Marking Scheme (Criteria)Assignment 1Strategy, Enterprise and InnovationLSBM3061Marking Guidance AS1 TaskMarking Guidance (Breakdown)Introduction (approx. 150 words)(5%)• The introduction shows a specific organization has been selected froma specific industry/sector in order to complete the tasks.• Introduce your chosen firm and its position within the sector/industry.This could include a brief overview of the company with clear evidenceof research from e.g its website and other relevant sources.• Explain briefly how you are going to analyse the firm in the report. (5%)(a) Critically analyse the internalresources and capabilities that give theorganisation a competitive advantage.(600 words)(30%)• The company’s internal distinctive resources and capabilities (corecompetences) have been clearly identified and critically analysed assources of competitive advantage. (15%)• Answer clearly shows application of some relevantmodels/frameworks [such as VRIO analysis for Core competencies(distinctive resources and capabilities), Value Chain analysis, SWOTanalysis] (15%)(b) Identify the key drivers of change inthe external environment and evaluatetheir impact on the entrepreneurialactivities of the organisation.In your response, use an appropriateframework and any relevant tools suchas mind map to analyse the externalenvironment. You may present yourwork in the format of a self-designeddiagram, a mind-map or a ‘mini-poster’which you can include in your report.(500 words)(20%)• PESTEL factors clearly applied to identify and critically analyse the keydrivers of change from the external environment and their impact onthe entrepreneurial activities of the selected company. The analysishighlights the opportunities and threats for the organization (20%)(c) Using Porter’s Five Forcesframework and/or any other relevanttools, evaluate the impact of the maincompetitive forces that are influencingentrepreneurial activities andprofitability within the industry.(600 words)(30%)• Porter’s Five Forces framework has been clearly applied to evaluatethe impact of the main competitive forces that are influencingentrepreneurial activities and profitability within the industry. (20%)• Other relevant tools (e.g P.A.R.T.S and/or Value Net) from Gametheory have also been clearly applied to analyse the competition andcomplementors that increase value within the industry. (10%)Conclusion (approx. 300 words)(5%)• The report provides a brief conclusion that highlights the main pointscovered in the completed tasks.• No new researched ideas or material expected in the conclusion, apartfrom the main points already covered in the tasks.• Based on what has been covered in above tasks, Conclusion only tofocus on providing a brief summary of how the firm uses the strengthsof its internal distinctive resources and capabilities to achievecompetitive advantage on the market, including some highlights of themain key drivers for change from the external factors, the impact of theorganisation and the main competitive forces that are influencingprofitability within the industry. (5%)Appropriate structure and use ofHarvard Referencing format(10%)• The report is well written following an appropriate structure (5%)• Harvard format has been correctly and consistently used in bothcitations and the reference list. This also includes correct use ofcitations where illustrations of relevant frameworks are presented inthe report. (5 %) 2Marking Criteria – LSBM306 AS1 CriteriaABCDF1. (a) Analysisof Corecompetence(distinctiveresources &capabilities)[15%]Excellent knowledgeand understanding ofthe company’s corecompetences(distinctive resourcesand capabilities) assources of competitiveadvantage.Very goodknowledge andunderstanding ofthe company’score competences(distinctiveresources andcapabilities) assources ofcompetitiveadvantage.Good knowledge andunderstanding of thecompany’s corecompetences(distinctive resourcesand capabilities) assources ofcompetitiveadvantage.Some reasonableattempt but lacksdepth and clarity ofknowledge andunderstanding ofthe company’s corecompetences(distinctiveresources andcapabilities) assources ofcompetitiveadvantage.Very weak answer thatfails to demonstrateminimum evidence ofknowledge andunderstanding of thecompany’s corecompetences(distinctive resourcesand capabilities) assources of competitiveadvantage. Largelydescriptive with verylimited analysis andevaluation of thecompany’s corecompetences.1 (b)Appropriateframeworks(VRIO, Valuechain, orSWOT) clearlyapplied[15%]Excellent application ofappropriateframeworks (e.g VRIO,Value chain, SWOT)carefully selected withcitations to supportanalysis of thecompany’s resourcesand capabilities.Demonstratesindependent thinkingwith clear evidence ofcritical analysis andevaluation withinteresting examples ofthe company’s corecompetences assources of competitiveadvantage.Very goodapplication ofappropriateframeworks (e.gVRIO, Value chain,SWOT) selectedwith citations tosupport analysis ofthe company’sresources andcapabilities.Demonstrates goodanalysis andevaluation withsome evidence ofindependentthinking andcoherentdiscussion of keypoints with goodexamples of thecompany’s corecompetences assources ofcompetitiveadvantage.Good application ofappropriateframeworks (e.gVRIO, Value chain,SWOT) selected withsome citations givento support analysis ofthe company’sresources andcapabilities.Reasonably goodeffort but ratherdescriptive in somesections of youranswer. This could beimproved with moreexamples and furtherdetails of criticalanalysis of thecompany’s corecompetences assources ofcompetitiveadvantage.Appropriateframeworks (e.gVRIO, Value chain,SWOT) identifiedbut lacks clearevidence ofapplication tosupport analysis ofthe company’sresources andcapabilities. Verylimited analysis andevaluation of thecompany’s corecompetences.Greater depth couldhave been providedmaking use of theapplied relevantconcepts andframeworks.Very weak answerlacking evidence ofapplication ofappropriate frameworks(e.g VRIO, Value chain,SWOT), which couldhave been applied withsupporting citations foranalysis of thecompany’s resourcesand capabilities. Moredetails and evidence ofcritical analysis andevaluation needsimprovement w/examples of thecompany’s corecompetences assources of competitiveadvantage.2. Evaluationof key driversfor changeusing PESTELfactors[20%]Excellentunderstanding ofPESTEL factors withclear evidence ofevaluation of the keydrivers of change andthe impact on thecompany. Very goodexamples ofopportunities andthreats for thecompany clearlyidentified andexplained.Very Goodunderstanding ofPESTEL factorswith someevidence ofevaluation of thekey drivers ofchange and theimpact on thecompany. Goodexamples ofopportunities andthreats for thecompany clearlyidentified andexplained.Good understandingof PESTEL factors.Some key drivers ofchange identified butevidence ofevaluation of theimpact on thecompany could stillbe improved. Someexamples ofopportunities andthreats for thecompany identifiedand reasonably wellexplained.Some reasonableunderstanding ofPESTEL factorsand some keydrivers of changeidentified. However,the answer is ratherdescriptive andlacks evidence ofevaluation of theimpact on thecompany. Thiscould be improvedwith more details ofcritical analysis andclear examples ofopportunities andthreats for thecompany.Very weak answerlacking a clearunderstanding of keydrivers of change fromPESTEL factors & theirimpact on thecompany. Lacksevidence of evaluationof the key drivers forchange and the impacton the company. Thisshould be improvedwith more details ofcritical analysis andclear examples ofopportunities andthreats for thecompany. 3 CriteriaABCDF3. (a) Industryanalysis usingPorter’s fiveforces andGame theorytools/models[20%]Excellent knowledgeand understanding ofPorter’s five forcesframework, which hasbeen clearly appliedwith citations tosupport analysis of thecompetitive forceswithin the industry,highlighting – e.gindustry profitability &attractiveness.Demonstrates verygood evidence ofindependent thinkingwith detailed criticalanalysis of the fivecompetitive forcesincluding someinteresting examplesgiven to support thekey points.Very goodknowledge andunderstanding ofPorter’s five forcesframework, whichhas been wellapplied withcitations to supportanalysis of thecompetitive forceswithin the industry,highlighting – e.gindustry profitability& attractiveness.Demonstrates goodevidence ofanalysis andindependentthinking withcoherentdiscussion of keypoints supported bysome goodexamples.Good knowledge andunderstanding ofPorter’s 5 forcesframework which hasbeen appliedreasonably well tosupport analysis ofcompetitive forceswithin the industry.Reasonably good effortbut rather descriptivein some sections. Thiscould be improved withmore examples andfurther details of criticalanalysis of fivecompetitive forceshighlighting – e.gindustry profitability &attractiveness.Some reasonableevidence ofknowledge andunderstanding ofPorter’s 5 forcesframework appliedto support analysisof the competitiveforces within theindustry.Reasonable attemptbut evidence islargely descriptive.Very limitedanalysis &evaluation. Thiscould be improvedwith more examplesand further detailsof critical analysis of5 competitive forceshighlighting – e.gindustry profitabilityand attractiveness.Very weak answerlacking evidence ofknowledge andunderstanding ofPorter’s 5 forcesframework, whichshould be clearlyapplied to supportanalysis of thecompetitive forceswithin the industry.More details and clearevidence of evaluationto be improved withclear examples tosupport critical analysisof 5 competitive forceshighlighting – e.gindustry profitability andattractiveness.3. (a) Industryanalysis usingGame theorytools e.g(PARTSand/or ValueNet)[10%]Very good evidence ofknowledge andunderstanding ofGame theory: ValueNet of complementorsand PARTS applied toanalyse competition,cooperation andinteraction betweenplayers in the industryGood evidence ofknowledge andunderstanding ofGame theory:Value Net ofcomplementorsand PARTSapplied to analysecompetition,cooperation andinteractionbetween playersin the industryReasonable attemptto apply Gametheory: Value Net ofcomplementors andPARTS but ratherdescriptive. Moredetails could still beadded to strengthenanalysis ofcompetition,cooperation andinteraction betweenplayers in the industryusing PARTS.Weak answer withlimited and/or lackof evidence ofGame theory: ValueNet ofcomplementors andPARTS, whichshould have beenapplied to analysecompetition,cooperation andinteraction betweenplayers.Very weak answer, thatlacks evidence ofGame theory: ValueNet of complementorsand PARTS, whichcould have beenapplied to analysecompetition,cooperation andinteraction betweenplayers.4. Introduction[5%]&Conclusion[5%]A very goodintroduction thathighlights key aspectsto be covered in thereport, and a clearoverview of theselected company.The report alsoprovides a very goodand brief conclusionthat highlights the keypoints covered in thereport.A goodintroduction thathighlights keyaspects to becovered in thereport, and a clearoverview of theselectedcompany.A good and briefconclusion thathighlights the keypoints covered inthe report.A reasonably goodintroduction thathighlights key aspectsto be covered in thereport, and anoverview of theselected company.A reasonably goodconclusion thathighlights some keypoints covered in thereport.Introduction fairlyattempts to highlightthe key aspects tobe covered in thereport, and anoverview of theselected company.Conclusionattempted but couldstill be improved byclearly highlightingsome key pointscovered in thereport.Very weak introductionthat fails to clearlyhighlight the keyaspects to be coveredin the report, includinga clear overview of theselected company.Very weak or Noevidence of Conclusionpresented. This couldbe improved by clearlyhighlighting some keypoints covered in thereport.5. AcademicConventions(i.e. Structure,layout, clarityof theresponses,overallimpression ofquality) [10%]Very well-writtenreport, showing acreative logicalstructure with coverpage, ToC, Intro., subsections & conclusion.Report demonstrateshigh quality andstandard of academiclanguage and writingstyle using appropriateconcepts. A range ofWell-written reportthat is easy-tofollow; shows alogical structurewith cover page,ToC, Intro., subsections &conclusion.Correct conceptsand languageused with onlyminor errors andReasonably wellstructured reportwhich is easy tofollow. Shows somelogical structure withcover page, ToC,Intro., sub-sections,reflection &conclusion. Somerelevant academicsources have beenidentified andReasonable attemptto follow theexpected structurefor the report.Shows some limitedlogical structurewith Intro., subsections & aconclusion. Limitedevidence ofresearch andsources identified.Structure of report isunclear, and workcontains significanterrors andinaccuracies.Proofreading couldhave helped to avoidsome spelling andgrammatical mistakesnoted in some sectionsof the report. Lacksclarity and difficult to 4 CriteriaABCDFrelevant academicsources have beenidentified andcompetently presentedin correct Harvardreferencing format inboth citations and thereference list.mostly accuratereferencing inboth citations andthe reference list.Good referencelist and citationspresented incorrect Harvardreferencingformat.reasonably wellpresented in Harvardreferencing formatalthough consistencycould still beimproved in bothcitations and thereference list.Harvard referencingformat attemptedbut consistencycould still beimproved in bothcitations and thereference list.follow. Use of correctconcepts and academiclanguage expected toimprove. Limitedsources and evidenceof research. Harvardformat attempted butshows weaknesses andsome gaps and errorsin both citations and thereference list.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS