Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / As you move to the final Playbook analysis and write up, weave formal evaluation language into your work

As you move to the final Playbook analysis and write up, weave formal evaluation language into your work

Business

As you move to the final Playbook analysis and write up, weave formal evaluation language into your work. Show the ‘why and how’ of your strategy. I'm referring to the BOLD elements below:

Strategy Evaluation: Clarity of the Strategy

•             Does the strategy and associated initiatives have a "name" that evokes the strategy?

•             Is it easy to communicate what the strategy is and why it can work?

•             Is it likely that people inside the organization will understand and commit to the strategy?

 

Strategy Evaluation: Consistency of Purpose (Context Level of Analysis)

•             Based on your reading of the case, is The Mozilla Company's proposed strategy consistent with its Soulful Purpose and its mission, vision, and values? How?

 

Strategy Evaluation: Feasibility and Alignment (Activities and Relationships Level of Analysis)

· What are the primary Key Success Factors that The Mozilla Company needs to excel at in the future?

· Do they have the internal skills, competencies, and capabilities to execute their strategy? (If not, does the plan do a good job of saying how they will acquire these?)

 

Are the basic elements of the proposed strategy feasible?

•             From a teamwork and healthy organization standpoint?

•             From a financial standpoint?

•             From a measurement/metrics standpoint?

•             Does the strategy appear to be internally aligned? Do the specific action-plan steps support each other? How and Why?

 

Strategy Evaluation: External Consonance and Potential Competitive Advantage

•             Is the proposed strategy consonant with the current and future needs of the external ecosystem and stakeholder needs? How and Why?

•             Does the strategy indicate any long-term strategic intent?

•             Does the proposed strategy position the company to perform activities differently than rivals do? How and why?

•             Does the proposed strategy lead to incremental change within the industry; a more fundamental change within the industry; or does it establish new positions outside the industry or in blue ocean spaces? How and why is the scope of the strategy appropriate?

 

Do you think the proposed strategy can create or preserve any advantages it may confer on the company? Which advantages, and how and why? 

 

Regards, 

 Dr eD

 

Week 8 Discussion clarification #2

 

Top of Form

Hello all,  

As you move to the final Playbook analysis and write up, weave formal evaluation language into your work. Show the ‘why and how’ of your strategy. I'm referring to the BOLD elements below: 

Strategy Evaluation: Clarity of the Strategy 

· Does the strategy and associated initiatives have a "name" that evokes the strategy?

· Is it easy to communicate what the strategy is and why it can work?

· Is it likely that people inside the organization will understand and commit to the strategy? 

Strategy Evaluation: Consistency of Purpose (Context Level of Analysis) 

· Based on your reading of the case, is The Mozilla Company's proposed strategy consistent with its Soulful Purpose and its mission, vision, and values? How? 

Strategy Evaluation: Feasibility and Alignment (Activities and Relationships Level of Analysis) 

· What are the primary Key Success Factors that The Mozilla Company needs to excel at in the future? Do they have the internal skills, competencies, and capabilities to execute their strategy? (If not, does the plan do a good job of saying how they will acquire these?) 

Are the basic elements of the proposed strategy feasible? 

From a teamwork and healthy organization standpoint? 

From a financial standpoint? 

· From a measurement/metrics standpoint? 

· Does the strategy appear to be internally aligned? Do the specific action-plan steps support each other? How and Why? 

Strategy Evaluation: External Consonance and Potential Competitive Advantage 

· Is the proposed strategy consonant with the current and future needs of the external ecosystem and stakeholder needs? How and Why? 

· Does the strategy indicate any long-term strategic intent? 

· Does the proposed strategy position the company to perform activities differently than rivals do? How and why? 

· Does the proposed strategy lead to incremental change within the industry; a more fundamental change within the industry; or does it establish new positions outside the industry or in blue ocean spaces? How and why is the scope of the strategy appropriate? 

Do you think the proposed strategy can create or preserve any advantages it may confer on the company? Which advantages, and how and why?  

 

Regards,  

 

Dr eD

Instructor’s earlier message to all

Hello all,  

I have had several requests concerning the development of the Playbook balanced scorecard graphics in terms of source and template.  The source in your readings was: 

Week 2--Joseph, G. (2009). Mapping, measurement and alignment of strategy using the balanced scorecard: The Tata Steel case. Accounting Education, 18(2), 117–130. 

You can use Word, Excel or Power Point to develop a similar template.  I have added two documents to Doc Sharing that may assist you 

   1) The diagram from the Tata case 

   2) The draft of an MS Power Point slide using the Tata diagram. 

There are a couple of techniques you want to know when using MS Power Point: 

   1) Insert, Smart Art, Hierarchy will give you the basic format 

   2) When you are ready to add additional boxes you want to select Format and Ungroup.  That will give you much more flexibility in adding and aligning the shapes using Power Point 

If you are using MS Excel you want to Insert, Shapes, Flowchart.  Again, this will make your design much smoother than simply inserting Basic Shapes.  You can draw much neater lines between the boxes if you hold down the Shift key while inserting arrows or other lines between the components. 

I hope this helps you just a bit as you develop your graphics for your Playbook.  

Regards,    

Dr eD

Bottom of Form

 

 

 

Discussion - Week 8

Top of Form

Discussion: Case Analysis With Discussion: Building the Living Organization and Executing Strategy in Real Time—Mozilla Corporation

Perhaps the most important challenge any organization faces over time is executing strategy effectively, and making strategic thinking a part of everyone's day-to-day life. All too often, strategy and strategic thinking is thought to be the exclusive domain of senior leadership (though they ARE the ones most responsible to see that there is a strategy!).

However, as you've seen through numerous readings in this course, and throughout your MBA program, the big-picture issues that strategy must deal with are just too voluminous, too complex, and too tied into the everyday work of everyone in the organization to leave it up to just a few people.

Keeping all the pieces of an organization aligned, keeping the people focused on the Soulful Purpose of the firm (and that includes the board of directors), is an ongoing and everyday activity. As Wolfe notes, “strategic planning is dead—long live strategy execution” (2001, p. 116).

This week you will explore strategy execution through an analysis of Mozilla Corporation, which is a for-profit entity that is part of the Mozilla Foundation (another hybrid organization like Google.org/Google, which you studied in Week 1).

To prepare for this Discussion:

· Review all required readings, including the Weekly Briefing, which provides additional guidance on how to complete the assignment.

· Review the case analysis. You may want to scan it multiple times.

· Identify and review all relevant readings from the MBA Capstone Program Bibliography.

By Day 3, post responses to at least two of the prompts below for

Part A: Execution of Strategy at Mozilla

1. How would you describe Mozilla's cultural and organizational DNA? What, specifically, about the way Mozilla enacts strategy and executes its business plan provides it with such depth?

2. What do you think are the lessons from Mozilla for other knowledge-based organizations, especially in terms of strategy execution and the involvement of people throughout the organization?

3. In what ways is Mozilla more effective at executing strategy than Google.org (case from Week 1)? Why are they more effective?

4. What are the critical challenges that Debbie Cohen faces as chief of people at Mozilla, specifically in terms of strategy execution and alignment? What should she do to meet these challenges, and why?

General Guidance: Your original discussion post for Part A should be ½ single-spaced page (cut and paste into the DQ area), excluding references. Refer to the Week 8 Discussion 1 rubric for grading elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use the rubric to assess your work.

Part B: Getting Everyone to Participate in Strategic Thinking and Execution

Then, based both on the Mozilla case study and your general thoughts from this course, everyone must respond to this question:

1. Explain how the knowledge and effective practice of cross-functional strategic thinking can help individual stakeholders (people at all levels of the organization and others outside the organization) participate more fully in organizational efforts to improve long-term performance and overall stakeholder engagement.

General Guidance: Your original discussion post for Part B should be ½ single-spaced page (cut and paste into the DQ area), excluding references. Refer to the Week 8 Discussion 1 rubric for grading elements and criteria. Your Instructor will use the rubric to assess your work.

Read a selection of your colleagues' posts.

By Day 5, respond to two or more of your peers in one or more of the following ways:

· Comment on what you learned from your colleague's analysis that is new to you.

· Comment on how your analysis might extend or improve his or her analysis.

· Provide your observations about your peers' comments based on your synthesis of several of the original posts, explaining how those posts better inform what your peer wrote. (Note: Exemplary responses should provide a synthesis of multiple peers' insights, findings, and analyses.)

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made.

Click on the Reply button below to reveal the textbox for entering your message. Then click on the Submit button to post your message.

Bottom of Form

ame: WMBA_6990_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

 

· Grid View

· List View

 

Exemplary

Very Good

Proficient

Opportunity for Improvement

Unacceptable

Element 1a: Initial Post - Part A: Execution of Strategy at Mozilla

(16%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed analysis of the execution of strategy at Mozilla, using examples from the case, at least one resource from the MBA Program Capstone Bibliography, and other research to address all of the issues and questions posed in Part A.

7.44 (14.88%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed analysis of the execution of strategy at Mozilla, using examples from the case, at least one resource from the MBA Program Capstone Bibliography, and other research to address all of the issues and questions posed in Part A. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details.

6.8 (13.6%)

Student provides an analysis with some details of the execution of strategy at Mozilla, using examples from the case, at least one resource from the MBA Program Capstone Bibliography, and other research to address some of the issues and questions posed in Part A.

(12%)

Student provides a cursory description of the execution of strategy at Mozilla cursorily addressing with vague or missing details some of the issues and questions posed in Part A.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 1b: Initial Post - Part B: Strategic Thinking - Stakeholder Engagement

(8%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed assessment of how the knowledge and effective practice of cross-functional strategic thinking can help individual stakeholders (people at all levels of the organization and others outside the organization) participate more fully in organizational efforts to improve long-term performance and overall stakeholder engagement.

3.72 (7.44%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed assessment of how the knowledge and effective practice of cross-functional strategic thinking can help individual stakeholders (people at all levels of the organization and others outside the organization) participate more fully in organizational efforts to improve long-term performance and overall stakeholder engagement. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student provides a description with some details of how the knowledge and effective practice of cross-functional strategic thinking can help individual stakeholders (people at all levels of the organization and others outside the organization) participate more fully in organizational efforts to improve long-term performance and overall stakeholder engagement.

(6%)

Student provides a cursory description with vague or missing details of how the knowledge and effective practice of cross-functional strategic thinking can help individual stakeholders (people at all levels of the organization and others outside the organization) participate in organization activities.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 1c: Initial Post - Part B: Strategic Thinking - Stakeholder Engagement - Key Insights

(8%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation of key insights from this course and the MBA program that illustrate his/her position in Part B, using resources from this course and the MBA Program Capstone Bibliography.

3.72 (7.44%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation of key insights from this course and the MBA program that illustrate his/her position in Part B, using resources from this course and the MBA Program Capstone Bibliography. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student provides an explanation of some insights from this course and the MBA program that illustrate his/her position in Part B, using resources from this course and the MBA Program Capstone Bibliography.

(6%)

Student provides a cursory description with vague or missing details of a few insights from this course and the MBA program that illustrate his or her position in Part B.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 1d: Initial Post - Part B: Strategic Thinking - Stakeholder Engagement - Examples

(8%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation identifying at least two different examples of how individual stakeholders at two different levels of the organization or outside the organization practice cross-functional strategic thinking and participate more fully in organizational efforts to improve long-term performance and overall stakeholder engagement.

3.72 (7.44%)

Student provides a thorough and detailed explanation identifying at least two different examples of how individual stakeholders at two different levels of the organization or outside the organization practice cross-functional strategic thinking and participate more fully in organizational efforts to improve long-term performance and overall stakeholder engagement. Response is comprehensive but missing one or two details.

3.4 (6.8%)

Student provides an explanation with some details identifying two different examples of how individual stakeholders at two different levels of the organization or outside the organization practice cross-functional strategic thinking and participate more fully in organizational efforts to improve long-term performance and overall stakeholder engagement.

(6%)

Student provides a cursory explanation identifying fewer than two examples of how individual stakeholders at two different levels of the organization or outside the organization practice cross-functional strategic thinking.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 2a: Written Communication - Initial Post

2.5 (5%)

Writing is clear, logical, well-organized and appropriate. Work is free from spelling and grammar/syntax errors.  Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are no errors.

2.33 (4.65%)

Writing is mostly clear, logical, and organized. Few, if any spelling and grammar/syntax issues are noted.  Overall, a few sections need additional editing, but generally, work appears proofread. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are one or two minor errors.

2.12 (4.25%)

The main points are clear and organized. Some spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism).

1.88 (3.75%)

There are key sections that lack organization or logical flow. Many spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Work requires additional proofreading.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 2b: Written Communication - Responses to Peers

2.5 (5%)

Writing is clear, logical, well-organized and appropriate. Work is free from spelling and grammar/syntax errors.  Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are no errors.

2.33 (4.65%)

Writing is generally clear, logical, and organized. Few, if any spelling and grammar/syntax issues are noted.  Overall, a few sections need additional editing, but generally, work appears proofread. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism). There are one or two minor errors.

2.12 (4.25%)

The main points are clear and organized. Some spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Tone is professional and free from bias (i.e., sexism, racism).

1.88 (3.75%)

There are key sections that lack organization or logical flow. Many spelling, grammar/syntax issues are noted. Work requires additional proofreading.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 3a: Relevance - Initial Post

(10%)

Student effectively and directly integrates discussion/assignment content with relevant and compelling personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources. Specifically adds a new and/or different insight or perspective on the subject area(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.

4.65 (9.3%)

Student offers personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources, discussing their relevance, but does not specifically add new or different insights or perspectives on the subject areas(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.

4.25 (8.5%)

Student provides an explanation of some examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with some details of why those examples are relevant.

3.75 (7.5%)

Student provides a cursory description of a few examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with vague or missing details of why those examples are relevant.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 3b: Relevance - Responses to Peers

(10%)

Student effectively and directly integrates discussion/assignment content with relevant and compelling personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources. Specifically adds a new and/or different insight or perspective on the subject area(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.

4.65 (9.3%)

Student offers personal experiences, additional research, or current events from credible news sources, discussing their relevance, but does not specifically add new or different insights or perspectives on the subject areas(s) being discussed or treated in the assignment.

4.25 (8.5%)

Student provides an explanation of some examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with some details of why those examples are relevant.

3.75 (7.5%)

Student provides a cursory description of a few examples of how the content of the discussion/application applies to real-world scenarios with vague or missing details of why those examples are relevant.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 4a: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations) - Initial Post

2.5 (5%)

Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are no APA errors.

2.33 (4.65%)

Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.

2.12 (4.25%)

Overall, Student follows guidelines for scholarly or credible references and/or APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.

1.88 (3.75%)

Student demonstrates inconsistent adherence to scholarly reference requirements and/or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Significant errors in APA format and style are evident.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 4b: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations) - Responses to Peers

2.5 (5%)

Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are no APA errors.

2.33 (4.65%)

Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly or credible reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.

2.12 (4.25%)

Student addresses guidelines for scholarly or credible references and/or APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.

1.88 (3.75%)

Student demonstrates inconsistent adherence to scholarly reference requirements and/or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution and references. Significant and/or numerous errors in APA format and style are evident.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Element 5: Engagement in Discussion via Responses

10 (20%)

At least two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor. Student provides multiple examples to further the ideas in any of the following ways: • Comparing a colleague's trends or strategies for how the interrelationship of foresight, creativity, and innovation within an ethical model is similar or different. • Sharing how a colleague might apply learning to his/her career or management practices.

9.3 (18.6%)

At least two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor. Student provides some examples to further the ideas in any of the following ways: • Comparing a colleague's trends or strategies for how the interrelationship of foresight, creativity, and innovation within an ethical model is similar or different. • Sharing how a colleague might apply learning to his/her career or management practices.

8.5 (17%)

At least two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor. Student provides examples to further the ideas in any of the following ways: • Comparing a colleague's trends or strategies for how the interrelationship of foresight, creativity, and innovation within an ethical model is similar or different. • Sharing how a colleague might apply learning to his/her career or management practices.

7.5 (15%)

Fewer than two responses to different colleagues or the Instructor. Student provides cursory examples to further the ideas in any of the following ways: • Comparing a colleague's trends or strategies for how the interrelationship of foresight, creativity, and innovation within an ethical model is similar or different. • Sharing how a colleague might apply learning to his/her career or management practices.

(0%)

Not submitted or little to no evidence of addressing the criterion.

Name: WMBA_6990_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

 

 

Exit

Purchase A New Answer

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE