Individual Strategic Analysis Report UOR322 Corporate Strategy

Assessment Brief: Individual Strategic Analysis Report UOR322 Corporate Strategy (Spring 2021)

The module is assessed (100%) by an Individual Strategic Analysis Report (3,000 words +/- 10%) involving an in-depth, strategic analysis of a large organization. The guidelines for the report have been determined by the module lecturer, but students will be able to choose a company, from the list of 5 below, as the subject of the report. These companies include:

  • Alibaba
  • IKEA
  • Tesla Motors
  • KLM Airlines
  • Uber

The final Individual Strategic Analysis Report is due on April 19th, 2021 at 11:59pm (Munich time).


Week 4: Students must submit a one-page proposal, via Moodle, that answers thefollowing questions about the company they have chosen. This proposal is due on

Referring to Whittington, et. al. (2020), pp. 7-15:

  1. What is the purpose of this company? Outline its:
  1. Mission
  • Vision
  • Values
  • Describe the scope of your report. Are you writing about a whole company, a strategic business unit (SBU), or an SBU in a specific market? Explain why you have made this decision.
  • Identify 3 key strategic issues facing the organization (and clearly indicate why these issues are strategic).
  • Outline 3 resources that, at this point, you would likely consult to write the Strategic Analysis Report.

Please be sure to do your own work. Your proposal must be submitted via Turnitin on Moodle. Please follow all EUBS and UOR guidelines to avoid Plagiarism.



The Strategic Report will take the form of a 3000-word report (students should not exceed this limit by more than 10%, which is 3300 words) and must demonstrate clear report style using Harvard referencing system (these guidelines are available on the University of Roehampton and the EU Business School websites). Your report must be submitted as a unified whole. Formative work in weekly seminars will guide the students through analytical techniques and processes required to complete the assessment.

For the selected organization, assume you are an outside consultant reporting to the Chief Executive Officer.


There will be weekly references to the assessment task in seminars and weekly activities in those seminars will be helpful in creating “scaffolding” for eventual submission.

The formative case studies in seminars will be of direct help in the application of relevant strategic tools. There will be regular Q&A sessions linked to the assessment report and in the final weeks of teaching there will be an opportunity to review and reflect upon work from previous cohorts.


Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking scheme indicated below. Feedback will be given via Turnitin on Moodle. When you access your marked work, it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.

In this Strategic Analysis Report, high marks come from clearly applying strategic concepts and analysis from the module to the chosen organization. Harvard referencing, a professional report style, plus appropriate diagrams/tables, are also required. Marking and grading expectations are as follows.

For the selected organization, assume you are an outside consultant reporting to the Chief Executive Officer. The Strategic Analysis Report MUST:

  1. Q1 (20%) Identify 3 key strategic issues facing the organization with a clear explanation of why they are “strategic”. Outstanding work is clear, well-structured anduses relevant facts. Knowledge and application of PESTEL, 5 Forces, and Internal aspects.
  • Q2 (40%) Analyse fully the resources and capabilities of the organization plus key factors that give the company its competitive advantage. Provide a fully-reasoneddefinition of the relevant industry plus first class understanding of its CSFs. The


organisation’s resources are clearly analysed using Grant’s three types with unique capabilities identified & further analysed using Value Chain, VRIO & other tools. An outstanding grasp of links to advantage by comparing capabilities with CSFs & a correct choice of Porter or Strategy Clock generic are present. Overall, an outstanding demonstration of knowledge and analysis.

  • Q3 (30%). Assess the extent to which the organization’s competitive strategy addresses its strategic issues and suggest improvement where they might be justified. Outstanding work is fluent, extremely well-structured, & question focused.There is a strong analysis of how strategy addresses the strategic issues identified earlier. The suitability test links strategy clearly to the environment & strategic position. The acceptability test identifies key stakeholders with the Power/Interest matrix & examines their needs. The feasibility test justifies the strategy & shows sustainability. The tests are used with outstanding knowledge & insightful discussion. Improvements are strongly focused on resources, capability & advantage with a concise conclusion.
  • Q4 (10%). Clarity, structure, grammar, correct Harvard referencing, and overall professional presentation showing a clear report style is present.

In addition to marker feedback, a full marking rubric will be available within the Turnitin submission system for student consideration (this rubric is also located on our course Moodle pages).

Tips for how to make a good start:

Tip 1: Read the Assessment Brief to understand clearly what is required.

Tip 2: Use web links to initially research each of the 5 organizations.

Tip 3: Choose your organization with the assessment task in mind.

Tip 4: Assemble material from a wide range of research sources.

Tip 5: Focus on knowledge & application of relevant module concepts.

Tip 6: Participate in module seminars & draw upon lessons for your Report.

Tip 7: Make full use of Whittington, (2020) and the resources that are placed on Moodle.


EU Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle classroom page. Reports must be submitted as a Word file (or a PDF) and must not include scanned-in text or text boxes.

If you cannot submit a piece of work and wish to submit a Mitigating Circumstances form, the University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website.



Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are several quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that you receive the marks that reflect your submitted work. A brief summary is provided below:

Step 1 –The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and howfeedback will be provided.

Step 2 –A subject expert (your tutor, for example) will mark your work using the criteriaprovided in the assessment brief.

Step 3 –A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and markingteam will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback

Step 4 –Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sampleof work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair.

Step 5 –Academic Administration records your grade & feedback and they are madeavailable to you.


If you need to Resit this assessment, the requirements are as follows:

You are required to re-work your original submission in line with the original assessment brief and criteria. Your re-submission must address the feedback comments provided by the marker on the original submission. You should provide a summary of the marker’s original feedback from your first submission together with a commentary (between 400 and 500 words) that explains how your revisions improve the original submission by addressing the marker’s feedback.

In brief your Resit submission MUST include:

  • A summary of the original feedback;
  • A reflective account [400-500 words] detailing how your revisions have addressed the feedback; and
  • The reworked assignment.
 OutstandingExcellentVery GoodGoodSatisfactoryAdequateMarginal FailFailNot
 Work of outstandingHigh qualityQuality workSound workFair work withBasic work withInadequateObviouslyNo
 quality that is fluent,work with awith a soundwith a faira less effectivea minimalwork withoutpoor workattempt
 extremely wellclearintroduction tointroduction tointroduction tointroduction toa clearlacking anto
 structured &introduction tothe report &the report &the report &the report &introductionintroductioninclude
 question focused.the report &company.  Acompany.  Acompany.  Acompany.  Onlyto the reportto the reportany
 A concise but verycompany.  Anvery goodgood grasp of 3patchy grasp ofa commonor company.or company.relevant
 clear introduction toexcellent graspgrasp of 3strategic issues3 strategicsense grasp ofA weakIncompletematerial.
 the report & theof 3 strategicstrategic issueswith possibleissues without3 strategicchoice of 3inclusion of 
Q1). (20%)company usingissueswith referencereference to amuch referenceissues withoutstrategic3 strategic 
Identify 3 keyrelevant facts. Ansupported by ato a definitiondefinition plusto a definition.much depth orissuesissues & no 
strategic issuesoutstanding graspdefinition &plus a verysomeSomeany referencewithoutdefinition 
facing theof 3 strategic issuesknowledge plusgoodapplication ofapplication ofto a definition.using aused at all. 
organisationusing a cleara strongapplication ofPESTLE, 5PESTLE, 5Superficialdefinition.No relevant 
with a cleardefinition plusapplication ofPESTLE, 5Forces &Forces &application ofLittleknowledge 
explanation ofknowledge &PESTLE, 5Forces &InternalInternalPESTLE, 5relevantor 
why they areoutstandingForces &Internalaspects.aspects.Forces &knowledgeapplication 
“strategic”.application ofInternalaspects.Overall aOverall a fairInternalorof 
 relevant PESTLE, 5aspects.Overall asound section.section.aspects butapplicationPESTLE, 5 
 Forces & InternalOverall asound & robust  lacking depth.ofForces & 
 aspects. Overall afocused &section.  Overall, only aPESTLE, 5Internal 
 strongly knowledgerobust section.   basic section.Forces &aspects. 
 driven section.     InternalOverall, an 
       Overall, afailing 
 OutstandingExcellentVery GoodGoodSatisfactoryAdequateMarginal FailFailNot
 Work of outstandingHigh qualityQuality workSound workFair work withBasic work withInadequateObviouslyNo
 quality that is fluent,work with awith a soundwith a faira fair industrya superficialwork with apoor workattempt
 extremely wellclear industryindustryindustrydefinition &industrypoorwith no clearto
 structured &definition plusdefinition &definition &somedefinition &industryindustryinclude
 question focused.excellentunderstandingunderstandingunderstandingcommon sensedefinition &definition orany
 A fully reasonedunderstandingof CSFs.of CSFs.of CSFs.understandinglittle grasp ofCSFs.relevant
 definition of theof CSFs.Resources wellResourcesResourcesof CSFs.CSFs.Resourcesmaterial.
 relevant industryResourcesanalysed usingfairly wellbasicallyResourcesResourcessuperficial 
 plus first classclearlyGrant withanalysed usinganalysed usingbasicallyweaklyplus a poor 
 understanding of itsanalysed usinguniqueGrant withGrant with aanalysedanalysedattempt to 
Q2). (40%)CSFs. TheGrant withcapabilitiesuniquepatchy attemptpossibly usingwithoutidentify 
Analyse fullyorganisation’suniqueidentified &capabilitiesto identifyGrant withGrant & onlyunique 
the resourcesresources clearlycapabilitiesanalysed usingidentified.uniquesome attempta poorcapabilities. 
& keyanalysed usingidentified &Value Chain &Value Chain & identifyattempt toNo depth of 
capabilities ofGrant’s three typesanalysed usingpossibly VRIOother toolsValue Chain &uniqueidentifyknowledge 
thewith uniqueValue Chain,& other tools.possibly used.other toolscapabilities butuniqueor analysis. 
organisationcapabilitiesVRIO &An informedSome grasp ofpossiblylacking Valuecapabilities.No thoughts 
plus key factorsidentified &possibly othergrasp of linkslinks tomissing. Only aChain or otherNo Valueon 
that give theanalysed usingtools. A fullto advantageadvantage viabasic grasp oftools. WeakChain oradvantage. 
company itsValue Chain, VRIOgrasp of linksvia capabilitiescapabilities &links tograsp of linksother tools.The Porter 
competitive& other tools. Anto advantage& CSFs. TheCSFs. Theadvantage viato advantageNo links togeneric 
advantage.outstanding graspvia capabilitiesPorter genericPorter genericcapabilities &via capabilitiesadvantagesuperficial 
 of links to& CSFs. ThecorrectlycorrectlyCSFs. The& CSFs. Theviachosen. 
 advantage byPorter orchosen. Overallchosen. OverallPorter genericPorter genericcapabilitiesOverall an 
 comparingStrategy Clocka focused &a soundsuperficiallysuperficially& CSFs. Theobviously 
 capabilities withgenericrobust analysis.section.chosen. Overallchosen.Porterfailing 
 CSFs & a correctcorrectly  a fair section.Overall, only agenericsection. 
 choice of Porter orchosen. Overall   basic section.superficially  
 Strategy Clocka complete    chosen.  
 generic. Overall andemonstration    Overall a  
 outstandingof knowledge &    weak  
 demonstration ofanalysis.    section.  
 knowledge &        
 OutstandingExcellentVery GoodGoodSatisfactoryAdequateMarginal FailFailNot
 Work of outstandingHigh qualityQuality workSound workFair work withBasic work withInadequateObviouslyNo
 quality that is fluent,work with anwith a soundwith a faira reasonableonly awork with apoor workattempt
 extremely wellexcellentanalysis.  Theanalysis.  Theanalysis.  Thesuperficial grasppoor grasp ofwith noto
 structured &analysis of howsuitability testsuitability testsuitability testof analysis.  Theanalysis.  Thegrasp of theinclude
 question focused.strategyuses sounduses someuses one orsuitability testsuitability testthree tests.any
 There is anaddresses thelinks to thelinks to thetwo links to theuses one or twois not linked toSuitability,relevant
 outstandingissues. Theenvironment.environment.environment.links to thetheacceptabilitymaterial
 analysis of howsuitability testTheTheTheenvironment.environment.& feasibility 
 strategy addresseslinks strategyacceptabilityacceptabilityacceptabilityTheTheare not 
 strategic issuesclearly to thetest identifiestest identifiestest identifiesacceptabilityacceptabilityunderstood. 
 identified earlier.environment.keykeykeytest identifiestest identifiesImproveme 
 The suitability testThestakeholders &stakeholdersstakeholderskeyshareholdersnts are poor 
Q3). (30%)links strategyacceptabilitysome of theirbut limits theirwithout theirstakeholdersonly & thecommon 
Assess theclearly to thetest identifiesneeds.  Theneeds.  Theneeds.  Thewithout theirfeasibility testsense & 
extent to whichenvironment &keyfeasibility testfeasibility testfeasibility testneeds.  Theis probably notthere is no 
thestrategic position.stakeholders &showsshows someshows only afeasibility testunderstood.conclusion. 
organisation’sThe acceptabilitytheir needs.sustainability.grasp offair grasp ofshows only aThe tests are  
competitivetest identifies keyThe feasibilityThe tests aresustainability.sustainability.fair grasp ofused with little  
strategystakeholders withtest justifies theused withThe tests areThe tests aresustainability.knowledge.  
addresses itsthe Power/Intereststrategy &soundused withused withThe tests areImprovements  
strategic issuesmatrix & examinesshowsknowledge &soundreasonableused with someare only  
& suggesttheir needs. Thesustainability.some points.knowledge.knowledge.knowledge.common  
improvementsfeasibility testThe tests areImprovementsImprovementsImprovementsImprovementssense. There  
where theyjustifies the strategyused withfairly addressare fair butare fair butare fair butis no clear  
might be& showsstrongresources,lacking claritylack There isconclusion.  
justified.sustainability. Theknowledge &capability &on resources,There is aa short, general   
 tests are used withpoints whilstadvantage withcapability &short, generalconclusion.   
 outstandingImprovementsa conciseadvantage.conclusion.    
 knowledge &addressconclusion.There is a fair     
 insightfulresources, conclusion.     
 discussion.capability &       
 Improvements areadvantage with       
 strongly focused ona concise       
 capability &        
 advantage with a        
 concise conclusion.        
 OutstandingExcellentVery GoodGoodSatisfactoryAdequateMarginal FailFailNot Done
 An outstandingA high quality,A qualityA soundA fair reportA basic &A sloppyAn obviouslyThere is no
 example of aprofessionalreport withreport stylestyle usedscrappyessay styleinadequatesubmission
Presentation.professionalreport withfront sheet,used withwithreport styleused with noreport withoutrelevant to
(10%)report withfront sheet,contents, clearfrontsheet,frontsheet,used withfrontsheet,contents orthe task.
Clarity,frontsheet,contents, clearsections,contents, clearlimitednolimitedquestion 
structure,contents, clearsections,tables &sections.contents &frontsheet,contents &clarity. No 
grammar,sections, tables &tables &diagrams &Limited tablespatchylimitedpatchyattempt at 
correctdiagrams plusdiagrams plussound Harvard& diagramssections.contents &sections.  Nosections or 
Harvardstrong Harvardrelevantreferencing.with patchyGenericpatchydiagrams & noHarvard 
referencing &referencing. TheHarvardThe wordHarvarddiagramssections.Harvardreferencing. 
overallword count isreferencing.count isreferencing.with weakLimitedreferencing.The material is 
professionalrespected & thereThe wordcorrect &The wordHarvarddiagrams &The material isunacceptable 
presentationare suitablecount isreferencescount isreferencing.poorunder length &as a business 
showing clearappendices with acorrect &given.correct, butThe wordHarvardlackingreport. 
report style.full referencesreferences referencescount is notreferencing.references.  
 section.given. limited.accurate &The word   
     referencescount is not   
     limited.accurate &   
      very limited.   
Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our Guarantees

Money-back Guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism Guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision Policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy Policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation Guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more