BS7114 International Business Strategy with Simulation

You are asked to produce a report of 2,500 words and an executive summary of maximum 200 words on company that will be communicated on the issue date (see above). The report should address three/four key questions that will be introduced just before the assignment commences. For each question of the assignment, students are allocated a given number of marks. The final mark of a student is then based on the sum of the marks the student gains for each question. In CANVAS students can find examples of assignments from previous years.
Depending on the case study or the company that students must analyse, they will be expected to use relevant tools, frameworks, and approaches developed during the module in their answers to the questions. For instance, they may use illustrative diagrams and tables where relevant, to make arguments more clear.
The brief asks students to address both theoretical and practical issues and to draw upon the ideas and concepts and techniques they have learned on the programme.
What you just read was the first brief I got, and below here you find marking criteria and the full brief with name of the company and the questions that needs to be answered. I’ve also attached an example from last years assignment and someones answer on that, which got good marks. Check it out. Also, not use bad references. Use good academic sites and books. I’ve attached an updated ABS list, this contains a list of quality sources, so you can check there as well if needed. Referencing should be in Harvard style. If you need any course material, just let me know, I’ll try to get it. Remember, this needs to be done according to THIS course/module, not another random strategy module. Thanks, and please let me know any time if something is needed or in doubt. KEEP SCROLLING FOR FULL BRIEF.
Allocation of Marks (for each question of the assignment)
Selection of appropriate facts/data on the industry and the organization that are being examined.
Where appropriate, have the arguments been supported by examples drawn from business practice or theory frameworks?
Has the answer been structured using paragraphs that are linked and build to form a coherent answer to the question or to achieve coherence across questions?
Is the language used clear & easy to follow and does it contain evidence of critical reflection? Is the terminology used strategic enough?
Have the key points been drawn out of the discussion to ensure that the reader is clear what the answer to the question being tackled is?
Questions:
1.Critically define and assess the business microenvironment (industry) of Deliveroo, i.e., the online food delivery industry: use the Porter’s Five Forces Framework to clearly indicate and analyze the main industry players. Evaluate the strength of each Force.
2.What is the
  Business Strategy

Business strategic can be defined as the method or the plan which is about to bring about the desired future. Business strategies are known to involve various types of process like planning, setting proper goals, determining the most appropriate way or actions or tactics in order to achieve the goals and aims which are set by the company.

know more

and what is the competitive advantage of Deliveroo? What are the main sources of this advantage? Explain the reasons for the relevance of these sources.
3.What are the main future opportunities and challenges that Deliveroo is going to face in the next 5 years with regard to its growth and the sustainability of its competitive advantage? Explain why these opportunities and challenges are relevant.
4.Provide your recommendations on how Deliveroo should deal with these opportunities and challenges in order to sustain its future growth.
MARKING CRITERIA
The assignment will be assessed using the general postgraduate grade criteria outlined below. Study them to ensure you appreciate the requirements to achieve each grade.
Essentially, what we look for in your final document is:
1.Independent research: Selection of appropriate facts/data on the industry and the organization that are being examined.
2.Use of theory to support arguments: Where appropriate, have the arguments been supported by examples drawn from business practice or theory frameworks?
3.Structure of the answers: Has the answer been structured using paragraphs that are linked and build to form a coherent answer to the question or to achieve coherence across questions?
4.Clarity of expression and analytical ability: Is the language used clear & easy to follow and does it contain evidence of critical reflection? Is the terminology used strategic enough?
5.Conclusion: Have the key points been drawn out of the discussion to ensure that the reader is clear what the answer to the question being tackled is?
Outstanding appreciation and critical review of full range of concepts/literature and issues.
Fluent presentation of relevant information and issues, engaging with current debates at a high level.
Reflection and evaluation in the text/presentation expressed with a skill and discrimination that enriches and extends the area under study, showing some evidence of originality.
Strong grasp of material under consideration with critical appreciation of the range of complexities involved.
Effective organisation of relevant information/literature and issues with a considered balance between the two.
Reflection and evaluation integrated into the text/presentation with confidence and clarity.
Competent identification of key concepts/literature and issues, including recognition of contradictions and lacunae.
Clear presentation of relevant information and issues.
Evidence of reflection on material/evaluation of practice in the text/presentation leading to sound and supported conclusions.
Some knowledge of relevant concepts/literature and issues but with gaps in understanding and/or knowledge.
Little attempt at evaluation, conclusions vague, ambiguous and not based in researched material.
Deficits in one of more of the following: length, structure, presentation, prose.
Limited knowledge of concepts/literature and issues, demonstrating little understanding.
Inadequate in all or most of the following – evaluation, structure of argument, research and presentation.
Work is substantially incomplete and deficient.