{"id":37432,"date":"2024-11-10T09:09:04","date_gmt":"2024-11-10T09:09:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/critical-analysis-of-kim-w-blue-ocean-strategy-from-theory-to-practice-california-management-review-2005-apr-473105-21\/"},"modified":"2024-11-10T09:09:04","modified_gmt":"2024-11-10T09:09:04","slug":"critical-analysis-of-kim-w-blue-ocean-strategy-from-theory-to-practice-california-management-review-2005-apr-473105-21","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/critical-analysis-of-kim-w-blue-ocean-strategy-from-theory-to-practice-california-management-review-2005-apr-473105-21\/","title":{"rendered":"Critical Analysis of Kim W., Blue Ocean strategy: from theory to practice. California management review. 2005 Apr; 47(3):105-21"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summative Assessment<\/b><\/h2>\n
You are to critically review the article you chose in new parts (see below). Submitted review must be no more than 1,000 words (no margin given), though the reference section
\nis excluded for this word limit.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This is a Level 6 assessment<\/i><\/b> and should be appropriately presented. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The paper you need to critically analyse is called “Blue Ocean Strategy: From Theory to Practice”. Please see the attached file named “Blue Ocean Strategy Paper”. This is the paper that must be critically analysed.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

Assignment structure<\/span><\/b><\/h4>\n
The paper should be structured as such:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
    \n
  • Introduction: Keep it short. Around 50 words or so.<\/li>\n
  • Part 1: How the article fits into the wider debate about the processes of strategy. You must use Porter’s 5 forces in this sction to help with the critical analysis.<\/u><\/i><\/b><\/li>\n
  • Part 2: The main strength(s) and weakness(s) of the article following from your own critical review and should be drawn from your own understanding<\/b>.<\/li>\n
  • Conclusion: This also doesn’t need to be that long. Around the same length as the introduction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n
    I have attached 3 files named “Core Competence”, “Crafting strategy” and “Strategy as revolution”. I would adivse you to look at these example assessments to get an idea of the structure of the assessment.<\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n

    Marking Construct<\/b><\/h3>\n
    The assessment construct is as follows. It must include all parts identified below:<\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n
    Part 1:<\/b> The position of the article in the wider debate about processes of strategy (with evidence
    \nfrom further reading to support this):<\/div>\n
    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Marking boundaries<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Mark range<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    The work places the article into a wider
    \n context of strategy theory and uses a variety of sources beyond the main textbook to do this
    \n with a focus on academic journal articles. <\/span>The article under review is compared and
    \n contrasted to other important research in <\/span>strategy and clear conclusions are drawn from
    \n this.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     
     
    32-45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    There is evidence of an understanding of
    \n where the review article fits into the wider debates on strategy through reading a variety
    \n of sources. A good attempt is made at <\/span>comparing and contrasting the review article
    \n with other literature.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     
     
    27-31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    There has been some engagement with the
    \n literature on strategy, but this is mainly in the form of textbooks. There has been only
    \n limited comparing and contrasting of the <\/span>review article with other elements of the
    \n strategy literature.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     
     
    22-26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    Little attempt has been made to place the
    \n article into any kind of wider context. There has been some additional reading, but this is
    \n mainly from the core textbook or the <\/span>internet.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     
     
    18-21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    Little or no attempt has been made to place
    \n the work into a wider context of strategy. There is no real evidence of reading outside
    \n of the review article itself and the core <\/span>textbook.<\/span><\/p>\n


    <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     
     
    0-17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    <\/div>\n

    Part 2:<\/b> The main strength(s) and weakness(s) of the article following from your own critical
    \nreview and should be drawn from your own understanding:<\/div>\n
    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Marking boundaries<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Mark range<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    The main strength and weakness of the article
    \n is identified, discussed and support is provided for the arguments made. The review
    \n is critical and analytical and draws <\/span>robust conclusions.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    32-45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    The main strength and weakness of the article
    \n is identified and there is some discussion of them. Conclusions drawn are supported
    \n and the article is critical and analytical.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    27-31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    A strength and weakness is identified but
    \n there is limited discussion of them. The work is descriptive in the main although some
    \n attempt is made to be analytical. Conclusions <\/span>tend to be rudimentary in nature.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    22-26<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    The work is main descriptive and there is
    \n limited critical engagement with the article under review. There is no systematic
    \n discussion of strengths and weaknesses and <\/span>conclusions drawn are unconvincing.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    18-21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    The work is descriptive and represents little
    \n more than a rewrite of the article under review.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    0-17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

    <\/div>\n
    Part 3:<\/b> Presentation and Style<\/div>\n
    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Grading<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Mark range<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    The work is well structured and has a logical
    \n and well-ordered flow between issues. Language used is sophisticated and
    \n articulate. Referencing is consistent and uses the <\/span>Harvard method.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    7-10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    There is a clear underlying structure to the
    \n work which makes it easy to read and understand. Referencing is consistent.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    The work is acceptably presented and has a
    \n clear structure. The arguments are clearly expressed although the language and
    \n terminology used lacks sophistication. <\/span>Referencing is consistent.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    The work lacks a central narrative which
    \n links the issues discussed together in a coherent way. Referencing is haphazard.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    The work has no real structure and is more a
    \n collection of loosely related issues than anything. Referencing is haphazard and weak.
    \n There are errors of spelling, grammar <\/span>and punctuation. Authorship integrity is
    \n questionable.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    0-3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    <\/div>\n

    .<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Summative Assessment You are to critically review the article you chose in new parts (see below). Submitted review must be no more than 1,000 words (no margin given), though the reference section is excluded for this word limit. This is a Level 6 assessment and should be appropriately presented. The paper you need to critically analyse […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[9],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/37432"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/37432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=37432"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=37432"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=37432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}