Module Code:\tNX0474
\nModule Title:\tStrategic Management for Competitive Advantage
\nStrategic management is the process of making decisions and taking actions that will shape an organization’s future direction and performance. It involves setting goals and objectives, analyzing the competitive environment, and identifying external and internal opportunities and threats. The ultimate goal of strategic management is to achieve a competitive advantage, which is a position that allows an organization to outperform its rivals in the marketplace.<\/p>\n
There are several ways that organizations can achieve a competitive advantage, including:<\/p>\n
Cost leadership: This involves being the lowest-cost producer in the industry, allowing the organization to offer lower prices than its competitors.<\/p>\n
Differentiation: This involves offering a unique product or service that cannot be easily duplicated by competitors, which allows the organization to command a premium price.<\/p>\n
Focus: This involves focusing on a specific niche or segment of the market and offering products or services tailored to that segment, allowing the organization to gain a competitive advantage over its rivals.<\/p>\n
Innovation: This involves introducing new products, services, or processes that give the organization a competitive edge over its rivals.<\/p>\n
Effective strategic management requires a clear understanding of the organization’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as the opportunities and threats in the external environment. It also requires the ability to anticipate and respond to changes in the marketplace, and to make decisions that will help the organization achieve its goals and objectives.
\nDistributed on:\tWeek 5\tHand in Date: \tTo be advised locally.
\nFurther information about general assessment criteria, ARTA regulations, referencing and plagiarism can be found on the module\u2019s site on the e-Learning Portal. Students are advised to read and follow this information.<\/p>\n
This assessment includes group work and\/or peer assessment or evaluation. It is important that students familiarise themselves with protocols for these activities and follow these during the course of the assessment. The document can be found on the module\u2019s site on the e-Learning Portal.<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
You will participate in a business simulation exercise (\u201cBusiness Simulation\u201d) based on the European Car Industry. The purpose of the exercise is to give you the opportunity to use the learning from the four functional areas (marketing, finance, human resources and operations management) to simulate the setting up and running of a business which is competing for market share.<\/p>\n
In Week 5, you will attend an introductory lecture which will explain the objectives of the simulation and the process for making decisions. In the Busines Simulation seminars, you will be divided into teams of 5-6 students. Each team has to set up a car manufacturing company, design two cars and sell these to the market. The teams within each seminar group will compete with one another for market share. The objective for each team is to maximise the shareholder value of their company at the end of four decision rounds.<\/p>\n
Information on the market together with cost data will be posted on Blackboard in Week 5. Each team should read this information carefully and use it to establish a business strategy. On 20 and 27 Nov the teams will make a set of decisions each week to be submitted online. The results, in the form of computer-generated reports, will be available online later in the week.<\/p>\n
In order to complete the assessment detailed below, it is essential that each student keeps a detailed record of the team meetings, the decisions made, the rationale for these decisions and their own role as a member of the team.<\/p>\n
Assignment A (20% of module mark)<\/p>\n
Each team will submit a group report on the Round 1 decisions with the following sections:<\/p>\n
Peer assessment form with the names and signatures of all team members (see final page of this brief). [10%]
\nThe team\u2019s business plan for Round 1 (word limit 1,500 words) as follows: [60%]
\nMission statement \u2013 what is the purpose of your company?
\nBusiness Objectives \u2013 measurable targets for the end of Round 4 (e.g. market share)
\nChosen market segments with brief descriptions of target customers and your marketing strategy
\nYour competitive strategy \u2013 why will people buy your cars rather than those from other companies?
\nThe rationale underlying the choices of designs, options and R&D
\nThe rationale for the prices charged for each car
\nThe rationale for production\/HRM decisions such as investment in automation
\nAn appendix containing minutes of the team meetings that took place up to the submission of the Round 1 Decision. These should show attendance, topics discussed, an outline of the team discussion of each topic, the decisions made (and how they were made) and actions agreed. As a guide, each meeting is likely to require at least one full A4 page. [30%]<\/p>\n
Assignment B (60% of module mark)<\/p>\n
Each student will submit an individual report (word limit 5,000 words). This report will consist of the following sections laid out EXACTLY as follows:<\/p>\n
Front page, with your name, ID, Seminar Group number, Team number and word count.
\nContents (with page numbers)
\nIntroduction: A brief (maximum 50 words) statement of the business objectives (from Assignment A) and a brief (maximum 100 words) summary of the company performance during the game and how far you succeeded in meeting the business objectives; a table showing total sales, total unsold stock, shareholder funds, closing bank balance and outstanding loan at the end of each of the four rounds. These figures should be in \u00a3m, to the nearest \u00a31 million.
\nCompany Performance: A clear analysis and explanation (2000 words) of what happened during the game supported by graphs\/tables of key financial and non-financial data for the company. [45%]
\nGuidance: It is important to show that you now fully understand what happened during the game \u2013 even if you didn\u2019t understand during the game. To so do, you MUST start with the Round 1 forecast of key performance measures (KPMs), compare the Round 1 results with the forecast, explain the differences in detail, and the key issues that arose. Go on to explain the rationale for the Round 2 decisions, what these were, then present the Round 2 forecast. Follow this approach for all four rounds. You should then comment on the trends in KPMs over the game. The KPMs should include as a minimum production, sales, gross margin, unsold stock, post-tax profit, net cash position and market share. It is suggested that you discuss suitable KPMs with the tutors for each of the four functional areas. Effective comparisons with competitors (where possible) will earn additional marks.
\nLearning: A critical reflection (2000 words) on how the team used the financial, marketing, operations and human resources management material taught during the semester to make responsible business decisions affecting at least one stakeholder group internal to the organisation and at least one stakeholder group external to the organisation. [45%]
\nGuidance: For each of the decisions, explain how you made the decisions during the game. Looking back, discuss how you could have made better decisions by making better use of the material taught during the semester, particularly how the functions integrate and how the decisions act in the best interest of the individuals, groups or organisations affected.<\/p>\n
Include citations within the text to refer to relevant readings covered in class.
\nConclusion: An evaluation (150 words) of the extent to which your organisation met the key strategic objectives set out in part 3 above, with an indication for the reasons these objectives were fully met, partially met or not met at all.
\nTeam Performance: A critical evaluation (700 words) of the performance of the team and a personal reflection on your role in the team [10%].
\nGuidance: Discuss, for example, the organisation of the team, the effectiveness of the decision-making process, and the roles played by individuals including leadership. How effective was your contribution to the team? What did you learn from the game about effective teamwork and decision making? Reflect on your experience in working in a culturally diverse team. What would you do differently if you played the game again? It is important to go beyond simply \u201ctelling a story\u201d and to make use of relevant material the Leadership and Management Development module. Make use of the meeting logs that you kept during the game. Do not talk about the specific areas of contribution, e.g. how you made financial or marketing decisions, but how you developed as a team member and how you would approach a similar exercise differently should such an opportunity arise.
\nReferences: Remember that all sources cited in the assignment should appear in the reference list.
\nAppendices (not more than 6 pages). These should be used for supporting data and can include tables and graphs. However, Section 4 should include graphs of key data to support the explanation of performance. Key graphs and tables should appear in the body of your work.
\nAssignment C (20% of module mark)<\/p>\n
Provide an individual (1500 words) critical evaluation of the organization sustainability and CSR, alongside the financial performance, of a major international corporation of your choice.<\/p>\n
Guidance: Refer to the lectures provided in the Strategy component of the module where you covered responsible decision making, considering areas such as the concept of the triple bottom line, expectation of the chosen organisation in terms of CSR and how these decisions are underpinned in terms of an organizational sustainability agenda. You should also consider how the company executes its Corporate Governance. In terms of financial performance, consider the key financial statements provided by the organisations and consider these in absolute terms alongside the use of a manageable number of financial ratios.<\/p>\n
References: Remember that all sources cited in the assignment should appear in the reference list.<\/p>\n
When submitting Assignments B and C, submit as two separate pieces of work.<\/p>\n
Marks will be deducted for reports that do not conform to the structure above and which fall below the presentation and writing standards expected for a professional report.<\/p>\n
Submission of Assessment:<\/p>\n
Both assignments should conform to the following specification:<\/p>\n
Word-processed in Arial 11pt, 1\u00bd spacing
\nEach section should start on a new page
\nPages should be numbered
\nAssignments B and C should be submitted as two separate documents.
\nAll three assignments must be submitted online via the Turn-it-in submission link found in the \u2018Assessment\u2019 tab on the left hand menu of the module\u2019s dedicated blackboard site. You should include the Seminar Group number and Team number on the form.<\/p>\n
Word limits and penalties for assignments<\/p>\n
If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply.<\/p>\n
The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment. The word count does not include:<\/p>\n
Title and Contents page\tReference list\tAppendices\tAppropriate tables, figures and illustrations
\nGlossary\tBibliography\tQuotes from interviews and focus groups.
\nPlease note, in text citations [e.g. (Smith, 2011)] and direct secondary quotations [e.g. \u201cdib-dab nonsense analysis\u201d (Smith, 2011 p.123)] are INCLUDED in the word count.<\/p>\n
If this word count is falsified, students are reminded that under ARNA page 30 Section 3.4 this will be regarded as academic misconduct.<\/p>\n
If the word limit of the full assignment exceeds the +10% limit, 10% of the mark provisionally awarded to the assignment will be deducted. For example: if the assignment is worth 70 marks but is above the word limit by more than 10%, a penalty of 7 marks will be imposed, giving a final mark of 63.<\/p>\n
Mapping to Programme Goals and Objectives:<\/p>\n
This assessment will contribute directly to the following Postgraduate programme goals and objectives.<\/p>\n
Goal One: To develop the skills necessary for employment and career progression<\/p>\n
1.\tDemonstrate awareness of personal strengths and weaknesses and the ability to engage in continuing self-development.
\n2.\tDemonstrate the development of inter-personal and intra-personal skills.
\n3.\tDemonstrate competence in contemporary analytical and ICT applications.
\nGoal Two: Be culturally and ethically aware<\/p>\n
x\t1.\tDemonstrate their ability to work in culturally diverse groups and teams and make appropriate and personal contribution to team effectiveness.
\n2.\tReflect on their own ethical values.
\nx\t3.\tUnderstand the wider impact of individual or organisational decision making on social and environmental contexts.
\nGoal Three: Have developed leadership and management capability<\/p>\n
1.\tAnalyse and communicate complex issues effectively.
\n2.\tDemonstrate decision making, problem solving and project management skills.
\nGoal Four: Have developed and applied knowledge of international business and management theory<\/p>\n
x\t1.\tAcquire, interpret and apply knowledge of international business, management and organisational functions.
\n2.\tDemonstrate an understanding of the impact of innovative and contemporary research on the business and management community.
\n3.\tAcquire, interpret and apply specialist functional knowledge in relation to their programme of study (specialist programmes only).
\nGoal Five: Have developed a range of research skills and project capabilities<\/p>\n
1.\tPlan and complete a major piece of research or project on a contemporary business, financial, management or leadership topic.
\n2.\tDemonstrate skills of analysis and synthesis in the application of research methods to the exploration of contemporary business and management issues.
\nAssignment A Feedback Group\/Team \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. Programme and Campus: \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
Criteria\tScales
\n0-39% Standard Not Met 1\t40-49% Standard Not Met 2\t50-59% Meets Standard 2\t60-69% Meets Standard 2\t70-79% Exceeds Standard 1\t80-89% Exceeds Standard 2\t90-100% Exceeds Standard 3
\nSection 2 Rationales \tCompletely insufficient or missing rationales listed a to g in the group assessment brief [0 \u2013 23]\tInsufficient rationales for most areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief [24 \u2013 29]\tAdequate rationales for most areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief [30 \u2013 35]\tGood rationales for some areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief [36 \u2013 41]\tVery good rationales for most \u00ae all areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief [42 \u2013 47]\tExcellent rationales for all areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief [48 \u2013 53]\tOutstanding rationales for all areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief [54 \u2013 60]
\nSection 4 Meeting logs \tThe meeting notes do not explicitly present many of the decision areas and are completely insufficient. [0 \u2013 11 \u00bd ]\tThe meeting logs are insufficient. Vague, a significant proportion of the decision areas not documented. [12 \u2013 14 \u00bd ]\tMeeting logs are adequate. Though there is missing data and some of the decision areas are not documented. [15 \u2013 17 \u00bd ]\tGood, a majority of the listed areas presented in the meeting notes [18 \u2013 20 \u00bd ]\tMeeting logs are very good. Mostly complete across the listed areas [21 \u2013 23\u00bd]\tComplete, excellent detail across the listed areas of decision making [24 \u2013 26 \u00bd ]\tComplete and outstanding detail covering all of the areas of decision making in the assessment brief a to g [27 \u2013 30]
\nOverall Comments\tThe business plan is completely insufficient. The student failed in addressing the rationales requested (a-g). The meeting notes are also completely insufficient, failing to explicitly acknowledge many of the decision areas. [0 \u2013 35] \tThe standard of presentation and writing is likely to be less than would be expected for a professional piece of work. The business plan presents insufficient rationales for most areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief. The meeting log is also insufficient, with a significant proportion of the decision areas being vague or not documented. [36 \u2013 44]\tThe business plan is adequate, but there are weaknesses in presentation and writing. Adequate rationales for most areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief. Meeting logs are adequate. However, there are is missing data and a number of the decision areas not documented. [45 \u2013 53]\tThe quality of presentation is good and fairly easy to follow. Good rationales for some areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief. Good quality meeting logs, with a majority of the listed areas presented in the meeting notes. [54 \u2013 62]\tThe business plan is very good and easy to read. Reasonable rationales for most \u00ae all areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief. The meeting logs are also of a very good standard, mostly complete across the listed areas [63 \u2013 71]\tAn excellent business plan which is easy to read and well-laid out. Excellent rationales for all areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief. Meeting logs are complete, with great detail across the listed areas of decision making [72 \u2013 80]\tAn outstanding business plan which is easy to read and is presented to the highest standard. Outstanding rationales for all areas listed a to g in the group assessment brief. Complete and superb detail covering all of the areas of decision making in the assessment brief a to g [81 \u2013 90]
\nAssignment B Feedback Group\/Team \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. Programme and Campus: \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
Criteria\tScales
\n0-39% Standard Not Met 1\t40-49% Standard Not Met 2\t50-59% Meets Standard 2\t60-69% Meets Standard 2\t70-79% Exceeds Standard 1\t80-89% Exceeds Standard 2\t90-100% Exceeds Standard 3
\nGoal 4 Objective 1 Acquire, interpret and apply knowledge of international business, management and organisational functions \tVery poor choice of measures and goes little beyond tables\/graphs so completely insufficient in terms of analysis. In terms of understanding, completely insufficient evidence is shown. [0 \u2013 17 \u00bd ]\tTells a story but does not convey real understanding, it is insufficient in its lack of linkage between measures and\/or poor choice of measures. Does not make use of game data in a sufficient way. [18 \u2013 22]\tAdequate explanation which shows reasonable understanding of a basic range of performance measures, not very well linked, at best adequate. [22 \u00bd \u2013 26 \u00bd ]\tGood explanation of performance \u2013 student clearly understands what happened but misses some key measures and\/or links. Good use of data. [27- 31]\tVery good discussion with sound analysis which covers most areas and shows clearly the links between decisions, forecasts and outcomes. Makes very good use of data on competition. [31 \u00bd \u2013 35 \u00bd ]\tExcellent discussion of all key measures which shows sound understanding of strategy, decisions, forecasts and outcomes using a wide range of data. [36 \u2013 40]\tOutstanding discussion of all key measures which shows sound understanding of strategy, decisions, forecasts and outcomes using an extensive range of data. [40 \u00bd \u2013 45]
\nGoal 2 Objective 3 Understand the wider impact of individual or organisational decision making on social and environmental contexts \tAlmost no links between learning and the simulation, demonstrating completely insufficient learning. No evidence the student attended any classes or understands how decisions are made responsibly hence completely insufficient understanding of its role or importance. [0 \u2013 17 \u00bd ]\tLinks not properly made and\/or a very limited range of topics mentioned, therefore insufficient understanding demonstrated. Little evidence that the student has made any use of the learning and is insufficient in demonstrating this use of learning. [18 \u2013 22]\tStudent is able to make adequate links between some elements of the decisions and the learning but the adequate evaluation tends to be strengthened. [22 \u00bd \u2013 26 \u00bd ]\tGood evaluation although limited in range. Application of learning is good but interdependence of functions not recognised, the nature of responsibility in decision making needs to be strengthened. [27 \u2013 31]\tVery good critical evaluation of the decision based on learning from rest of module. Some appreciation of functional interdependence. [31 \u00bd \u2013 35 \u00bd ]\tExcellent critical evaluation of the decisions demonstrating thorough application of learning from the rest of the module and an understanding of responsible decision making. Clear appreciation of the interdependence of functions. [36 \u2013 40]\tOutstanding critical evaluation of the decisions demonstrating significant application of learning from the rest of the module and an extending understanding of responsible decision making. Clear and significantly articulated appreciation of the interdependence of functions. [40 \u00bd \u2013 45]
\nGoal 2 Objective 1 Demonstrate their ability to work in culturally diverse groups and teams and make appropriate and personal contribution to team effectiveness\tPerformance described but far too brief and completely insufficient to be useful. [0 \u2013 5]\tThe performance is described but contains insufficient evaluation and the accompanying analysis of self and team is insufficient. [6-7]\tThere is an adequate evaluation although tends to lack analytical rigour. There is adequate detail to understand how team and performance functioned. [8]\tThe evaluation is good but requires greater critical thinking. There is adequate application of the academic material presented in module HR9737. [9]\tThere is a very good evaluation of both team and self (student) but use of HR9737 material has the potential to be either extensive or rigorous [10-11]\tThere is an excellent critical evaluation of the team and the role of you as the individual within this, making extensive use of material from and module Leadership and Management Development. [12]\tThere is an outstanding critical evaluation of the team and the role of you as the individual within this, making extensive and rigorous use of material from module Leadership and Management Development. [13-15]
\nPerformance of self and team\tPerformance described but far too brief and completely insufficient to be useful. [0 \u2013 3]\tThe performance is described but contains insufficient evaluation and the accompanying analysis of self and team is insufficient. [4]\tThere is an adequate evaluation although tends to lack analytical rigour. There is adequate detail to understand how team and performance functioned. [5]\tThe evaluation is good but requires greater critical thinking. There is adequate application of the academic material presented in module DGMC I. [6]\tThere is a very good evaluation of both team and self (student) but use of DGMC I material has the potential to be either extensive or rigorous [7]\tThere is an excellent critical evaluation of the team and the role of you as the individual within this, making extensive use of material from Leadership and Management Development module. [8]\tThere is an outstanding critical evaluation of the team and the role of you as the individual within this, making extensive and rigorous use of material from Leadership and Management Development module. [9-10]
\nOverall Comments\tThe report has serious weaknesses. The student is completely insufficient in demonstrating that he\/she understands what happened in the simulation and has been unable to use the learning from Semester 1 in an effective way. This covers all aspects of the assessment, the simulation and the team and individual inputs. [0 \u2013 39] \tAlthough reasonable understanding is shown, the report fails in at least one major aspect to convey an appreciation of the link between strategy, decision-making and performance. The standard of presentation and writing is likely to be less than would be expected for a professional piece of work. The decision making evaluation and the assessment of self and team is also likely to be at best descriptive. [40 \u2013 49] \tThe report is adequate, but there are likely to be weaknesses in presentation and writing. An adequate understanding of what happened in the simulation is evident, but the linking together of strategy, decision-making and performance is limited. The adequate evaluation of the team and the role of you as an individual within this team may likely have the same gaps in evaluation. [50 \u2013 59]\tThe quality of presentation is good and fairly easy to follow. The student has been selective in choosing key data to discuss. The student shows good understanding of how decisions in each functional area have affected performance, although there is probably more scope for being evaluative, this extending to the assessment of the team and your role within this. [60 \u2013 69]\tThe report is very good and easy to read. All the key points are there with a good level of discussion. There is clear critical thinking demonstrating awareness of how decisions affected performance and how the organisation met its objectives. Team and self contributions is typically very good in its evaluation, making use of external material from the programme. [70 \u2013 79]\tAn excellent report which is easy to read and well-laid out. The student demonstrates mastery of the module material and appreciates the links with performance and the decision-making process. The level of critical thinking is excellent. This also extends to the assessment of the individual and the team. [80 \u2013 89]\tAn outstanding report which is easy to read and is presented to the highest standard. The student demonstrates mastery of the module material and demonstrates a full understanding of the links with performance and the decision-making process. The level of critical thinking is outstanding. This also extends to the assessment of the individual and the team. [90 \u2013 100]
\nPostgraduate Goals and Objectives<\/p>\n
Not Achieved Achieved<\/p>\n
Goal 2 Objective 1<\/p>\n
Demonstrate their ability to work in culturally diverse groups<\/p>\n
and teams and make appropriate and personal contribution<\/p>\n
to team effectiveness \u25a1 \u25a1<\/p>\n
Goal 2 Objective 3<\/p>\n
Understand the wider impact of individual or organisational decision<\/p>\n
making on social and environmental contexts \u25a1 \u25a1<\/p>\n
Goal 4 Objective 1<\/p>\n
Acquire, interpret and apply knowledge of international business,<\/p>\n
management and organisational functions \u25a1 \u25a1<\/p>\n
.<\/p>\n
Assignment C Feedback Name \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. Programme and Campus: \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
Criteria\tScales
\n0-39% Standard Not Met 1\t40-49% Standard Not Met 2\t50-59% Meets Standard 2\t60-69% Meets Standard 2\t70-79% Exceeds Standard 1\t80-89% Exceeds Standard 2\t90-100% Exceeds Standard 3
\nOverall Comments\tA completely insufficient answer. A number of clear gaps in the response across the listed subject areas, most of the areas are not covered, some or more of the areas are covered in completely insufficient detail at the descriptive level and the evidence of wider reading is non-existent to limited. [0 \u2013 39] \tInsufficient answer. There are a number of clear gaps in the response across the listed subject areas. Most of the areas are not covered, some or more of the areas are covered in insufficient detail at the descriptive level and the evidence of wider reading is non-existent to limited. [40 \u2013 49]\tThis task is of pass standard. Most areas covered adequately, there is some evaluation, but there is a necessity to be more critical rather than descriptive. [50 \u2013 59]\tGood answer.Each of the areas is covered in a critical and evaluative way. However, there is potential to consider stakeholders in a broader sense than that presented and the supporting literature could be from a wider base. [60 \u2013 69]\tA very goodanswer, covers each of the required areas, is critical and evaluative and demonstrates a level of wider reading beyond the core literature of the module and the assessment considers the perspective of multiple stakeholders. [70 \u2013 79]\tAn excellent answer covering each of the required areas, is critical and evaluative and demonstrates a level of wider reading beyond the core literature of the module and the assessment considers the perspective of multiple stakeholders. [80 \u2013 89]\tAn outstanding answer covering each of the required areas, is critical and evaluative and demonstrates a level of wider reading beyond the core literature of the module and the assessment considers the perspective of multiple stakeholders. [90 \u2013 100]<\/p>\n
NX0474 \u2013 Strategic Management for Sustainable Competitive Advantage<\/p>\n
Business Simulation Exercise<\/p>\n
Cover Page for Assignment A<\/p>\n
Seminar Group Number \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..<\/p>\n
Team Number and Name \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..<\/p>\n
A mark out of 10 should be awarded to each team member indicating his\/her contribution to the Round 1 decision and this assignment. The marks indicated below should be agreed by all team members. In the event of disagreement, please inform the module tutor.<\/p>\n
9-10 Full attendance and participation in team discussions<\/p>\n
7-8 A small number of meetings missed, generally good participation in discussions<\/p>\n
5-6 Several meetings missed, limited participation in team discussions<\/p>\n
3-4 Most meetings missed, hardly any participation in discussions<\/p>\n
0-2 Almost no meetings attended, almost no involvement with the team at all<\/p>\n
We, the members of the above team, agree that marks below reflect the contributions made by each of us to the Round 1 decisions and Assignment A.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Module Code: NX0474 Module Title: Strategic Management for Competitive Advantage Strategic management is the process of making decisions and taking actions that will shape an organization’s future direction and performance. It involves setting goals and objectives, analyzing the competitive environment, and identifying external and internal opportunities and threats. The ultimate goal of strategic management is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,1,36,15,22,20,25,18,23,28,26,24,29,21,19,37],"tags":[42,39,40,41,38],"class_list":["post-215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-123-homework","category-ace-homework-tutors","category-ace-my-assignment","category-ace-my-homework","category-ace-tutors","category-ace-myhomework","category-acemyhomework","category-cheapest-homework-help-online","category-help-with-homework-assignments","category-homework-anonymous","category-homework-answers","category-homework-solving-website","category-homework-tutors","category-instant-expert-tutoring","category-premium-online-homework-help","category-essay-ace","tag-australia-essay-writers","tag-canada-essay-writers","tag-ireland-essay-writers","tag-uae-essay-writers","tag-usa-essay-writers"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}