AB311 AY 2012/13 Semester 2 Examiners Report

EXAMINERS REPORT
Course Code & Title: AB311 Strategic Management
Academic Year/Semester: 2012/2013 Semester 2
Course Coordinator: Eugene Kang
________________________________________________________________________________
Please note that each instructor graded their own students AB311examination answer scripts.
Hence, this examiners report is organized by the last names of the instructors in alphabetical
order.

Instructors Name: Chiu, Shih-Chi

Q1. The majority of the students were able to conduct the competitor analysis based on market
commonality and resource similarity between the key global auto players. Students who received
higher marks usually provided a more thorough discussion on each dimension of the competitor
analysis, such that market commonality should include both product and geographic markets and that
resource analysis should include both tangible and intangible resources. Those who received higher
marks also include discussions on competitor awareness, motivation, and likelihood of
attack/response.
Q2. This question tests students understanding of why companies go abroad and rationale of
choosing a particular type of international strategy. Students who received higher marks were able to
not only identify basic reasons for Ford to expand internationally but also explain how Ford can use
its current strengths or core competencies to seize the opportunity overseas. Regarding the choice of
international strategy, some students failed to provide adequate reasons to justify their choice. A few
students misinterpreted the question and provided answers on the choice of entry mode or
international organizational structure for Ford.

Q3. Most students were able to identify four basic perspectives of a balanced scorecard. However,
some did not provide adequate justifications about their choice of measures and how those measures
can help track the implementation of the ONE FORD plan.

Instructors Name: Choo, Clive

Q1. Good answers use the Chen (1996)s framework and could explain clearly (i.e., why rated high on
both axes) the intense rivalry among the large auto makers. Also, good answers show how the three
drivers (awareness, motivation and ability) influence competitive behavior. Not so good answers
focus on performance, general discussion of target market, and product range of each competitor.
Q2. Good answers utilize the Porters National Advantage model to determine whether or not Ford
was ready to go international. Also, these answers could clearly argue which international strategy
should be implemented. Not so good answers dwell too much on entry mode, Porter five forces
model, Value Chain and VRIN frameworks without answering directly to what is required.
Q3. Good answers clearly rationalize the (students suggested) drivers for all the four perspectives and
could link the perspectives with Fords broad objectives. Not so good answers simply state Fords
past performance (or what Ford did) or measures used previously. The not so good answers could
include those that dwell on other control categories such as Informational Control and Behavioural
Control.

Instructors Name: Kang, Eugene

Q1. Students generally did well for this question and demonstrated an understanding of competitor
analysis. Various frameworks have been used to organize the answers. For instance, several students
(a) discussed the various components of competitor analysis described in the textbook, and/or (b) used
the market commonality and resource similarity matrix as well as highlighted the motivation,
awareness, and ability of competitors to predict the likelihood of attack and response. An excellent
answer would have also provided some insights on the implications of the competitor analysis for
Ford, as opposed to simply doing the analysis without stating the implications.

Q2. The first part of this question requires students to explain why internationalization is a viable
option for Ford. Students providing good answers would have highlighted the implications of homecountry conditions using Porters diamond and discussed the various benefits of internationalization
such as increase revenues, decrease costs, etc. The second part of the question requires students to
recommend an international strategy. Students ought to discuss the relative importance of local
responsiveness and global integration given the case contents, followed by a clear recommendation of
which strategy to adopt.

Q3. The question specifically request students to apply the balance scorecard. Students generally
understand the four perspectives in the balance scorecard. Good answers are those that explicitly link
the suggested controls (based on the perspectives in the balance scorecard) to the four priorities of the
ONE Ford plan and systematically explain how these controls are useful in the implementation of
each priority. Poor answers include those that simply list various controls without proper explanations
or links to the ONE Ford plan.

Instructors Name: Keller, Josh

Q1. In order for the students to do well, they needed to identify competitors and justify why they
were competitors (such as market similarity and/or resource similarity) and describe and justify what
was the basis of competition (such as the competitive moves that they engage in and the likelihood
that some will engage in more competitive moves than others- for example, greater attention to Ford).
Students were not required to use specific labels of concepts from the book (such as market
commonality). Most students were able to accomplish some but not all of these objectives. Students
who had the most difficulty with this section did not identify specific competitors, justify why they
were competitors, or synthesize information about the competition overall.

Q2. In order for students to do well, they needed to explain why Ford should consider expanding their
market overseas, describe and justify what the geographic scope of their focus should be(for example:
China) and describe and justify their overall international strategy (for example: global vs.
transnational vs. multilocal). I did not reward students for explaining the strategic options that they
should use to expand or enter each market (for example: acquisitions) unless they were facts used to
justify their international strategy. Students were not required to use specific labels of concepts from
the book (such as transnational). Most students were able to accomplish some but not all of these
objectives. Students who had the most difficulty with this section did not convey WHY FORD
specifically can and should compete more overseas or did not discuss the international strategy that
Ford should use (such as whether Ford should be similar or different in each market).

Q3. In order for students to do well, they needed to connect information presented in Exhibit 6 of the
case with one or more of the four perspectives of the balanced scorecards. Most students were able to
accomplish some but not all of these objectives. Students who had the most difficulty with this section
did not address any of the four perspectives, did not link the perspectives to their strategic goals as
indicated in Exhibit 6, or did not provide specific enough information about how they would
implement the control.

Instructors Name: Leong, Charles

Q1. Common mistakes/reasons students lost marks include:
- not using the market commonality-resource similarity framework for analysis or not using it
correctly
- did not cover drivers of competitive behavior (awareness, motivation and ability) in their answers
- use of wrong framework (for example, Porters 5 forces)

Q2. Common mistakes/reasons students lost marks include:

- not able to list common benefits of international expansion
-mixing up modes of entry with international strategies
- use of wrong frameworks (for example, General environment analysis)

Q3. Common mistakes/reasons students lost marks include:

- not applying the Balanced Score Card to answer the question
- not able to provide rationale or link it to the ONE FORD plan

Instructors Name: Wan, Chew Yoong

Q1. Reasonably well done, using Chens framework of market commonality and resource similarity,
and addressing issues of the three drivers of awareness, motivation and ability. Stronger answers also
include a strategic competitive mapping of competitors based on the key success factors.
Q2. This question has two main components expansion into foreign markets and recommending an
international strategy. Many students missed the first point and used Porters Diamond Model to
analyse the Indian and Chinese markets. It is not sufficient to state pursuing an international strategy
of need for global integration or need to adjust to local responsiveness through either a global strategy,
a multi-domestic strategy or a transnational strategy. Students have to explained why there is a need
for either dimension and specifically what each strategy entails.

Q3. Balanced Scorecard is rather specific in the four dimensions used to track implementation of the
ONE FORD plan. Many students focused only on two dimensions, and some wrote on other control
systems along the dimensions of behavioral, informational and strategic.