Critical Analysis of Kim W., Blue Ocean strategy: from theory to practice. California management review. 2005 Apr; 47(3):105-21
Summative Assessment
You are to critically review the article you chose in new parts (see below). Submitted review must be no more than 1,000 words (no margin given), though the reference section
is excluded for this word limit.
This is a Level 6 assessment and should be appropriately presented.
The paper you need to critically analyse is called “Blue Ocean Strategy: From Theory to Practice”. Please see the attached file named “Blue Ocean Strategy Paper”. This is the paper that must be critically analysed.
Assignment structure
The paper should be structured as such:
- Introduction: Keep it short. Around 50 words or so.
- Part 1: How the article fits into the wider debate about the processes of strategy. You must use Porter’s 5 forces in this sction to help with the critical analysis.
- Part 2: The main strength(s) and weakness(s) of the article following from your own critical review and should be drawn from your own understanding.
- Conclusion: This also doesn’t need to be that long. Around the same length as the introduction.
I have attached 3 files named “Core Competence”, “Crafting strategy” and “Strategy as revolution”. I would adivse you to look at these example assessments to get an idea of the structure of the assessment.
Marking Construct
The assessment construct is as follows. It must include all parts identified below:
Part 1: The position of the article in the wider debate about processes of strategy (with evidence
from further reading to support this):
|
Marking boundaries
|
Mark range
|
|
The work places the article into a wider
context of strategy theory and uses a variety of sources beyond the main textbook to do this
with a focus on academic journal articles. The article under review is compared and
contrasted to other important research in strategy and clear conclusions are drawn from
this.
|
32-45
|
|
There is evidence of an understanding of
where the review article fits into the wider debates on strategy through reading a variety
of sources. A good attempt is made at comparing and contrasting the review article
with other literature.
|
27-31
|
|
There has been some engagement with the
literature on strategy, but this is mainly in the form of textbooks. There has been only
limited comparing and contrasting of the review article with other elements of the
strategy literature.
|
22-26
|
|
Little attempt has been made to place the
article into any kind of wider context. There has been some additional reading, but this is
mainly from the core textbook or the internet.
|
18-21
|
|
Little or no attempt has been made to place
the work into a wider context of strategy. There is no real evidence of reading outside
of the review article itself and the core textbook.
|
0-17
|
Part 2: The main strength(s) and weakness(s) of the article following from your own critical
review and should be drawn from your own understanding:
|
Marking boundaries
|
Mark range
|
|
The main strength and weakness of the article
is identified, discussed and support is provided for the arguments made. The review
is critical and analytical and draws robust conclusions.
|
32-45
|
|
The main strength and weakness of the article
is identified and there is some discussion of them. Conclusions drawn are supported
and the article is critical and analytical.
|
27-31
|
|
A strength and weakness is identified but
there is limited discussion of them. The work is descriptive in the main although some
attempt is made to be analytical. Conclusions tend to be rudimentary in nature.
|
22-26
|
|
The work is main descriptive and there is
limited critical engagement with the article under review. There is no systematic
discussion of strengths and weaknesses and conclusions drawn are unconvincing.
|
18-21
|
|
The work is descriptive and represents little
more than a rewrite of the article under review.
|
0-17
|
Part 3: Presentation and Style
|
Grading
|
Mark range
|
|
The work is well structured and has a logical
and well-ordered flow between issues. Language used is sophisticated and
articulate. Referencing is consistent and uses the Harvard method.
|
7-10
|
|
There is a clear underlying structure to the
work which makes it easy to read and understand. Referencing is consistent.
|
6
|
|
The work is acceptably presented and has a
clear structure. The arguments are clearly expressed although the language and
terminology used lacks sophistication. Referencing is consistent.
|
5
|
|
The work lacks a central narrative which
links the issues discussed together in a coherent way. Referencing is haphazard.
|
4
|
|
The work has no real structure and is more a
collection of loosely related issues than anything. Referencing is haphazard and weak.
There are errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation. Authorship integrity is
questionable.
|
0-3
|
.
Are you struggling with your paper? Let us handle it - WE ARE EXPERTS!
How our paper writing service works
It's very simple!
-
Fill out the order form
Complete the order form by providing as much information as possible, and then click the submit button.
-
Choose writer
Select your preferred writer for the project, or let us assign the best writer for you.
-
Add funds
Allocate funds to your wallet. You can release these funds to the writer incrementally, after each section is completed and meets your expected quality.
-
Ready
Download the finished work. Review the paper and request free edits if needed. Optionally, rate the writer and leave a review.