CASE EXAMPLE Google: who drives the strategy? Phyl Johnson, Strategy Explorers From an idea to a verb in less than 15 years: 'to Google - to search the Internet' If you are in need of the answer to a question and close to a computer what do you do: Google it. With the exception of 'Hoover' it is hard to think of another example of an organisation whose product's name has become so synonymous with the activity of the product that it becomes a commonly used verb. Google has achieved this in just a few years, growing at an eye-watering pace to its current internationally dominant position in internet search. It has to be one of the most successful strategies ever; so how did they do it? Unsurprisingly, Google has attracted the attention of analysts, researchers and other organisations trying to uncover their formula for success. Moreover, their business model has taken over from GE and IBM before it as the model to learn and replicate. At the heart of this hugely successful enterprise is a famously unstructured style of operating and a CEO who claims their strategy is based on trial and error: can this really be the case? 'Google is unusual because it's really organized from the bottom up. . . . It often feels at Google people are pretty much doing what they think best and they tolerate having us around. . . . We don't really have a five-year plan. . . . We really focus on what's new, what's exciting and how can you win quickly with your new idea.' Eric Schmidt, Google CEO1 About Google Google started life as the brainchild of Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were students at the IT powerhouse Stanford University in the USA. Google was born from coursework the pair undertook in 1998 to improve internet search engine results. After University and when Page and Brin launched their own search engine product, it gained followers and users very quickly, attracted financial backing and enabled them to launch their IPO* in the USA stock market in 2004, so making Google a publicly owned corporation. * IPO: Initial Public Offering of shares in a company to the public to buy, often referred to as the flotation of a company on a stock market. Source: Press Association Images/Mark Lennihan/AP. From the beginning Google has been different. Page and Brin insisted that their IPO follow a very unusual route: instead of using investment banks as dictators of their initial share price, they launched a kind of open IPO. In this auction, buyers decided on the fair price for a share and not the investment banks. A quirky route to market that some saw as arrogant and established a theme for Google: breaking the mould. This continued as Google set up its governance structure with a two-tier board of directors, common in some European countries [e.g. Germany] but extremely rare in the USA. The advantage of the two-tier system for founders Page and Brin was the additional distance it places between them and their shareholders and the increased managerial freedom it offered to them to run their company their way. Page confirmed this by penning an open letter to shareholders claiming that Google was not a conventional company and that they did not intend to become one. Running the company the Google way involved another curious and unlikely twist in 2001. Page and Brin recruited successful CEO Eric Schmidt from Novell Inc and, between the three of them, they shared power at the top. Schmidt dealt with administration and the company's investors and had the most traditional CEO role. Page was centrally concerned with the social structure of Google whilst Brin took a lead in the area of ethics. There have been very few successful triumvirates in history and many epic failures. Either politics and confusion create rifts in which three become GOOGLE: WHO DRIVES THE STRATEGY? two and two become one; or the three power holders become overly consensual. But against the odds it went well for Google. With 132 million customers and a network of 1 million computers worldwide, Google is without a doubt the dominant player in internet search with 67.5% market share, way ahead of Yahoo [8.4%].2 But they are also widely diversified thanks to their highly acquisitive approach to business. Their other areas of operation include Blogging, Radio & TV Advertising, Online Payment Services, Social Networks and Mobile Phone Operating Systems. Their guiding principle in acquisition seems to be: if they can't innovate something in-house, buy it. In this way Google were buying a product, technical expertise and usually a fan base of early adopters. This is in contrast to Apple, for example, who seek to innovate in-house. In the period between 2001 and 2009 they acquired some 50 companies. Many of these were small starts-ups but others were already established with a significant enough band of internet followers to be attractive, the most famous of which was YouTube in 2001 for $1.65 (~a1.15) billion. In 2010, Google was still expanding at a startling rate,* and following twin tracks in its operation, those of search tools and productivity tools. Their aim to retain their position as the King of Search but always follow the same mantra was delivered on multiple YouTube broadcasts by the senior Google executives: 'To organize the world's information'. The disorganisation organisation In many ways, life inside the Googleplex [Google's HQ] is the image of a disorganised organisation where it can be difficult to work out who is responsible for what. An example of this was Google's failure to renew its own domain name in the German market in 2007 as well as an instance when no legal representative for the company appeared at a Belgian law suit. Google famously launch half-finished products into the market and don't control information flow about their products by advertising: in fact they don't advertise at all. With regard to product development their approach is to launch a part-finished [beta] product, let Google fanatics find it, toy with it, essentially error-check and de-bug it. This may be a good use of end users but also a significant release of control. The legacy of Google's rapid growth is an organisation with less structuring than would be expected for * An example of their pace in growth being employee numbers, from 1,628 employees in 2003 to 19,604 in 2008. 427 its size and breadth of operation. Control of workflow, quality and to a large extent the nature of projects that are under way is down to employees and not management. Google is a famously light-managed organisation. They have a 1:20 ratio of employees to managers. This is half the number of managers that would be the case in the average US organisation [1:10] and considerably less than some European countries [France 1:7.5]. Engineers work in small autonomous teams and the work they produce is quality assured using peer review and not classical supervision. So there is the potential for these small work teams, with their freedom for selfinitiated project work, to create a situation of project proliferation in which a large percentage of activity may not be contributing to the strategic direction the leadership wish the firm to take. Moreover, engineers at Google are allowed to allocate 20% of their work time to personal projects that interest them as a means to stimulate innovation and create new knowledge as well as potential products. However, some commentators suggest that reports from inside Google estimate many engineers spend more like 30% of their time on labour of their own choice - a lot of opportunity for new ideas but also for chaos. This form of highly organic organisation [sometimes referred to as an ecosystem] is more familiar in much smaller organisations, under the 300 employee level and in creative industries such as advertising agencies. But for an organisation the size of Google [more than 16,000 employees] the disorganisation and anti-bureaucratic approach is something that they pride themselves on. 'Google is run by its culture and not by me. . . . It's much easier to have an employee base in which case everybody is doing exactly what they want every day. They're much easier to manage because they never have any problems. They're always excited, they're always working on whatever they care about. . . . But it's a very different model than the traditional, hierarchical model where there's the CEO statement and this is the strategy and this is what you will do, and it's very very measured. We put up with a certain amount of chaos from that.' Eric Schmidt: CEO3 The rigid organisation Irrespective of the image that Google has as an organisation that sees the benefits in releasing managerial control and rigid hold over strategic direction, there are some significant areas of rigidity built into the system. One key area is that of recruitment. With an extremely highly rated employment brand, Google can afford to be choosy. Close to 100 talented applicants 428 CHAPTER 12 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES chase each job at the Googleplex. The pay is competitive but not way ahead of the competition. However, perks, including free meals, a swimming pool and massages, all help attract employees. So too does the 20% of free time engineers can spend on their own interests. In return Google have rigid recruitment criteria and processes and are unashamedly elitist. Engineers must have either a Masters or Doctorate from a leading University and they must pass through a series of assessment tests and interviews. The criteria for these are derived in a highly scientific manner; after all Google measure everything. The end product of this is that Google actually recruit against a psychometric profile* of googleness and can therefore hire and retain a fairly predictable employee population: much easier to manage. Their laissez-faire attitude toward the management of employees can be read as control as well as freedom. Peer review is a famously stringent form of performance management. Amongst professionals, reputation is key and if someone is being reviewed by peers the pattern is toward harder and higher quality work. The way peer reviews are carried out and indeed the way many processes within Google are followed is formulaic and rigid. For example, work teams are kept small and limited to a maximum of six. Projects to be worked on must be limited, deadlines are short [no longer than six weeks] and as ever in Google there is measurement. 'Everyone who meets Sergy Brin notices his aptitude as a mathematician. Math is everywhere at Google: in pricing policy, in discussions among engineers, in decisions about whether to develop a new product, in the development of those products in recruiting, and in evaluating employee performance. Google measures and analyzes everything.' Girard (2009 pp. 97-98) 'We're very analytical. We measure everything, and we systematized every aspect of what's happening in the company. For example, we introduced a spreadsheet product this week. I've already received hourly updates on the number of people who came in to apply to use the spreadsheet, the number of people using it, the size of the spreadsheet.' Eric Schmidt4 * Personality type. Google's internal technical platform is a major part of its success. They have the capacity to record and analyse vast aspects of data from their user and customer groups. In addition, there is an in-house intranet called 'Moma' that tracks huge amounts of data in real time. Google is all about information, capturing it, tracking it and applying it all in a systematic and organised manner. The technology itself is the strategy and the strategy is the technology. As Google continues to travel at a high velocity into the future, on some level major decisions have been and remain to be made. Who decided to buy YouTube and make the other acquisitions? Who do the shareholders hold responsible for strategic success and failure? In early 2010, Google back-tracked on a deal they had made with China to allow some content to be censored by the Chinese authorities. However, after a security breach into its gmail system, Google reversed course. Who made these decisions? Moreover, as information capture about users and the personalisation of search engines to those users becomes more advanced, so does the hunger of organisations and perhaps even governments for that information. The triumvirate who run Google find themselves with some big strategic thinking to do around decisions that will have huge ramifications around the Google world. Primary source: Girard B. (2009) The Google Way: How one company is revolutionizing management as we know it. No Starch Press, San Francisco, CA. References: 1. Interview by Nicholas Carlson with Google CEO Eric Schmidt: 'We Don't Really Have A Five-Year Plan' Washington Post Leadership series 20 May 2009. 2. Cited in Web Ultimatum shakes the great firewall of China to its foundations The Times, 14 January 2010. 3. As above. 4. Quoted on p. 97 of Girard (2009). Questions 1 What influences strategy development in Google? 2 What are the strengths and weaknesses of their approach? 3 Is the Google approach transferable to other organisations? CASE EXAMPLE Hurricane Katrina: human-made disaster? Introduction Early on Monday morning, 29 August 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the southern American state of Louisiana, rushing quickly inland to the city of New Orleans. With wind speeds at 125 miles per hour (200 km/h), the levees (dykes) protecting the city collapsed in several places. Over the next few days, the world watched in horror as New Orleans and the surrounding areas struggled with chaos. Hurricane Katrina claimed 1,836 lives and left vivid images of bodies floating in the streets, families stranded on rooftops and 25,000 hungry and thirsty people trapped for days in the notorious Superdome. Six months after the hurricane, more than half of New Orleans' population had still not returned to the city. Ultimately, of course, the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina had natural causes. But there is every sign that the damage and suffering were significantly increased by organisational failures. The disaster of Hurricane Katrina was partly a consequence of organisational design. A new organisation The government organisation ultimately responsible for coordinating the response to Katrina was the US Department of Homeland Security. This itself was a recent creation, a reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. One finding from investigations into the circumstances surrounding 9/11 was the difficulty of coordinating all the information regarding terrorist threats. For example, before the attacks, a flight training school had alerted local authorities about a student who only seemed interested in learning how to fly civil airliners, not about how to take off or land. But the information had not been passed on to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI): the student went on to be one of the terrorist hijackers involved in 9/11. The US government responded to 9/11 by placing terrorism as the highest priority. It believed that one way of improving coordination in response to potential terror threats was by centralising relevant government Source: Reuters/Robert Galbraith. departments. Nine days after the 9/11 attack, President Bush appointed Pennsylvania Governor and decorated Vietnam veteran Tom Ridge to create and head a new department. The White House vetoed some of Tom Ridge's more radical proposals, so that both the Justice Department and the FBI remained independent. However, finally 22 departments were swept together in 2002 to create the new Department for Homeland Security (see Figure 1 for an organisational chart). Involving more than 180,000 employees, this was the biggest reorganisation of the US government since the creation of the Pentagon in 1947. Amongst the major agencies that were gathered together under Tom Ridge's command were Customs, Immigration, Narcotics, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service and, most important here, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). All were to unite in the fight against terrorism. As the head of the US Customs Service said: 'Terrorism is our highest priority, bar none. Ninety eight per cent of my attention . . . has been devoted to that one issue.' Tom Ridge anticipated turf battles between the newly amalgamated agencies but declared: 'The only turf we should be worried about protecting is the turf we stand on.' FEMA, however, resisted the reorganisation. Responsible for responding to natural disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes, FEMA had since 1993 been represented directly inside the President's Cabinet. 460 CHAPTER 13 ORGANISING FOR SUCCESS Figure 1 Department of Homeland Security organisation chart Source: http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0644.shtm. Merger within the new Department of Homeland Security relegated FEMA to a mere internal division, with no direct Cabinet-level representation. FEMA's then head protested to the President's chief of staff: 'I told him it was a big mistake. The fact that FEMA could report to the President, any President - Democrat, Republican or independent - was what made the agency effective.' In the wake of 9/11, of course, this sounded like special pleading. Within the new organisation, response to natural disasters had a low priority. In 2004, the Department drew up a list of 15 planning scenarios, doomsday events that could cause major fatalities. Twelve of these involved shadowy international terrorist groups, with plots involving mustard gas, sarin, nuclear weapons and anthrax, amongst other imaginative possibilities. One planning scenario did raise the threat of a hurricane flooding a nameless southern city and causing more than a thousand deaths. But terror attacks held the attention and these attracted the budgets. Resources for protection against natural disasters began to get squeezed. Tom Ridge retired and was replaced by a new Secretary for Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, a former judge. Various FEMA functions were stripped off and reallocated to other parts of the reorganisation. FEMA lost $80m (~a56m) from its $550m operating budget. It struggled to get resources for rehearsing a response to a New Orleans hurricane scenario, and when it did do so, funds were denied for a follow-up. Between 2000 and 2005, the budget for the New Orleans Engineering Corps, responsible for the levees protecting the city, was cut by 44 per cent. Meanwhile, the Ohio Fire Service was able to get funds for bulletproof vests to protect their dogs in the event of terrorist attack. Testing the new organisation Hurricane Katrina gave several days' notice, forming over the Bahamas on 23 August and sweeping over Florida two days later. Early on Saturday morning, 27 August, a FEMA watch officer posted a warning of a severe hurricane threat to the New Orleans area, capable of causing thousands of fatalities. Michael Chertoff was at home that day, working on immigration issues. On Saturday night, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin ordered HURRICANE KATRINA: HUMAN-MADE DISASTER? an evacuation of the city's 400,000 citizens. But, with no certainty that the hurricane would actually hit, and with what force, not everybody wanted to leave their homes for fear of looting. Moreover, many had no means of transport, including tragically many old people who were to be trapped without power in their nursing homes. When the hurricane struck on the Monday morning, 60,000 people were still in New Orleans. The city was not ready. FEMA's planning for the state of Louisiana as a whole had called for 69 truckloads of water, 69 truckloads of ice and 34 truckloads of food to be in place. It planned for 400 buses and 800 drivers to ferry people to shelters. On the Sunday, FEMA had just 30 truckloads of water, 17 truckloads of ice and 15 truckloads of meals. FEMA had no buses in the state at all. FEMA had got one officer into the city on the Sunday, but was otherwise not represented locally. When the flooding started, communications broke down. The various services had different communications systems, and the batteries on mobile devices soon ran down, with no power available to recharge. FEMA's high-tech communications wagon only reached New Orleans on the Friday (long after the world's journalists) and in the meantime Mayor Nagin's team had broken into an Office Depot store in order to steal functioning communications equipment. The sole FEMA officer on the ground had to bully his way onto one of the few helicopters available to confirm the broken levees on the first day. The Department of Homeland Security operations centre in Washington, guarding against panic responses, insisted on verification by a second source before passing the message up the chain, but no second source was available. Secretary Chertoff briefed President Bush about immigration issues on Monday morning, and made no mention of the hurricane. The Department of Homeland Security struggled to cope over the following days. Michael Brown, FEMA's Head, flew to nearby Baton Rouge, but suffered from poor communications and found himself increasingly bypassed by Department Head Michael Chertoff in 461 Washington. The evacuation of the Superdome only began on the Friday, after the instigation of food rationing, and the Washington operations centre overlooked 20,000 refugees at the New Orleans Convention Center for several days, thinking it the same building as the Superdome. Aircraft were delayed because of the lack of air marshals required by anti-terrorist regulations. The Department of Homeland Security insisted that all evacuees would have to be security screened before being allowed on planes, and then took eight hours to fly in security staff. A large consignment of food packs from the United Kingdom was turned away because of fears of Mad Cow Disease. At a Thursday press conference in Washington, Michael Chertoff praised 'the genius of the people at FEMA' in their response to the disaster. 'I think it is a source of tremendous pride to me to work with the people who've pulled off this really exceptional response.' But television reports direct from New Orleans contradicted this picture every hour. The failure of FEMA, and of local agencies, was becoming very apparent. Facing heavy criticism, FEMA's head, Michael Brown, resigned on 13 September. Michael Chertoff kept his job. Sources: C. Cooper and R. Block, Disaster: Hurricane Katrina and the Failure of Homeland Security, Times Books, 2006; and I. Daaddler and I. Destler, 'Advisors, Czars and Councils', The National Interest, 1 July (2002). Questions 1 What was the 'strategy' of the Department of Homeland Security in the period immediately before Hurricane Katrina? 2 In the light of this strategy, what, if any, changes should be made to the Department's organisational structure after Hurricane Katrina? 3 Who was responsible for the organisational failures surrounding the response to Hurricane Katrina? Strategic Management in Action Department: Leadership and Management Module Code: MOD001067 Level: 6 Academic Year: 2015/6 Semester/Trimester/Session: SEM2 www.anglia.ac.uk Module Guide Contents 1. Key information, Introduction to the Module and Learning Outcomes...........................................................2 1.1 Key Information.......................................................................................................................................2 1.2 Introduction to the Module....................................................................................................................2 1.3 Learning Outcomes.................................................................................................................................3 2. Employability Skills in this Module....................................................................................................................4 3. Outline Delivery and Reading Lists @ Anglia.....................................................................................................5 3.1 Outline Delivery.......................................................................................................................................5 3.2 Reading List and Learning Resources......................................................................................................6 4. Assessment on this Module...............................................................................................................................6 Feedback.............................................................................................................................................................6 How to View Your Feedback in Turnitin Grademark.........................................................................................7 4.1 Assessment Information and Marking Criteria.......................................................................................9 4.1.1 Element 010 - COURSEWORK 3000 WORDS (100%).....................................................................9 Marking Criteria for Element 010 - COURSEWORK 3000 WORDS.......................................................11 4.2 Re-assessment Information..................................................................................................................12 4.2.1 Re-assessment for Element 010 - COURSEWORK 3000 WORDS (100%)....................................12 5. Report on Last Delivery of Module..................................................................................................................13 Links to Other Key Information.............................................................................................................................15 Page 1 Module Guide 1. Key information, Introduction to the Module and Learning Outcomes 1.1 Key Information Module title: Strategic Management in Action Module Leader: Theresa Simpkin Campus / Building / Room: Chelmsford / Lord Ashcroft Building / 3rd floor Extension: 6859 Email: Theresa.simpkin@anglia.ac.uk Module Tutors: TBA External Examiners DAP: Leadership and Management Every module has a Module Definition Form (MDF) which is the officially validated record of the module. You can access the MDF for this module in three ways via: the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) the My.Anglia Module Catalogue at www.anglia.ac.uk/modulecatalogue Anglia Ruskin's module search engine facility at www.anglia.ac.uk/modules All modules delivered by Anglia Ruskin University at its main campuses in the UK and at Associate Colleges throughout the UK and overseas are governed by the Academic Regulations. You can view these at www.anglia.ac.uk/academicregs. An extract of the Academic Regulations, known as the Assessment Regulations, is available at this website too (all new students will have received a printed copy as part of their welcome pack). In the unlikely event of any discrepancy between the Academic Regulations and any other publication, including this module guide, the Academic Regulations, as the definitive document, take precedence over all other publications and will be applied in all cases. 1.2 Introduction to the Module This module involves a detailed analysis of the strategic options available to major international corporate organisations and the implementation challenges associated with those strategic options. The module will focus on two central themes. Firstly, the organisations' exploitation of competitive opportunities: here the module will review the techniques for identifying and evaluating the strategic options available to organisations, taking into account modern approaches to strategy formulation in a globalised environment. Page 2 Module Guide Secondly, the management of change: here the module will consider the various issues involved in the implementation of those strategic options selected, with special emphasis on resources, people and systems. One of the main focuses for the design of this module has been the further development of relevant employability and professional skills. Such skills are implicit in the learning outcomes. Multiculturalism has been considered during the design of this module and will be considered when the assessment brief is written. The assessment is a 3,000 word coursework assignment which will require students to identify the strategic options available to an international organisation to be nominated by the Module Leader. Students will then apply appropriate theoretical models to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and suitability of each of the strategic options identified. This will enable students to choose and recommend which of the identified strategic option(s) should be implemented. Finally, students will be required to identify the implementation challenges associated with each of the chosen options and explain how these challenges might be best addressed. 1.3 Learning Outcomes This module, like all modules at Anglia Ruskin, is taught on the basis of achieving intended learning outcomes. On successful completion of the module, the student will be expected to be able to demonstrate the following: Knowledge and understanding LO 1. Demonstrate an understanding of the strategic issues and choices facing business organisations; and the resource implications of the strategic management process, bearing in mind recent Intellectual, practical, affective and transferable skills developments in strategic thinking. LO 2. Demonstrate an understanding of the implementation issues facing business organisations; and the role of leadership and innovation in the management of change. LO 3. Undertake a detailed analysis and evaluation of the strategic options available to a business organisation and then report and present those findings in an appropriate manner. The assessment is based on meeting these learning outcomes, shown explicitly in section 4, where the assessment task is linked to these learning outcomes. Page 3 Module Guide 2. Employability Skills in this Module It is important that we help you develop employability skills throughout your course which will assist you in securing employment and supporting you in your future career. During your course you will acquire a wide range of key skills. In this module, you will develop those identified below: Skill Communication (oral) Communication (written) Commercial Awareness Cultural sensitivity Customer focus Data Handling Decision making Enterprising Flexibility Initiative Interpersonal Skills Leadership/Management of others Networking Organisational adaptability Project Management Problem Solving and analytical skills Responsibility Team working Time Management Other Skills acquired in this module x x x x x x x x x x 3. Outline Delivery and Reading Lists @ Anglia 3.1 Outline Delivery The table below indicates how the module will be delivered. However, this schedule is indicative and may be subject to change. Wk Lecture Seminar 1 Introduction to the Module Evaluating Strategies (1) - Suitability Case - EasySolution 2 3 Evaluating Strategies Suitability (2) - Acceptability - Feasibility Strategy Development Processes (1) - Intended strategy development Case - EasySolution Patch 1: Case - Google: who drives the strategy? Page 4 Student-managed learning Read the module guide Key text: Chapter 11 Key text: Chapter 11 Key text: Chapter 12 Module Guide 4 - Emergent strategy development Strategy Development Processes (2) - Implications & challenges for managing strategy development 5 Organising for Success (2) - Systems - Configurations 7 Patch 1: Questions & Answers Patch 2: Case - Hurricane Katrina: human-made disaster? Patch 2: Case - Hurricane Katrina: human-made disaster? Organising for Success (1) - Structural types 6 Patch 1: Case - Google: who drives the strategy? Leadership & Strategic Change (1) - Diagnosing the change context - Leading strategic change - Levers for managing strategic change Leadership & Strategic Change (2) - Managing strategic change programmes 8 9 11 Patch 3: Case - Sergio Marchionne: Leading Change in Fiat and Chrysler Patch 3: Questions & Answers Case - Ray Ozzie, software strategist The Practice of Strategy (1) - The strategists - Strategising The Practice of Strategy (2) - Strategy Methodologies Module review 12 Patch 2: Questions & Answers Patch 3: Case - Sergio Marchionne: Leading Change in Fiat and Chrysler Patchwork review 10 Case - Ray Ozzie, software strategist Group work on Patchwork Group work on Patchwork Key text: Chapter 12 Key text: Chapter 13 Key text: Chapter 13 Key text: Chapter 14 Key text: Chapter 14 Key text: Chapter 15 Key text: Chapter 15 Key text: Review of key readings Key text: Review of key readings 3.2 Reading List and Learning Resources The reading list and learning resources for this module are available on Reading Lists at Anglia, you can access the reading list for this module, via this link: http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/modules/mod001067.html 4. Assessment on this Module The assessment for this module consists of two elements. Final submission dates for elements of assessment vary. Page 5 Module Guide Element Type of assessment 10 Word or time limit COURSEWORK - Patchwork portfolio 3000 WORDS % of Total Mark Submission method Final Submission Date 100% Quick Guide to Submitting on TurnitinUK GradeMark NO LATER THAN 2PM ON: Friday 6th May, 2015 by 2pm TurnitinUK Grademark or in hard copy (off main UK campus only) All forms of assessment must be submitted by the published deadline which is detailed above. It is your responsibility to know when work is due to be submitted - ignorance of the deadline date will not be accepted as a reason for late or non-submission. Any late work will NOT be considered and a mark of zero will be awarded for the assessment task in question. You are requested to keep a copy of your work (excluding exams). Feedback You are entitled to feedback on your performance for all your assessed work. For all assessment tasks which are not examinations, this is accomplished by a member of academic staff providing your mark and associated comments which will relate to the achievement of the module's intended learning outcomes and the assessment criteria you were given for the task when it was first issued. This feedback will be available on-line via Turnitin/Grademark or may be sent directly to your Anglia Ruskin e-mail account. The marker of your assignment will include feedback on written assignments that includes answers to these three key questions: 1. What is your overall feedback? 2. How does your assignment compare to the marking criteria? 3. How can you improve in the future? Page 6 Module Guide Examination scripts are retained by Anglia Ruskin and are not returned to students. However, you are entitled to feedback on your performance in an examination and may request a meeting with the Module Leader or Tutor to see your examination script and to discuss your performance. Anglia Ruskin is committed to providing you with feedback on all assessed work within 20 working days of the submission deadline or the date of an examination. This is extended to 30 days for feedback for a Major Project module (please note that working days excludes those days when Anglia Ruskin University is officially closed; e.g.: between Christmas and New Year). Personal tutors will offer to read feedback from several modules and help you to address any common themes that may be emerging. On occasion, you will receive feedback and marks for pieces of work that you completed in the earlier stages of the module. We provide you with this feedback as part of the learning experience and to help you prepare for other assessment tasks that you have still to complete. It is important to note that, in these cases, the marks for these pieces of work are unconfirmed. This means that, potentially, marks can change, in either direction! Marks for modules and individual pieces of work become confirmed on the Dates for the Official Publication of Results which can be checked at www.anglia.ac.uk/results. How to View Your Feedback in Turnitin Grademark Click on the class that you wish to view and then you will see the assignments for the module listed. Click the blue view button to open up the document viewer. The Document Viewer will open and the main feedback on your work is shown in the General Comments: Page 7 Module Guide There may also be Quick Marks on your assignment or a Grading Form/Rubric to show how you performed against the marking criteria, click on the tabs to open them. Comments List Rubric/Grading Form 4.1 Assessment Information and Marking CriteriaAssessment Information ( 4.1.1 Page 8 Module Guide 4.1.1 Element 010 - COURSEWORK 3000 WORDS (100%) Part 010 - Assignment Brief - Patchwork Portfolio Weight Learning Outcomes 1. PATCH 1 (1,000 words): Strategy Development Processes - Case - Google: who drives the strategy? 34% 1-2 2. PATCH 2 (1,000 words): Organising for Success - Case - Hurricane Katrina: human-made disaster? 33% 1-2 3. PATCH 3 (1,000 words): Leadership & Strategic Change - Case - Sergio Marchionne: Leading Change in Fiat and Chrysler 33% 2-3 TOTAL 100% PATCH 1 (34% of total marks and maximum of 1,000 words): Strategy Development Processes - Case - Google: who drives the strategy? - Learning outcomes 1-2 Drawing on contemporary strategy theory, identify and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of strategy development at Google. Provide a 1,000-word answer. PATCH 2 (33% of total marks and maximum of 1,000 words): Organising for Success - Case - Hurricane Katrina: human-made disaster? - Learning outcomes 1-2 Drawing on the theory covered in the module, make a convincing argument for where the responsibilities of organisational failure during the response to Hurricane Katrina could be found. Provide a 1,000-word answer. PATCH 3 (33% of total marks and maximum of 1,000 words): Leadership & Strategic Change - Case - Sergio Marchionne: Leading Change in Fiat and Chrysler Drawing on theory covered in the module, discuss the approach to change by Sergio Marchionne. How appropriate was it to the context? Provide a 1,000-word answer. Page 9 Module Guide TurnitinUK Grademark assignments (where supported) This assignment is submitted online via Turnitin Grademark, there is information on preparing your assignment at: https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Preparing%20my%20Assignment.aspx Information on submitting your assignment must be read and guidelines adhered to, please ensure you read: https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Quick-Start.aspx The direct link to Turnitin UK Grademark is: http://www.turnitinuk.com Hard copy assignments (Associate College partners) This assignment is submitted via hard copy as per instructions from your tutor. Academic staff CANNOT accept work directly from you. If you decide to submit your work by post, it must arrive by midday on the due date. If you elect to post your work, you do so at your own risk and you must ensure that sufficient time is provided for your work to arrive. Posting your work the day before a deadline, albeit by first class post, is extremely risky and not advised. Page 10 Module Guide Marking Criteria for Element 010 - COURSEWORK Patchwork - 3000 WORDS Patches 1-3 Integration of theory into practice Analytical skills Coherent line of thought Complementary use of relevant sources of information Reflection & Self assessment Harvard System and consistent reference list Tables and figures Style of writing and use of language Maximum of 3,000 words A (70-100 marks) Outstanding knowledge and understanding of the topic Excellent integration of theory into practice Analytical originality and autonomy Balanced and coherent arguments Complementary use of relevant sources of information Exceptional academic, problem-solving and presentation skills Excellent and accurate written expression and referencing Word limit B (60-69 marks) Above average knowledge and understanding of the topic Good integration of theory into practice Some analytical originality and self-directed research Consistent and convincing arguments Complementary use of relevant sources of information Good academic, problemsolving and presentation skills Structured and accurate written expression and good referencing Word limit Page 11 C (50-59 marks) Satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the topic Reasonable integration of theory into practice Some but inconsistent analytical autonomy Acceptable and fairly well structured arguments Acceptable level of academic, problemsolving and presentation skills going beyond description at times Structured and mainly accurate written expression and adequate referencing D (40-49 marks) Basic knowledge and understanding of the topic Limited integration of theory into practice Restricted analytical ability; mainly descriptive Arguments are sufficiently identifiable and free of obvious contradiction Basic evidence of academic, problemsolving and presentation skills Some difficulty with accuracy in written expression and referencing Fail (0-39 marks) Poor knowledge and understanding of the Weak integration of into practice Analytical skills are n yet secure; work significantly descript Weak arguments wh lack clarity Weak evidence of academic, problemsolving and presenta skills Significant difficulty accuracy in written expression and referencing Module Guide 4.2 Re-assessment Information If you are required to complete a re-sit assessment for this module, please ensure you are aware of the assessment (and the date if an exam or in-class test) as it will be different to the original assessment. 4.2.1 Re-assessment for Element 010 - COURSEWORK 3000 WORDS (100%) Weight Learning Outcomes 1. PATCH 1 (1,000 words): Strategy Development Processes - Case - Boardroom battles at Hewlett Packard? 34% 1-2 2. PATCH 2 (1,000 words): Organising for Success - Case - One Sony? 33% 1-2 3. PATCH 3 (1,000 words): Leadership & Strategic Change - Case - Managing change at Faslane 33% 2-3 TOTAL 100% PATCH 1 (34% of total marks and maximum of 1,000 words): Strategy Development Processes - Case - Boardroom battles at Hewlett Packard? Learning outcomes 1-2 Identify examples of political activity that affected strategy in this case. Use the theory to support your response. Provide a 1,000-word answer. PATCH 2 (33% of total marks and maximum of 1,000 words): One Sony?- Learning outcomes 1-2 Drawing on the theory covered in the module, identify what initiatives beyond structural change may be necessary to create 'One Sony'. Provide an 1,000-word answer. PATCH 3 (33% of total marks and maximum of 1,000 words): Leadership & Strategic Change - Case - Managing change at Faslane (textbook, pages 495-497) - Learning outcomes 2-3 In relation to the theory on 'types of strategic change' and 'managing strategic change programmes', what is the type of change being pursued at Faslane? What levers of change are being used? What others could be used and why? 12 Module Guide Provide a 1,000-word answer. 13 Module Guide 5. Report on Last Delivery of Module MODULE REPORT FORM Module Code and Title: MOD001067 Strategic Management in Action Anglia Ruskin Department: Leadership and Management Location(s) of Delivery: Unavailable at time of writing - Partner institutions to complete Academic Year: Semester/Trimester: Enrolment Numbers (at each location): Module Leader: Other Module Tutors: Student Achievement Provide a brief overview of student achievement on the module as evidenced by the range of marks awarded. A detailed breakdown of marks will be available at the Departmental Assessment Panel. Feedback from Students Briefly summarise student responses, including any written comments Module Leader/Tutor's Reflection on Delivery of the Module, including Response to Feedback from Students (including resources if appropriate) 14 Module Guide Developments during the current year or planned for next year (if appropriate) External Examiner's Comments State whether the external examiner agreed the marks and/or commented on the module 15 Module Guide Links to Other Key Information Assessment Offences: As an academic community, we recognise that the principles of truth, honesty and mutual respect are central to the pursuit of knowledge. Behaviour that undermines those principles weakens the community, both individually and collectively, and diminishes our values. There is more information on these principles and the types of Assessment Offences here: http://www.anglia.ac.uk/modguide4.aspx Penalties for poor academic practice can be severe so ensure you are aware of what is expected and how to reference correctly. There is a guide to Good Academic Practice here: http://anglia.libguides.com/plagiarism Attendance Information: Attending all your classes is very important and one of the best ways to help you succeed in this module. Link to more details on the Attendance Requirements here: http://www.anglia.ac.uk/modguide1.aspx Assessments and TurnitinUK: TurnitinUK is used for submitting the majority of your assessments, it is important that you read the information on preparing your assignment at: https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Preparing%20my%20Assignment.aspx Information on submitting your assignment must be read and guidelines adhered to, please ensure you read: https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Quick-Start.aspx The direct link to TurnitinUK is: http://www.turnitinuk.com Examinations: Examinations are held in January (semester/trimester 1), May (semester/trimester 2) and in August (trimester 3). All examinations are scheduled by the Examinations Unit, the dates and locations will be posted on the following website: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/students/exams/ External Examiners: An up-to-date list of external examiners is available to students and staff at http://www.anglia.ac.uk/eeinfo The external examiner for this module is in the Leadership and Management department. These are academic examiners from other institutions who independently approve and confirm the quality and standard of our modules and assessments. Feedback in TurnitinUK: Link to more details on the viewing feedback is here: https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Feedback.aspx How is My Work Marked and Flowchart of Anglia Ruskin's Marking Process: After you have handed your work in or you have completed an examination, Anglia Ruskin undertakes a series of activities to assure that our marking processes are comparable with those employed at other universities in the UK and that your 16 Module Guide work has been marked fairly, honestly and consistently. More information about this is given here: http://www.anglia.ac.uk/modguide5.aspx Module Evaluation: During the second half of the delivery of this module, you will be asked to complete a module evaluation questionnaire to help us obtain your views on all aspects of the module, more about this process is included here: http://www.anglia.ac.uk/modguide6.aspx Reading Lists: These are now all available online: http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk Re-assessments: Re-assessment dates will be stated on e-vision, you can check the specific date your reassessment assignment is due in on: http://e-vision.anglia.ac.uk or alternatively, if it is an examination, these are scheduled by the Examinations Unit, the dates and locations will be posted on the following website: http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/students/exams/ University Generic Assessment Criteria: This module is at level 6, information on the criteria that the university uses to mark your work can be found here: http://www.anglia.ac.uk/criteria 17