HERIOT-WATT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

School of Management and Languages

Examiners Report
Module Name:

Strategic Management / International Strategic Management

Examination Diet:

December 2010

Stage:

Three

Part I Overall Comments must be completed by EACH examiner

Generally a lot of time was spent in section A meaning that answers to section C were often unfinished or rushed.
Candidates often did not take enough notice of the marking scheme, for example A1 had 10 marks awarded but
often 4 or 5 pages of graphs and commentary followed. Overall the understanding of Porters 5 Forces (A2) was
excellent and this was answered well. A3 was often more of a conclusion than analysis of findings and marks
reflected this. There was nothing extraordinary which stood out in section B, there was a full range of scores from
high 20s down to very low single digits. Section C was often answered well, where answers were weaker it was due
to lack of detail or a list/bullet point approach, sometimes there was a lack of solid examples. As mentioned time
was very often an issue in section C and often this let down higher scores from section A. General observations
were that labelling of sections could sometimes be clearer; graphs often did not have titles or axis labelled and clarity
of handwriting/layout made marking a challenge at times.

Part II Section Comments

Question A1:
Often far too much time was put into this section with pages of graphs and commentary for only 10 marks.
Sometimes people described the sector rather than the strategic groups requested in the question. Application was
poor and student arguments sometimes contradicted their assessments of threats.
A2 answered well generally lacked detailed rationale where answers were weaker.
A3 often lacked analysis and just repeated A1 and A2 or acted as a conclusion rather than analysis of Apples
position.

Section B Overall:
There seemed to be a full range of grades the better candidates got the higher marks here. There was no obvious
confusion with adding E and F. Students coped with this section in spite of the error on the answer grid (noted by the
external programmes team).

Section C Overall:
Often rushed because of time issues
Question C1:
Often this was answered well with good supporting examples easy to get a clear structure and flow to the answer.
Second section of ethics was also well addressed but sometimes too broad and waffled. The main issue was time
here and therefore detailed thought and analysis was missing. Students described protocols and ethical dilemmas
but did not discuss or evaluate them.
Question C2:
Students found it difficult to be specific with this question. Students could record the concepts of culture and HRM
but were unable to apply these to MNCs. Hence answers were often too broad and lacked detailed analysis.
However, where it was addressed well I, it was excellent. The issue was related to time management.