Criteria Exemplary HD Proficient D or C Competent P Unsatisfactory F Introduction of current situation/problem (5%)
The main situation or marketing issue was clearly identified and was succinctly presented at the beginning of the write-up.
The main situation or marketing issues was identified and was described well.
The main problem was discussed in a generic manner.
Failed to explain the main marketing issue. Nature of Analyses (40%)
The analysis was conducted extensively. Accurate and excellent use of theory/ model/framework in the analysis. Demonstrates critical thinking. Excellent discussion
The analysis was very good. Good use of theory/model/framework etc but could have been more critical and focused.
The analysis was conducted using some of model, theory etc but lacks depth. That is, it describes the theory/model/framework used but does not apply them appropriately.
The key theory/model/framework was missing in the analysis. The discussion lacked depth and does not demonstrate marketing thinking. Identifying opportunities and gaps (30%)
The analysis clearly leads to an excellent discussion on key issues, gaps and opportunities, and the relevant information derived from the analyses were succinctly and logically presented
The analysis leads to a good discussion on key issues. Some relevant opportunities and gaps are discussed. The relevant information derived from the analyses was presented well.
The analysis leads to a fair discussion on key issues. Some relevant opportunities and gaps are discussed while some key ones are missing. The relevant information derived from the analyses was presented in a satisfactory manner but there is a lot of room for improvement.
The analysis does not identify or discuss the key issues, gaps and opportunities in an adequate manner.
List of Readings – Strategic Marketing
1. Hill, M. and McGinnis, J. (2007), “The curiosity in marketing thinking” Journal of Marketing Education”, Vol 29, No.1. (Week 1)
2. Grundy, T. (2006), “Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porter’s Five Forces model, Strategic change, Vol 15 (5), p213-22 (Week 2)
3. Porter, M (2008) The five competitive forces that shape strategy, Harvard Business Review. (Week 2)
4. Moussetis, R. (2011), Ansoff revisted: How Ansoff interfaces with both the planning and learning school of thoughts in strategy. Journal of Management History. Vol 17 (1) (Week 3)
5. Moss- Kanter (1990), How to Compete. Harvard Business Review (Week 3)
6. Brandenburger A. M. e Nalebuff B. J. The Right Game: Use Game Theory to Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review , 1995, July-August, , p. 57-71. (Week 3)
7. Barnett, W. (1995) “Making game theory work in practice”, The Wall Street Journal. Feb Issue (Week 3)
8. Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. (1985), “Of strategies, Deliberate and Emergent” Strategic Management Journal, Vol 6., No.3. (Week 3)
9. Jain, S., Haley, G., Voola, R, and Wickham, M. (2011), Chapter 6, Scanning the environment, Marketing Planning and Strategy, Cengage Learning Australia Pty Ltd. (Week 4)
10. Prahalad, C. and Hamel, G (1990). “The core competency of the corporation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 68. (Week5)
11. Bryce, D and Dyer, J. (2007), “Strategies to crack well-guarded markets”, Harvard Business Review. May Issue. pp 84-92 (Week 5)
12. Tellis, G., and Crawford, C. (1981) “ An evolutionary approach to product growth theory” Journal of Marketing, Fall. Pp 125-34 (Week 6)
13. Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2,pp. 195-211. (Week 6)
14. Van Heerde,H, Gijsbrechts, E and Pauwels, K. (2008), “Winners and Losers in a major price war” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 45. (Week 6)
15. Anderson, C and Zeithami C. (1984), Stage of the Product Life Cycle, Business Strategy and Business Performance, Academy of Management, Vol 27. Issue 1. (Week 6)
16. Neil Brooks Lyndon Simkin, (2012),”Judging marketing mix effectiveness”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 30 Iss 5 pp. 494 – 514 (Week 7)
17. Moller, K. (2006) “The marketing mix revisited towards the 21st Century: Marketing by E. Constantinides”, Journal of Marketing Management. Vol 22 (Week 7)
18. Rao,A., Bergen, M., and Davis, S. (2000). “How to Fight a Price War”, Harvard Business Review, March Issue. pp107-16 (Week 7)
19. Moorman, C. and Miner, A (1998), “The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development”, Journal of Marketing. July issue. pp1-20 (Week 8)
20. Day, G. and Nedungadi, P. (1994), “Managerial Representation of Competitive Strategy” Journal of Marketing. April Issue. pp 31-44 (Week 8)
21. Eisenhardt, K.M. abd Brown, S.L. (1999), “Patching: re-stitching business portfolio in dynamic market” Harvard Business Review. May-June (Week 8)
22. Noel Dennis & Michael Macaulay (2003), “Jazz and marketing planning”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol 11, Issue 3 (Week 8)
23. Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., and Heijden, K (2005), “The origins and evolutions of scenario techniques in long range business planning” Futures, Vol 37. (Week 9)
24. Schoemaker, P. (1995), “Scenario Planning: A tool for strategic thinking.” Sloan Management Review, Vol 36. Issue 2. (Week 9)
25. McGrath R, (2010), “Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach”, Long Range Planning, Vol 43, Issue 2-3 (Week 9)
26. Shaw, G., Brown, R. and Bromiley, P. (1998), “How 3 M is rewriting business planning,” Harvard Business Review, May-June Issue. pp41-50 (Week 9)
27. Jaworski, B, Kohli, AK & Sahay, A 2000, ‘Market-driven versus driving markets’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 45-54. (Week 10)
28. Harrigan, K. and Porter M. (1983). “Endgame Strategies for Declining Industries,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 111-120 (Week 10)
29. Kumar, N, Scheer, L & Kotler, P 2000, ‘From market driven to market driving’, European Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 129-142. (Week 10)