MGT303 – Strategic Management

MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Assignment 1, Version 1a
© Southern Institute of Technology 2020
MGT303 ASSIGNMENT 1

Activity Title:Assignment 1
Paper Number and
Title:
MGT303 – Strategic Management
Level 7, 15 credits, Version 1
Assessed Learning
Outcome:
LO.1 Critically evaluate theories that have influenced approaches to
strategic management.
LO.2 Analyse an organisation’s internal and external environment.
Conditions:This is a compulsory assignment. It must be submitted and makes up
22% of your final result for this paper.
The completed assignment is to be submitted to your facilitator via
Blackboard by the due date.

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Due date: midnight Sunday, Week 6, via Blackboard
Word Count: 1800 words (+/- 10%), excluding referencing and appendices.
Contribution: 22%
Style: Report
Qualification outcome expectations
Research and referencing: You are required to engage in some research into the theories
underpinning the topic and other sources beyond the provided reading material in order to successfully
complete this assignment. Ensure you include a full reference list, including all sources, using APA
guidelines (latest edition). Correct referencing is an expectation of tertiary study.
Presentation guidelines: Work is expected to be word-processed and submitted as a Word document
or PDF, use a clear, readable font and be within 10% of the given word count (excluding any
referencing). Include your name, student number and the paper code and assignment number as a
header or footer. Reports should include headings or subheadings as required. Essays should include
an introduction, body and conclusion. Spellchecking and proofreading of work prior to submission is
strongly encouraged.
MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Assignment 1, Version 1a
© Southern Institute of Technology 2020
ASSIGNMENT TASK
For this assignment you will submit an evaluation report of the holding company, Restaurant Brands
New Zealand Limited. You will need to substantiate your findings by referring to source materials and
theoretical models. You are required to engage in considerable research into the company and theories
underpinning strategic management in order to successfully complete this assignment.
Your report should cover:
The company’s vision and/or mission in relation to its core values
How does the organisation manage and prioritise stakeholders.
Over the first three weeks your course work discussed two major contrasting models used to assess a
firm’s external environment and its internal organisation. Discuss how those models can be used to
explain Restaurant Brands’ pursuit of competitive advantage. How effective are these models and
theories at enabling strategic competitiveness and sustainable above-average returns.
Make sure you reference all of your sources using the latest APA referencing conventions.
Make sure you read the Marking Schedule below carefully before embarking on the assignment.
It will give you clear idea of what we are looking for in the submission!
Collaboration:
You might at times feel isolated and feel the need to run ideas by your fellow students. Make sure you
use the Discussion Board to communicate with your peers and exchange resources and ideas. There
is a Forum available just for that purpose. Please use it. If you have questions which you want to address
to your facilitator, don’t hesitate to contact them. You will find their contact details on the announcement
page.
The report of course will have to be your own work but collaboration at the planning stages and
sharing of resources is encouraged.
MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Assignment 1, Version 1a
© Southern Institute of Technology 2020
Marking schedule

CriteriaE (0-39)D (40-49)C (50-64)B (65-79)A (80-100)
Vision and/or
mission, core
values
Weighting 10%
Clear evidence of
lack of
understanding,
fails to identify and
elaborate on the
vision and/or
mission, values of
the organisation.
Evaluation lacks
depth and the links
between vision and /
or mission, values
are tenuous.
Good evaluation.
Vision and/or mission,
core values could be
linked more clearly.
Comprehensive
evaluation.
Vision and/or
mission, core values
are linked.
Exceptional,
insightful and
comprehensive
evaluation.
Vision and/or
mission, core values
are explicitly linked.
Stakeholder
analysis
Weighting 15%
Clear evidence of
lack of
understanding,
fails to identify
most of the
stakeholders.
Lack of
understanding of
stakeholder
influence.
Evaluation flawed.
Poor analysis of the
stakeholders, lacks
depth and not
inclusive. Fails to
correctly identify
power and influence.
Evaluation is
shallow and
unconvincing.
Reasonable analysis
of stakeholders, their
grouping, influences
and power over
organisation. Maybe
not all stakeholders or
groups identified.
Could benefit from
more depth.
Reasonable
evaluation including
organisational
strategies to manage
stakeholders. Could
benefit from more
depth and authority.
Inclusive analysis of
stakeholders, their
grouping, influences
and power over
organisation.
Sound evaluation
including
organisational
strategies to
manage
stakeholders.
Inclusive high level
analysis of
stakeholders, their
grouping, influences
and power over
organisation.
Insightful and
inspired evaluation
including
organisational
strategies to
manage
stakeholders.
External
environment
Weighting 15%
Evaluation is
highly flawed,
muddled and
evidences lack of
understanding.
No evidence of
understanding of
industry
environment
analysis.
Completely fails to
identify strategic
group and
competition.
Evaluation is flawed
and unconvincing.
Segmentation is not
clear.
The five forces
model is mostly not
covered resulting in
an incomplete and
weak evaluation that
clearly lacks clout.
Strategic group and
competitor analysis
are incomplete and
flawed.
Reasonable
evaluation of the
general environment,
segmentation could be
clearer.
Industry environment
analysis partially
relates to the five
forces model but the
evaluation lacks
depth, and at times is
not convincing and
lacks authority.
Reasonable
evaluation of strategic
group and competitor
analysis. But lacks
depth and clout.
Comprehensive
evaluation of the
general
environment, clearly
segmented.
Complete industry
environment
analysis related to
the five forces model
resulting in and
supporting a sound
evaluation.
Sound evaluation of
strategic group and
competitor analysis.
Comprehensive and
insightful evaluation
of the general
environment, clearly
segmented.
Complete and
insightful industry
environment
analysis explicitly
related to the five
forces model
resulting in and
supporting a highly
insightful evaluation.
Insightful and
inspired evaluation
of strategic group
and competitor
analysis.
Internal
organisation
Weighting 15%
Flawed evaluation
of the
organisations core
competencies.
Clear lack of
understanding.
Evaluation fails to
reveal how the
organisation builds
a sustainable
competitive
advantage through
value creation.
No attempt at
linking
competencies and
Partial and
somewhat flawed
evaluation of the
organisations core
competencies in
relation to tangible
and intangible
resources and the
resulting
capabilities. Clearly
lacks depth and
clout. Not
convincing.
Evaluation largely
fails to reveal how
the organisation
Reasonable
evaluation of the
organisations core
competencies in
relation to tangible and
intangible resources
and the resulting
capabilities. Would
benefit from more
depth and authority.
Evaluation partially
reveals how the
organisation builds a
sustainable
competitive advantage
Sound evaluation of
the organisations
core competencies
in relation to tangible
and intangible
resources and the
resulting
capabilities.
Evaluation reveals
how the organisation
builds a sustainable
competitive
advantage through
value creation.
Reveals a link
between
Excellent evaluation
of the organisations
core competencies
in relation to tangible
and intangible
resources and the
resulting
capabilities.
Inspired evaluation
that reveals how the
organisation builds a
sustainable
competitive
advantage through
value creation.

MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Assignment 1, Version 1a
© Southern Institute of Technology 2020

strategic
judgments.
builds a sustainable
competitive
advantage through
value creation.
The link between
competencies and
strategic judgments
is not clear.
through value
creation.
The link between
competencies and
strategic judgments is
not very clear.
competencies and
strategic judgments.
Reveals an explicit
link between
competencies and
strategic judgments.
Evaluation of
theoretical
models
Weighting 20%
Link between the
models and the
analysis is
confused. The
validity is not
discussed or the
discussion
muddled and
clearly evidences
lack of
understanding.
Link between the
models and the
analysis is not very
clear. The validity is
not discussed
convincingly and the
findings are
superficial.
Theoretical models
are linked (i/o and
resource based
model) to the analysis
with reasonable clarity
and their validity is
partially discussed
although lacking
depth.
Theoretical models
are linked (i/o and
resource based
model) to the
analysis and their
validity is discussed
and clearly outlined.
Theoretical models
are clearly linked (i/o
and resource based
model) to the
analysis and their
validity is discussed
with authority
delivering
exceptional insight.
Writing
Weighting 10%
No consideration
for presentation.
Little evidence of
clear writing or
structure, very
difficult to follow.
Argument very
unsound or weak.
Numerous spelling
and/or
grammatical errors
that have a
significant impact
on readability.
Acceptable
presentation.
Some evidence of
clear or structured
writing.
Argument weak or
unconvincing.
Some grammatical
and/or spelling
errors that impact
noticeably on
readability.
Tidy presentation.
Mostly clear writing
that shows acceptable
organisation and
structure.
Argument is generally
clear.
Few issues around
grammar and/or
spelling, some of
which have a minor
impact on readability.
Good presentation.
Clear writing mainly
to the point. Mostly
well organised and
structured writing.
Most arguments are
sound and
convincing.
Good spelling and
grammar with only
minor oversights
that do not impact
on readability.
Polished
presentation.
Clear, concise and
well-structured
writing throughout.
All arguments are
sound and
convincing
Excellent spelling
and grammar,
correct in all
aspects.
Research
Weighting 10%
No scholarly
sources, no
evidence of
research or not
relevant for the
task.
Very limited
understanding.
The research has
not been linked to
the main text.
Less than 3
scholarly sources or
sources are not
relevant for the task.
Limited
understanding.
Little evidence of
meaningful
integration of the
research with the
main text.
3-4 scholarly sources.
Some sources lack
relevance or authority
but are still
appropriate for the
task.
Adequate
understanding.
The research could be
incorporated with the
main text more
consistently.
5-6 scholarly
sources.
Sources are mostly
well-chosen,
authoritative and
appropriate for the
task.
Good
understanding.
The research is
integrated with the
main text.
7+ scholarly
sources.
Sources are well
chosen, authoritative
and are appropriate
for the task.
Excellent
understanding.
The research is very
well integrated with
the main text.
In-text citations
and Reference
list APA
formatted
Weighting 5%
Citations and
references not
given or follow no
APA guidelines.
Citations and
references are not
give or mostly do not
follow APA
guidelines.
Citations and
references follow
some APA guidelines.
Citations and
references follow
most APA
guidelines.

We are the Best!

course-preview

275 words per page

You essay will be 275 words per page. Tell your writer how many words you need, or the pages.


12 pt Times New Roman

Unless otherwise stated, we use 12pt Arial/Times New Roman as the font for your paper.


Double line spacing

Your essay will have double spaced text. View our sample essays.


Any citation style

APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard, our writers are experts at formatting.


We Accept

Secure Payment
Image 3