VALID THRU: 30-May-2025

Assignment Briefs 04-26-2025

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

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 7^th 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.

Strategy

- Discussion of team’s strategy as decided in Week 3.

10 marks

(200 words)

Theory & Change

- 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.

40 marks

(800 words)

Reflection on decisions

- Discuss the impact of changes on business performance.

15 marks

(300 words)

Final ranking

- Reflect on where your team came in the final ranking and how it could be improved.

(300 words)

Teamwork

- Reflect on how you worked as a team

10 marks

(200 words)

Presentation

- demonstrates critical analysis

- wider reading and range of academic sources

- referencing

10 marks

Total

100

Percentage Mark Level of Performance (based on mark awarded):

90-100	Outstanding
80-89	Excellent
70-79	Very Good
60-69	Good
50-59	Fair
40-49	Adequate
30-39	Unsatisfactory
20-29	Poor
10-19	Very Poor
0-9	Extremely Poor

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

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

Demonstrate coherent and detailed knowledge and understanding of strategic management within a global and sustainable context.

Assessment Information/Brief 2024-25

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions

Our Giveaways

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

Demonstrate coherent and detailed knowle

1.1 Identify 2 models of reflection comm

LO1. Demonstrate knowledge and understan

Company

Useful Links

Useful Links