Page 1 of 8Graduate School of Business and Law—BUSM4738 StrategyAssessment 3: Individual theory and practice paper Assessment type: Theory and Practice PaperWord limit: 2500 (+/- 10%)Due Date: Thursday of Week 7, 23:59(Melbourne time)Weighting: 50% OverviewYou are required to demonstrate how strategy theories and concepts can explain strategic processesand practices, how these processes and practices can be improved with the help of these theories andconcepts, and how these theories and concepts are limited in their explanatory power.The purpose of this assessment is to expose you to the knowledge and skills needed to identify andsolve complex strategic problems that affect the organisation. You will be able to contribute to thedirection and use of firm resources (e.g., financial resources, human resources) to deliver sustainableresults for organisations.Assessment criteriaThis assessment will measure your ability to develop an individual theory and practice paper thatconsists of two essays, from a choice of three, each of which has a maximum grade of 50 points, and willbe assessed against its:• Overall impact of the paper: Structure, referencing, and written style (20%)• Quality of research: Research, theory application and critique (30%)• Quality of identification and analysis of organisational examples (30%)• Quality of synthesis and reflection (20%)Page 2 of 8Course learning outcomesThis assessment is relevant to the following course learning outcomes: CLO1Apply business concepts to construct a strategic plan for a businessCLO2Create a sustainable competitive strategy for an ongoing business entityCLO3Develop strategies alternatives using design thinking to facilitate organisationaldecision- making and problem solvingCLO4Demonstrate an understanding of legal, ethical social, economic, and environmentalimplications of business processes Page 3 of 8Assessment detailsAvailability:The questions for this assessment will be provided on the Friday of Week 5, via an announcement fromyour facilitator.Word limit:Paper of 2500 words (1250 words per essay), excluding words in pictures, tables, figures, andreferences.It is critical that you remember that the assessment is targeted towards senior management reading and,therefore, should be clear, accurate and efficient.Submission file type:Adobe PDF or Microsoft Word.How to succeed in this assessment:This assessment will be broken up into responding to two out of three individual theory and practiceessay questions about strategy and business.This assessment task draws on and integrates concepts from Weeks 1 to 6 of the course. To beprepared for this assignment, students should keep up with the weekly reading, participate in the weeklywebinars, read the weekly case studies, and curate their own portfolio of examples of practice. Studentswill need to be ready to respond to the questions asked and be proactive and innovative in theirpreparations.In writing this assessment, students should prepare an appropriate length and quality answer for an MBAstudent. The essay answers should demonstrate clear and thorough understanding of the designatedsubject matter (i.e., the course materials, the relevant readings and/or practical examples depending onthe question asked) at a Master’s level. Key terms should be accurately defined. Theory should beproperly explained as required. Suitable examples should be provided where applicable to connecttheory to practice. An exceptionally clear and appropriate conclusion is desirable.All relevant University Policies on assessment apply.You will be provided with three essay questions, two of which you are required to address. A samplequestion, which provides the most realistic guidance on components of what to expect in the context ofthe assessment criteria and details, is provided below.Example of Question 11. The concept of Creating Shared Value proposed by Porter and Kramer (2011, p. 66) is defined as‘‘policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company whilesimultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which itoperates’’. Provide some examples from the global or your organisation’s practice on howbusinesses successfully create shared value. How does this concept can help businesses toredesign their strategies in the covid and post-covid world? (25 points)2. Can strategic thinking be taught? Drawing on Liedtka’s (1998) model of strategic thinking, analysehow how your organisation or any other organisation you know demonstrated the five constituentsof strategic thinking (i.e., system perspective, intent focused, thinking in time, hypothesis driven,intelligent opportunism) during COVID-19. In your opinion, how successful was this thinking? (25points)Page 4 of 8(Total: 25 + 25 = 50 points)Example of Question 21. Explain generic strategies – cost leadership, differentiation, and focus (cost focus or differentiationfocus) – proposed by Michael Porter. What are the risks associated with a firm getting ‘stuck in themiddle’ with their generic strategy? Drawing on Porter’s generic strategies and your organisation orany other organisation you know, provide an example of an adoption/change of a businessstrategy during COVID-19. In your opinion, how successful was this adoption/change? (25 points)2. COVID-19 has brought a lot of uncertainty to corporate strategizing, making strategy-as-practice –a perspective that views strategy as “a situated, socially accomplished activity” and strategizing as“those actions, interactions and negotiations of multiple actors and the situated practices that theydraw on in accomplishing that activity” (Jarzabkowski & Spee 2009, p. 2) – arguably moreimportant to analyse than ‘strategy as formulated and implemented’. Drawing on the concept of‘strategy-as-practice’, analyse how your organisation or any other organisation you knowresponded/is responding to the Covid related challenges. What were/are micro activities of thepeople behind the strategizing? How have organisational practices and praxis changed? (25points)(Total: 25 + 25 = 50 points)Page 5 of 8Referencing guidelinesUse RMIT Harvard referencing style for this assessment.You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.Refer to the RMIT Easy Cite referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in theappropriated style. You can also refer to the library referencing page for more tools such asEndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.Submission formatUpload as one single file via the Assignments submission page within Canvas.Academic integrity and plagiarismAcademic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledgingthe work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge and ideas.You should take extreme care that you have:• Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you havequoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in yourassessment through the appropriate referencing methods• Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source ifnecessary. This includes material taken from Internet sitesIf you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarismbecause you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriatereferencing, as if they were your own.RMIT University treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct.Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:• Failure to properly document a source• Copyright material from the internet or databases• Collusion between studentsFor further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the University website.Assessment declarationWhen you submit work electronically, you agree to the assessment declaration.Page 6 of 8 CriteriaRatingsPtsHDDCPNDNSCriterion 1Overall impact of thepaper:Structure,referencing, andwritten style (20%)The essays arewritten in clearand concisewrittenexpressions withaccurate grammarand spelling. Thestructure of thepaper is accurateand welldeveloped, alwaystargeting thespecific audience.All key conceptsare well defined.All parts of thequestions areaddressed. Thepaper includeshighly accuratecitations andreferencing usingthe Harvardreferencingsystem.The essays arewritten in goodwritten expressionswith mostlyaccurate grammarand spelling. Thestructure of thepaper is mostlyaccurate and welldeveloped,targeting thespecific audiencemost of the time.Key concepts aremostly defined.Almost all parts ofthe questions areaddressed. Thepaper mostlyincludes highlyaccurate citationsand referencingusing the Harvardreferencing system.The essays haveless clear writtenexpressions withmany grammar andspelling errors. Thestructure of thepaper is less clear.It is less clear whothe target audienceis. Some keyconcepts are notwell defined. Someparts of thequestions are notaddressed. Thepaper includesconsistent errors incitations andreferencing usingthe Harvardreferencing system.The essays arewritten in basicwritten expressions.Grammar andspelling requireadditional supportfor improvement.The structure of thereport is basic. It ismostly not clearwho targetaudience is. Keyconcepts mostlyare not welldefined. Someparts of thequestions areaddressed. Thepaper includesmultipleinconsistent andincorrect citationsand referencingusing the Harvardreferencing system.The essays haveundevelopedexpressions, poorgrammar, andspelling. Requireadditional support forimprovement. Thestructure of the paperis poor, notaddressing thespecific targetaudience. Poor or nodefinitions of the keyconcepts. Not allparts of thequestions areaddressed. Thepaper includesmostly incorrectcitations andreferencing using theHarvard referencingsystem.This criterion wasnot addressed.10 to >7.997.99 to >6.996.99 to >5.995.99 to >4.994.99 to >00 pts10pts Page 7 of 8 Criterion 2Quality of research:Research, theoryapplication andcritique (30%)Outstandingresearch to supportthe answers: wellbeyond therecommendedreadings. Highquality of thechosen academicsources. Excellentcritique (i.e.,limitations) of theapplied theories andconcepts.Good research tosupport theanswers: beyondthe recommendedreadings. Mostlyhigh quality of thechosen academicsources. Goodcritique (i.e.,limitations) of theapplied theoriesand concepts.Satisfactoryresearch to supportthe answers:reliance mostly onrecommendedreadings; too manydirect quotes. Lessuse of solid andreliable academicsources to supportthe analysis.Satisfactory critique(i.e., limitations) ofthe applied theoriesand concepts.Basic research tosupport theanswers: relianceon recommendedreadings. Minimumuse of solid andreliable academicsources to supportthe analysis.Critique (i.e.,limitations) of theapplied theoriesand concepts isunderdeveloped.Poor quality or noresearch conductedto support theanswers andanalysis with almostno use of theacademic sources.Critique (i.e.,limitations) of theapplied theories andconcepts is lacking.This criterion wasnot addressed.15 to >11.9911.99 to >10.4910.49 to >8.998.99 to >7.497.49 to >00 pts15ptsCriterion 3Quality ofidentification andanalysis oforganisationalexamples (30%)Outstandingdescription of theorganisationalexamples. Expertlevel extraction ofthe key supportingpieces ofinformation from theexamples.Good descriptionof theorganisationalexamples. Mostlyexpert-levelextraction of thekey supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe examples.Satisfactorydescription of theorganisationalexamples.Satisfactoryextraction of thekey supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe examples.Basic description ofthe organisationalexamples. Lack ofthe key supportingpieces ofinformation fromthe examples.Poor description ofthe organisationalexamples. Almost nosupporting pieces ofinformation from theexamples.This criterion wasnot addressed.15 to >11.9911.99 to >10.4910.49 to >8.998.99 to >7.497.49 to >00 pts15pts Page 8 of 8 Criterion 4Quality of synthesisand reflection (20%)Outstandingdemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theidentification andexplanation of theorganisationalexamples. Excellentinsight into andevidence ofreflection and highlyeffective synthesis.Gooddemonstration ofhow specifictheories assistand support theidentification andexplanation of theorganisationalexamples. Goodinsight into andevidence ofreflection andsynthesis.Satisfactorydemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theidentification andexplanation of theorganisationalexamples.Satisfactory insightinto and evidenceof reflection and athin attempt atsynthesis.Basicdemonstration ofhow specifictheories assist andsupport theidentification andexplanation of theorganisationalexamples. Basicinsight into andevidence ofreflection and someattempt atsynthesis but noteffective.Poor demonstrationof how specifictheories assist andsupport theidentification andexplanation of theorganisationalexamples.Inadequate insightinto and evidence ofreflection and nosynthesis.This criterion wasnot addressed.10 to >7.997.99 to >6.996.99 to >5.995.99 to >4.994.99 to >00 pts10ptsTotal:50 pts
