Excelsior Business Strategy 495

[dshlvrsn]

I was not able to run through the chapter quizzes as quickly as others.

Unless things have changed the quizzes are VERY straight forward, especially if you've used the online textbook resources...

I really wanted to stand out in the discussion forum. I figured "hey, I know a lot about strategy already, and I like talking about it. I could have some fun with this." WRONG. The professor will tell you that the discussion questions are not homework assignments and he only wants to stimulate meaningful discussion. He is lying. They are homework questions; treat them as such, reply and build lightly some some other people's posts without straying too far off the path and you will be fine. Besides, many of the questions were quite uninteresting, IMO.

I can't think of a class that I took with a professor that I didn't have to adjust for... (Econ - all exam questions come from lecture notes and may contradict the text-No recording allowed) Here are the rules that I followed that seemed to serve well. I tried to initiate the answer to one question for each chapter. Either a case or chapter reading didn't matter. I referenced the text book. I also referenced outside research. I never started an answer with "I think" or "I feel." Participation is definately expected. I had the benefit of a small deadbeat section. You know the old saying - I don't have to run faster than the bear...

I had a lot of trouble trying to understand what was expected of me on the case analysis. A big part of that is because I was expecting (wishfully thinking) that I would be doing some original, persuasive and thought provoking writing and demonstrating my strategic acumen. WRONG AGAIN. This is also not a place to show off. The professor is looking for you to demonstrate that you read the book, you know how to do a SWOT analysis, you know what five force analysis is, basically a good understanding of what the book teaches. Start diverting from that, and you're in trouble. Example: I did my SWOT analysis just like I was supposed to, but decided that the formulaic conclusion reached by said analysis was not sufficient or especially relevant to the firm being analyzed, so I came up with my own suggestions that disagreed with the formulaic SWOT framework. Sherman did not like that, and I paid the price in my grade, which ended up being a 24/30. The moral of that story is to demonstrate that you know what the book told you, and nothing else. I will also reiterate what gcalvin said: "be brutally clear about what you're doing". I lost points on my company's strategic mission statement because I did not put it under an explicit heading or dress it up in neon flashing lights or anything. Prof. Sherman isn't a very good listener, so subtlety should be avoided at all costs. (Brief rant: I don't like Sherman. I think he is an opinionated hippie who is far more concerned with what he has to say than listening to anyone else, which is a really sh!tty character trait in a teacher. If you are argumentative about certain issues like me, resist the urge to debate things with him in the forum. Also, like I said before, don't get clever or creative in your writings, because he won't appreciate it one bit. You are warned.)

I had EXACTLY the problem to begin with. There is very little guidance and no example to follow. I think that he has finally come up with a rubric that seems to make it harder. Since my employer was paying for this course I ordered everything that came up in the bookstore for this class (don't bother the Management Questions or what ever it's call - it's just a bunch of questions to ask in interviews.) I scoured the internet. I'm shocked that as common as case analysis is there is not a lot out there to help. I think that it's a little unfair to say that the professor does not appreciate creativity. If there is one thing that is clear about the case study is that it is intended to demonstrate an understanding of the concepts in the course and that outside research has been done. The SWOT is definately a huge part of what is looked at. In spite of running it by a partner at a TOP consulting firm and getting a glowing review, the professor said that it was not detailed enough.

In the end what did was follow the format of a plastic summary card - $5 from EC. I also did the same thing I'd do for a position paper - chose the side I could best argue, not the one I felt was right.

Brief statement of history, Problem (my problem statement was two sentances), External Analysis (followed Porter's Five here), SWOT Analysis. From there it was like a decision tree. Since my case dealt with a company with one segment I stated, very clearly, that portfolio analysis would not be used. I pulled things like Grand Strategy Selection Matrix and Grand Strategy Cluster directly from the text. I also included in the paper and in the references proof that I looked other sources other than the text. This was the 'strategy' part of the case. From there I proposed two distinct positions or paths that the company could follow that were verbatim from the text. (pursue concentrated growth through market development or concentric diversification). As stated - NO SUBTLETY. Hit him between the eyes with what you are doing. State the recomendation. Don't forget the implementation and control. I chose the Balanced Scorecard because it's very universal and is easy to adapt to almost any strategy. Finish off with a summary and it's done. I stated before that it's very possible to do this course quicker than the allotted time. That said to complete the paper properly you need to demonstrate that you've studied what is in the text. I'd recommend starting a skeleton right away and then building on it as you go along.

If you can find it, I had a paperback version of the Wheelen text that had a great case study outline. I've misplaced mine.

This is a very doable course, especially if you don't try to make it harder than it really is.

Right on the money...