Strategic Agility

49 views 9:20 am 0 Comments March 25, 2023

Assignment Brief Academic Year 2020-21
Internal approval: Suzanne Doria, 02/09/20
1

Assignment task
You are a recent graduate who has just started work at McKinsey, a consultancy, as a junior
business management consultant. Your team leader has assigned you to a client engagement,
(consultant speak for ‘a project’), to assist an SME firm in the hospitality and leisure sector based in
Scotland to create some strategic options for the firm. McKinsey has already asked the client for
some key information in order to assess the situation and this material is being provided to you in
the separate notes provided.
The Directors of Oak Tree Inn have engaged you to write a management strategy report that
analyses and assess Oak Tree Inn’s business situation taking into consideration internal, external
and competitive factors. You are to produce two strategic options for the Directors and
management team to consider and select one as your preferred strategy for the firm to adopt. The
firm requires you to;
A. Provide a brief overview of the firm and its activities providing pertinent data and information
drawn from reputable sources. It is recommended that you write no more than 200 words in
this section.
B. Identify the external threats and opportunities/challenges the firm is facing from both the wider
macro and micro/competitive environments using PESTEL and 5 Forces models. Using
thematic coding you are to then assign each macro and micro/competitive issue as either a
threat or an opportunity in the SWOT table. Identify the firm’s strengths and weaknesses
identified from the firm’s strategic capabilities which should then be summarized in a SWOT
table. It is recommended you write no more than 750 words in this section.
C. Create and critically assess TWO potential strategic options from your SWOT analysis that
will mitigate threats, exploit opportunities and strengths as well as play to the firm’s competitive
advantage and strategic capabilities. It is recommended that you write no more than 850 words
in this section.

 

Module code
and title:		 BM633 Strategic Agility Module leader: Michael Taylor
Assignment
No. and type:		 CW1: Consultants strategic
report and recommendations for
Oak Tree Inn (case study).		 Assessment
weighting:		 100%
Submission
time and date:		 22nd June 2021 before 2pm Target feedback
time and date:		 3 weeks after submission
deadline

2

D. Critically evaluate the two strategic choices generated from the research and analysis
through the application of theories one of which must be a SAFe analysis. From the two
strategies generated you are to make a recommendation for your preferred strategy that will
convince the Directors of Oak Tree Inn ensuring you refer to previous evidence within your work
as part of your rationale. It is recommended that you write no more than 200 words in this
section.
This assignment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your
achievement of the following module learning outcomes:
LO 1 Analyse the external environment of an organisation and justify critical opportunities and threats
appropriate to that organisation;
LO 2 Analyse the strategic capability of an organisation and justify critical strengths and weaknesses
linked to competitive advantage;
LO 3 Develop suitable strategic choices for an organisation;
LO 4 Evaluate strategic choices for an organisation, referring back to previous analysis in 1 and 2.
LO 5 Recommend and justify an appropriate strategic choice for an organisation.
Task requirements
Further Support
This assessment takes the format of a 2,000 word, maximum of 16 pages from introduction to
recommendation, professionally produced report that would be suitable for use in the boardroom of
a FTSE100 company. You are to complete the task set. The report must apply models and
theoretical concepts and be supported by evidence, with references, from reputable sources
throughout. From your analysis and evaluation you are to present TWO strategic options for
consideration by the board of the chosen firm. You will analyse the two strategic options and build
an evidence-based argument for both using the SAFe framework before making your
recommendation for one of the two strategies proposed.
The case study materials will be provided for you via the module VLE shell and these should be
used to aid you in the completion of your task. You should also refer to contemporary data sources
as well as market data insight from sources such as Mintel and other such reputable sources.
Front cover, executive summary, contents page, reference pages and appendices are NOT
included in either the page count or the word count that have been allocated. Words used in
tables, charts, diagrams are also NOT included in the word count. Note we do not expect to see
any Wikipedia, Investopedia, Business Balls, Slide Share, and Essays4U, Term Papers or other
spurious non-academic non-reputable sources within your work or in the reference list. Font size

3

should be 11 with single line spacing. Reference list should be presented in the Harvard format
along with in text referencing and there is a maximum of 4 pages allocated to appendices should
you need them.
Referencing and research requirements
Please reference your work according to the Harvard style as defined in Cite Them Right Online
(http://www.citethemrightonline.com). This information is also available in book form: Pears, R. and
Shields, G. (2019) Cite them right: the essential reference guide. 11th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan. Copies are available via the University library.
How your work will be assessed
Your work will be assessed on the extent to which it demonstrates your achievement of the stated learning
outcomes for this assignment (see above) and against other key criteria as defined by your programme
team.
See marking criteria grid provided below for how each element/task of the assessment will be marked and
the corresponding weighting of marks for each element/task required.

Wgt A
70%+		 B
60-69%		 C
50-59%		 D
40-49%		 E and F
<40%
Knowledge &
Understanding:
Introduction &
Summary of
firm’s position
PART A		 10% Answer shows an
excellent summary
of an
organisation’s
strategic position
(Internal and
benchmark
summary).		 Answer shows a
good summary of
an organisation’s
strategic position
(Internal and
External).		 Answer shows a
good summary of
an organisation’s
strategic position
(Internal and
External) but may
contain some gaps
or errors.		 Answer shows a
summary of an
organisation’s
strategic position
(Internal and
External) but
contains significant
gaps and errors or
is hard to
understand.		 Answer shows
no summary of
an
organisation’s
strategic
position
(Internal and
External).
Knowledge &
Understanding:
SWOT summary.
PART B		 25% Answer shows
excellent
application of
theory/models,
including PESTEL,
5 Forces and
strategic
capabilities to
develop
appropriate key
drivers which are
highlighted in the
SWOT analysis.		 Answer shows
good application of
theory/models,
including PESTEL,
5 Forces and
strategic
capabilities to
develop
appropriate key
drivers which are
highlighted in the
SWOT analysis.		 Answer shows
some application of
theory/models,
including PESTEL,
5 Forces and
strategic
capabilities to
develop
appropriate key
drivers which are
highlighted in the
SWOT analysis.		 Answer shows
limited application
of theory/models,
including PESTEL,
5 Forces and
strategic
capabilities to
develop
appropriate key
drivers which may
be highlighted in
the SWOT
analysis.		 Answer shows
no application
of theory and
models. Key
drivers are not
identified nor
highlighted in
the SWOT
analysis.
Evaluation:
Identification of
strategic options		 25% Excellent
evaluation criteria
have been critically
assessed and
applied showing
deep		 Generally good
critical assessment
of evaluation
criteria, showing a
reasonable
understanding of		 Some critical
assessment of
evaluation criteria,
but there are gaps
or errors. There
are gaps in		 Limited critical
assessment of
evaluation criteria
with significant
gaps or errors.
Significant		 There is no
critical
assessment of
evaluation
criteria.

4

and critical
assessment
PART C		 understanding of
the organisation,
environment and
relevant theories.
Sound
recommendations,
fully supported by
evidence, analysis
and evaluation.		 the organisation,
environment and
relevant theories.
Generally sound
recommendations,
supported by
reasonable
evidence, analysis
and evaluation.		 understanding of
the organisation,
environment and
how to select and
apply relevant
theories.
Recommendations
have gaps and
weaknesses. Some
gaps or errors in
evidence, analysis
and evaluation.		 weaknesses in
understanding of
the organisation
and environment
Relevant theories
are missing or
poorly applied.
Limited
recommendations,
not really
supported by
sufficient evidence,
analysis and
evaluation.
Evaluation:
Evaluation of
Strategic
choices, SAFe,
Discussion &
Recommendation
PART D		 30% Excellent
evaluation criteria
have been applied,
critical assessment
and evaluation
within the SAFe
framework showing
deep
understanding of
the organisation,
environment and
relevant theories.
Excellent strategic
choices, fully
supported by
evidence, analysis
and evaluation.		 Very good
evaluation criteria
have been applied,
critical assessment
and evaluation
within the SAFe
framework showing
deep
understanding of
the organisation,
environment and
relevant theories.
Sound strategic
choices, fully
supported by
evidence, analysis
and evaluation.		 Good evaluation
criteria have been
applied, critical
assessment and
evaluation within
the SAFe
framework showing
good
understanding of
the organisation,
environment and
relevant theories.
Reasonably sound
strategic choices
not always fully
supported by
evidence, analysis
and evaluation.		 Acceptable
evaluation criteria
have been applied,
critical assessment
and evaluation
within the SAFe
framework showing
some
understanding of
the organisation,
environment and
relevant theories.
Weak strategic
choices, not fully
supported by
evidence, analysis
and evaluation.		 Poor or no
evaluation
criteria have
been applied,
critical
assessment
and evaluation
within SAFe
framework is
missing and
weak/no
understanding
of the
organization
and
environment is
evident.
Strategic
choices are
poorly argued
and not
supported by
evidence,
analysis and
evaluation.
Assignment
Parameters		 10% Clearly written and
presented, fully
and clearly
referenced, and
within +/-10% of
the word limit
Fully Harvard
referenced.		 In general, answer
is clearly written
and presented,
fully and clearly
referenced, and
within +/- 10% of
the word limit.
Correct Harvard
referencing.		 Despite a small
number of specific
problems, answer
is easy to follow
with sound
referencing.		 Answer may suffer
from weak
communication
and presentation
but is
understandable
with reasonably
sound referencing.		 Weak
communication
and/or
presentation
limited
effectiveness/
comprehension
of argument.
Poor or no
referencing
Submission details
This assignment should be submitted electronically. Please use the relevant Turnitin submission
point in the Submit your work area in your VLE module shell.
Please ensure that your work has been saved in an appropriate file format. Turnitin will only accept
the following file types: Microsoft Word, Excel or PowerPoint, PostScript, PDF, HTML, RTF,

5

OpenOffice (ODT), Hangul (HWP), Google Docs, or plain text. Your file must also contain at least
20 words of text, consist of fewer than 400 pages and be less than 40MB in size.
You can submit your work as many times as you like before the submission date. If you do submit
your work more than once, your earlier submission will be replaced by the most recent version.
Once you have submitted your work, you will receive a digital receipt as proof of submission, which
will be sent to your forwarded e-mail address (provided you have set this up). Please keep this
receipt for future reference, along with the original electronic copy of your assignment
You are reminded of the University’s regulations on academic misconduct, which can be viewed on
the University website: https://bucks.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/9546/Academic-Misconduct
Policy.pdf. In submitting your assignment, you are acknowledging that you have read and
understood these regulations
Please also note that work that is submitted up to 10 working days beyond the submission date will
be considered a late submission. Late submissions will be marked and the actual mark recorded,
but will be capped at the pass mark (typically 40%), provided that the work is of a passing standard.
Work submitted after this period will not be marked and will be treated as a non-submission.

 

Before you submit
Please use the provided checklist below to make sure you are ‘fit to submit’ your work
We recommend you use this checklist as soon as you get this assignment brief to help you plan
your work

 

Fit to Submit: Assignment Checklist
This brief assignment checklist is designed to help you avoid some of the most common mistakes students
make in their coursework.
HAVE YOU READ THE ASSIGNMENT BRIEF?
IF NOT, DO IT NOW!
In it you will find details of the assessment task, word count, the assessment criteria your work is marked against,
and the learning outcomes – the basis for the assessment strategy in each module.
Students often lose marks by forgetting some of the more straightforward elements of their assignments.
We recommend that you “tick off” each of the points below as you prepare your work for submission. If
you need any help, ask your tutor and / or visit
https://bucks.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/assessment-and-examination
TICK
Have you read and understood the assessment criteria?

6

Have you met the learning outcomes? You will lose marks and your work may even
be failed if you have not.
Have you demonstrated you can think and write critically in the completed work?
This means you have supported your arguments/explanations appropriately e.g.
using relevant academic sources and you have offered discussion points which
extends your own or others’ viewpoints to make reasoned conclusions/judgements.
Have you maintained an academic tone throughout your work? Is your work formal,
focused, developed and clear?
Have you checked that the referencing in your assignment is in line with your
programme requirements?
Have you proof-read your work and used spellcheck software to check your spelling
and grammar?
Have you checked the presentation of your work is as specified by your tutor, for
example, are font size, colour, style, line spacing and margins as the tutor specified?
Have you kept to the word count (or equivalent)? If you are not sure, check with your
tutor.
Can you confirm that the work submitted is your own and not plagiarised?