MGT303 ASSIGNMENT 4

Strategic Management

MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Version 1

© Southern Institute of Technology 2015
 Southern Institute of Technology

Strategic Management

ASSIGNMENT TASK 4

Activity Title: Assignment 4

Paper Number and MGT303 – Strategic Management

Title:
Level 7, 15 credits, Version 1

Assessed Learning
Outcomes: Assess factors that influence the effectiveness of strategy implementation.

Evaluate strategic performance.

4, 5

Conditions: This is a compulsory assignment. It must be submitted and makes up

18% of your final result for this paper.

The completed assignment is to be submitted to your facilitator via

Blackboard by the due date.

MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Version 1

© Southern Institute of Technology 2015
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Word count: 1500-2000 words excluding your referencing

"On December 7, 2004, IBM sold its whole personal computing Division to the Chinese computer
company Lenovo to create a new worldwide PC company - the globe's third largest at the time (behind
HP and Dell) - with approximately $12 billion in annual revenue. Simultaneously, though, IBM said that
it would be taking an 18.9 percent equity stake in Lenovo, creating a strategic alliance between IBM
and Lenovo in PC sales, financing and service worldwide". (Ghillyer, 2014).

The following links will be a good starting point when considering the questions for this assignment.

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/52/Lenovo-Group-Ltd.html
http://www.chinatechnews.com/2011/09/21/15642-lenovo-locates-global-headquarters-in-
zhongguancun
http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1610

Assignment questions:

1. Identify and evaluate the organisational structure that has been chosen by Lenovo to implement
its international business strategy/ies?

2. Critical evaluate how Lenovo and IBM use cooperative strategy/ies to innovate and to have
access to innovative capabilities?

3. Explain how strategic entrepreneurship is used by Lenovo and IBM to create value?

Make sure you reference all of your sources using the correct APA referencing conventions.

Make sure you read the Marking Schedule below carefully before embarking on the assignment.
It will give you clear idea of what we are looking for in the submission!

Collaboration:

You might at times feel isolated and feel the need to run ideas by your fellow students. Make sure you
use the Discussion Board to communicate with your peers and exchange resources and ideas. There
is a Forum available just for that purpose. Please use it. If you have questions which you want to address
to your facilitator, don’t hesitate to contact them. You will find their contact details on the announcement
page.

The report of course will have to be your own work but collaboration at the planning stages and
sharing of resources is encouraged.

MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Version 1

© Southern Institute of Technology 2015
 Marking schedule

Criteria E (0-39) D (40-49) C (50-64) B (65-79) A (80-100)

Organisational Highly flawed Flawed discussion Reasonable Comprehensive Excellent discussion of

structure discussion fails to of the structure discussion of the discussion of the the structure including
link to the including controls structure including structure including controls in relation to
Weighting organisation in relation to the controls in relation to controls in relation to the organisation.
organisation, too the organisation. the organisation.
22% Highly flawed Excellent evaluation of
general.
evaluation clear Reasonable Sound evaluation of the structures in
lack of Flawed evaluation evaluation of the the structures in relation to the
understanding. of the structures in structures in relation to relation to the organisation.
relation to the the organisation. At organisation.
Clear elaboration on
organisation. Not times not specific
Clear elaboration on how strategy
specific enough, enough, too general.
how strategy influences structure
too general.
Reasonable influences structure and vice versa.
Flawed elaboration on how and vice versa.
Evaluation goes into
elaboration on strategy influences
Relevant examples great depths. Inspired.
how strategy structure and vice
support the
influences versa. Persuasive and
argument.
structure and vice pertinent examples
Examples could be
versa. throughout.
more relevant and
Lacks examples to convincing.
make a convincing
case.

Use of Highly flawed Flawed evaluation Reasonable Good evaluation of Excellent evaluation of
strategy to evaluation, lack of of cooperative evaluation of cooperative strategy cooperative strategy
logic, evidence of strategy logical cooperative strategy logical link to market logical link to market
innovate
serious link to market logical link to market cycles. cycles.
misunderstanding. cycles. cycles.
Weighting Sound evaluation of Excellent evaluation of
22% Acceptable Acceptable evaluation how the alliance how the alliance helps
evaluation of how of how the alliance helps the firm the firm access
the alliance helps helps the firm access access innovative innovative capabilities
the firm access innovative capabilities capabilities and and effects its
innovative and effects its effects its competitiveness.
capabilities and competitiveness. competitiveness.
Evaluation goes into
effects its
Evaluation would In depth evaluation great depths. Inspired.
competitiveness.
benefit from more
Relevant examples Persuasive and
Lack of depth depth
support the pertinent examples
Lacks examples to Examples could be argument. throughout.
make a convincing more relevant and
case. convincing.

Strategic Highly flawed Flawed evaluation Reasonable Sound evaluation of Excellent evaluation of
entrepreneurs evaluation, lacks of how the evaluation of how the how the organisation how the organisation
focus and clarity. organisation organisation create create value through create value through
hip
Evidence of create value value through strategic strategic alliance. strategic alliance.
serious through strategic alliance.
Weighting In depth evaluation Evaluation goes into
misunderstanding. alliance.
21% Evaluation would great depths. Inspired.
Relevant examples
Lack of depth benefit from more
support the Persuasive and
depth
Lacks examples to argument. pertinent examples
make a convincing Examples could be throughout.
case. more relevant and
convincing.

MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Version 1

© Southern Institute of Technology 2015
Organisation/ No flow Poorly organised Generally well Coherently Exceptionally well
logic. and difficult to organised although organised and structured. Logic is
No argument.
read. Does not the flow of the logical formation of easy to follow.
Weighting 5% flow logically from argument is not sound argument. Arguments are sound
one part to always logical. and convincing.
another. The Argument is clear and
argument is not mostly sound.
clear.

Writing. No consideration Acceptable Tidy presentation. Good presentation. Polished presentation.

for presentation. presentation.
Weighting 5% Mostly clear writing Clear writing mainly Clear, concise and
Little evidence of Some evidence of that shows acceptable to the point. Mostly well-structured writing
clear writing or clear or structured organisation and well organised and throughout.
structure, very writing. structure. structured writing.
All arguments are
difficult to follow.
Argument weak or Argument is generally Most arguments are sound and convincing
Argument very unconvincing. clear. sound and
Excellent spelling and
unsound or weak. convincing.
Some grammatical Few issues around grammar, correct in all
Numerous spelling and/or spelling grammar and/or Good spelling and aspects.
and/or errors that impact spelling, some of grammar with only
grammatical errors noticeably on which have a minor minor oversights
that have a readability. impact on readability. that do not impact
significant impact on readability.
on readability.

Research. No scholarly Less than 3 3-4 scholarly sources. 5-6 scholarly 7+ scholarly sources.
sources, no scholarly sources sources.
Weighting Some sources lack Sources are well-
evidence of or sources are not
relevance or authority Sources are mostly chosen, authoritative
20% research or not relevant for the
but are still well-chosen, and are appropriate
relevant for the task.
appropriate for the authoritative and for the task.
task.
Limited task. appropriate for the
Excellent
Very limited understanding. task.
Adequate understanding.
understanding.
Little evidence of understanding. Good
The research is very
The research has meaningful understanding.
The research could be well integrated with
not been linked to integration of the
incorporated with the The research is the main text.
the main text. research with the
main text more integrated with the
main text.
consistently. main text.

In-text More than 5 4-5 errors. 2-3 errors. 1 error. No errors.

citations and errors.

Reference list
APA
formatted.

Weighting 5%

MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Version 1

© Southern Institute of Technology 2015
Reference:

Dr. Ghillyer, A. W. (2014). Business Ethics Now. (pp. 184-185) New York, U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill
Education.

MGT303 Strategic Management, Level 7, Credits 15, Version 1

© Southern Institute of Technology 2015