Strategic Analysis Report on Technology Sector
Budget: $30 – $250 USD
I'm seeking a comprehensive, minimum 5000-word strategic analysis report focused on the technology sector. This report should primarily concentrate on major industry leaders.
Key Focus:
- The report should deeply analyze the strategies, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of these industry titans.
- It should assess their market positioning, product offerings, and growth trajectories.
- An evaluation of their responses to current and emerging trends in technology is essential.
Ideal Skills:
- In-depth understanding of the technology sector.
- Strong analytical skills with experience in strategic business analysis.
- Exceptional writing skills, able to present complex information in a clear and engaging manner.
Experience Required:
- Proven track record of similar projects.
- Familiarity with major players in the technology sector.
- Ability to deliver high-quality, well-researched reports.
3. DETAILED ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
Assignment Title: Strategic Analysis Report
Task 1 (50% of module grade)
Complete a strategic analysis of an organisation of your choosing. This analysis should consider the following steps:
Use at least two strategic tools/frameworks to assess the strategic position of the organisation. At least one of these tools/frameworks should consider the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen organisation in comparison to competitors (or other organisations offering a similar service). The application and analysis should be placed in the appendices with a summary of key findings provided in the report.
Use at least one strategic tool to consider the options available to the organisation, based upon your assessment of its strategic position.
Evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of each of the options discussed and evaluate which options may have the greatest positive/negative impact.
Task 2 (50% of module grade)
Based on your assessment of strategic position in task 1, evaluate the options available to the organisation using the Suitability, Acceptability, Feasibility criteria. Consider the following steps:
The Suitability of the options available in responding to the
Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities and Threats identified for Task 1 .
The Acceptability of the options available to the stakeholders of the organisation.
The Feasibility of being able to implement the options chosen.
Assessment Criteria
Knowledge and Understanding (30% of grade)
Highly relevant content that demonstrates an excellent standard of understanding and critical awareness of the subject matter.
60-69% Relevant content that demonstrates a commendable standard of understanding and critical awareness of the subject matter.
50-59% Relevant/satisfactory content that demonstrates a good/reasonable standard of understanding and critical awareness of the subject matter.
40-49% Content that is limited and descriptive in nature and fails to adequately demonstrate an satisfactory understanding and critical awareness of the subject matter.
10-39% Content that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Non-submission
Critical Analysis, Evaluation and Application (30% of grade)
Extensive evidence of an excellent standard of critical analysis, evaluation and/or synthesis is rigorous and appropriate.
60-69% Good clear evidence of a commendable standard of appropriate critical analysis, evaluation and/or synthesis.
50-59% Evidence of a good/satisfactory standard of critical analysis, evaluation and/or synthesis.
A sufficient attempt at analysis and critical evaluation but has limitations
10-39% A very limited or no attempt at critical thought/evaluation or analysis.
Non-submission
Research and Referencing (20% of grade)
70% + Clear evidence of ability to select, critically evaluate, analyse and apply highly relevant sources, accurately cited in the text.
60-69% Very good evidence of selection and application of relevant sources, accurately cited in the text.
50-59% Good evidence of selection and application of relevant sources, accurately cited in the text.
40-49% Evidence of some research and analysis, but gaps evident; inconsistencies in citation practice.
10-39% Little/very limited evidence of reading and minimal application or analysis of research sources; poor citation practice.
Non-submission
Structure and Presentation (20% of grade)
Clear structure highly relevant to assignment. Clarity of expression excellent, consistently accurate use of grammar and spelling with fluent professional/academic writing [speaking style.
60-69% Clear structure relevant to assignment. Thoughts and ideas clearly expressed. Grammar and spelling accurate and language fluent.
50-59% Suitable structure is apparent and generally relevant. Language mainly fluent. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate.
40-49% An attempt at structure. Meaning apparent in most instances, some less relevant parts included. Language not always fluent, grammar and spelling moderate. Some evidence of ambiguity, leading to meaning being unclear in some instances.
10-39% Structure inadequate and limited affecting the flow and coherence of the writing and meaning. Major limitations in language, grammar and spelling.
Non-submission
You will lose marks if
You produce work which is outside of the stated word count by ± 10%
Your work is badly written, and/or contains spelling and grammatical errors
You have not used the appropriate referencing style
You do not use extensive referencing. You are likely to fail if you do not include appropriate academic references.
Your Turnitin score identifies inappropriate copying of material or inadequate paraphrasing
You submit your work late without agreed mitigating circumstances
GENERAL CRITERIA WHICH WILL BE USED TO MARK YOUR ASSESSMENT:
Grades Band Standard Descriptors (generic)
100%
94%
87% Exceptional 1st
Very high 1 st High Creative, insightful, illuminating, inspiring, exciting, authoritative, challenging. Considers several themes and examples with excellent referencing and analysis combining valid links to SDGs and Business and Societ
80%
74% Mid 1st
Low 1st Persuasive, sophisticated, original, reflective, ambitious, meticulous, contains high standards of academic writing, meets the brief and puts forward compelling critical analysis and links well to other SDGs and Business and Societ
65%
62% 2.1 high merit,
2.1 mid merit
2.1 low merit Fluent, thorough, analytical, precise, rigorous, confident, consistent, thoughtful, clear and well thought out points and analysis with relevant examples indicating impacts on Business and Societ with relevant links to SDGs.
58%
55%
52% 2.2 high pass
2.2 mid pass
2.2 low pass Satisfactory, clear, accurate, careful, congruent, coherent, covers most of the brief but to lesser extent i.e. lacking in sufficient development but at a satisfacto level.
48%
45%
42% High 3rd
Mid third
Low third Sufficient, adequate, descriptive, limited, just about meets the set criteria.
35% Minimum pass/capped mark Marginal fail Incomplete, inadequate, inconsistent, derivative, contradictory, superficial, irrelevant, failing to address the question sufficientl
25% Mid fail
Low fail Erroneous/wrong, missing, extremely limited, inappropriate, insufficient, incoherent, unstructured, off point not worth of a pass.
Fail Lackin , formless, detrimental,
Non-submission absent/none, irrelevant to the question set.
NB: Throughout your report it is important that appropriate referencing is used (Harvard format) to support any views and opinions being made. It is essential that you acknowledge an author's work that you may have used to support an argument in any of your assignments.
Key Focus:
- The report should deeply analyze the strategies, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of these industry titans.
- It should assess their market positioning, product offerings, and growth trajectories.
- An evaluation of their responses to current and emerging trends in technology is essential.
Ideal Skills:
- In-depth understanding of the technology sector.
- Strong analytical skills with experience in strategic business analysis.
- Exceptional writing skills, able to present complex information in a clear and engaging manner.
Experience Required:
- Proven track record of similar projects.
- Familiarity with major players in the technology sector.
- Ability to deliver high-quality, well-researched reports.
3. DETAILED ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
Assignment Title: Strategic Analysis Report
Task 1 (50% of module grade)
Complete a strategic analysis of an organisation of your choosing. This analysis should consider the following steps:
Use at least two strategic tools/frameworks to assess the strategic position of the organisation. At least one of these tools/frameworks should consider the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen organisation in comparison to competitors (or other organisations offering a similar service). The application and analysis should be placed in the appendices with a summary of key findings provided in the report.
Use at least one strategic tool to consider the options available to the organisation, based upon your assessment of its strategic position.
Evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of each of the options discussed and evaluate which options may have the greatest positive/negative impact.
Task 2 (50% of module grade)
Based on your assessment of strategic position in task 1, evaluate the options available to the organisation using the Suitability, Acceptability, Feasibility criteria. Consider the following steps:
The Suitability of the options available in responding to the
Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities and Threats identified for Task 1 .
The Acceptability of the options available to the stakeholders of the organisation.
The Feasibility of being able to implement the options chosen.
Assessment Criteria
Knowledge and Understanding (30% of grade)
Highly relevant content that demonstrates an excellent standard of understanding and critical awareness of the subject matter.
60-69% Relevant content that demonstrates a commendable standard of understanding and critical awareness of the subject matter.
50-59% Relevant/satisfactory content that demonstrates a good/reasonable standard of understanding and critical awareness of the subject matter.
40-49% Content that is limited and descriptive in nature and fails to adequately demonstrate an satisfactory understanding and critical awareness of the subject matter.
10-39% Content that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Non-submission
Critical Analysis, Evaluation and Application (30% of grade)
Extensive evidence of an excellent standard of critical analysis, evaluation and/or synthesis is rigorous and appropriate.
60-69% Good clear evidence of a commendable standard of appropriate critical analysis, evaluation and/or synthesis.
50-59% Evidence of a good/satisfactory standard of critical analysis, evaluation and/or synthesis.
A sufficient attempt at analysis and critical evaluation but has limitations
10-39% A very limited or no attempt at critical thought/evaluation or analysis.
Non-submission
Research and Referencing (20% of grade)
70% + Clear evidence of ability to select, critically evaluate, analyse and apply highly relevant sources, accurately cited in the text.
60-69% Very good evidence of selection and application of relevant sources, accurately cited in the text.
50-59% Good evidence of selection and application of relevant sources, accurately cited in the text.
40-49% Evidence of some research and analysis, but gaps evident; inconsistencies in citation practice.
10-39% Little/very limited evidence of reading and minimal application or analysis of research sources; poor citation practice.
Non-submission
Structure and Presentation (20% of grade)
Clear structure highly relevant to assignment. Clarity of expression excellent, consistently accurate use of grammar and spelling with fluent professional/academic writing [speaking style.
60-69% Clear structure relevant to assignment. Thoughts and ideas clearly expressed. Grammar and spelling accurate and language fluent.
50-59% Suitable structure is apparent and generally relevant. Language mainly fluent. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate.
40-49% An attempt at structure. Meaning apparent in most instances, some less relevant parts included. Language not always fluent, grammar and spelling moderate. Some evidence of ambiguity, leading to meaning being unclear in some instances.
10-39% Structure inadequate and limited affecting the flow and coherence of the writing and meaning. Major limitations in language, grammar and spelling.
Non-submission
You will lose marks if
You produce work which is outside of the stated word count by ± 10%
Your work is badly written, and/or contains spelling and grammatical errors
You have not used the appropriate referencing style
You do not use extensive referencing. You are likely to fail if you do not include appropriate academic references.
Your Turnitin score identifies inappropriate copying of material or inadequate paraphrasing
You submit your work late without agreed mitigating circumstances
GENERAL CRITERIA WHICH WILL BE USED TO MARK YOUR ASSESSMENT:
Grades Band Standard Descriptors (generic)
100%
94%
87% Exceptional 1st
Very high 1 st High Creative, insightful, illuminating, inspiring, exciting, authoritative, challenging. Considers several themes and examples with excellent referencing and analysis combining valid links to SDGs and Business and Societ
80%
74% Mid 1st
Low 1st Persuasive, sophisticated, original, reflective, ambitious, meticulous, contains high standards of academic writing, meets the brief and puts forward compelling critical analysis and links well to other SDGs and Business and Societ
65%
62% 2.1 high merit,
2.1 mid merit
2.1 low merit Fluent, thorough, analytical, precise, rigorous, confident, consistent, thoughtful, clear and well thought out points and analysis with relevant examples indicating impacts on Business and Societ with relevant links to SDGs.
58%
55%
52% 2.2 high pass
2.2 mid pass
2.2 low pass Satisfactory, clear, accurate, careful, congruent, coherent, covers most of the brief but to lesser extent i.e. lacking in sufficient development but at a satisfacto level.
48%
45%
42% High 3rd
Mid third
Low third Sufficient, adequate, descriptive, limited, just about meets the set criteria.
35% Minimum pass/capped mark Marginal fail Incomplete, inadequate, inconsistent, derivative, contradictory, superficial, irrelevant, failing to address the question sufficientl
25% Mid fail
Low fail Erroneous/wrong, missing, extremely limited, inappropriate, insufficient, incoherent, unstructured, off point not worth of a pass.
Fail Lackin , formless, detrimental,
Non-submission absent/none, irrelevant to the question set.
NB: Throughout your report it is important that appropriate referencing is used (Harvard format) to support any views and opinions being made. It is essential that you acknowledge an author's work that you may have used to support an argument in any of your assignments.