Overview
In this assignment we build on the analysis we undertook for Assignment 1. In Assignment 2 we now focus on the
organisation. You are required to undertake an analysis of the strategic choices available to our case study
organisation and make a recommendation as to which strategy to pursue.
Directly related to professional practice in organisations, you will integrate theory with informed strategic
choices. This assessment is deliberately designed not only to test what you know, but to also build lifelong learning
skills. It has been developed to give you the best possible opportunity to help the organization to survive and thrive
into the future. The skills that you will be developing include:
• cognitive conceptualisation skills
• critical thinking and analysis skills
• creative application skills.
All these are valuable skills you will need in future employment. How well you are able to demonstrate these skills
and knowledges will impact not only on you and your group (in terms of a mark) but also has the potential to influence
the future of the case study organisation. Your work matters.
Learning Outcomes
The Course Learning Outcomes related to this assessment are:
CLO1: Identify and describe the key components of the strategic management process and how it can be applied in organisations.
CLO2: Assess and judge strategic inputs, including the external and internal environment, strategic mission and strategic intent.
CLO3: Create a strategy including synthesising appropriate elements of business level strategy, competitive dynamics, corporate level
strategy, cooperative strategies and international strategies.
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
1 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
CLO4: Apply selected theory and strategy frameworks to analyse practical strategy related issues in organisational contexts.
CLO5: Examine the relationship between strategic inputs, strategic actions (formulation, implementation and evaluation) and strategic
outcomes to design a strategic plan.
Assessment Requirements
In this assignment we build on the analysis we undertook for Assignment 1 . In Assignment 2 we now focus on the
organisation. You are required to undertake an analysis of the strategic choices available to our case study
organisation and make a recommendation as to which strategy to pursue.
You are also required to apply the theory, frameworks and concepts covered in the course and to apply them when
conducting an analysis of the strategic choices for The Vetreska Company (https://kr-asia.com/vetreska-isbringing-fashionable-goods-for-your-pets-startup-stories) our case study organisation.
The Data Pack has core
background information.
Assessment Requirements + Criteria |
To fulfil the assessment criteria, your report you should demonstrate you have completed each of these
requirements:
- Analyse the current business-level strategy using Porter’s Generic Strategy OR Miles and Snow Strategy
typologies. Based on your analysis make and justify a recommendation for the most appropriate future businesslevel strategy that you selected [Rubric Criteria 1]. - Propose ONE new strategic initiative for the organisation to implement. This initiative can be a major functional
initiative, such as marketing, use of technology, product (service) innovation/development, and mergers and
acquisitions. Describe the features of the strategic initiative in detail and explain why it is strategic [Rubric Criteria
2]. - Utilising the SAFe evaluation criteria [see Whittington et al. 2020. Ch. 12: Section 12.3
future business-level strategy recommendation. Provide financial and stakeholder examples . In applying the
SAFe criteria you are expected to undertake a high-level risk analysis of the strategy that you are recommending.
Identify what the main threats are and the organisation’s vulnerability to those threats [Rubric Criteria 3]. - Future Directions: Provide a concise overview and justification of the best future strategy options available to the
organisation – a corporate strategy or an international strategy [Rubric Criteria 4]. - Written assignments must be presented in a professional format
Report presentation, including the quality of your references and
Criteria 5].
Advisory notes for this assignment
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
2 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
• Company websites, annual reports, and media reports are important sources of such information, but their
objectives, and thus credibility, should be carefully analysed and evaluated.
• You are required to apply appropriate theoretical concepts and analytical tools.
Assessment Questions?
Format – In Word, present your assignment in report format
with a professionally presented Table of Contents, and numbered headings, sub-headings and page
numbers for each section. Note that the assignment submission MUST be in Word format – pdf submissions will not
be marked.
• No Executive Summary is required.
• ◦ Limited use of tables or diagrams can be used but only to summarise key points made in the section.
â—¦ Dot points are not permitted – key insights must be presented in paragraph form.
Referencing Style: Consistent reference style throughout the report is essential.
• Apply either the or Harvard
are using EndNote or Google Scholar
citation).
• The examples and tips on how to
Number of References – minimum 10 scholarly and professional sources – (includes the required references).
Use as a
starting point. - Attend the weekly classes as the theories and concepts that are essential for the assignment will be covered.
Your lecturer will discuss the assignment in class and respond to questions. - Outside of class time post your question on the Discussions board to see if it has already been answered.
- ent and referencing
related questions - f can also answer
questions through an online appointment
Submission
• If changes are made to these submission instructions, the changes will be advised in the weekly class or Canvas
Announcements.
You are required to submit your assignment online in Word format. When you submit work electronically, you agree to
the
•
he assignment can be found in this link
Submit your assignment into the Final Submission link in the Assignment 2 page in Canvas. Turnitin is also
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
3 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
embedded in this link for checking the authenticity and similarity of your report.
• Note: The Title Page and Table of Contents (TOC) may have high similarity as every report is following a similar
structure. If the similarity in the body of the report is >20% then
â—¦ paraphrase sections (other than the Title page and TOC that are showing similarity)
â—¦ check you have correctly referenced all citations and sources of information.
BEFORE SUBMISSION check you have undertaken the following | - Check that the report has covered all Assessment Criteria as detailed in the marking Rubric [ see below]
2 . Use Study help 24/7 -Studiosity (in Canvas) +
and
assignment meets the criteria - Reference check – check that you have applied the (or
Harvard if you are using EndNote) referencing style - Keep a back-up copy of all work on a device other than your computer in case you experience computer
problems. IT failure is not an allowable reason for avoiding late penalty or an extension. - Save a screen shot of the time of submission in case this is queried by your lecturer.
Academic integrity and plagiarism
is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the work of others while developing
your own insights, knowledge and ideas.
You should take extreme care that you have: - Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have quoted (i.e. directly
copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in your assessment through the appropriate
referencing methods - Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source if necessary. This includes
material taken from Internet sites
If the sources of information in your paper are not correctly acknowledged, you may be accused of plagiarism
because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they were
your own.
Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:
• Failure to properly document a source
• Copyright material from the internet or databases
• Collusion between students
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/98327/assignments/713154
4 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
Strategy identification and justification (S2-22 Ass2)
Assessment Declaration
When you submit work electronically, you agree to the
Rubric Marking Criteria
The Rubric details the marking criteria for each grade level. Feedback will be provided through the rubric and written
comments.
Details of the range of grades awarded is in the last page of this Course Guide
You may request a review of an assessment result or appeal a final course grade in accordance with the Conduct of
Assessment and Appeals section of the Assessment processes. Further details regarding the review of assessment
are detailed in Other Relevant Information in the Course Guide
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
5 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
Criteria Ratings Pts
6 pts - GENERIC
STRATEGY - Analyse the
current strategy
applying either
Porter’s Generic
Strategy or Miles and
Snow Strategy
typologies. - Based on your
analysis make and
justify a
recommendation for
a future businesslevel strategy.
6 to >4.8 Pts
High Distinction
Determines the
current and
future generic
strategy of the
organisation
utilising applying
either Porter’s
Generic Strategy
or Miles and
Snow Strategy
typologies to
very strongly
justify
conclusions.
Demonstrates
the ability to
construct a
comprehensive
and
sophisticated
discussion and
draws sound and
thoroughly
supported
conclusions
about the
strategic
alignment of the
organisation.
The discussion
relies upon the
evidence
presented
elsewhere in the
report and stated
conclusions align
with the
discussion. Work
is of an
exceptional
standard and
includes
evidence of
creativity,
synthesis and
organisational
insights.
4.8 to >4.2 Pts
Distinction
Determines the
current and
future generic
strategy of the
organisation
applying either
Porter’s Generic
Strategy or Miles
and Snow
Strategy
typologies. to
strongly justify
conclusions.
Work shows a
sophisticated
application of the
appropriate
strategic
management
discipline
knowledge
although may
lack some of the
finer details.
Demonstrates
the ability to
construct a welldeveloped
discussion and
draws sound
conclusions
about the
strategic
alignment of the
organisation. The
discussion relies
upon the
evidence
presented
elsewhere in the
report and stated
conclusions align
with the
discussion. Work
is of a high
standard but is
lacking in a few
of the finer
details with some
4.2 to >3.5 Pts
Credit
Determines the
current and
future generic
strategy of the
organisation
utilising applying
either Porter’s
Generic Strategy
or Miles and
Snow Strategy
typologies. to
adequately justify
conclusions.
Works shows a
solid application
of the
appropriate
strategic
management
discipline
knowledge
although lacks
some of the key
details required
for a convincing
argument.
Demonstrates
the ability to
construct a solid
discussion and
draws sound
conclusions
about the
strategic
alignment of the
organisation. The
discussion relies
upon the
evidence
presented
elsewhere in the
report and stated
conclusions align
with the
discussion. Work
shows some
signs of creativity
but is lacking in
the finer details
3.5 to >3.0 Pts
Pass
Determines the
current and
future generic
strategy of the
organisation
utilising applying
either Porter’s
Generic Strategy
or Miles and
Snow Strategy
typologies. to
justify
conclusions.
Work shows
some application
of the
appropriate
strategic
management
discipline
knowledge
although lacks
the key details
required for a
convincing
argument.
Demonstrates
the ability to
construct a
reasonable
discussion but
conclusions
about the
strategic
alignment of the
organisation are
not well
developed. The
discussion relies
upon the
evidence
presented
elsewhere in the
report and stated
conclusions align
with the
discussion. Work
shows some
signs of creativity
3 to >0 Pts
Fail
Fails to
identify the
current and
future
strategy of the
organisation
and/or
provides
irrelevant
information
from
irrelevant
sources in an
unstructured
manner. Does
not
adequately
apply either
Porter’s
Generic
Strategy or
Miles and
Snow
Strategy
typologies. Is
unable to
identify
important
factors and/or
draw
reasonable
conclusions
about the
strategic
alignment of
the
organisation.
Work is
lacking
required
details.
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
6 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
Criteria Ratings Pts
10 pts
12 pts
organisational
insights..
including
organisational
insights.
but is lacking in
the finer details
including
organisational
insights. - ORGANISATION’S
STRATEGIC
INITIATIVE - Propose one new
strategic initiative for
implementation. This
initiative can be a
major functional
initiative. - Describe the
features of the
strategic initiative in
detail and explains
why it is strategic
10 to >8.0 Pts
High
Distinction
Proposes one
only highly
appropriate
strategic
initiative that
indicates
sophisticated
comprehension
of the
company’s
capability and its
strategic
context. The
details for the
initiative and the
explanation as
to why it is
strategic are
well structured,
well argued and
supported by a
comprehensive
range of
relevant
research. The
proposal shows
sensitivity to
contextual
factors as well
as all of the
ethical, logical,
and cultural
dimensions of
the problem.
8 to >7.0 Pts
Distinction
Proposes one
only very
appropriate
strategic
initiative that
indicates very
good
comprehension
of the
company’s
capability and
its strategic
context. The
details for the
initiative and the
explanation as
to why it is
strategic are
well structured,
well argued and
supported by a
very good range
of relevant
research. The
proposal shows
sensitivity to
contextual
factors as well
as all of the
ethical, logical,
and cultural
dimensions of
the problem.
7 to >6.0 Pts
Credit
Proposes one
only appropriate
strategic
initiative that
indicates solid
comprehension
of the
company’s
capability and
its strategic
context. The
details for the
initiative and the
explanation as
to why it is
strategic are
generally well
structured, well
argued and
supported by a
solid range of
relevant
research. The
proposal shows
sensitivity to
contextual
factors as well
as all of the
ethical, logical,
and cultural
dimensions of
the problem.
6 to >5.0 Pts
Pass
Proposes a
partial /more than
one initiative that
needs more
detail for its
appropriateness
to be assessed.
The proposal
indicates a basic
comprehension
of the company’s
capability and its
strategic context.
The details for
the initiative and
the explanation
as to why it is
strategic are
reasonably well
structured and
argued and
supported by a
basic range of
relevant
research. The
proposal shows
some sensitivity
to contextual
factors as well as
all of the ethical,
logical, and
cultural
dimensions of
the problem.
5 to >0 Pts
Fail
Proposes one
/more than one
/no initiative that
is difficult to
evaluate
because it is
vague or only
indirectly
addresses the
strategy needs
of the company.
The proposal
indicates limited
comprehension
of the
company’s
capability and its
strategic
context. The
details for the
initiative and the
explanation as
to why it is
strategic are
limited and there
is a lack of
supporting
research for the
proposal. The
proposal is are
not sensitive to
contextual
factors nor the
ethical, logical,
and cultural
dimensions of
the problem. - JUSTIFY THE
FUTURE BUSINESS
LEVEL STRATEGY
12 to >9.6 Pts
High
Distinction
9.6 to >8.4 Pts
Distinction
Very good
8.4 to >7.2 Pts
Credit
Good
7.2 to >6.0 Pts
Pass
Basic
6 to >0 Pts
Fail
Inadequate
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
7 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
Criteria Ratings Pts
RECOMMENDATION - Justify the future
business-level
strategy
recommendation
through utilising the
SAFE framework
(Suitability,
Acceptability,
Feasibility and
Evaluation)
2.Provide financial
and stakeholder
examples . - Undertake a highlevel risk analysis of
the recommended
strategy - Identify key threats
and vulnerability to
the organisation - Identify what the
main threats are and
the organisation’s
vulnerability to those
threats
Advanced
application and
implementation
of all
requirements.
Justifies the
future businesslevel strategy
recommendation
through utilising
the SAFE
framework at an
advanced level.
Financial and
stakeholder
examples, highlevel risk
analysis of the
recommended
strategy, key
threats and
vulnerability to
the organisation
shows advanced
level of
organisational
insights.
Demonstrates
application of
specialist terms
and theories at
an advanced
level.
application and
implementation
of all
requirements.
Justifies the
future businesslevel strategy
recommendation
through utilising
the SAFE
framework at a
very good level.
Financial and
stakeholder
examples, highlevel risk
analysis of the
recommended
strategy, key
threats and
vulnerability to
the organisation
shows a very
good level of
organisational
insights but
misses some
points.
Demonstrates
application of
specialist terms
and theories at
very good level.
application and
implementation
of all
requirements.
Justifies the
future businesslevel strategy
recommendation
through utilising
the SAFE
framework at a
good level.
Financial and
stakeholder
examples, highlevel risk
analysis of the
recommended
strategy, key
threats and
vulnerability to
the organisation
shows a good
level of
organisational
insights but
some examples
lack insights.
Demonstrates
application of
specialist terms
and theories at
good level
-avoid
generalisations
in sections.
application and
implementation
of all
requirements.
Superficial
justification of
the future
business-level
strategy
recommendation
through utilising
the SAFE
framework at a
basic level.
Financial and
stakeholder
examples, highlevel risk
analysis of the
recommended
strategy, key
threats and
vulnerability to
the organisation
shows some
organisational
insights but
many examples
lack insights.
Demonstrates
some application
of specialist
terms and
theories at basic
level -avoid
generalisations
in sections.
application and
implementation
of all
requirements /or
some
requirements
missing.
Superficial
justification of
the future
business-level
strategy
recommendation
through
inadequate
utilisations the
SAFE
framework at an
unsatisfactory
level. Financial
and stakeholder
examples, highlevel risk
analysis of the
recommended
strategy, key
threats and
vulnerability to
the organisation
lacks
organisational
insights. Poor
application of
specialist terms
and theories .
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
8 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
Criteria Ratings Pts
8 pts - FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
1 Provide a concise
overview and
justification of the
best future strategy
options available to
the organisation – a
corporate strategy or
an international
strategy
8 to >6.4 Pts
High
Distinction
Proposes and
justifies highly
appropriate
potential
corporate or
international
strategy
directions that
indicate
sophisticated
comprehension
of the
company’s
capability and its
strategic
context. The
proposals show
sensitivity to
contextual
6.4 to >5.6 Pts
Distinction
Proposes and
justifies very
appropriate
potential
corporate or
international
strategy
directions that
indicate very
good
comprehension
of the
company’s
capability and its
strategic
context. The
proposals show
sensitivity to
contextual
factors as well
5.6 to >4.8 Pts
Credit
Proposes and
justifies
appropriate
potential
corporate or
international
strategy
directions that
indicate solid
comprehension
of the
company’s
capability and its
strategic
context. The
proposals show
sensitivity to
contextual
factors as well
as all of the
4.8 to >4.0 Pts
Pass
Proposes and
justifies partially
appropriate
potential
corporate or
international
strategy
directions that
indicate a basic
comprehension
of the
company’s
capability and its
strategic
context. The
proposals show
some sensitivity
to contextual
factors as well
as all of the
4 to >0 Pts
Fail
Proposes and/or
justifies
inappropriate
potential
corporate and
international
strategy
directions that
are difficult to
evaluate
because they
are vague. The
proposals
indicate limited
comprehension
of the company’s
capability and its
strategic context.
The proposals
are not sensitive
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
9 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
Criteria Ratings Pts
4 pts
factors as well
as all of the
ethical, logical,
and cultural
dimensions of
the problem.
as all of the
ethical, logical,
and cultural
dimensions of
the problem.
ethical, logical,
and cultural
dimensions of
the problem.
ethical, logical,
and cultural
dimensions of
the problem.
to contextual
factors as well
as all of the
ethical, logical,
and cultural
dimensions of
the problem. - REPORT
PRESENTATION +
REFERENCING
The overall
presentation and
quality, access and
use information
professionally and
referencing.
1.Professional
presentation with
recent references. - Includes Table of
Contents, numbered
headings and subheadings. - References in
Harvard style.
4 to >3.2 Pts
High
Distinction
Report meets
academic
requirements
with structured
headings and
sub-headings in
the Table of
Contents and
body of the
report. Report
structure flows
logically. It
shows an
exceptionally
clear
understanding of
subject matter
and appreciation
of issues; well
organised,
formulated and
sustained
arguments; well
thought out and
structured
diagrams;
relevant
literature
referenced.
Evidence of
creative insight
and originality in
terms of
comprehension,
application and
analysis with at
least some
synthesis and
evaluation. Very
high standard of
fluency and
3.2 to >2.8 Pts
Distinction
Report meets
academic
requirements
with structured
headings and
sub-headings in
the Table of
Contents and
body of the
report. It shows
a strong grasp of
subject matter
and appreciation
of key issues,
but lacks a little
on the finer
points; it has
clearly
developed
arguments,
relevant and well
structured
diagrams,
appreciation of
relevant
literature and
evidence of
creative and
solid work in
terms of
comprehension,
application,
analysis and
perhaps some
synthesis. 6.4 to
5.6 Pts Report
structure flows
logically with
some errors
among the
following:
standard of
2.8 to >2.4 Pts
Credit
Report meets
academic
requirements
with structured
headings and
sub-headings in
the Table of
Contents and
body of the
report. Report
structure mostly
flows logically
with some
errors among
the following:
standard of
fluency and
expression with
your academic
writing style but
with description
in some
sections;
spelling and
grammar.
Headings and
sub-headings
mostly align
with the content.
Complies with
the word limit.. It
has a
competent
understanding
of subject
matter and
appreciation of
some of the
main issues
though possibly
with some gaps,
clearly
2.4 to >2.0 Pts
Pass
Report mostly
meets academic
requirements in
the Table of
Contents and body
of the report.
Report structure
lacks logical flow
in some sections
with errors among
some of the
following: standard
of fluency and
expression with
your academic
writing style with
description in
some sections;
spelling and
grammar.
Numbered
headings and subheadings mostly
align with the
content. Complies
with the word limit.
Shows some
appreciation of
subject matter and
issues; work
generally lacks in
depth and breadth
and with gaps.
Often work of this
grade comprises a
simple factual
description (i.e.
basic
comprehension)
but little
application or
analysis. Work of
2 to >0 Pts
Fail
Report does
not meet
academic
requirements
in the Table of
Contents and
body of the
report. Report
structure lacks
logical flow in
some sections
with errors
among some
of the
following:
standard of
fluency and
expression
with your
academic
writing style
with
description in
some
sections;
spelling and
grammar.
Headings and
sub-headings
mostly align
with the
content.
Complies with
the word limit.
The literature
has not been
used
effectively,
with
references
poorly
integrated
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
10 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm
Total points: 40
Criteria Ratings Pts
expression with
your academic
writing style;
correct spelling
and grammar.
Headings and
sub-headings
align with the
content in each
section.
Complies with
the word limit. 8
to >6.4 Pts High
Distinction 1.
Has effectively
utilised the
literature, with
references
integrated
throughout the
report at a very
high standard,
with multiple
citations to
support the
analysis. 2. High
level of
consistency and
correct use of
Harvard
referencing
guidelines in-text
and in reference
list. The
reference list
only contains the
essential
sources that are
applied in-text
and vice versa.
fluency and
expression with
your academic
writing style;
spelling and
grammar.
Headings and
sub-headings
mostly align with
the content.
Complies with
the word limit. 1.
Has effectively
utilised the
literature, with
references
integrated
throughout the
report at a high
standard, to
support the
analysis. 2.
Strong level of
consistency and
correct use of
Harvard
referencing
guidelines in-text
and in reference
list. The
reference list
only contains the
essential
sources that are
applied in-text
and vice versa.
developed
arguments,
relevant
diagrams and
literature use,
perhaps with
some gaps, well
prepared and
presented. It
also has solid
evidence of
comprehension
and application
with perhaps
some analysis.
The literature
has been used
to support the
analysis at a
competent
standard, with
references
integrated
throughout the
report. 2.
Competent level
of consistency
and use of
Harvard
referencing
guidelines intext and in
reference list.
The reference
list only contains
sources that are
applied in-text
and vice versa.
this grade may be
poorly prepared
and presented.
Investment of
greater care and
thought in
organising and
structuring work
would be required
to improve. The
literature has
mostly been used
effectively, with
references
integrated
throughout the
report at a basic
standard -some
sections lack
citations. Basic
level of
consistency and
use of Harvard
referencing
guidelines in-text
and in reference
list and/or with
some errors in the
citations. The
reference list only
contains the
essential sources
that are applied intext and vice
versa.
Recommendation
– use the
university study
services to further
develop your
referencing skills
throughout the
report at an
unsatisfactory
standard, with
sections
lacking
citations. 2.
Does not meet
minimum
referencing
guidelines.
Poor
/inconsistent
application of
Harvard
referencing
guidelines intext and in
reference list
and/or with
errors in the
citations. The
reference list
contains
sources that
are/are not
applied in-text
and vice
versa.
Assessment 2: Strategy Formation | Individual
11 of 11 18/9/2022, 6:38 pm