Assignment Brief

BNS0072 Strategic Management 2024/25.

Prof John Nicholson
Your assignment requires you to study the different business models of Amazon and
Walmart in the US ‘retail’ market. This assignment is essentially a contrast between on-line
and traditional models.
The focus of this assignment is on business models and business model innovation.
Business models are a contemporary challenge to foundational notions of strategic
management, but the business model idea is not without its detractors. I have personally
found it very useful in opening-up a consultancy project and drawing a picture of a business
which includes most of the elements traditionally found in the strategic planning process. A
very popular tool is the business model canvas by Alex Osterwalder (example below) which
has 9 sub-units but broadly contains two main propositions, value capture and value
creation. We will go through the elements of this model in class. While the business model
canvas does not amount to the sum-total of business model knowledge, I have found it a
highly effective tool to learn which can lead to rapid insight into a business or a future
possible business.
The BMC’s use in practice is as a design lens — to sit down and create something from new
but to create genuine business model innovation this needs to be relative to both the past
and relative to competitive offerings. A challenge is how to teach this technique and a way to
do this is to look at a retrospective case study and to use a point of comparison, in this case
two companies with fundamentally different value propositions but in the same market and
targeting broadly similar customers. The comparison shows a late-comer, digital business
model disruption against a traditional bricks-and-mortar retail model. Yet both are seemingly
flourishing. Through this exercise we would like you to again understanding of business
modelling, business model ‘innovation’ and ‘disruptive’ business model innovation.
The Brief
Operational boundaries: The US retail industry and market
Materials
You have been provided with a high-quality case-study which is available electronically, and
which provides a solid foundation to complete the assignment. However, you may
supplement this with any other quality sources of information about Walmart and Amazon.
State these sources.
The assignment has two parts with different weights as indicated. Based on these weighting
you should consider how much of the word count is allocated to each section.
Part 1 60% weighting
Using the business model canvas, present an analysis of both Walmart and Amazon’s
business models at the beginning of 2022 (at the end of the case). You should use the
model graphically (multiple templates are provided) as a summary but then provide a written
analysis of each of the elements of the model and where you perceive the challenges at this
time are evident.
An example template of a business model canvas (Osterwalder)

Part 2: 40% weighting

Contrast and compare the two business models and comment on whether either/both are fit
for the VUCA challenges after 2022. Further comment on whether Amazon’s business model
is a disruptive business model from Walmart’s perspective. Having taken a position on
whether Amazon continue to be disruptive, discuss in what ways they are disruptive and why
you feel they are not/no longer disruptive and how Walmart have/should defend against such
disruption.
Word count 2500 words: Based on the stated indicative weightings you should use
your own judgement as to how much of the word count should be allocated to each
section.
Use of AI not allowed.
Hand in date December 13th by 3PM
Generic guidance
 The teaching team have no model answer which you have to replicate.
 There is no right answer to what pieces of analysis fit in which box of the BMC. I
have seen too many students fixated on which piece of info fits in which box. This is
a process which is both analytical and creative. The learning outcome is that you
learn to use the tool as a consultant would looking at an unfamiliar situation.
 The BMC is a flexible tool, you can add to it, adapt it, change it, add boxes, split
boxes delete irrelevant boxes. It is a ‘design’ tool.
 In trying to create graphics, we suggest you use PowerPoint or Visio, rather than
trying to do them directly in word as the graphics done in word are very poor.
 You do not need to present your analysis within a single diagram but should decide
on the sections of your written analysis relative to the compartments in the BMC. Put
another way, write your answer in sections, do not only try to present a single
diagram with everything in, it will be too big. An overview in graphic form in
advisable.
 You may use any other models or theory in these sections to supplement and
enhance your analysis. Indeed, this would be good practice and define better
answers.
 You may identify and present an analysis of multiple overlapping business models
you identify within Amazon and Walmart as consistent with the idea of a portfolio of
business models. Does either/both firms have a portfolio of business models?
 A link to Osterwalder’s book on the business model canvas in available on
Brightspace and further key articles on business models are linked from Brightspace.
Effective use of this model alone should be sufficient for a passing grade.
 Evidence of broader reading of the BM literature will define better answers.
 Report style to present analysis with use of prose and paragraphing where you need
to make arguments
 Put as much information into tables, charts and diagrams as possible. Better
answers do this very effectively. You can modify and create your own diagrams.
Significant credit will be given for this.
 Leave diagrams and tables in the body of the report, don’t hide them in an
appendix. We give great credit for being able to present strategic analysis using
charts, tables and diagrams. Businesspeople want to see the best analysis as
quickly as possible, it’s annoying to flick between main body and appendix all the
time.
 Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from an external source. Try to
ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and
all names cited in the work appear in your reference list. Reference and cite your
work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing
style. For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library
help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link: There is no need
to cite from lecture slides. Also see video presentation in brightspace.
 APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/
 The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including
plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise and help
you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct. You
can contact them at [email protected].
 Academic skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation
Development Centre team [email protected]. It is possible to arrange
1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section
of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop.
PGT Assessment Criteria

 These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed. They describe different levels of performance of a
given criteria.
 Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
 The grades between Pass and Merit should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module.
The higher-level categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the basic requirement, perform at a superior level beyond the
normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.
 PGT Generic Assessment Criteria

Unacceptable Unsatisfactory Pass Merit Distinction

0–9 10-19 20-34 35-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

Fulfilment of Not met or Not met or Not met or Not met or Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
relevant learning minimal minimal partially met partially met
outcomes

Response to the No Little Insufficient Adequate Adequate Secure Very good Clear Full command of
question /task response response response response, but response response to response to command of assessment task;
with limitations assessment topic; assessment imaginative
task elements of task; approach
sophistication sophisticated demonstrating flair
approach and creativity


 PGT Generic Assessment Criteria


Unacceptable Unsatisfactory Pass Merit Distinction

A superficial answer with only peripheral Some A coherent A coherent An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding
knowledge of core material and very little critical knowledge of and logical answer that knowledge of material and critical ability
ability core material answer which demonstrate
but limited. shows s critical
understanding evaluation
of the basic
 principles
0-9 10-19 20-34 35-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Conceptual Entirely lacking Typically, only Knowledge of Marginally A systematic Approachin Excellent. Insightful. Striking and
and critical in evidence of able to deal concepts falls insufficient. understanding g excellence Displays (for Displays (for insightful.
understanding knowledge and with short of Adequate of knowledge; in some example): example): Displays (for
of understanding terminology, prescribed knowledge of critical areas with high levels of excellent example):
contemporary basic facts range concepts within awareness of evidence of accuracy; research publishable
/ seminal and concepts Typically only prescribed current the potential evidence of potential; quality;
knowledge in able to deal range but fails problems to undertake the potential flexibility of outstanding
the subject with to adequately and/or new Research. to undertake thought; research
terminology, solve problems insights; can Well- research; the possibly of potential;
basic facts posed by evaluate developed ability to publishable originality and
and concepts assessment critically relevant analyse quality. independent
current argument, primary thought;
research and good sources ability to
can evaluate degree of critically. make
methodologies accuracy informed
and judgements.
technical
competence
Presentation Length Length Length Length Length Good Very good Professional Highest
requirements requirements requirements requirement met requirement standard of standards of standards of professional
may not be may not be may not be and academic met and presentation presentation presentation standards of
observed; does observed; observed; conventions academic ; length presentation
not follow does not does not mostly followed. conventions requirement
academic follow follow Minor errors in mostly met, and
conventions; academic academic language followed. academic
language conventions; conventions; Possibly very conventions
errors impact language language minor errors in followed
on intelligibility errors impact errors impact language
on on
intelligibility intelligibility
Understanding Limited insight Limited Limited Some insight Practical Independent Authoritative, Authoritative, Authoritative,
into the insight into insight into into the problem understanding , critical full full full
problem or the problem the problem or topic of how evaluation understanding understanding understanding
topic or topic or topic established of of all the of all the of all the
techniques of full range of issues with issues with issues with
research and theories originality in originality in originality in
enquiry are with some analysis analysis analysis
used to create evidence of
and interpret originality
knowledge in
the discipline
Use of Some Some Some Limited sources Comprehensiv Complex Full range of Full range of Full range of
evidence and irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant e work and sources sources sources
sources to and/or out of and/or out of and/or out of understanding concepts used used used
support task date date date of techniques presented, selectively to selectively to selectively to
Sources Sources Sources applicable to key texts support support support
own research used argument argument argument
or advanced effectively
scholarship

Development Argument not Argument not Argument not Argument not The argument Argument Coherent and Coherent and Coherent and
of ideas developed and developed developed fully is developed concise and compelling compelling compelling
may be and may be and may be developed and but may lack explicit argument well argument well argument well
confused and confused and confused and may lack fluency presented presented presented
incoherent incoherent incoherent structure