MKTM028 AS2 Feed-forward advice
Check your feedback from AS1 and incorporate the learning from this to improve your performance further in AS2. In addition, here is some feedforward advice for AS2
AS2 Contents Page advice, from your Brief:
1. introduce the subject, defining STP then have:
2. a sound theoretical and conceptual perspective, containing evidence of critical debate on STP with reference to appropriate academic literature
3. sound examination of STP and its application in industry, with supporting evidence, use appropriate examples from different industries (plural) to exemplify how different organisations (plural) have applied STP
4. generic management recommendations (for all organisations, not just your case study examples)
For example:

This should be 2400 words +/- 10% excluding references (at least 10 academic journal articles) – read the AS2 brief carefully, especially the grading criteria and mark scheme. Your evaluation and critique of the STP concepts is worth 30%, industry application examples 40%, generic recommendations 10%. Quality and amount of research is worth 10%, Harvard citing and referencing 5% and presentation 5%.
General Report Guidance
This is an individual assessment in the form of a report and should include:

• A Title Page
• A Contents Page
• Use Section and Sub-Section Numbering and Headings
• References (in alphabetical order in consistent Harvard style)
• Appendices (if required, should be titled and referred to within the report)
• Use Page Numbers (except for the title page)
• Paragraphs should have justified alignment and be 1.5 line spaced
• Tables, Figures, Models (if required, should be titled and referred to within the report)
• Do NOT write in the 1st/2nd person, use 3rd person.

See second half session materials which are all related to successfully completing AS2.
Here is a sample of feedback points from tutors:
• poor reports were too descriptive and explanatory - merely explaining the S-T-P process and not critically evaluating its effectiveness in improving business performance, its value/advantages, the ease/difficulty of application.....Better reports made an attempt at a critical discussion.
• poor reports were too dependent on textbooks and dated references for their source material. Textbooks lag current thinking....better reports showed an attempt to engage with the current academic literature.
• in exploring the application of S-T-P to industry, poor reports showed limited research and a strong tendency to focus on specific products or product categories, rather than market segments. Product categories - small hatchback cars - are not market segments......Better reports showed real insight into the practical value of S-T-P as a foundation of strategy.
• be careful with your 'positioning' piece. Poorer reports just use a positioning map with generic price/quality axes when this was not the company’s stated differentiators…. better reports show a more informed and researched consideration of positioning strategy and points of difference and promises used.
• poor reports did not read the brief carefully and provided examples from one industry sector rather than two or more sectors
• poor reports failed to generate management recommendations that had power and conviction. One or two did not offer the generic recommendations required, but focussed on the selected industry examples.
• other issues – unclear English, proof reading required, lack of correct Harvard referencing, irrelevant theory and sources, balance of content not reflecting the marks on the Rubric.
There is a lot of extra support available on the NU Skillshub to help with researching and writing a good report and critical literature review:
https://skillshub.northampton.ac.uk/
https://skillshub.northampton.ac.uk/literature-reviews/
https://skillshub.northampton.ac.uk/critical-thinking/
Good luck with your reading and writing on STP – we hope you find this interesting and useful.