth about whether it really made sense for Nouvelles Frontières to own its own airlines or resorts when such services could easily be bought in, or about whether the firm was any good at running services of this kind. And perhaps one student made any reference at all to theoretical reasons for vertical integration, as listed in lecture notes and textbooks, let alone more advanced concepts such as hold-up and adverse selection, which should have been familiar to the students from the BA Economics for Business.
2.What
are the main strategic issues confronting Nouvelles Frontières in
2000? Which of these issues should be given the highest priority, and why?
(30 marks)
This
question clearly referred to issues rather than options, but that did not
stop a large number of people from trotting out their prepared RACES analyses
on the basis that this what had been asked for in previous examinations.
The best of these RACES analyses did discuss the main issues when examining
resources, effectiveness and sustainability, and got credit for any such
relevant points. However, they were inevitably less focused than answers
written by people who had read the question properly.
A
number of students also ignored the advice in the rubric distributed with
the case studies and insisted on discussing the flotation of Nouvelles
Frontières as a strategic issue for the firm, when it is in fact
more a strategic option for the owners. Such discussions only earned credit
where they established a clear linkage between flotation and the organisation’s
competitive situation.
As
with the first question, very few answers introduced any depth or originality,
or had the courage to criticise Nouvelles Frontière’s strategy or
internal configuration. Most students were content to reproduce the issues
flagged up in the case study, and a number lost marks because they failed
to explain the strategic significance of these points.
3.One
proposal mentioned in the case study is that Nouvelles Frontières
should spin off its Internet activities as a separate company.Identify
the most important internal groups who are likely to resist this move,
giving reasons why you think they are significant and why they might fight
it. Evaluate the probability that the stakeholders who support
the move will succeed in overcoming this resistance.(35
marks)
This again should not a have been a difficult question. The strategic option in question is clearly flagged in the case study and students ought to have analysed its acceptability as part of their exam preparation.
The appearance of the word “stakeholder” in the question should have alerted candidates to the need to structure their answer around an analysis of the principal stakeholders, their likely response to the proposed change and their power to promote or resist it. Simply listing the main stakeholders would have been a good and logical first step which however, hardly any students took.
Instead, most answers revolved around the response of one or two stakeholders. At the very least, such answers should have examined the responses of the firm’s powerful owner-managers and one or two other relevant stakeholder groups, including one that might be in favour of the change. The best answers combined this approach with an examination of Nouvelles Frontières’ culture – there is enough data in the case to identify one or two elements of the organisation’s paradigm and students should have been able to show how compatible a spin-off of the Internet activities might have been with the firm’s culture.
Some students attempted to use the Goffee-Jones model to analyse Nouvelles Frontières’ culture, but frequently failed to produce evidence of either sociability or solidarity. The data in the case study lent itself rather better to the cultural web than to Goffee-Jones.
Carelessness in reading the question cost students marks, with some apparently under the impression that they were examining the flotation of the entire firm and others trying to evaluate whether the spin-off was a good idea, as against whether it was acceptable to key stakeholders. Students also appeared confused about the implications of a spin-off for both the Internet activities and the rest of the firm, with some people under the impression that it would inevitably lead to redundancies (it might as easily be a prelude to expansion).