Assignment 2

Instruction:
In this Assignment 2 you have to create a Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Map for the
company (TESCO) that you analysed in Assignment 1. Instruction is at below :

In the role of a management consultant, prepare a succinct and detailed business report
for the Board of Directors of your chosen company report aimed at the Board of Directors.
Extend your research from Assignment 1 on financial analysis of the performance of your
company (TESCO) to include financial and non-financial performance indicators; design a
balanced scorecard and linked strategy map and evaluate the techniques used.

Outline (8 parts)
1. Executive Summary
Provide a meaningful Executive Summary of approximately 200 words at the beginning
of your report
2. A short introduction approximately 150 words
3. Identify the vision and strategy of either (450 words)
the entire organisation or
one unit of the organisation, or
one major long-term financial and strategic investment that the
company is involved with.
4. Balance Scorecard (500 words)
Using published information and material from Coursework 1,
prepare a Balanced Scorecard suitable for use by the
directors and managers of your organisation to align business
activities to the identified vision and strategy, and to monitor
performance against strategic goals. Create a table/chart in
word document
5. A strategy map (400 words)
o Build a strategy map to describe and explain how each aspect
of the scorecard can assist your company in achieving its goals

and targets.
6. Recommendations to the Board (300 words)
o Summarise your recommendations to the Board.
7. Evaluation (500 words)
Critically discuss and evaluate, with reference to your particular
case, the use of Balanced Scorecards for performance
management and monitoring.
8. Format your report professionally and acknowledge all sources according to CULC
Harvard standard.

Notes
This assignment tests achievement of all our module learning outcomes:

1. Select and apply appropriate accounting techniques to critically analyse financial

data in a variety of business decision making scenarios
2. Make informed financial judgements based on the outcome of such accounting
analyses

3. Critically appraise the techniques used and the information to which they have
been applied

4. Demonstrate an critical understanding to the internal, external and legal

environments in which the judgements are being made

Report Format:
1. The maximum word count for the main text excluding tables is 2,500 words.
1 -Exceeding the word count by more than 10% can result in a reduction of
marks.

2 -Only the main text excluding any tables and diagrams counts, also
excluding the contents page, executive summary, list of references and
appendix.
2.

All pages must be numbered

3.

An executive summary of approximately 200 words is required

4.

A short introduction is required (and included in the word count), even if it is not explicit in
the assessment criteria.

5.

A reasonable number of appendices may be used for relevant supporting information and
to demonstrate your calculations and analysis.
Special plagiarism warning:
This warning is in addition to our general policy on academic practice:

Do not feel tempted to copy a Balanced Scorecard from the internet. The task is
that you develop the Balanced Scorecard yourself.

Do not feel tempted to copy a Strategy Map from the internet. The task is that you
develop a Strategy Map yourself based on your own Balanced Scorecard.

When you take ideas or information from Coursework 1, please make sure you
acknowledge it like any other source in-text and in the reference list. Direct quotes
must be marked with quotation marks. An appropriate entry in the reference list
would look like: Teekeng, N., Chongmankhong, Y. and Mwangi, H. (2012) Google
Financial Analysis. Unpublished Coursework. London: Coventry University London
Campus Quoting your own material from previous coursework without
acknowledgement is called self plagiarism and a form of academic misconduct
equal to other forms of plagiarism.

The rubric by which your report will be assessed follows on pages 3-5. It is
important that prior to you submitting your work, you read this and objectively
assess your response against the rubric. This will ensure that you have done
enough to attain the marks you wish to achieve.

Assessment criteria
Task and
category

Score per category (max. 20x5=100)

0
1
2

1. Identify the vision and strategy

Criterion 1
Identification
of current
strategy

no attempt

The current
strategy has
not been
identified
clearly
enough.

The current
strategy has
been clearly
identified.

The current
strategy has
been clearly
identified and
vaguely put
into some
context.

The current
strategy has
been clearly
identified and
put into a
general
context.

The
current
strategy has
been
clearly
identified and
put into very
clear context.
This may be
the
competition in
the
market,
the
development
from previous
strategies, or
the
relationship to
the
overall
organisations
strategy.
Please note: This section counts for only 5 points but doing well in this section is important for being successful in all
following sections.

The design of
a BSC has
been shown
but not applied
to the
company at
all, or only with
very few
relevant data,
or the BSC
exists only in
rudiments.
The different
perspectives
are not
sufficiently
balanced.

The BSC
shows all
important
features but at
a rather
general and
rudimentary
level.

An appropriate
and almost
complete BSC
has been
developed but
remains
general within
each
perspective or
lacks some
items.

An appropriate
and complete
BSC has been
developed.

A proficient
and complete
BSC has been
developed.

The different
perspectives
are sufficiently
balanced but
this balance
not mentioned.

The different
perspectives
are sufficiently
balanced and
this balance
mentioned.

The different
perspectives
are well
balanced and
this balance
explained.

The different
perspectives
are well
balanced and
this balance
explained and
justified.
The objectives
are entirely
appropriate to
lead to the
overall
achievement
of the
company
goals
identified
earlier. They
are justified
throughout.
The KPI are
entirely
appropriate to
measure
achievement
of the
objectives.

2. Balanced Scorecard (BSC)

Criterion 2
BSC
Development
and Balance

no attempt

Criterion 3
BSC Balance

no attempt

Criterion 4
BSC
Objectives

no attempt

The objectives
are
unimaginative
(possibly from
a textbook)
and have no
relation to the
identified
company
goals.

The objectives
are generally
appropriate for
a company but
have little
relation to the
identified
company
goals.

The objectives
are generally
appropriate for
a company but
a clear link to
the identified
company
goals is
missing in
places.

The objectives
are highly
appropriate to
lead to the
overall
achievement
of the
company
goals
identified
earlier.

Criterion 5
BSC KPI
(Measures)

no attempt

KPI are listed

but their
choice
appears
random or
from a
textbook.

Some KPI
have been
chosen but not
sufficiently
defined and
justified.

Mostly well
defined KPI
have been
chosen but not
necessarily
fully justified.

Well defined
KPI have been
chosen and
justified,
sometimes
indirectly.

Criterion 6
BSC Targets

no attempt

Criterion 7
BSC
Initiatives

no attempt

Task and
category

Score per category (max. 20x5=100)

0

Targets are
listed but their
choice
appears
random or
from a
textbook.
Initiatives are
listed but their
choice
appears
random or
from a
textbook.

Some targets
have been
chosen but not
justified.

Mostly well
defined targets
have been
chosen but not
necessarily
fully justified.

Well defined
targets have
been chosen
and justified,
sometimes
indirectly.

The targets
are entirely
appropriate to
for the chosen
KPI, realistic
and justified.

The initiatives
are sufficiently
related to the
chosen targets
for the KPI.

The initiatives
are generally
well related to
the chosen
targets for the
KPI.

The initiatives
are feasible
and
appropriate to
achieve the
chosen targets
for the KPI.

The initiatives
are feasible
and entirely
appropriate to
achieve the
chosen targets
for the KPI.

3. Strategy Map
Criterion 8
BSC
Summary

no attempt

The strategy
map is not
sufficiently
related to
strategies and
the BSC.

The strategy
map is related
to strategies
and the BSC.

The strategy
map generally
summarises
the developed
strategies and
is well related
to the BSC.

Criterion 9
Links

no attempt

The strategy
map lacks
many
important links
between goals
of different
perspectives.

The strategy
map shows
some
important links
between goals
of different
perspectives.

Criterion 10
Communicate
s strategies

no attempt

The strategy
map is unable
to reflect the
strategy.

The strategy
map
sufficiently
reflects the
strategy.

The strategy
map shows
many
important links
between goals
of different
perspectives
and maps
some cause
and effect
relationships
between them.
The strategy
map
communicates
the strategy
generally well.

The strategy
map
summarises
the developed
strategies well
and is clearly
based on the
BSC.
The strategy
map clearly
shows
important links
between goals
of different
perspectives
and maps
most cause
and effect
relationships
between them.
The strategy
map
communicates
the strategy
well and helps
to focus on it.

The strategy
map succinctly
summarises
the developed
strategies and
is clearly
based on the
BSC.
The strategy
map clearly
shows all links
between goals
of different
perspectives
and precisely
maps all
cause and
effect
relationships
between them.
The strategy
map clearly
communicates
the strategy
and helps to
focus on it.

4. Recommendations
Criterion 11
Quality of
recommendat
ions

no attempt

Recommendations are only

remotely
appropriate or
relevant.

Recommendations are
sufficiently
appropriate.

Recommendations are
appropriate
and clearly
related to prior
analysis, the
BSC and
Strategy Map.

Recommendations are
appropriate,
relevant, and
fully based on
prior analysis,
the BSC and
Strategy Map.

Criterion 12
Justification
of
recommendat
ions

no attempt

Recommendations are not

sufficiently
justified.

Recommendations are
justified,
sometimes
implicitly.

Recommendations are
clearly
justified.

Criterion 13
Order and
decision
parameters

no attempt

The order of
priority has.

Most recommendations
are sufficiently
justified,
although often
implicitly.
An order of
priority has
been
attempted.

Recommendations are
entirely
appropriate,
relevant,
original, and
fully based on
prior analysis,
the BSC and
Strategy Map.
Recommendations are fully
justified with
evidence.

Recommendations are listed

in order of
priority and
decision
parameters
mentioned but

Recommendations are listed

in order of
priority and
decision
parameters
are clearly

Recommendations are
correctly listed
in order of
priority and
decision
parameters

not always
convincing.

Task and
category

mentioned.

are clearly
identified
(reasonablene
ss, economic
efficiency,
effectiveness,
sensitivity,
etc.)

Score per category (max. 20x5=100)

0

5. Critically discuss and evaluate the use of Balanced Scorecards

Criterion 14
Practical use

no attempt

The practical
uses of BSCs
for
performance
management
and
monitoring are
hardly
appreciated.

The practical
uses of BSCs
for
performance
management
and
monitoring are
sufficiently
appreciated.

The practical
uses of BSCs
for
performance
management
and
monitoring are
well
appreciated.

The practical
uses of BSCs
for
performance
management
and
monitoring are
well
appreciated in
the wider
context of
strategic
management.

The practical
uses of BSCs
for
performance
management
and monitoring
are fully
appreciated in
the wider
context of
strategic
management.

Criterion 15
Limitations

no attempt

The limitations
of BSCs are
not sufficiently
taken note of.

The practical
limitations of
BSCs are well
appreciated,
but less so the
theoretical.

The
theoretical and
practical
limitations of
BSCs are well
appreciated.

The theoretical
and practical
limitations of
BSCs are fully
appreciated.

Criterion 16
Evaluation

no attempt

The evaluation
is not based
on any
weighing up of
advantages
and
disadvantages
.

The limitations
of BSCs are
listed but a
clear
understanding
not
demonstrated.
An evaluation
is attempted
but does not
always follow
from a
weighing up of
advantages
and
disadvantages
.

The evaluation
is based on
some
weighing up of
advantages
and
disadvantages
.

The evaluation
is based on a
critical
discussion
and reflects on
the
significance of
BSCs in
strategic
management.

Criterion 17
Reading

no attempt

The
discussion
and evaluation
demonstrate
too little
reading
around the
topic.

The
discussion
and evaluation
demonstrate
some reading
around the
topic, mainly
web pages
rather than
academic or
business
literature.

The
discussion
and evaluation
demonstrate
good reading
around the
topic, albeit
not always the
highest quality
choice.

The
discussion
and evaluation
demonstrate
wide reading
of some
important
literature
around the
topic.

The evaluation
is based on a
thorough
critical
discussion and
systematically
reflects on the
significance of
BSCs in
strategic
management.
The
discussion and
evaluation
demonstrate
exceptionally
wide reading
of significant
literature
around the
topic.

A general
statement of
little value for
the reader.

A summary of
intentions or
headlines
rather than
results and
recommendati
ons.

A general
summary of
issues, results
and recommendations
that would
benefit from
more
precision.

A succinct
summary of
issues, results
and recommendations
that captures
the essence of
the report well.

6. Executive Summary
Criterion 18
Executive
Summary

no attempt

7. Professional format

A succinct
summary of
issues, results
and recommendations
that precisely
captures the
essence of the
report.

Criterion 19
Sources and
referencing

no attempt

Some sources
were not
acknowledged
/ referencing
style is not
recognisable /
Incomplete
reference list

Criterion 20
Professional
writing style
and layout,
following all
format
requirements
.

no attempt

The report is
difficult to
read, lacks
professional
presentation
and does not
follow format
requirements

All sources
were
acknowledged
but Harvard
style needs to
be revised.
Some sources
acknowledged
in-text not
listed in the
references
The report
reads well but
lacks
professional
presentation
and does not
follow format
requirements

All sources
were fully
acknowledged
but Harvard
style needs to
be revised

All sources
were fully
acknowledged
although not
entirely
consistently
according to
Harvard style

All sources
were fully
acknowledged
according to
Harvard
referencing
style

The report is
well presented
in writing style
and layout,
following
almost all
format
requirements

The report is
presented as
a professional
report in
writing style
and layout,
following all
format
requirements

The report is
presented as
an entirely
professional
report in
writing style
and layout,
following all
format
requirements