University of Hertfordshire – 6BUS1045 Strategic Management
Assessment Brief: Competitive Advantage Analysis and Ansoff Matrix Implementation

This assessment requires you to produce a 2,000-word individual strategic analysis report for a UK-listed organisation of your choice. You will apply the Ansoff Matrix, Porter’s Five Forces, and the VRIO framework to evaluate how the organisation has generated and sustained competitive advantage, then propose a growth strategy for the next three financial years. The report carries 60% of the module mark and is assessed on analytical depth, framework application, quality of evidence, and the feasibility of strategic recommendations. Submit via Canvas by 23:59 on Friday 8 May 2026.

Module and Assessment Details

Module code: 6BUS1045
Module title: Strategic Management
Assessment type: Individual written report
Weighting: 60% of total module mark
Word count: 2,000 words (+/- 10%, excluding reference list and appendices)
Submission deadline: Friday 8 May 2026, 23:59 (UK time)
Submission method: Canvas assignment portal (Turnitin-enabled)
Referencing style: Harvard (University of Hertfordshire standard)
Module leader: Dr Sarah Okonkwo

Context

Strategic management at the University of Hertfordshire module 6BUS1045 equips final-year students with the analytical tools to diagnose competitive environments and formulate defensible strategic choices. The module sits within the Business School’s broader commitment to evidence-based management education and aligns with the Chartered Management Institute’s Level 5 accreditation framework. This assessment builds directly on the weekly seminar work covering PESTLE analysis, Porter’s Five Forces, the resource-based view, and the Ansoff growth matrix. It also connects to the formative strategy simulation run in Weeks 2 through 5, where you practised applying these frameworks to a simulated firm facing realistic market pressures.

Task Description

You are a junior strategy consultant engaged by a UK-listed company that has experienced measurable shifts in its competitive position over the past three years. Select one organisation from the FTSE 350 index. The organisation must have publicly available annual reports for 2023, 2024, and 2025, and must operate in a sector where competitive dynamics have changed materially (for example, retail, energy, financial services, or technology).

Your task is to produce a formal strategic analysis report addressed to the company’s board. The report must accomplish four things. First, evaluate the external competitive environment using Porter’s Five Forces, supported by relevant PESTLE factors. Second, assess the organisation’s internal resources and capabilities using the VRIO framework. Third, apply the Ansoff Matrix to map the organisation’s current and potential growth strategies, identifying which quadrant(s) it currently occupies and which direction offers the strongest strategic fit. Fourth, recommend one specific growth initiative for the 2026–2029 period, justifying your choice with reference to your analysis and at least two credible external sources beyond the company’s annual reports.

The report must follow a professional consultancy structure: executive summary, introduction, external analysis, internal analysis, growth strategy evaluation, recommendations, and reference list. Appendices may include any supporting tables or figures, but these do not contribute to the word count.

Assessment Requirements

Use at least eight academic or professional sources, including a minimum of four peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2020 and 2026.
Apply the Ansoff Matrix to at least two potential growth options, evaluating each against the organisation’s VRIO-confirmed capabilities.
Include a completed VRIO table within the main body of the report.
Cite all sources using the Harvard referencing system. In-text citations must include page numbers where you quote directly.
Write in formal academic English. Avoid first-person pronouns except in the executive summary, where “this report” or “the analysis” is preferred.
Submit as a single Word document (.docx). Font: Calibri or Arial, size 12. Line spacing: 1.5. Margins: 2.54 cm.
The executive summary must not exceed 200 words and does not count towards the word limit.

Marking Rubric

Criteria	Weight	Distinction (70–100)	Merit (60–69)	Pass (40–59)	Fail (0–39)
Application of strategic frameworks	30%	Frameworks applied with precision and critical insight; VRIO table demonstrates sophisticated resource evaluation; Five Forces analysis identifies non-obvious industry dynamics.	Frameworks applied accurately with some critical commentary; VRIO and Five Forces analyses are competent but lack depth in places.	Frameworks applied correctly at a basic level; analysis is descriptive rather than analytical.	Frameworks applied incorrectly or omitted; analysis lacks structure.
Quality of evidence and referencing	25%	Evidence drawn from a wide range of high-quality sources; referencing is faultless; sources are integrated smoothly into the argument.	Evidence is relevant and mostly well-integrated; referencing is largely accurate with minor errors.	Evidence is adequate but relies too heavily on one or two sources; referencing contains some errors.	Evidence is insufficient or irrelevant; referencing is absent or seriously flawed.
Strategic reasoning and feasibility of recommendations	25%	Recommendations follow logically from the analysis; feasibility is assessed against resource constraints, market conditions, and implementation risks; alternative options are considered and dismissed with justification.	Recommendations are logical and mostly well-justified; some consideration of feasibility and alternatives.	Recommendations are present but weakly justified or not clearly linked to the analysis.	Recommendations are absent, vague, or disconnected from the analysis.
Structure, presentation, and academic writing	20%	Report is professionally structured; writing is clear, concise, and error-free; executive summary captures the essential argument.	Report is well-structured; writing is clear with minor errors; executive summary is adequate.	Report follows the required structure; writing is comprehensible but contains noticeable errors.	Structure is unclear; writing contains frequent errors that impede understanding.

Sample Answer: Competitive Advantage Analysis and Ansoff Matrix Implementation

Applying the Ansoff Matrix to a UK Retail Organisation

A strong response to this brief begins by anchoring the analysis in a specific, verifiable organisational context. For instance, a student examining Marks & Spencer’s recent strategic repositioning would note that the company has pursued a market penetration strategy through its “Remarksable” value range while simultaneously exploring market development via its joint venture with Ocado. The VRIO analysis would identify M&S’s food supply chain relationships and brand heritage as valuable and rare, though the question of inimitability becomes contested when comparable grocers replicate premium own-brand ranges. The Ansoff evaluation then weighs these internal capabilities against external opportunities. Research by Cardeal et al. (2022) in Technological Forecasting and Social Change demonstrates how a [quantified VRIO framework can strengthen strategic management decisions](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121334) by assigning weights to resource attributes rather than treating them as binary categories. Applying this quantified approach would push the analysis beyond a surface-level checklist and towards a genuinely evidence-based recommendation. The recommendation section should then specify which Ansoff quadrant the chosen initiative occupies, what resources it requires, and what risks could undermine its delivery within the 2026–2029 planning horizon.

Evaluating Diversification Against Market Development

Students frequently conflate diversification with market development when applying the Ansoff Matrix, and this brief rewards those who distinguish the two with precision. Diversification involves introducing new products or services to new markets, which demands capabilities the organisation may not currently possess. Market development, by contrast, takes existing products into new markets, relying on capabilities the firm has already demonstrated. A useful test is to ask whether the organisation would need to acquire, build, or partner for new resources to execute the strategy. If the answer is yes, the strategy is closer to diversification than market development. Porter’s Five Forces analysis supports this distinction by revealing whether the new market’s competitive intensity justifies the resource commitment. For UK-listed firms facing stagnant domestic demand, the temptation to diversify overseas is strong, but research on supply chain resilience during macroeconomic disruption suggests that firms often overestimate their ability to transfer capabilities across borders.

Building the VRIO Table with Defensible Evidence

The VRIO table is not a box-ticking exercise; it is an argument about what the organisation can sustain. Each row must present a resource or capability, then evaluate it against the four VRIO criteria with specific evidence. A vague entry such as “strong brand reputation” adds nothing. A defensible entry would read: “Brand trust measured by YouGov’s 2025 BrandIndex score of 72.3, sustained above sector average for 11 consecutive quarters.” The imitability criterion requires particular care. A resource that appears valuable and rare may still fail the VRIO test if competitors can replicate it within a two-year horizon. The organisation criterion asks whether the firm has the structures and incentives in place to exploit the resource fully. Many students overlook this final criterion, which is precisely where the analytical gap between a Merit and a Distinction usually sits. For the recommendation section, only resources that pass all four VRIO criteria should anchor the proposed growth initiative; otherwise the strategy rests on capabilities the organisation cannot reliably deploy.

Research, Writing, and Citation Guidance

Why This Matters in Practice

Strategic analysis skills are not confined to the classroom. Consultancies such as McKinsey and Deloitte use framework-based analysis daily when advising clients on market entry, portfolio optimisation, and competitive positioning. The VRIO framework appears in corporate strategy reviews at firms including Unilever and Rolls-Royce, where resource audits inform capital allocation decisions. The ability to produce a disciplined, evidence-based strategic report is therefore directly transferable to graduate roles in consulting, corporate strategy, and investment analysis.

Frequently Asked Question

How many sources should I use for a 2,000-word strategic management report?

Aim for eight to twelve sources. At least four should be peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2020 and 2026. Use the company’s annual reports and investor presentations for financial and strategic data, and supplement these with industry reports from sources such as IBISWorld or Mintel. Avoid relying on news articles alone; they date quickly and often lack the analytical depth expected at Level 6. The strongest reports integrate academic theory with primary company data, using journal articles to frame the analysis and annual reports to substantiate claims about resources, capabilities, and financial performance.

Next Assessment: Week 9 Discussion Post

Module: 6BUS1045 Strategic Management
Week: 9
Assessment type: Discussion board post and peer responses
Weighting: 10% of total module mark
Initial post deadline: Wednesday of Week 9, 23:59
Peer response deadline: Sunday of Week 9, 23:59

Drawing on your Week 8 seminar on strategic leadership and change management, write an initial discussion post of 300–400 words that addresses the following question: “Can a firm sustain competitive advantage without changing its leadership team when its industry undergoes structural disruption?” Use one example from a UK or international organisation to support your argument. Your post must engage with at least one academic source from the module reading list and one contemporary example from the business press. After posting, respond to at least two peers with substantive comments of 100–150 words each. Responses must advance the discussion by introducing new evidence, challenging an assumption, or connecting the peer’s argument to a different strategic framework. Marks are awarded for the quality of the initial argument, the integration of evidence, and the analytical depth of peer responses.

The post Ansoff Matrix and Competitive Advantage Analysis appeared first on EssayBishops.

Ansoff Matrix and Competitive Advantage Analysis

University of Hertfordshire – 6BUS1045 Strategic Management Assessment Brief: Competitive Advantage Analysis and Ansoff Matrix Implementation