Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

Assignment Brief

BNS0072 Strategic Management 2024.

The focus of this assignment is on business models and business model innovation. Business models are a contemporary challenge to foundational notions of strategic management, but the business model idea is not without its detractors. I have personally found it very useful in opening-up a consultancy project and drawing a picture of business which includes most of the elements traditionally found in the strategic planning process. A very popular tool is the business model canvas by Alex Osterwalder (example below) which has 9 sub-units but broadly contains two main propositions, value capture and value creation. We will go through the elements of this model in class. To make the model work strategically, it is possible to then consider it at two moment in time. Here we enter the realm of business model innovation and where the business model canvas becomes strategic. Business model innovation and renewal can be built around service, process, product, technological innovation but can also be based on value innovation.

Your task in the assignment is to first take a fixed point at the end of the Facebook case study provided in 2020, at a point when their business model came under significant strain and triggered business model innovation to address the challenges faced. The second part of the assignment requires you to search for and use subsequent articles and discussions in the media to show how the Facebook business model stands at the present date as we stand in 2024. Your core task is to present an analysis of the business model at two points in time 2020 and 2024.

The Brief

Spatial definition of boundaries of your analysis: Global

Operational boundaries: The operations of Facebook meta should be interpreted as you see fit

Materials

You have been provided with a high-quality case-study which is available electronically, and which provides a solid foundation to complete the assignment. However, you may supplement this with any other quality sources of information on the Facebook case.

The assignment has two parts with different weights as indicated.

Part 1 50% weighting

Using the business model canvas, present an analysis of the Facebook’s business model at the beginning of 2020 (at the end of the case). You can use the model graphically (multiple templates are provided) as a summary but then provide a written analysis of each of the elements of the model and where you perceive the challenges at this time are evident. In your answer, comment on whether these challenges can be characterised using the VUCA framework.

An example template of a business model canvas (Osterwalder)

Part 2: 50% weighting

Your task is to bring the case up to date by using journals, media stories and company information to understand how facebook/meta have changed their business model in the face of the challenges you have outlined in Part 1. You should again consider each element of the business model canvas and demonstrate where you perceive innovation/renewal has occurred. You may need to consider this question from the perspective of multiple overlapping business models/a business model portfolio.

In your answer, take a position on whether these changes amount to business model innovation, are disruptive innovations, or are merely incremental changes to environmental challenges. Also comment on whether you feel that the new business model/s configuration is fit for VUCA challenges in the future.

Word count 2500 words: Based on the stated indicative weightings you should use your own judgement as to how much of the word count should be allocated to each section.

Use of AI not allowed.

Hand in date Feb 9th by 3PM

Generic guidance

· You do not need to present your analysis within a single diagram but should decide on the sections of your written analysis relative to the compartments in the BMC. Put another way, write your answer in sections, do not only try to present a single diagram with everything in, it will be too big. An overview in graphic form in advisable.

· You may use any other models or theory in these sections to supplement and enhance your analysis. Indeed, this would be good practice and define better answers.

· You may identify and present an analysis of multiple overlapping business models you identify within Facebook as consistent with the idea of a portfolio of business models.

· A link to Osterwalder’s book on the business model canvas in available on Brightspace and further key articles on business models are linked from Brightspace. Effective use of this model alone should be sufficient for a passing grade in this section.

· Evidence of broader reading of the BM literature will define better answers.

· Essay style with correct use of sentence structure, prose and paragraphing

· Put as much information into tables, charts and diagrams as possible. You could reduce word count by putting analysis into diagrams. Better answers do this very effectively.  You can modify and create your own diagrams. Significant credit will be given for this.

· Leave diagrams and tables in the body of the report, don’t hide them in an appendix. We give great credit for being able to present strategic analysis using charts, tables and diagrams.  Businesspeople want to see the best analysis as quickly as possible, it’s annoying to flick between main body and appendix all the time.

· Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from an external source. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list. Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style.  For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link: There is no need to cite from lecture slides. Also see video presentation in brightspace.

· APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/

· The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct. You can contact them at [email protected].

· Academic skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation Development Centre team [email protected]. It is possible to arrange 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop.

PGT Assessment Criteria

· These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed.  They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.

· Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.

· The grades between Pass and Merit should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module. The higher-level categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the basic requirement, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.

· PGT Generic Assessment Criteria

Unacceptable

Unsatisfactory

Pass

Merit

Distinction

0 – 9

10-19

20-34

35-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80-89

90-100

Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes

Not met or minimal

Not met or minimal

Not met or partially met

Not met or partially met

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Response to the question /task

No response

Little response

Insufficient response

Adequate response, but with limitations

Adequate response

Secure response to assessment task

Very good response to topic; elements of sophistication

Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach

Full command of assessment task; imaginative approach demonstrating flair and creativity

·

· PGT Generic Assessment Criteria

·

Unacceptable

A superficial answer with only peripheral knowledge of core material and very little critical ability

Unsatisfactory

Some knowledge of core material but limited.

Pass

A coherent and logical answer which shows understanding of the basic principles

Merit

A coherent answer that demonstrates critical evaluation

Distinction

An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding knowledge of material and critical ability

0-9

10-19

20-34

35-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

80-89

90-100

Conceptual and critical understanding of contemporary / seminal knowledge in the subject

Entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge and understanding

Typically, only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts

Knowledge of concepts falls short of prescribed range Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts

Marginally insufficient. Adequate knowledge of concepts within prescribed range but fails to adequately solve problems posed by assessment

A systematic understanding of knowledge; critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights; can evaluate critically current research and can evaluate methodologies

Approaching excellence in some areas with evidence of the potential to undertake Research. Well-developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence

Excellent. Displays (for example): high levels of accuracy; evidence of the potential to undertake research; the ability to analyse primary sources critically.

Insightful. Displays (for example): excellent research potential; flexibility of thought; possibly of publishable quality.

Striking and insightful. Displays (for example): publishable quality; outstanding research potential; originality and independent thought; ability to make informed judgements.

Presentation

Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility

Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility

Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility

Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Minor errors in language

Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language

Good standard of presentation; length requirement met, and academic conventions followed

Very good standards of presentation

Professional standards of presentation

Highest professional standards of presentation

Understanding

Limited insight into the problem or topic

Limited insight into the problem or topic

Limited insight into the problem or topic

Some insight into the problem or topic

Practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline

Independent, critical evaluation of

full range of theories with some

evidence of originality

Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis

Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis

Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis

Use of evidence and sources to support task

Some irrelevant and/or out of date

Sources

Some irrelevant and/or out of date

Sources

Some irrelevant and/or out of date

Sources

Limited sources

Comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship

Complex work and

concepts presented,

key texts used

effectively

Full range of sources

used selectively to

support argument

Full range of sources

used selectively to

support argument

Full range of sources

used selectively to

support argument

Development of ideas

Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent

Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent

Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent

Argument not fully

developed and may lack structure

The argument is developed

but may lack fluency

Argument concise and

explicit

Coherent and compelling

argument well presented

Coherent and compelling

argument well presented

Coherent and compelling

argument well presented