Collaborative Business Strategies Case Study
|
Faculty |
Graduate Studies and Research | ||
|
Assessment Type |
Week 5 Case Study |
Paper Code | |
|
Module Name |
Collaborative Business Strategies |
Module Code |
G9-CBS-17 |
Instructions
1. Use this cover page as the cover page for all your assignments.
2. Use Times New Roman, font size 12, line spacing 1.5.
3. Line spacing between each heading and content should be double. The headings and subheadings should be in bold and not underlined. They should be in lower case.
4. Your assignment should be between 1000 – 1500 words including the cover page and references.
5. Use Harvard referencing style.
6. Subject your assignment to professional language editing before submission.
7. Present your answer systematically under appropriate headings and subheadings (not the composition format). Concepts, not statements, should constitute headings and subheadings.
8. Assignments that do not satisfy all the above requirements shall not be marked and a zero mark shall be awarded. Therefore, please check and confirm that all the above requirements have been met before submitting your assignment.
Read the case study:
Take-off or abort? Chief Smith and Flight Line in NAS Ionian
By Christina Sue-Chan and Kelly Fisher (Week 5 case study)
Support reading: STRATEGIC ALLIANCES & MODELS OF COLLABORATION. By Todeva, E. and Knoke, D. (2005).
See Blackboard for the Case study and Journal article
Master’s in Business Administration
Module: Collaborative Business Strategies
Case Study Assessment Number 1(10 % of module marks)
Question
Amanda Smith was a newly promoted supervisor assigned to turnaround a diverse work team in the industry. Identify any 5 aspects of turn-around strategy that Amanda Smith could employ in order to succeed, focusing on the various stakeholders she was faced with. (40 marks).
N.B: Each strategy should be stated as your heading hence I should see 5 headings in the content. Follow the instructions given in Week 1.
Assessment Criteria
Participants will receive a Fail (below 50%), Pass (50-59%), merit (60-69%) or Distinction (70-100%).
Grading Criteria
The broad criteria for each grade are as follows, though the precise interpretation will vary for each submission:
|
Dist. |
Submission is clearly presented and well organised Context of practice clearly presented and integrates wider perspectives and contexts Shows a well-developed and theoretically informed capacity for critical analysis of own and/or institutional practice Thorough and judicious use of relevant literature that is linked to practice Suggests improvements and innovations to practice that are grounded in own experience and the literature Critical analysis/reflection and well developed argument evident throughout |
|
Merit |
Submission is clearly presented and well organised Context of practice clearly presented and integrates wider perspectives and contexts Critical analysis of own and/or institutional practice showing awareness of alternative approaches Links own practice to relevant literature Suggests improvements to practice that are grounded in own experience and the literature Significant evidence of critical analysis/reflection and well developed argument |
|
Pass |
Submission is clearly presented and well organised in most cases Context of practice described with some location of practice within wider contexts Show evidence of critical analysis of own and/or institutional practice Reference to the literature appropriate but may be limited Useful improvements to practice are logically presented Some evidence of critical analysis/reflection and well developed argument |
|
Fail |
Submission is unclearly presented or not well organised Context of practice described with limited or no reference to wider contexts Some evidence of ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in practice, but limited in scope Reference to the literature limited, absent or inappropriate Improvements to practice insufficiently argued or useful Tendency to be descriptive with limited evidence of critical analysis/reflection and well developed argument |
