4MBS601
International Business Strategy
Module Handbook Semester One 2003-04
Room C286, Chiltern Building,
Marylebone Campus
Office Hours: Mondays 1145-1245,
Wednesdays 1630-1730 or by appointment
Telephone extension 3305
Email:A.B.Haberberg@wmin.ac.uk
For updates and additional material, you are expected to
visit the module website at least once a week: http://www2.wmin.ac.uk/haberba/4mbs601.htm
News
The case study for the
end-of-semester examination, Tesco plc, is now available for collection from
the undergraduate office (The teaching team and I do not hold copies of the case
for distribution to students). IMPORTANT; If you have already collected a copy of the case, could
you please make sure that it is complete (The case is 20 pages long, not
including my typed cover sheet). Some have issued in error, with only even-numbered
pages, or with individual pages missing. If pages are missing from your copy of the case study, please
contact the undergraduate office (who, I would emphasise, are not to blame for
the error) for a replacement. They are in any case planning to send a clean case
study to everyone who has already signed for one.
Any student is welcome to drop
in on the revision sessions which are being held at the following times and
places during Consolidation Week:
Contents
Communication with the Teaching Team
Teaching and Learning Programme and Methods
Case
Studies (unavailable on website for copyright reasons)
The Value of Good
Housekeeping
Case update: The Personal
Computer Industry in 2002
eBay (to be distributed)
The Cemex Way
After the binge, Cobra Beer
struggles to see the future + The Big Pitcher
They're smart, they're rich,
they're ...geeks (Microsoft case study)
Other links
Semester One Examination, 1999-2000 (with examiner's
report)
Semester
Two Examination, 1999-2000 (with examiner's report)
Semester
One Examination, 2000-2001 (with examiner's report)
Semester
Two Examination, 2000-2001 (with examiner's report)
Semester One Examination, 2001-2002 (with examiner's
report)
Semester Two
Examination, 2001-2002 (with examiner's report)
Semester
One Examination, 2002-2003 (with examiner's report)
Semester Two Examination, 2002-2003 (without examiner's
report)
4MBS601 lecture handouts (intranet)
If you are unsure about your intranet username and password,
click here.
Examples of
good coursework
Why
is the module leader recommending his own textbook?
The Module Leader is Adrian Haberberg. The best way to reach me is by email on A.B.Haberberg@wmin.ac.uk – I normally respond to email enquiries within 24 hours. My office is in Room C286 in the Chiltern Building and my normal office hours are Mondays 1145-1245, Wednesdays 1630-1730, but I prefer it if you make an appointment first, by email or telephone (x3305).
Please visit the module website (see cover) before contacting me – it is quite likely that you will find an answer to your query there. You are expected to visit the website every week in any case to check for updates. Contact details for other members of the teaching team are as follows:
|
|
Office and Phone
Extension |
|
|
George Bailey |
Marylebone Building
Room M122; ext 3022 |
|
|
Alan David |
Chiltern Building Room
C288; ext 3028 |
|
|
Colin Durose |
(Visiting Lecturer) |
|
|
Clive Helm |
Chiltern Building Room
CG01; ext 3497 |
|
|
Mick Kemp |
Chiltern Building Room
C380; ext 3060 |
|
|
Francis Mulleady |
Marylebone Building
Room M105, ext 3014 |
This module has three main
aims. The first is to give you an understanding of competitive advantage - the
factors that make the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful
organisation. In order to do this, you will need to combine insights from
disciplines like marketing, HR, accounting and economics that you have
encountered earlier in your course.
The second aim is to
give you the ability to develop realistic proposals for what an organisation
should do in the future. This means, of course, that you need to be able to
understand what its advantage is now, (if it has one!) and whether it is likely
to be able to hold on to that advantage. But you will also find it helpful to
call upon what you have learnt about human nature from your placement year or
other work experience, to understand the kind of obstacles that might prevent
your proposals from working.
The third aim is
arguably the most important of all - to develop your thinking and reasoning
skills. In order to get a good grade in this module, you will need not only to
analyse complex, ambiguous situations and come up with decent conclusions and
proposals, but to show us how and why
you have arrived at them. This will, in turn, involve your looking carefully at
the numbers - sales figures and
financial ratios, for example - to assess what the organisation is really good
at. You will need to combine quantitative and qualitative data in your
arguments.
There are 90-minute
lectures each Monday from 1600-1730 in the Hogg Lecture Theatre. The lecture
and seminar programme is summarised on the back page of this handbook. Seminars
take place as follows:
|
Event |
Time |
Room |
Tutor |
|
6944 |
Monday
1000-1130 |
C176 |
|
|
6945 |
Monday
1000-1130 |
C179 |
|
|
6946 |
Monday 1000-1130 |
C180 |
|
|
6947 |
Monday
1130-1300 |
C279 |
|
|
6948 |
Monday
1130-1300 |
C477 |
|
|
6949 |
Monday
1300-1430 |
C382 |
|
|
6950 |
Monday
1300-1430 |
C179 |
|
|
6951 |
Monday
1300-1430 |
C282 |
|
|
6952 |
Monday
1430-1600 |
C382 |
|
|
6953 |
Monday
1430-1600 |
C328 |
|
|
6954 |
Monday
1430-1600 |
C326 |
|
|
7390 |
Monday
1430-1600 |
L195 |
|
Seminars are used mainly
for the discussion of case studies and for supervised group work on the
assignment. Section
9 of this handbook gives a week-by-week breakdown of the subject
material for each seminar and of the
preparation you will be expected to have done for it. Please make sure that
you come properly prepared for each seminar – the case studies we use are
longer and more complex than those used in most other modules. These longer
cases better reflect the complexity of real business strategic decisions.
– but if you have not read them beforehand,
the seminar time will be wasted.
Experience with previous groups of students shows that working with these cases requires practice. While section 8 of this handbook gives some guidelines, the first two seminars are devoted to the skills needed for strategic thinking and case study analysis. They are important in laying the groundwork for later in the module. Please make sure that you attend a seminar during those weeks, even if your personal timetable has not been finalised.
One piece of group coursework, due on
Thursday, 20 November 2003, counts for 30%
of the module grades. It is based upon the case study “Zara: Fast
Fashion”, which will be distributed to you. Details are in Section 7
of this handbook. For rules on group formation, see Section 4.2
below. Assignments submitted by individual students are not acceptable and will
be given a grade of zero.
A 2¼ hour examination at
the end of the semester will count for 70% of the module grade. This will be an
open book examination based upon a case study which you will have the
opportunity to study at least 14 days in advance. The module website has copies
of recent examination papers - unfortunately, for reasons of copyright, we
cannot post copies of the case studies on which those papers were based.
The coursework is designed to assess material taught in weeks 2-8,
though you can use theory covered later in the module if you think it is
relevant. The examination may draw on anything taught on the entire module, but
will certainly include one or more questions on material taught in weeks 9-13. – miss those seminars and lectures at
your peril.
For the coursework, you will need to form your own groups, containing a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 students. All students in a group must be drawn from the same seminar class and should be finalised by the end of the seminar in week 5 (w/c 13 October). Students who are not in a group at that stage, or who are in a group containing fewer than 3 people, will be allocated to a group by their seminar tutor, whose decision is final. All students in a group will normally receive the same grade.
Each group will be given an Assignment File by their seminar tutor, in which they must record the results of every group meeting - who attended, what decisions were taken and what tasks were allocated to whom. A copy of any notes, draft work or anything else prepared for a group meeting should also be placed in the file, which will be inspected by your seminar tutor during the seminars in weeks 6, 8 and 10, and must be handed in in its entirety along with the assignment report[1].
Students who fail to complete work agreed upon at group meetings, or allocated to them at meetings they have failed to attend, will receive a warning from the seminar tutor. If it is clear from the Assignment File that a student's contribution continues to be inadequate, the seminar tutor or module leader may cap their personal grade at 55%. Further failures to contribute adequately to the group effort may result in the grade being capped at 45%, 35% or 5%. At the seminar tutor's or module leader's discretion, marks subtracted from the score of an individual student may be reallocated to other group members if it is clear that they have been disadvantaged by a colleague's failure to produce promised work. Normally this compensation will only occur if the group effort has fallen disproportionately on one or two individuals, or if an important element of the assignment has been withheld at the last minute.
It is always best to alert your seminar tutor as soon as possible to any emerging problems in your group, so that they can be resolved quickly and amicably. Don’t fall into the common trap of giving people the benefit of the doubt and then finding, a few days before the report is due, that things have got out of hand. Formal complaints by group members about disruptive behaviour or lack of contribution by a colleague need to be supported with evidence from the assignment file (or in the equivalent format) and the subjects of these complaints need to be given the opportunity to defend and to redeem themselves. We shall not consider new complaints made later than two weeks before the assignment submission date unless the circumstances are clearly sudden and exceptional.
No variation in the composition of any group may be made without the written agreement of the seminar tutor or the module leader. Students who move to exclude any group member without such permission will have their own grades capped at 35%. We reserve the right to allocate a grade of zero to students who turn up in a group of which they are not an officially notified member, or to any student whose name appears after the fifth name on the CA1 or report cover.
In this section, we set out the competences you must demonstrate in order to pass the module, and what we look for in 2.2, 2.1 and first class work. It is most important for you to appreciate that the module is not just about learning a particular body of theory and techniques - you must show that you can:
· Interpret the questions we ask you
· Apply the theory taught in the module
· Interpret the data thoroughly and perceptively
· Reach robust and rigorously argued conclusions and (where asked for) recommendations.
We aim to develop your
capacity for addressing real business problems. These tend not to come in
nicely pre-digested form, where it is obvious which technique you need to apply
to get “the answer”. They are more likely to come as open-ended
questions – “Is this business unit still viable?”,
“Which direction should we expand in next?”, “Should we
invest in this new industry?” or “Do we need to change our
corporate culture?”. These are the kinds of question we ask you in your
assignment and examinations, which are based on substantial case studies of
real companies and industries.
There will rarely be an
obvious “right answer”. There may be ten factors affecting a
unit’s viability, and your view of its prospects will depend on which you
has believe has the most weight. There will typically be several directions in
which a firm might expand, each with things to be said for and against it.
Theory we teach you in the module will be useful, and often essential, if you
are to get a thorough answer. But it will be up to you to work out which elements of theory and how they will help, though for the
assignment your seminar tutor will be able to give you some hints.
You cannot expect better
than a third-class grade if you:
·
fail to spot
the relevant elements of theory and give answers based on general “common
sense”
·
give answers
consisting solely of theoretical models (a PEST followed by a five forces
followed by a value chain followed by a cultural web followed by a….)
that have not applied so as to answer the question you have been set.
You will encounter a variety of concepts and models on this module, some of them more complex and difficult to apply than others. We expect to see evidence in your answers that you have understood these and applied them to the case studies on which your assignments and examinations are based. (This does not mean that we need to see every model laid out in laborious detail. It is sufficient that you use the terminology of strategy, accurately and in the appropriate place, when deriving your conclusions).
There are two fundamental ideas about strategy that you will need to understand in order to get better than a bare pass on the module:
· For a firm to have any kind of competitive advantage, it must be doing something distinctive i.e. different from its competitors. You are expected, not just to identify what a firm is doing (which is normally obvious from the case study) but which of them is distinctive.
· A firm’s strategies must be understood in the particular context in which it finds itself. You need show us why and how a strategy makes sense in that particular industry at a given time, and why and how it benefits that firm’s particular customers and helps it use its specific resources.
The following basic models, tools and concepts help you apply these two ideas. For a 2.2, we expect you as a minimum to be able to see where they are relevant, and to be able to apply them accurately:
· strategic performance measurement
· the analysis of the business environment (PEST analysis plus industry analysis)
· differentiation and cost advantage
· the Goffee-Jones matrix for assessment of corporate culture
· the development and evaluation of strategic options
For a 2.1, we expect you in addition to be able to see where the following, more complex models, tools and concepts are relevant, and to be able to apply them accurately:
· sustainable competitive advantage
· strategic resource analysis
· value chain analysis
· the assessment of architecture - organisation structure and control systems
· the analysis of a firm's paradigm (the cultural web) and its implications for the firms’ present and future competitiveness
Students who show a complete command of the more complex elements of theory, who are able to improve or “tweak” the models to address the particular task they have been set, or who apply advanced concepts gleaned from textbooks or from other modules, may merit a first-class grade.
You are expected to be able to apply the theory. There are no marks in this module for simply reproducing diagrams and definitions from textbooks or telling us what a particular model is for, however accurately you may do so.
You need to take care when applying elementary tools and techniques, in particular PEST analysis, SWOT* analysis and the marketing mix (4Ps), which you will have encountered earlier in your course. Final year undergraduate students should be able to move beyond such simple ideas, so if your analysis contains these and nothing else, you will fail the module. (You may, of course, use them alongside the 2.2- and 2.1-level theories listed earlier in this section.)
The case studies used on this module are quite long, but you have plenty of time in which to read and prepare them thoroughly, including all figures, tables and exhibits. If you consistently overlook or contradict facts from the case study, then you will fail the assignment or examination.
You are expected to take account of all quantitative data when reaching your conclusions. Depending on the case study, this might involve the computation of financial ratios, market research data and figures on operational performance, by division or geographical area. In order to get any better than a low 2.2 grade, you should be able, not only to compute the numbers, but also to interpret their strategic significance and use them to support any conclusions you draw about a firm's strengths or weaknesses.
Students typically pitch their interpretation of data at one of three levels:
Ï Description - the information in the case is repeated, perhaps in slightly different words or a different order. Final year undergraduates must move beyond mere description and add value to the data in the case study. Descriptive pieces of work, however detailed, will be given a fail grade.
? Classification - different theoretical models are used to classify the information in the case study under one or more headings. This is an improvement on mere description, but is normally only sufficient for a third-class or low 2.2 grade.
ü Evaluation - theory is used to draw conclusions about, for example, the attractiveness of an industry, the appropriateness of an organisation's structure or culture, or the viability of a strategy. This is the way in which you must interpret data if you want a good 2.2, 2.1 or first class grade.
When we set you a
problem, there is not a “right answer” that we are expecting you to
“get”. Instead, there will be a whole range of plausible answers.
This means that, to get a good grade, it is not enough to produce
reasonable-looking conclusions or recommendations. You must convince us that they are robust,
by showing how the facts and theory support them.
For example, it is not good enough to state that Company X has a strength, or a core competence, in technology development. You must support this assertion. You may choose to highlight the number of new technologies that he firm has introduced over the last five years, and the fact that this is 50% higher than that of the nearest competitor. You might show that 50% of profits come from new technologies. You can point to examples of customers that have been won recently, or to press articles that praise the technologies. All of these would constitute hard evidence that the company is genuinely strong in this area. What you cannot do is rely on what people working for the organisation say - sometimes they overlook things, or try to delude themselves that things are better (or worse) than they really are.
Similarly, if you propose that Company X should launch a new range of products, you must demonstrate that there are potential customers for it, that the firm is capable of winning customers from existing competitors and serving them at a profit, and that it can master the technologies involved. This will involve a careful examination of the firm's track record, to see whether it has tackled similar problems successfully in the past. You may also want to look at what theory has to say about the viability of this type of strategy in Company X's business environment.
Mastering this kind of hard-headed thinking is vital if you want a good grade on the
module. If you don't then, regardless of how
you perform in other areas, you are
unlikely to get a better than a third class mark, and you may well fail.
Along with robustness,
two other things we look for in your conclusions and recommendations are precision and creativity. In real life, it is extremely important to be precise
about which particular technologies
Company X is strong in, which particular customers
it should target with its proposed new range of products and how precisely it should differentiate them
from competing products. It would be a major problem if X launched a new range
of specialised microprocessors when its real strength was in low-cost, high
volume memory chips, or launched new products without a clear market focus.
The best pieces of work
also show enough confidence in the quality of their analysis to propose
something out of the ordinary - a departure from the existing strategy that can
nonetheless be shown to make sense, given the market conditions and the
organisation's ability to cope with them. It is this ability to be precise and
creative that tends to mark out a 2.1 or first class piece of work.
The books listed below should be sufficient for most needs, but if you want to explore the subject in depth, then more comprehensive lists of recommended books and articles can be found at:
The course text (which I
hope you will purchase#) is: Adrian Haberberg and Alison Rieple, The Strategic Management of Organisations,
Prentice-Hall, 2001 (“SMO” in the module programme). Students who
are not intending to purchase this book should contact the module leader,
directly or via their seminar tutor, for photocopies of the case studies used
on the module which are drawn from this book.
If you don’t like SMO, Gerry Johnson & Kevan Scholes, Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice-Hall, 6th Edition, 2002 (J&S), is probably the best alternative, though it lacks depth in its explanation of some key concepts. We have used Charles W L Hill & Gareth R Jones, Strategic Management - An Integrated Approach, 5th Edition, Houghton Mifflin, 2001 (H&J), as a course text in the past, but it is very US-orientated and weak on corporate culture and obstacles to change. Richard Lynch, Corporate Strategy, Pitman, 3rd Edition 2002, is another well-regarded textbook.
John Kay, Foundations of Corporate Success,
Oxford University Press, 1993
Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad, Competing for the
Future, Harvard Business School Press, 1994; still quite fashionable, a bit
overblown, but racily written. The ability to quote coherently from this
may impress potential employers
I Nonaka and H Takeuchi, The Knowledge Creating
Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford
University Press, 1995; the book that triggered the current vogue for knowledge
management, and another one which might wow them at the interview!
Bob de Wit and Ron Meyer, Strategy - Process,
Content, Context, An International Perspective, Thomson, 2nd
Edition 1998 (dW&M). Containing an excellent selection of important
articles written about strategy in the 80s and 90s.
Robert M Grant, Contemporary Strategy Analysis,
Blackwell, 4th edition 2002 ("Grant"). Our former set book
for Masters students, it includes some advanced concepts from economic theory,
but is quite readable and has some good examples.
Garth Saloner, Andrea Shepard and Joel Podolny, Strategic
Management, Wiley 2001. Another Masters level set book. Clearly
written, especially good on industry analysis.
Michael Porter, Competitive Strategy, Free
Press, 1980; Competitive Advantage, Free Press, 1985. Two
classics - both heavy going, especially the second
James C Craig and Robert M Grant, Strategic
Management, Kogan Page 1993 A highly recommended overview of the subject.
Cornelius A de Kluyver, Strategic Thinking - A Executive Perspective, Prentice Hall, 2000; a well- written overview that I recommend as pre-course reading for Masters students. Commendably up-to-date in most regards.
This is your assignment brief. Please read it carefully - ALL of it - along with Section 5 (Expected levels of attainment). You will get no sympathy if you do not adhere to the brief in full and to the letter. Nothing that your seminar tutor tells you can be taken to override what is written here.
It
is January 2003, and the
management of Inditex, while proud of the success of Zara and their other
clothing brands, are aware of the dangers of complacency. Accordingly, they have
commissioned your group to report to them on the main challenges and
opportunities confronting their firm over the next four years. In order to do
this, you will, of course, need to analyse the factors underlying their current
performance and the likely effects of future developments in the industry.
Inditex' management would like you to identify the two or three most important
issues confronting them, and explain clearly why these issues should be given
priority.
It is expected that most of your
analysis will relate to the Zara brand, but you should feel free to comment on
the other brands if you think there are important issues at stake, or if you
think that the minor brands are affecting Zara's success in some important way.
You should base your work upon the case study “Zara: Fast Fashion”, which will be distributed to you.
Two separately bound copies of the group case study report of no more than 3,000 words excluding figures, tables and appendices, are to be handed in at the Marylebone Road Coursework Lobby no later than 6.00 p.m. on Thursday 20 November 2003 (Week 10), along with your Assignment File (including all meeting records and copies of rough work - yes it will fit through the slot in the Coursework Lobby). Your seminar tutor’s name must be the cover page, to avoid delays in marking your assignment.
The University operates a two-tier penalty system for late submission of coursework:
(A) Up to 24 hours after the deadline the mark given for the piece of work is capped at 40%
(B) More than 24 hours after the deadline the mark given for the piece of work is zero
Please note that these penalties apply even if your work is posted only a few minutes after the deadline. You are strongly advised to submit your work as far ahead of the deadline as possible and you should always aim to submit your work at least one day ahead of the deadline to allow for any unexpected delays. You have eight clear weeks in which to complete your assignments - more than enough time to allow for printer failures, computer viruses and queues at the Coursework Lobby. Plan ahead! Take frequent back-ups and check often for computer viruses. Do not rely on the availability of printers and photocopiers at the University during the 24 hours before the submission deadline.
It is always better to submit an incomplete piece of work before the deadline than to submit nothing. If you do submit work after the deadline then you should do so as soon as possible. Any claim of extenuating circumstances relating to late coursework should also be submitted as soon as possible. If such a claim is accepted as valid by the Extenuating Circumstances Board then no penalty will be applied.
There are also
penalties for:
· exceeding the 3,000 word limit: we may decide either to deduct up to 10 marks from the assignment grade, or to ignore everything in the report after the 3,000th word. Five groups were penalised for this last semester. Your Executive Summary counts towards the 3,000 words, but tables and appendices normally do not, although if it is clear that you are using them to carry your main argument rather than to supplement it then we shall waive this exemption.
· failing to put your seminar tutor’s name on the cover of your report – a 3 mark penalty
· failing to hand in your Assignment File with the assignment - a 5 mark penalty
· expelling students from your group without permission, or failing to fulfil obligations to your group - grade capped at level determined by seminar tutor/module leader; see section 4.2
You are strongly advised to allow time for thorough proof-reading and spell-checking. Anyone who misspells “Zara” or submits a report with pages missing or out of order is asking for trouble!
Assignments will be handed back by week 13, the
last week of teaching.
For this assignment, you may supplement the case study material with external research, but there are no extra marks for doing so. Your main emphasis should be upon the analysis of the case study and upon the development of sensible, coherent answers to the questions. Please do not fall into the trap of spending lots of time gathering extra data before you understand the issues in the case and the work that is needed to answer the question. Once you have achieved this understanding, you will be able to target your resources carefully to get precisely the extra information you need.
You must not make direct enquiries to Zara or related or competing companies except through channels, such as websites, set up for easy public access.
If you use supplementary material, then IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT SIMPLY TO LIST THE ARTICLE OR BOOK IT COMES FROM at the back of the report. You should give a full reference for each item of information (fact or opinion) you use from outside the case. If you do not, we shall assume that you have invented it, and you will lose rather than gain marks. Remember also that quoting something from an article or book without citing the source is plagiarism, and attracts severe penalties (see your Course Handbook). We require the same level of reference information (e.g. dates and page numbers for newspaper or magazine articles, url and date of access for websites) that you will see in the footnotes to the case study. If in doubt, ask your seminar tutor.
Please remember that you are writing a business report and not an academic essay, and that you are writing it for a busy and intelligent manager. In particular:
· Do not waste time and paper reproducing information from the case study. Take special care not to bore the client with a long history of the organisation you are studying. You should assume that they have read and understood everything in the case study. Your job is to add value to that information.
· Remember that a report, like any other good piece of writing, tells a story in an interesting and coherent way. There should be a clear flow from one section of your writing to another, and each part of the report should draw upon what has gone before, and feed analysis forward to what follows.
· Avoid jargon. Write simply and concisely, avoiding unnecessary use of theoretical terms. And if you must use them, make sure you use them correctly!
· Avoid adjectives like “huge”, “massive” or “disastrous”. Use a number instead –“15% growth per year”, which makes your analysis seem more considered and credible.
· Use appendices intelligently. They are not compulsory – some of the best (and most complete) reports we have read had no appendices at all. An appendix gives supporting information that reinforces the arguments in the main report – for example, extra economic or market data to reinforce what you have said about the crucial trends. If your appendix just contains the same key points than you have already included in the body of the report, plus a few others that really are not relevant to the industries or firms you are considering, then omit it. Use separate appendices for separate issues or pieces of analysis – don’t lump everything together in one massive appendix and then leave the reader to hunt for the relevant bit. And make sure that you refer to your appendices at the relevant points in the report – not just in the contents page. If you do not ask us to “refer to” or “see” Appendix One, then we won’t bother to!
There is no set format for the report, but we do expect it to contain the following:
1) A contents page, listing all group members’ names (forename and surname) and your seminar tutor’s name, all correctly spelt.
2) An Executive Summary. This is, as the name suggests, a summary containing all the main findings and conclusions, so that a busy executive can get a flavour of what the report says and decide whether or not s/he needs to read it all. It is not to be confused with the Introduction (see below)
3) An Introduction. This sets the scene for what is to follow. It should contain:
· a brief (1-2 paragraphs) summary of the events which have led to the report being written
· the terms of reference or objective of the report
· a description of the method the report follows to achieve this objective. This can be thought of as a kind of annotated table of contents, e.g. “In Section 1, we analyse the firms’ changing environment. In Section 2, we assess your capacity to respond to those changes. In Section 3, we assess the options at your disposal. In Section 4, we present our detailed recommendations and implementation proposals.” This is called “signposting” and it shows the reader how the different sections fit together.
We encourage you to use appropriate charts and figures to summarise data and findings, and you may get extra credit for doing so. HOWEVER:
· Please make sure that your report makes sense as a stand-alone document. If you use a figure or a chart, make sure that its message is clear - or add some narrative to bring out the point
· Make sure that you have explained how you reached any conclusions that you summarise in your tables or diagrams. Just plotting points on a portfolio matrix or Goffee-Jones diagram is not enough.
· Don't use graphics for their own sake - a pretty chart that says nothing of importance will lose you time and probably marks as well. Simply plotting the firm’s sales or profit figures on an Excel graph rarely adds anything – why not pick out an interesting ratio, like profit margins or sales per employee, and use a graph to show how that has been behaving over time
· Make sure you use the right kind of graphic for the job. Don’t use a pie chart for a time series – use a line graph or a bar chart.
· Flashy presentation is not a substitute for clear thinking. A nice cover and coloured charts will not rescue a poor piece of work. Make sure that, above all, you give us work that:
- is intellectually thorough
- is well structured
- is coherently and logically argued, and grounded in the evidence in the case study
- answers the question.
5) If you are asked for a particular decision or recommendation, make sure that it is clearly stated (i.e. not just implied) in the report. You may have come up with fifteen good reasons why the company should enter the market in Utopia, but unless you clearly state that that is what you recommend, you will lose marks
There are three stages to analysing a case study:
1) The longer that a case study is given to “sink in” to your subconscious, the deeper the understanding you will get and the better your answers will be. Read the case material for the first time as soon as you have been allocated it as an assignment or seminar example. Get a general impression:
· Which organisations and industries does it relate to?
· Is the organisation doing well or badly now, and how has it performed in the past? Is it a firm with an unbroken record of success? Or a successful company that has fallen on hard times?
· What are the main issues and choices confronting the company? Is it in an expanding industry, or a maturing one? Are customer needs changing? Does the firm confront a variety of opportunities? Or is there a particular business decision which the case is oriented towards?
· What information is there in the case, as tables and annexes?
2) Put the case aside for a few days before starting to analyse it seriously:
· Look at the development of the organisation over time. What strategies has it pursued? Which have succeeded and which have failed? Which are the types of environment where it has been able to succeed, and in which types has it had problems?
· Look carefully at all the tables, annexes and appendices. Why are they there? What information is the casewriter trying to get you to get out of them?
· If there are numerical data in the case – analyse them. What trends over time do they show? What ratios can you use to analyse performance in areas that are important to the organisation?
· Use the tools and techniques of strategic management theory, to see what insights they give you. How successful has the organisation been – and how do you know? What is the nature of the competitive environment, what are the industry success and survival factors, and how are these changing over time? Is there anything distinctive or sustainable about the organisation’s strategy, or does it look as if it is likely to be an also-ran or a loser in its industry? How does the organisation differentiate itself from its competitors? How distinctive is its value chain? What kind of strategic resources does the organisation have – and which does it lack?
Then, if you have time, put the case aside again for a day or two, and let all this sink in. You may at this stage like to use SWOT analysis as a framework for a preliminary analysis of your thinking. But beware – SWOT analysis is not sufficiently precise to feature in a good final report.
3) You should now start to relate the analysis to the task or question you have been set. Is there further information or analysis that you need? What elements of the strategic analysis do you require to carry out the task, and how do they relate to it? Very rarely will you be able to use everything that you have discovered about a company. Some of it will have to be left out because of lack of space (in a report) or time (in an exam). Other bits of it will simply have no bearing on the question. It can sometimes be tough to leave out material you have spent a lot of time analysing and discussing, but, like every good manager, you sometimes have to be ruthless. If it doesn’t help answer the question, out it goes, however profound it may seem to be.
Think hard about your conclusions and recommendations. Have you really demonstrated them, backing up your reasoning with hard evidence (events and results) from the case study? Have you allowed yourself to be swayed by the opinions of the organisation’s own managers? They have a vested interest in showing their actions in the best possible light. You do not have to agree. Do the facts support their claims of success, or their excuses for failure?
You should also beware of being taken in by the rhetoric of the casewriter. Sometimes they may genuinely believe that this is a wonderful company, sometimes they may just be trying to mislead you. We can read what they think – we want to know what you think! Dare to be different – if you can marshal the evidence to support what you say.
Make sure that, in developing recommendations:
· You have considered the alternatives. There is hardly ever just one, single “obvious” response to a strategic problem. And bear in mind that, if there is, all the company’s competitors will have thought of it, too!
· You have made it clear why the recommendation you have chosen is the best of the available alternatives. That means showing what is wrong with the others
·
You have looked at the downside of your proposals. Try to avoid proposals that would
bankrupt the company if they failed, or which can be easily copied by the
competition.
We use the Value of Good Housekeeping case study (in this pack) to explore some important points about strategy and strategic thinking. The question you will be exploring is:
We use the British Airways case study (at the end of Chapter 4 in The Strategic Management of Organisations) to look at how quantitative analysis helps us understand whether an organisation is succeeding or failing, and why. It is vital that you have read both the chapter and the case study, and had a stab at analysing the figures, before the seminar. The case is too long for you to read in class. You should prepare the two case study questions at the end of the chapter.
This seminar is given over to work on the assignment. You should have read the case study thoroughly at least twice and be prepared to discuss it with your fellow group members.
We use the computer industry case study (at the end of Chapter 5 in SMO, plus update in this handbook) to practise the techniques of environmental analysis from week 3’s lecture. Please prepare the four Case study questions at the end of the chapter. Again, you are likely to find this case quite complex – if you try to read it during the seminar, there will be no time for you to analyse and discuss it.
Your group should have approximately 20 minutes with your tutor to discuss progress on the assignment, which should by now be half-complete. Remember to bring your Assignment File
We use the eBay case study (to be distributed) to
look at aspects of competitive advantage. Please prepare the following
questions:
Seminar given over to work on the assignment - remember to bring your Assignment File.
We use the “Cemex Way” case study (in this pack) to revise the material on competitive advantage from weeks 3-7. Questions to prepare:
Use the concepts of competitive stance and the value
chain to analyse Cemex’ strategy.
Seminar given over to work on the assignment, which is due on Thursday, 20 November 2003. Remember to bring your Assignment File.
Use the case studies ‘After the binge, Cobra Beer
struggles to see the future’ and ‘The Big Pitcher’ (in this pack)
to practice the analysis of strategic issues and options (weeks 6 and 7).
Please prepare these questions:
How great is the
need for Cobra Beer to change its strategy?
What are the main strategic alternatives open to Cobra
Beer? (You should not limit yourselves to the ones that they are considering).
Which should they pursue, and why?
We use the Microsoft case study, “They're smart, they're rich, they're ...geeks” (in this pack) to revise the material on architecture and culture from week 7 and practice the material on obstacles to change from week 11. The questions to prepare are as follows:
Use the cultural web
to analyse the changes that Steve Balmer is proposing at Microsoft.
What are the main
obstacles that Balmer is likely to encounter in implementing the change?
This seminar will be given over to general revision topics. Your coursework will be available to you for feedback.
|
Week: Date |
Lecture Topics Seminar Topics |
*Main Reading Additional Reading |
|
2: 22 Sep |
Module
overview. Basic concepts. Nature of strategy, strategic thinking. Case study
analysis. Seminar: Introduction to Case Study analysis. The Value of Good Housekeeping Case Study |
SMO Ch 1-3; J&S Ch 1 Grant Ch1,2; deW&M Readings 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5,3.2, 3.5 |
|
3: 29 Sep |
Analysing
the organisation's business environment: PEST and industry analysis. Success
and survival factors. Case study analysis and discussion: SMO Ch4 and
the British Airways case at end of chapter. |
SMO Ch 4, 5 J&S Ch 3, 4.2 deW&M 5.1, 8.5 Grant Ch 3 |
|
4: 6 Oct |
Competitive
Advantage (1). Choosing the right target. Positioning. Strategic Resources. Group work on assignment |
SMO Ch 6, 7; J&S Ch 3.5,
4.3, 4.4, 7.3 Grant Ch 4,7-9; Kay Ch 1; deW&M 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 10.1-3 |
|
5: 13 Oct |
Competitive
Advantage (2) Resources and the value chain Case study analysis: The Computer Industry (SMO
Ch 5 plus update in this handbook) |
SMO
Ch 7, 8; J&S Ch 4 Hill & Jones Ch 4-6; Grant Ch 5; Kay Ch 5-8;
deW&M 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 6.2 |
|
6: 20 Oct |
Structure
and systems. Group work on assignment |
SMO
Ch 10; J&S Ch 9; Grant Ch 6; deW&M 9.1,
9.2, 10.5 |
|
7: 27 Oct |
Architecture
and culture. Case study: eBay (to be distributed) |
SMO
8.5, 13.4.2; J&S Ch 5 |
|
8: 3 Nov |
Sustainable
competitive advantage and strategic issues. Group work on assignment |
SMO 11.1-11.3; J&S 7.4 |
|
9: 10 Nov |
From strategic
analysis to strategic proposals: identifying and evaluating strategic options Case
study: The
Cemex Way (in this handbook) |
SMO 11; J&S Ch 8 deW&M 1.3 |
|
10: 17 Nov |
Effectiveness:
Strategic Options in Different Contexts Group work on assignment Thursday 21 November, 6.00 p.m. – hand in
assignment. |
SMO 12.3-12.4; Hill & Jones Ch 7; Grant Ch 10, 12, deW&M 8.1, 8.2 |
|
11: 24 Nov |
Acceptability.
Barriers to change Case study analysis: After the binge, Cobra Beer
struggles to see the future and The Big Pitcher (in this handbook) |
SMO
Ch 13; J&S Ch 11; deW&M 9.4,
9.5 |
|
12: 1 Dec |
Managing
Learning, Innovation and Knowledge Strategies
for electronic commerce Case study
analysis: “They're smart, they're rich, they're ...geeks” (in this handbook)
|
SMO 7.4, 12.5;
J&S 2.3.5, 10.5 Grant, Ch 11,
deW&M 4.4, 8.4, 8.5 |
|
13: 8 Dec |
Course
summary. Revision topics. Revision. Coursework Feedback |
|
(*J&S = Johnson and Scholes; SMO = Strategic
Management of Organisations; DeW&M=De Wit and Meyer)
* Anyone
proposing to use SWOT analysis in a strategic analysis is urged to read
Appendix 3.1 in "The Strategic Management of Organisations" in order
to avoid the most common errors
# If you feel
uncomfortable with this recommendation, then see the section "Why is the
module leader recommending his own textbook" on the module website, where I
hope to persuade you of the advantages. Feel free to compare the books
available in the library before making up your mind.
[1] We shall be replacing the Assignment Files with an on-line monitoring system based on BlackBoard at some stage during this academic year. If this change affects you, then we shall update these instructions accordingly.
* Anyone proposing to use SWOT analysis in a strategic analysis is urged to read Appendix 3.1 in "The Strategic Management of Organisations" in order to avoid the most common errors
# If you feel uncomfortable with this recommendation, then see the section "Why is the module leader recommending his own textbook" on the module website, where I hope to persuade you of the advantages. Feel free to compare the books available in the library before making up your mind.