Demonstrate coherent and detailed knowledge and understanding of strategic management within a global and sustainable context.
Assessment Information/Brief 2024-25
To be used for all types of assessment and provided to students at the start of the module.
Information provided should be compatible with the detail contained in the approved module specification although may contain more information for clarity.
|
Module title |
Strategic Management |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CRN |
UoS - 39297 BUB – 53603 SCM – 54141 SIR - 63957 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Level |
6 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assessment title |
Assignment 2 – Reflective Journal |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Weighting within module |
This assessment is worth 50% of the overall module mark. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Module Leader/Assessment set by |
(UoS) Nagiet Shaheen |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Submission deadline date and time |
For coursework assessments only: students with a Reasonable Adjustment Plan (RAP) or Carer Support Plan should check your plan to see if an extension to this submission date has been agreed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How to submit
|
You should submit your assessment electronically via Turnitin on Blackboard. As the University will mark assessments anonymously where this is possible, please use your student roll number and not your name on your submission. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assessment task details and instructions
|
All generic questions about the assessment should be asked on the Padlet provided on blackboard – generic questions sent to tutors’ email will be directed to put these on the message boards. You are required to write an 1800-word reflective journal based on your 8 weeks’ experience on the group simulation exercise. The simulation runs from Week 3 to Week 10 inclusive. This is an individual assessment based on a group work experience; groups must be formed from seminar peers and must be decided and communicated by Week 2 to tutors via email/in seminar classes. Your journal should be a reflection on each of the weeks. Your reflection should: i) Discuss your team’s strategy for the business as decided in Week 3. ii) Identify the 3 key decisions and changes made by the team over the 8 weeks. Discussion of most useful/important strategic tools that informed your 3 key decisions. iii) Discuss the impact of changes on business performance. iv) Reflect on where your team came in the final ranking and how it could be improved. v) Reflect on how you worked as a team. Information on the simulation case study will be given in Week 3’s lecture and there will be a folder on Blackboard containing all information on the exercise. Time will be given in each seminar for the group to work on the simulation; however, you are not limited to only this time as you can access the simulation at any point. Week 1 & 2 seminars will be a practice run of using the simulation. Results for the performance of the simulation will be available after 5pm each Friday. This assessment should be presented as a report using font size 12 and Times New Roman. Harvard APA 7th Ed referencing style should be used throughout the assessment. Diagrams, charts and images are excluded from the word count. An appendix can be included. Assessment drafts will not be looked at by lecturers, but students have access to Padlet to ask questions on and sessions will be provided for students to ask questions about the assessment with the lecturers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assessment Criteria
|
This assessment contributes 50% of the overall module mark; learning outcomes assessed – 1,3,5,6,7 You should look at the assessment criteria to find out what we are specifically looking at during the assessment.
Percentage Mark Level of Performance (based on mark awarded):
Also refer to the detailed Level 6 grade descriptors available on the module’s Blackboard and the marking rubric. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Knowledge and Understanding
Practical, Professional or Subject Specific Skills |
Assessed intended learning outcomes On successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to: 1. Demonstrate coherent and detailed knowledge and understanding of strategic management within a global and sustainable context. 3. Identify strategic problems and issues facing a range of organizational types and situations 5. Engage in debate about strategy and communicate information, ideas, problems and solutions effectively from a theoretical and a practical standpoint 6. Research, analyse and interpret qualitative and quantitative data from a wide range of sources. 7. Consolidate cognitive skills in critical analysis and evaluation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Employability Skills developed / demonstrated |
Communication YES Critical Thinking and Problem Solving YES Data Literacy NO Digital Literacy YES Industry Awareness YES Innovation and Creativity YES Proactive Leadership YES Reflection and Life-Long Learning YES Self-management and Organisation YES Team Working YES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Word count/ duration (if applicable)
|
Your assessment should be…... 1800 words in length, penalties may be applied for exceeding the word count. Your word count does not include any charts, diagrams, images or the bibliography. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feedback arrangements
|
You can expect to receive feedback within 15 working days of submission. Assessment drafts cannot be looked at by lecturers; students have use of Padlet. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Academic Integrity and Referencing
|
Students are expected to learn and demonstrate skills associated with good academic conduct (academic integrity). Good academic conduct includes the use of clear and correct referencing of source materials. Here is a link to where you can find out more about the skills which students need: Academic integrity & referencing Academic Misconduct is an action which may give you an unfair advantage in your academic work. This includes plagiarism, asking someone else to write your assessment for you or taking notes into an exam. The University takes all forms of academic misconduct seriously. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assessment Information and Support
|
Support for this Assessment You can obtain support for this assessment using the Padlet link in the assessment folder. All questions on the assessment will be answered here and visible for everyone. Office hours are also available please see blackboard for details. You also have the use of Turnitin draft submission folder. You can find more information about understanding your assessment brief and assessment tips for success here. Assessment Rules and Processes You can find information about assessment rules and processes in Blackboard in the Assessment Support module. Develop your Academic and Digital Skills Find resources to help you develop your skills here. Concerns about Studies or Progress If you have any concerns about your studies, contact your Academic Progress Review Tutor/Personal Tutor or your Student Progression Administrator (SPA). askUS Services The University offers a range of support services for students through askUS including Disability and Learner Support, Wellbeing and Counselling Services. Personal Mitigating Circumstances (PMCs) If personal mitigating circumstances (e.g. illness or other personal circumstances) may have affected your ability to complete this assessment, you can find more information about the Personal Mitigating Circumstances Procedure here. Independent advice is available from the Students’ Union Advice Centre about this process. Click here for an appointment to speak to an adviser or email advicecentre-ussu@salford.ac.uk. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In Year Retrieval Scheme
|
Your assessment is not eligible for in year retrieval. If you are eligible for this scheme, you will be contacted shortly after the feedback deadline. You can find more information about this scheme in Blackboard in the Assessment Support module. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reassessment
|
If you fail your assessment, and are eligible for reassessment, you will need to resubmit on or before TBC. For students with accepted personal mitigating circumstances for absence/non submission, this will be your replacement assessment attempt. Reassessment submission will be the same brief. We know that having to undergo a reassessment can be challenging however support is available. Have a look at all the sources of support outlined earlier in this brief and refer to the Personal Effectiveness resources. |
|
Criteria |
Extremely poor |
Very poor |
Poor |
Unsatisfactory |
Adequate |
Fair |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Outstanding |
|
|
1-9 |
10-19 |
20-29 |
30-39 |
40-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 |
70-79 |
80-89 |
90-100 |
|
1. Discussion of team’s strategy (10)
|
No attempt
No reflections |
Virtually no discussion of team strategy included
No reflections |
Poor attempt, demonstrated little or no understanding of team strategy No reflections |
Limited understanding of team strategy included. No reflection |
Basic overview of team strategy, some omissions, may contain errors and/or inconsistencies. Limited reflection on any changes |
Team strategy presented clearly, may be some errors or inconsistency in the strategy. Fair attempt at reflection on any changes Theory included |
Strategy is clearly presented with consideration and reflections of any changes made over the period
Explanation of strategy demonstrates understanding of underlying concepts Theory drawn on effectively to underpin explanation |
Strategy is very clearly presented with detail. Consideration and reflections of any changes made over the period
Explanation of strategy demonstrates in depth understanding of underlying concepts Clear links between theory and strategy |
Excellent presentation of strategy including commentary and reflection of any required changes over the period
Demonstrates outstanding understanding of underlying concepts Theory clearly used to underpin the strategy |
Outstanding presentation of strategy including commentary and reflections of any required changes over the period
Demonstrates professional understanding of underlying concepts Theory clearly used to underpin and explain the strategy to a professional standard |
|
2. Theory & change (40 marks) |
No use of strategic tools. No reflection included |
Virtually no inclusion of strategic tools and Virtually no reflection included |
Strategic tools mentioned but no attempt at application and does not discuss 3 key decisions |
Unsatisfactory use of strategic tools and does not discuss 3 key decisions |
Strategic tools included Some attempt to apply tools but may include errors / omissions. Some discussion of decisions included
|
Strategic tools given appropriate consideration
Application of tools evident with only minor limitations. 3 key decisions identified and discussed, may be some errors or inconsistencies
|
Critical consideration of strategic tools and demonstrate consideration of 3 key decisions and the impacts Clear and considered application to the work demonstrates understanding of concepts |
Detailed and critical consideration of strategic tools with detailed consideration of 3 key decisions and the impact
Use of tools demonstrates in depth understanding of underlying concepts |
Excellent discussion of strategic tools and demonstrating detailed consideration of 3 key decisions and the impact Application demonstrates in depth understanding of how they can be effectively applied |
Outstanding discussion of strategic tools, demonstrates comprehensive understanding and relevance, detailed consideration of 3 key decisions and the impact Tools applied to a professional standard
|
|
3. Reflection on decisions (15)
|
No reflection included |
Virtually no reflection included |
Poor reflection Does not discuss 3 key decisions |
Unsatisfactory discussion Does not discuss 3 key decisions |
Basic reflection Some discussion of decisions included Limited consideration of reflective framework |
Satisfactory reflection 3 key decisions identified and discussed, may be some errors or inconsistencies Reflective framework identified but with limitations in application |
Reflection is clearly presented to demonstrate consideration of 3 key decisions and the impacts Reflective framework clearly identified and applied |
Reflection is very well presented to demonstrate detailed consideration of 3 key decisions and the impact Reflective framework clearly identified and applied |
Excellent reflection is presented to demonstrate in depth understanding of 3 key decisions Reflective framework identified and applied to an excellent standard |
Outstanding reflection is presented to demonstrate comprehensive understanding of 3 key decisions and its impact Reflective framework identified and applied to a professional standard |
|
4. Final ranking (15) |
No reflection included |
Virtually no reflection included |
Poor reflection Does not identify improvements and final ranking |
Unsatisfactory discussion Does not identify improvements and final ranking |
Basic reflection Some discussion of improvements and ranking included Limited consideration of reflective framework |
Satisfactory reflection Possible improvements identified and ranking discussed, may be some errors or inconsistencies Reflective framework identified but with limitations in application |
Reflection is clearly presented to demonstrate consideration of final position and possible improvements Reflective framework clearly identified and applied
|
Reflection is very well presented to demonstrate detailed consideration of final position and possible improvements Reflective framework clearly identified and applied
|
Excellent reflection is presented to demonstrate in depth understanding of final position and possible improvements Reflective framework identified and applied to an excellent standard
|
Outstanding reflection is presented to demonstrate comprehensive understanding of final position and possible improvements Reflective framework identified and applied to a professional standard
|
|
5. Discussion of teamwork (10) |
No Discussion |
Virtually no discussion of teamwork |
Poor discussion of teamwork Little evidence of own contribution. No consideration of team concepts |
Unsatisfactory discussion Evidence of own contribution limited No consideration of team concepts |
Basic discussion of teamwork. Some omissions, may contain errors and/or inconsistencies Some contribution to the team is demonstrated Limited consideration of team concepts |
Teamwork clearly discussed, may be limited errors and/or inconsistencies Contribution to team is clear Theory included |
Teamwork is clearly presented with consideration of contribution over the period discussed in detail
Theory drawn on effectively to underpin explanation |
Teamwork is very clearly presented with detail and consideration of own role and contribution Discussion of theory demonstrates in depth understanding of underlying concepts Theory used to explain team concepts and dynamics |
Excellent presentation of the operation of the team and their own contribution
Demonstrates outstanding understanding of underlying concepts Theory clearly used to explain teamwork and its dynamics |
Outstanding presentation of the operation of the team and their own contribution
Demonstrates professional understanding of underlying concepts Theory clearly used to explain teamwork to a professional standard |
|
5. Presentation demonstrates critical analysis, wider reading and range of academic sources, referencing (10)
|
No references.
No attempt to provide evidence of sources used.
Poor presentation of data with poor flow |
Lack of ability to source adequate material.
Very poor referencing |
Poor use of reference material with frequent error.
Inappropriate or outdated sources with numerous referencing errors. |
Unsatisfactory referencing with frequent error.
Over utilises secondary sources.
Limited ability to support content with relevant sources.
Difficult to follow due to lack of structure |
Narrow range of sources. Referencing in presented work is adequate with some inconsistencies or inaccuracies.
Use of primary and secondary sources. References used are appropriate in terms of currency.
A weak structure and presentation |
Fair range of sources identified with appropriate referencing and few inaccuracies.
Appropriate use of primary Sources with some secondary referencing apparent. Fair presentation |
Good range of sources.
Well referenced, very few inaccuracies.
Good use of primary sources. Some use of diagrams/tables/figures/ screenshots
Good overall structure and presentation |
Clear evidence of referencing to a wide range of primary sources which are used effectively in supporting the work.
A very good use of diagrams/figures/ tables/ screenshots. A very good presentation throughout and overall a coherent structure
|
Detailed use of primary sources which are well referenced and are used creatively to develop the work. Diagrams/figures/tables/ screenshots used and add value to the narrative. Excellent Presentation. Use of coherent structure |
Synthesis of reference material from a wide range of sources both within and across professions Includes appropriate diagrams which feed into the narrative Outstanding Presentation, a very coherent structure |
