In this hypothetical scenario, you will act as an international business consultant advising Vodafone UK on expanding or adapting its operations in a culturally and institutionally different country. Select a host country from a different GLOBE
Assessment Brief
In this hypothetical scenario, you will act as an international business consultant advising Vodafone UK on expanding or adapting its operations in a culturally and institutionally different country. Select a host country from a different GLOBE cultural cluster (e.g., Confucian Asia, Latin America, Middle East) and compare management practices with the UK.
Your Business Consultancy Portfolio should include report covering:
- A comparative institutional analysis using the CAGE framework (UK vs. host country), including competition and data protection
- A cultural insight based on lived experience or artefact
- A comparison of management practices based on publicly available information.
- Strategic recommendations for Vodafone UK Int based on the hypothetical scenario.
And
You must also prepare a 5-minute pre-recorded video pitch highlighting key findings and recommendations for a business audience.
Assessment Components
1.Written Portfolio (80%)
Report Format: 3,000 words (±10%) | Structured Report
1.Executive Summary (200 words)
- Summarise key findings, link to Vodafone’s publicly available strategic pillars and values, and provide recommendations to Vodafone UK Int based on the hypothetical scenario.
2.Country Context & Institutional Analysis (800 words)
- Use the CAGE Model to compare UK and host country.
- Assess telecom sector, competitors, and competition laws.
- Discuss institutional differences and strategy alignment with Vodafone’s publicly available values.
3.Cultural Insight (800 words)
- Draw on a public narrative, observation, or cultural artefact.
- Apply cultural theory (e.g., Hofstede, GLOBE).
- Critically reflect on management and communication implications.
4.Comparative Management Practices (800 words)
- Compare UK vs. host country in data protection, communication, HRM, and marketing based on publicly available data.
5.Strategic Recommendations (400 words)
- Propose culturally informed, practical strategies to Vodafone UK Int based on the hypothetical scenario..
- Justify entry, legal/data aspects, communication, and marketing in terms of fit and ROI.
6.Appendices (optional)
- Include visuals, charts, models, or artefacts.
2 Pre-recorded Video Pitch (20%)
Presentation Requirements
- Duration: Max 5 minutes (±10s)
- Format: MP4 uploaded or created on Panopto link, embedded in report
Content: - Introduce the host country and its cultural context
- Summarise Competition & CAGE analysis (UK vs. host country) and cultural insights
- Present 2–3 strategic recommendations for Vodafone UK int this hypothetical scenario.
- Include at least one visual aid (chart, slide, diagram)
- Maintain professional tone, clear structure, and logical delivery
Academic Integrity and Ethical Guidance
- Use only publicly available sources (no interviews/surveys).
- Reference all sources in Harvard style.
- Do not use AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to generate or edit content; any AI use for research must be declared and cited.
- Submission must be entirely your own original work.
Submission Instructions
- Submit both the written portfolio and the video file/link via [VLE/Turnitin] by the deadline.
- Upload the video to Panopto (Moodle link) and embed the working link on the first page of your written submission (no password required).
- A missing or non-functional video link will result in a zero for the video pitch component.
Extended Assessment Criteria:
Extended Assessment Criteria (Tabulated
Criteria | Weight | 0-39% (Fail) | 40-49% (Pass) | 50-59% (Satisfactory) | 60-69% (Good) | 70-79% (Very Good) | 80-89% (Excellent) | 90-100% (Exceptional) |
Introduction | 5% | Unclear/missing background and aim | Weak intro with limited clarity | Adequate clarity and objectives | Clear and relevant background, well-stated aim | Very clear, focused, with clear intent | Excellent, comprehensive overview | Exceptionally concise and insightful |
CAGE Model, Competitive and Data protection Analysis | 20% | No comparison or weak link to institutional context | Basic application of CAGE, competition, and data protection, with minimal comparative insight. | Provides a fair application of CAGE, competition, and data protection, but cross-country comparison is incomplete. | Demonstrates solid use of CAGE, competition, and data protection with well-developed cross-country comparisons. | thorough comparative application of CAGE, competition, and data protection with clear discussion of strategic implications. | Excellent application of CAGE, competition, and data protection, demonstrating strong contextual and strategic depth., | Exceptional integration of CAGE, competition, and data protection with innovative comparative insights that inform strategy |
Cultural Insight | 15% | Irrelevant source, no theory, superficial reflection | Weak relevance or theory use | Adequate theory application and insight | Good artefact choice and theory alignment | Very good cultural insight with strong reflection using Hofstede or GLOBE | Excellent critical use of Hofstede or GLOBE models to evaluate cultural values impacting HRM, leadership, marketing, and negotiation | Exceptional insight using cultural theory to analyse cross-functional impacts and strategic management contexts |
Comparative Management Practices | 15% | Minimal or descriptive comparison | Weak comparison with little context | Basic comparison with limited links to theory | Clear comparison and theoretical framing | Very strong comparison with strategic insight | Excellent critique, deep comparative logic | Outstanding comparison with originality |
Recommendations | 15% | Generic, not linked to findings | The recommendations show a weak connection to findings, with vague strategy, entry approach, and operational plans lacking ROI justification | Reasonably solid recommendations, though lacking strong originality, on strategy, entry pathway, and operational plans with ROI justification. | Practical and well-aligned with findings, covering strategy, entry choices, and operational approaches supported by ROI rationale. | Strong strategic alignment and contextual relevance in strategy, entry method, and operations, supported by ROI justification. | Excellent integration of strategy, entry pathway, and operational approaches, clearly justified through ROI analysis. | Exceptional use of theory to design strategy, entry approach, HRM, and marketing initiatives, underpinned by ROI rationale. |
Video Pitch | 20% | Off-topic, unclear, poor visuals | Overly descriptive with weak clarity and minimal visuals; CAGE, competition, and data protection analysis with recommendations are underdeveloped. | An acceptable summary supported by basic visuals; analysis of CAGE, competition, and data protection with recommendations is adequate and appropriately referenced. | Well-structured presentation with effective visuals; strong explanations of CAGE, competition, and data protection comparisons supported by very good recommendations; well-cited throughout. | Highly engaging, confident, and well-structured; strong coverage of CAGE, competition, and data protection with excellent comparative insights and recommendations, underpinned by theory; citations are thorough and accurate. | Excellent delivery with strong insight; comprehensive analysis of CAGE, competition, and data protection with highly relevant, well-justified recommendations supported by theory; outstanding use of varied sources with accurate referencing. | Exceptional clarity and confidence, supported by highly effective visuals; outstanding coverage of CAGE, competition, and data protection with comparative insights and exceptional recommendations, all underpinned by strong theoretical frameworks; excellently cited with a wide range of quality sources. |
Conclusion | 5% | Missing or unclear summary | Basic recap of findings | Adequate summary of points | Clear and concise summary | Strong, logical conclusion | Excellent synthesis and focus | Exceptional clarity and integration |
Structure & Referencing | 5% | Poor structure and referencing | Weak organisation, many errors | Basic structure and some citation issues | Good flow and referencing mostly accurate | Very well-structured and referenced |
