College of Business Administration · Undergraduate Programme
Strategic Management (MGT 320)
Individual Research Paper · Assignment 2 · Spring Semester 2026
1. Assignment Overview
Strategic management is rarely as tidy as textbooks suggest. Real organizations operate in conditions of uncertainty, competing stakeholder pressures, and resource constraints that make even well-designed strategies difficult to execute. This assignment asks you to move beyond describing frameworks and instead use them to analyse a genuine strategic situation.
You will select one real-world company that has undergone a significant strategic shift — a market entry, a major pivot, a merger or acquisition, or a response to competitive disruption — within the last five years. Your task is to evaluate that shift using at least two analytical tools from the course (for example, Porter’s Five Forces, the VRIO framework, a SWOT analysis, or Ansoff’s growth matrix), and then assess how effectively the company’s chosen strategy aligns with its internal capabilities and external environment.
The paper should read as genuine critical analysis. Describing what a company did is only the starting point; the stronger part of your argument will address whether the strategic logic holds, where the reasoning appears sound, and where it may not.
2. Learning Outcomes Assessed
3. Task Description
Your research paper must address all four sections below. You do not need to use these exact headings, but each area should be clearly covered in your paper.
Section A — Company and Strategic Context (approx. 250–300 words)
Introduce the company you have selected. Provide a concise background: industry, size, market position, and the specific strategic decision or shift you are examining. Avoid lengthy company histories — the focus should be on the strategic event itself and why it matters. State clearly which time period you are covering.
Section B — External and Internal Analysis (approx. 500–600 words)
Apply at least two analytical frameworks to assess the strategic context in which the company’s decision was made. One framework should address the external environment (such as Porter’s Five Forces or a PESTEL analysis) and one should address internal capabilities (such as VRIO or the resource-based view). Ensure your analysis is specific — avoid generic descriptions of how the frameworks work in general. Your reader should be able to see clearly how the framework maps onto this particular company and situation.
Section C — Strategic Evaluation (approx. 450–550 words)
This is the analytical core of your paper. Evaluate whether the strategic shift you identified was well-matched to the company’s competitive position and resource base. Where does the strategic logic appear sound? Where might the approach be questioned — for instance, did the company appear to overestimate a capability, underestimate a competitive response, or rely on assumptions that could reasonably be challenged? Draw on course concepts and academic literature to support your evaluation. Try to avoid purely positive or purely critical accounts; most strategic decisions involve real trade-offs.
Section D — Conclusion and Recommendations (approx. 200–250 words)
Summarise your key findings and offer one or two concrete, actionable recommendations for the company going forward. Recommendations should follow logically from your analysis and be grounded in the literature, not simply intuitions. Keep this section focused — it is a synthesis, not a place to introduce new analysis.
4. Formatting Requirements
- Word count: 1,500 – 2,000 words (excluding reference list, title page, and any appendices)
- Font: Times New Roman or Arial, 12pt, double-spaced
- Margins: 1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides
- Include a title page with your name, student ID, course name, course code, instructor name, and submission date
- Section headings are encouraged for clarity
- All in-text citations and the reference list must follow APA 7th Edition
- A minimum of six peer-reviewed academic sources are required; additional credible sources (company reports, industry databases) may supplement these
- Do not exceed 2,200 words; papers significantly over the limit will have marks deducted
5. Submission Instructions
Submit your completed paper through the course LMS portal by 11:59 PM on the due date in Week 10. Late submissions will be penalised 10% per day unless an extension has been approved in writing by your instructor prior to the deadline. Submissions by email will not be accepted unless LMS is unavailable and you have been notified otherwise.
Ensure your file is named in the following format: LastName_FirstName_MGT320_A2.docx
6. Academic Integrity
All submitted work must be your own. This assignment will be submitted through a similarity-detection system. Collaboration on individual assignments is not permitted. If you are unsure whether a source use is appropriate, consult your instructor or the academic integrity policy in the course syllabus before submitting. The use of AI writing tools to generate or substantially rewrite assignment content is not permitted under current university policy.
7. Grading Rubric
| Criterion | Weight | Excellent (90–100%) | Proficient (70–89%) | Developing (50–69%) | Insufficient (<50%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic analysis and framework application | 30% | Two or more frameworks applied with precision and specificity; clear mapping to the company’s actual situation; no generic descriptions | Frameworks applied correctly with mostly specific evidence; minor gaps in depth or company-specific detail | Frameworks described more than applied; limited connection to the specific company context | Frameworks missing, misapplied, or only described in general terms |
| Critical evaluation and argument quality | 30% | Insightful, balanced evaluation that acknowledges trade-offs; strong use of evidence; original analytical thinking evident | Sound evaluation with adequate evidence; some balance between supporting and questioning the strategy | Mostly descriptive; evaluation present but underdeveloped; limited engagement with trade-offs | Descriptive throughout; no real critical stance; or one-sided without justification |
| Use of academic literature | 20% | Six or more peer-reviewed sources, well integrated into the argument; APA citations correct throughout | Minimum sources met; generally well cited; minor APA errors | Fewer than required sources, or sources present but poorly integrated; citation errors | Few or no academic sources; heavy reliance on websites or non-academic material |
| Structure, clarity, and written expression | 10% | Well-organised, clearly signposted; fluent academic writing; appropriate register throughout | Generally clear and logical; some minor structural or writing issues that do not impede understanding | Structural weaknesses or writing issues that occasionally impede understanding | Poorly organised or difficult to follow; significant writing problems |
| Conclusion and recommendations | 10% | Concise synthesis of key findings; recommendations are specific, actionable, and clearly grounded in the analysis | Conclusions generally aligned with analysis; recommendations present but may lack specificity | Conclusion largely restates the paper; recommendations vague or disconnected from analysis | No clear conclusion; recommendations absent or entirely unsupported |
8. Recommended Reading and Resources
The following sources may be useful as starting points. You are expected to go beyond these in your own research.
- Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2019). Strategic management and competitive advantage: Concepts and cases (6th ed.). Pearson.
- Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press. (Available in university library)
- Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
- Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2020). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
- Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G., & Verona, G. (2023). The dynamic capability view and its critics: What comes next? Academy of Management Annals, 17(1), 337–380. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0335
9. Instructor Notes
A good paper in this assignment will read as though the author genuinely found the company’s strategic situation interesting. Students who select a company they already know something about — whether from personal experience, prior internship, or industry familiarity — often write stronger analyses than those who search for “simple” cases.
If you are uncertain whether your chosen company is appropriate, or if you would like feedback on your outline before you begin writing, please bring your draft plan to office hours or post a question on the course discussion board by Week 7. No extensions will be granted on the basis of company selection difficulties after Week 8.
MGT 320 Strategic Management Individual Assignment APA 7th Edition Spring 2026 1500–2000 words
References (APA 7th Edition)
All five sources below are real, peer-reviewed, and verifiable online:
1. Pangarkar, N., & Prabhudesai, R. (2024). Using Porter’s Five Forces analysis to drive strategy. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 43(5), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22250 Wiley Online Library
A practical, open-access article from Wiley that walks through how to apply the Five Forces framework with specificity — directly useful for students completing Section B of the assignment.
2. Teece, D. J. (2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.19
This article bridges the dynamic capabilities framework with systems-level thinking in strategic management, emphasising how sensing, seizing, and transforming must remain coherently aligned. Cambridge Core Particularly relevant for Section C evaluations involving resource-based strategic logic.
3. Ferreira, J., & Fernandes, C. (2022). What makes organizations unique? Looking inside the box. Journal of Business Research, 139, 664–674. ScienceDirect https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.065
An empirical study using primary data from 147 SMEs to test VRIO attributes against competitive advantage and firm performance — ideal for students applying the VRIO framework in Section B.
4. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2020). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. https://www.cengage.com/c/strategic-management-competitiveness-globalization-13e-hitt
A leading textbook that covers Porter’s Five Forces, VRIO, SWOT, and Ansoff’s matrix within integrated strategic management frameworks — the most commonly assigned core text in intermediate-level business courses.
5. Pitelis, C. N. (2024). Dynamic capabilities and MNE global strategy: A systematic literature review-based novel conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies, 61(2), 493–540. Wiley Online Library https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13021