ZBUS8101 Strategic Management

Assessment 1

Due Date: 1700hrs Friday week 6

Weighting: 30%

Type of assessment:
This assignment requires students to obtain strategic plans from publicly listed companies
and to present a critical synthesis of the major elements of these documents.

Aims:
To analyse the content and structure of strategic plans.

Assessment task:
1. Obtain strategic planning documentation for three publicly listed companies from their
websites or other sources, and identify the major elements of those plans by comparing and
contrasting them with each other. What do the plans have in common? How do they differ?
Are there any major omissions from all three sets of planning documents? What conclusions
can be drawn about the essential constituent elements of strategic planning documents?
(The value of this part of the assignment relative to the total is: 10/30.)
2. Examine the Corporate Social Responsibility aims of the companies as stated in the
strategy documents, and discuss how effectively the strategic plans communicate those CSR
objectives.
(The value of this part of the assignment relative to the total is: 10/30.)
3. Make an overall judgment about whether the plans are successful in stating and
communicating the strategies of their respective companies. Which components of each plan
are effective? Which are not? Why? Do any omissions from the plans constitute significant
lacunae? Why? Is there an overall best plan? Explain clearly the criteria that are used to make
these judgments and from where they are derived.
(The value of this part of the assignment relative to the total is: 10/30.)

Total assignment word count: 2000 +/- 10%

Marking guidance

Section

Inadequa
te
(FL)

Compete
nt
(PA)

Good
(CR)

Superior
(DN)

Supreme
(HD)

1.
10/30

There is a
poorly or
incompletely
structured
comparative
discussion,
lacking clear
or
discernible
arrangement
of the
evidence

There is a
basic
structure
arranging
the
evidence,
but the
comparative
discussion
lacks overall
balance and
coherence

There is a
balanced
and logical
arrangement
of the
evidence
with no
major
omissions,
and the
comparisons
are effective

There is a
convincing
and robust
arrangement
of evidence,
which
evinces clear
insight into
the inherent
structure of
that
evidence

2.
10/30

There is no
effective
statement or
assessment
of the
material
requested

There is a
statement
and
assessment
made of the
requested
material, but
this is done
briefly and
discursively;
there is
minimal
understandi
ng of the
relative
importance
of the issue
for different
organization
s

There is a
generally
clear and
logical
arrangement
of the
evidence,
but there are
also
occasional
lapses in
organization
or coherence
There is a
clear
statement
and
assessment
of the
material, but
with some
lack of
organization
and balance;
and there is
a basic
understandi
ng of the
relative
importance
of the issue
for different
organization
s

The material
is assessed
cogently and
with a real
understandi
ng of the
relative
importance
of the issue
for different
organization
s

3.
10/30

There is no
or little
critical
engagement
with the
documentati
on

There is
some critical
engagement
with the
documentati
on, but this
is uneven
and slightly
argued

There is a
clear
statement
and
assessment
of the
material,
and this is
done in a
wellorganized
and
balanced
way; and
there is a
good
understandi
ng of the
relative
importance
of the issue
for different
organization
s
There is a
critical
engagement
with the
documentati
on, and this
is stated in a
balanced
and effective
way

There is a
critical
engagement
with the
documentati
on, but the
weight of
discussion is
not wholly
balanced or
convincing

There is
compelling
critical
engagement
with the
documentati
on, leaving
little room
for
substantive
disagreemen