strategy work in global context (21e00700) november 1, 2012 course information
TRANSCRIPT
Strategy Work in Global Context (21E00700)November 1, 2012
Course information
Strategy work in global context: Facilitators
Nina GranqvistAssistant Professor
Hanken School of Economics
+358 50 5951759
Janne TienariProfessor
Aalto University, School of Business
+358 50 3531093
Course overview
(1) The field of strategic management; strategy as practice and work; organization of course work (November 1)
(2) Strategy work at JCDecaux Finland (November 8)
-Guest: Klaus Kuhanen, Managing Director
(3) Strategy work at Lumene Group (November 15)
-Guest: Tapio Pajuharju, CEO
(4) Strategy work at Fazer Food Services (November 22)
-Guest: Iris Karjula, Managing Director
(5) Strategy work at MPS Enterprises (November 29)
-Guest: Marcus Herold, CEO and Chairman of the Board
(6) Students’ posters, recap and preparation for the exam (December 13)
Intensive format Active participation
required in all sessions (-1)
– Group work assignment, deadlines:• Poster on December 13; written report due December 23
– Four reaction papers, deadlines:
(1) Nov 12, (2) Nov 19, (3) Nov 26, (4) Dec 3
Return the reaction papers to the white box in the lobby of the classroom E 3.41 (Arkadia 3rd floor)
– Exam: December 17 (retake February 1)
Be prepared to work outside the sessions, too!
Rules of the game for 6 credits
Slides for each session provided at:https://noppa.aalto.fi/noppa/kurssi/21e00700/
Group work assignment – Groups (1)
Group 1Bauer, TilmanKuukka, LauraMantere, AnuRissanen, MerjaVirkajärvi, Venla
Group 2Bayart, AngélinaImmonen, Ani-JattaLaitinen, JaanaMartikainen, TiinaSarkomaa, PetriVirtanen, Elina
Group 3Blakaj, HedonJalonen, HeidiLambertenghi, LudovicaMyllymaa, TimoSchrey, Mija
Group 4Chiarini, ValentinaKarvonen, KonstaLappeteläinen, KatiMäättä, MarikaSimström, Anna-Maija
Group work assignment – Groups (2)
Group 7Gulz, MelanieKovalenko, KseniaLouhelainen, MillaPietarinen, StellaWahlman, Hanna
Group 8Hartman, SatuKurkilahti, KristiinaMalinovskaya, IrinaPirskanen, Anna-MaijaWang, JiaoHellström, Jussi
Group 5Engblom, RillaKortesaari, KatjaLehtinen, OlgaNopanen, KatriStrauß, Carola
Group 6Evers, ReettaKoryakina, NataliaLinkama, MeriNurmi, Elsa-MariaTiilikainen, Suvi-Marja
Group work assignment = 40 % of course grade
Questions:
• How is strategy work done at JCDecaux Finland?• How is digitalization transforming the strategic landscape of
JCDecaux Finland?• How is strategy work done at Lumene Group?• How does internationalization impact upon strategy work? • How is strategy work done at Fazer Food Services?• How is strategic change carried out at Fazer Food Services?• How do corporate executives talk about strategy?• What are the ”best practices” of strategy work?
Raffle!
Group work assignmentObjective• To deepen your understanding of one of the
course themes through creative work
Format• Use course materials (lectures & readings) and
other academic texts to examine your topic• Collect and analyze your own data on the issue
(interviews, documents etc.)
How to get started• Get to know each other!• Agree on a way of working that everyone is
comfortable with • Work on logistics: find the times to meet and do
as agreed• Start looking for materials• Everyone reads all the materials
A top quality report• Answers the research question in an insightful and coherent way • Covers appropriate (theoretical) literature effectively and
demonstrates sound knowledge of the topic• Critically evaluates and applies the literature to the case• Provides relevant conclusions on the basis of the literature review
and case research• Is written in a clear and coherent style and quotes references
appropriately• Offers original insights and demonstrates critical thinking
• Grading: max. 4 (report grade) + 0-1 (individual contribution – no contribution leads to a student failing the assignment)
Group work report: evaluation
• If necessary, you can assess other group members’ contribution to the final outcome
• Forms will be given out at the poster session
Member A (name):
Contribution in terms of the amount of work compared to the hardest working member of the group
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Contribution in terms of quality and importance of work compared to others0 1 2 3 4
5 Lacking
Crucial
Evaluation of individual contribution
• Each group designs a poster that presents their research
and the message the group would like to convey– Prioritize content but pay attention to layout/style too
– Size and format optional; be creative
• Prepare a short presentation (2-3 minutes) of your poster
(key issues and message)
• Prepare a one-page flyer of your poster/research
• At the poster session:• Each group will give their short presentation
• Others (facilitators and students) will circulate to comment on all the
posters and ask questions
Poster session (December 13)
Group work report (due December 23)
• Max 20 pages
• Suggested report structure:
1. Executive summary2. Introduction3. Literature review4. Case description5. Conclusions
• E-mail to [email protected] by 23 December (midnight)
1. What do you want to learn? – Try formulating your learning goals in the form of questions
that you want to seek answers to
2. Who are we?– Introduce yourself and share/discuss your learning goals
and expectations for this course (including the group work)
Orientation to the course and group work
Four reaction papers = 30% of course grade
Readings for RR 1– Porter, M.E. (2008) The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy. Harvard
Business Review, January, 78-93.– Whittington, R. (2006) Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research.
Organization Studies 27, 613-634. Readings for RR 2
– Doz, Y. & Kosonen, M. (2010) Embedding Strategic Agility: A Leadership Agenda
for Accelerating Business Model Renewal. Long Range Planning 43, 370-382. – Regnér, P. (2003) Strategy Creation in the Periphery: Inductive Versus
Deductive Strategy Making. Journal of Management Studies 40, 57-82.Readings for RR 3– Kotter, J. (1995 / 2007) Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.
Harvard Business Review, January, 96-103.– Mantere, S. & Vaara, E. (2008) On the problem of participation in strategy: A
critical discursive perspective. Organization Science 19, 341-358.Readings for RR 4– Amabile, Teresa M. & Khaire, Mukti (2008) Creativity and the Role of the Leader.
Harvard Business Review, October, 100-109.– Suominen, K. & Mantere, S. (2010) Consuming Strategy: The Art and Practice
of Every Day Strategy Usage. Advances in Strategic Management Vol 27, 211-245.
Four reaction papers = 30% of course grade
Reaction paper 1: deadline November 12 – Contrast and compare critically the two articles (Porter and Whittington): what are
the key differences in how they conceptualize strategy?– Make use of the articles and the session on November 8: What are the key
issues in JCDecaux Finland’s strategy work?
Reaction paper 2: deadline November 19 – Make use of the articles (Doz & Kosonen; Regnér) and the session on November
15: What are the key issues in the strategy work of internationalizing companies?
Reaction paper 3: deadline November 26– Contrast and compare critically the two articles (Kotter and Mantere & Vaara):
what are the key differences in how they conceptualize key issues in strategic change?
– Make use of the articles and the session on November 22: what are the key issues in Fazer Food Services’ strategy work?
Reaction paper 4: deadline December 3– Make use of the articles (Amabile & Khaire and Suominen & Mantere) and the
session on November 29: how can you strategically manage employees in a professional services firm?
Guidelines for writing the reaction papers
Guidelines• Length about 500-700 words each• Aim at answering the questions posed for the materials
Grading 0-5 for each paper, for good grades:• Write coherent, structured text, use your own words to pinpoint the
key arguments• Show your analytical thinking, and clearly separate that from what
the research papers say• Incorporate some key learnings from the company cases in a way
which resonates with the course materials• Pay attention to the flow and structure of the review
In the beginning of the following session we go through some of issues which you raised, and highlight the key learning points…
0 points: summarizes the contents by using direct quotations from the articles (i.e. not your own words) with minimal own reactions or reflection OR does not address at all the questions posed for the materials
1 point: summarizes the articles without much reflection OR presents own reactions without sufficiently covering the main points of the articles
2 points: summarizes the articles with little reflection OR presents own reactions without analytically discussing the main points of the articles
3 points: shows an understanding the main points of the articles and offers own analytical reactions to these
4 points: gives an elegant presentation and analysis of the main issues combined with well argued and perceptive reactions
5 points: provides an impeccable analysis of the main issues combined with well argued, creative, and perceptive reactions
Reaction papers: criteria for evaluation
Exam = 30% of course grade
• Two essays (max 2 pages structured and coherent text each)• Materials:
– All session materials– All readings for reaction papers– Hambrick, D.C. & Chen, M-J (2008) New Academic Fields as
Admittance-Seeking Social Movements: The Case of Strategic Management. Academy of Management Review 33, 32-54.
– Minzberg, H. (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 107-114.
• Register through WebOodi