Organisational Strategy

ASSIGNMENT

Required

For this assignment you are required to undertake the following

Alternative 1 is based upon the attached case study on the General Electric case from Grant, R. (2010) Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Wiley.

your assignment should be between 2 500-3 000 words (no more than 3 000) excluding appendices and references.

ALTERNATIVE 1 ? GE
1. Using appropriate academic models and concepts identify GE?s core competences and capabilities and discuss their effectiveness in supporting the corporate?s success up to 2009.
(40%)

2. Draft a briefing report to Jeff Immelt that advances an argument for the use of the real options approach to strategic planning as GE attempts to address the problems that engulfed the corporate in 2009. Once again, you should make specific reference to key authors and concepts within the real options domain.
(30%)

3. Outline and discuss some strategic options (at least two) available to GE over the next five years (2009+). Your answer should include an explanation as to how these options will be implemented and evaluated (you should again make reference to appropriate academic models and concepts).
(30%)

Notes

In order to answer these questions you may carry out further research on the case, however you must only use material drawn from credible sources such as: academic articles and texts; quality market research databases, e.g., Mintel; quality newspaper and business periodicals, e.g., the FT, The Economist and even corporate biographies. You should not use unreliable sources such as non-reviewed websites, e.g., Wikipedia.

 
Hints
This assignment is all about applying models and concepts to corporate issues in order to make your own judgments and conclusions. |Use the models in an applied sense ? do not describe them ? and also be prepared to use them critically, e.g., modify or adapt them. You do not have to accept them blindly. We are also looking for your own ideas supported and guided by the models and case data; be bold in expressing your own opinions especially in question 3 where we are looking for actual strategies.

For question 1 you might want to look at using either the value chain or activity systems to identify and then discuss core competences. Make sure you really understand the concept of core competencies. Make sure you look at the work of Hamel and Prahalad on core competences, they have published several articles in the HBR.
For question 2 you need not worry about the technical side or calculations involved in real options. You are just advising on the merits of using real options in strategic planning so look at complexity theory . The Luereman articles in the HBR are essential reading.
For question 3 you might want to use the Rumelt criteria and the Balanced Scorecard to produce your answer. I strongly recommend you look at the 2gc.com website if you are using the Balanced Scorecard.

If you are doing alternative2, your own organisation, you should include a brief introductory paragraph that summarises what businesses it is in, its main features, size, level of success, key corporate milestones etc. This need not be included in the word count.

STRM0002 ? Organisational Strategy

Assignment Guidance 12/13

Word Count
Max 3 000 (range 2 500 ? 3 000). This excludes references, appendices and the corporate introduction (alternative 2).

Marking Criteria
This assignment will be marked according to the UoN standard postgraduate marking criteria which can be found under MODULE INFORMATION on Nile. However, to help you further, the following grid provides more explicit guidance:

Question Number Weighting (%) Key models to use
(I suggest at least two per question but two only is ok for Q2) Evidence of v. good practice Evidence of good/acceptable practice Evidence of poor practice
1 40% Essential:
Core Competences (Hamel and Prahalad); (essential)
Value Chain

Other models you may wish to research:
Activity Systems
Barney?s VRIN model
McKinsey 7s Model Highly analytical answers that show critical thinking and application of models to a high degree.

Thorough understanding of concepts.

Detailed answers with excellent use of case material and models to support answers. Highly original and well-argued points and conclusions.

Flawless referencing.

Excellent written style demonstrating clarity and precision. Excellent argument and paragraph construction.

Analytical answers that use models in an applied rather than descriptive capacity. Evidence of critical thinking.

Sound understanding of concepts.

Questions answered in depth using case evidence and models to support answers. Original points and conclusions evident.

Sound referencing.

Clearly written with a sound level of argument and a well-constructed paragraph sequence. Descriptive answers, i.e.,
describing models.
Poor and insufficient referencing.
Little or no
critical thinking.

Poor level of comprehension of
key concepts.

Poorly developed answers with
insufficient
depth, evidence to support argument
and use of models. Little originality
in points
and conclusions made.

Limited and/or inaccurate referencing.
Poorly written, hard to see clearly set
out arguments and poorly structured
answers.

2 30% Essential:
Use of the real options typology; delay, abandon, flexibility.
Luehrman Option space grid
Complexity Theory
(there is no need to look at valuation models) Highly analytical answers that show critical thinking and application of models to a high degree.

Thorough understanding of concepts.

Detailed answers with excellent use of case material and models to support answers. Highly original and well-argued points and conclusions.

Flawless referencing.

Excellent written style demonstrating clarity and precision. Excellent argument and paragraph construction.

Analytical answers that use models in an applied rather than descriptive capacity. Evidence of critical thinking.

Sound understanding of concepts.

Questions answered in depth using
case evidence and models to support answers. Original points and conclusions evident.

Sound referencing.

Clearly written with a sound level of argument and a well-constructed paragraph sequence. Descriptive answers i.e. describing
models and corporate.
Little or no
critical thinking.

Poor level of comprehension of key
concepts.

Poorly developed answers with
Insufficient depth, evidence to support
argument and use of models.
Little originality in points and
conclusions made.

Limited and/or inaccurate referencing.
Poorly written, hard to see clear
arguments and poorly structured
answers.

3 30% Essential:
Balanced Scorecard
Rumelt?s criteria

Other models you may wish to research:
EQFM Model
Tableau de bord (Epstein)
Results and Determinants Framework (Fitzgerald)
Highly analytical answers that show critical thinking and application of models to a high degree.

Thorough understanding of concepts.

Detailed answers with excellent use of case material and models to support answers. Highly original and well-argued points and conclusions.

Flawless referencing.

Excellent written style demonstrating clarity and precision. Excellent argument and paragraph construction.

Analytical answers that use models in an applied rather than descriptive capacity. Evidence of critical thinking.

Sound understanding of concepts.

Questions answered in depth using
case evidence and models to support answers. Original points and conclusions evident.

Sound referencing.

Clearly written with a sound level of argument and a well- constructed paragraph sequence. Descriptive answers i.e.
describing models/corporate.
Poor and insufficient referencing.
Little or no
critical thinking.

Poor level of comprehension of key
concepts.

Poorly developed answers with
insufficient
depth, evidence to support argument
and use of models.
Little originality in points and
conclusions made.

Limited and/or inaccurate referencing.
Poorly written, hard to see clearly set
out arguments and poorly structured
answers.
Referencing
Firstly please do not plagiarise or fail to acknowledge the work of others. This is an academic offence. If in doubt about this, please visit our library webpage. You should use the Harvard referencing standard throughout.
Secondly try to ensure that at least 70% of your references are academic ones e.g. from journals and textbooks. The remainder can be from quality ?other? sources such as websites. Don?t use sources like Wikipedia etc. ? they are not reliable.

Tip ? have a look at one of the bibliographies in one of our textbooks and see how the professionals reference! This is the standard.
Case Technique
We are not interested in a thorough encyclopaedic knowledge of all the data contained in the case (alternative 1) or the life history of your chosen corporate (alternative 2). Just try to understand the broad trends and features i.e. what is going on, what are the main issues, milestones, threats, risks, strengths etc. Use case evidence in the form of quotations from the case (referenced of course) or numerical data/figures to support your answers. The cycle therefore is:
1. Use a relevant model(s);
2. Use case evidence to devise conclusions;
3. Ask yourself: what are the ramifications for the corporate?

When applying a model to a case try to do this in rough first. See how the data fits into the model. What does the evidence suggest? What is your conclusions regarding the corporate? Never draw out or describe a model ? just apply it.

Using Models and concepts
We are not interested in you telling us what these models do or say. You can assume we know that. Use them in an applied sense only in the same way an accountant applies the balance sheet format to a set of accounts you should apply the models to the corporate data. More advanced answers will show critical thinking by adapting or even merging models together, perhaps even creating your own models as a result.
The website: valuebasedmanagement.net provides an excellent directory of management models which may serve as a sound starting point for researching new models.

Originality
Be bold in setting out your own points and conclusions. Try to come to definitive original conclusions. Remember there is no right answer to any of these questions; instead try to argue your points strongly; use the case evidence and models as a support.

A suggested layout
Alternative 1 only – (brief introduction to the corporate) ? not included in word count.
Q1
Use models such as value chain and/or activity system to identify the corporate?s core competences. Make sure you fully understand what a core competence is and show why your selected competences meet the tests of what a core competence is. Then use case data to show how these core competences have supported (or not) the corporate; be critical here and discuss the relative strengths of your core competences.

Q2
Set this out as a formal corporate style report. Could your answer be put on the desk of a managing director?! You do not need to use lots of models in this answer; you should know the main types of options and the option space grid thoroughly though. The key is to argue how using the real options approach could assist and improve strategic planning in the corporate. It would be a good idea to use real or sensible, but hypothetical examples (be specific) in your answer. Remember you are arguing the value of the real options approach all the way through. You could bring in complexity theory here as an argument to use real options.
Q3
Here we are talking about actual strategies, not real options. You should outline actual courses of action the corporate should take, for example: develop the business by franchising, expanding overseas, diversifying, getting rid if a business (divest) etc. (note you must devise these strategies) you need to outline the strengths and weaknesses of at least two such strategies/options i.e. you can use a SWOT analysis to undertake this. For each strategy you then show how the strategy could be implemented using the Balanced Scorecard (BS) and the Rumelt criteria. If you want to, you could also research some other implementation frameworks ? see next window. For the BS you could draw out the metrics that could be used in each dimension and justify them; you should also show how the metrics and dimensions are linked to each other and the corporate?s goals and objectives. You can even change or contextualise the dimensions to show critical thinking. You should look at the 2gc.com website for help here ? see the 3rd generation scorecard example. You should also show how the strategies meet Rumelt?s criteria.