Collaborative Business Strategies

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