Strategic Management - Radic8 Assignment PDF

PROGRAMME NAME:
MODULE TITLE: Strategic Management
STUDENT NUMBER:
MARKING TUTOR: Mr. Martin McAreavey
ASSESSMENT TITLE: Extended Analysis & Report
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
WORD COUNT: 4,508(Introduction– Reflective Assessment)
Designed by: Joseph Benson

MBA 7013
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2
1.1ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT; RADIC8……………………………………………………………………………………..…2
1.2WHY STRATEGY………….............................................................................................................
1.3STRATEGY AS PRACTICE……………………………………………………………………………………………................4
1.4CONCEPT OF SAP………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….4
1.5COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE………………………………………………………………………………………………..…..9
1.6CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING AND DEPLOYING STRATEGY………………………………………………..……9
2. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT TOOLS (STRATEGIC ANALYSIS)………....10
2.1PORTER’S FIVE FORCES (P5F)………………………………………………………………………………………………...10
2.2BALANCE SCORECARD………………………………………………..………………………………………………………….13
3. THEORETICAL APPLICATION OF STRATEGIC TOOL TO RADIC8……………………………….………………18
3.1RADIC8 COMPANY BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………………………18
3.2ANALYSING RADIC8; APPLICATION OF P5F (STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION)…………………………19
4. RECOMMENDATION FOR RADIC8 (STRATEGICDEVELOPMENT) ……………………………………………22
5. REFLECTIVE ASSESSMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for strategy as practice(Benson, 2019)………………..…………………………………………………….….….5
Figure 2.Porter’s Five Forces of Competitive Advantage Framework (Porter, 1980)…………………………………………………….……..11
Figure 3. The balance Scorecard perspectives (kaplan & Norton, 1994)………………………………………………………………………….…..14
Figure 4.Porter’s Five Forces Analysis; Re-adjusted and applied for Radic8(Benson, 2019)………………………………………….……20
Table 1. Advantages and Criticisms of SAP………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…8
Table 2. The financial performance, factors, measures, and objectives………………………………………………………………………………15
Table 3. The customer satisfaction factors, measures, and objectives……………………………………………………………………………….16
Table 4. The internal business processes factors, measures, and objectives………………………………………………………………………17

MBA 7013
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Strategy is key in strategic management. The strategic concept is derived from the Greek
‘strategos’, depicting ‘leadership’ in a military sense, transcending planning and deployment of
resources to attain specific objectives (Kotler, Berger and Bickhoff, 2015). Strategic tools a
generic names for a method, model, tool, framework, methodology, or an approach uses t
facilitate a strategic work (Stenfors et al., 2007). This report is going to focus mainly on an
of organizational context (Radic8), a literature review of a balanced critical evaluation of r
strategic management tools, an application of tools into Radic8 for analysis and observatio
relevance of strategy as practice theory in informing organizational strategy, and a key le
reflective assessment.
1.1ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT; RADIC8
This section will lay out the organizational context within which this report will be analyzin
Considering this report, Radic8 will be the contextual organization. Radic8 is an independe
purification company that is based in the UK. Although independent, it formed a partnersh
with INBair in South Korea in 2017, where it launched its first product range. This partners
rapidly making them the world’s leading provider of indoor air quality solutions, air purification,
and sterilization technologies (Radic8, June 2019). As a small but growing company, it is e
that they have used the right analytical tools to analyze their firm’s industry and have capitalized
on their competitive advantage. Further, the effective use of the analytical tools will aid in
resolving complex issues, serve as relevant communication devices, coupled with their an

MBA 7013
3
role (Frost, 2003). Nonetheless, these analytical tools have helped Radic8 transform impo
data into suitable forms for decision making and undertakings (Fleisher and Bensoussan, 2
1.2WHY STRATEGY
Strategic analysis is serious business (Whittington, 2003). In academia, strategy is conside
unquestionable and relevant, hence, demanding a substantial focus (Knights and Morgan,
Cummings, 2003; cited in Clegg et al. 2004). Nonetheless, it is one of the most admired su
in relation to MBA degrees where Strategic management is a central core taught subject
(Pettigrew et al 2001; Pfeffer and Fong 2002). Hence, the value of Mr. Martin McAreavey,
the Strategic Management tutor at the University of Bolton (Benson, 2019).
Strategy as practice (SAP) perspective within strategic management has taken a leaf on th
evaluation of organizational culture (Smircich, 1983); acknowledging that traditional appro
strategy discipline has treated strategy as a property of organizations and as something th
have. Nonetheless, it has neglected the fact that strategy is also something executives do
(Jarzabkowski, 2004). In the opinion of SAP researchers, there is the need for a holistic
approach as to how consultants and managers interact and act in strategy making sequen
(Whittington. 1996: 732) and have developed observations that focuses more firmly on th
practitioners of strategy.

MBA 7013
4
1.3STRATEGY AS PRACTICE
Jarzabkoswki et al. (2007) observed that SAP is an attempt to humanize studies on organiz
and management. Understanding strategy as logic and top-down governed orthodox plann
procedure has commanded almost all concepts of strategic management (Farjoun 2002; M
2006). Established by Whittington (1996), SAP depends on social constructivism as subjec
and epistemology as an ontological paradigm. SAPfocuses “on how the practitioners of strategy
really act and interact” (Whittington 1996 p. 731). However, SAP has taken a more holistic
approach with the consideration of the wider context of strategic development and
implementation (Jarzabkowski 2004, Whittington 2006).
1.4CONCEPTS OF SAP
Doing of strategy has been a reference of strategizing by researchers (Jarzabkowski et a
SAP is an attempt to humanize analysis on management and organizations (Jarzabkowski
2007). Whittington (2006) introduced the SAP framework for strategy practices to close th
in between micro and macro level perspectives on strategy. There are three main concep
SAP namely; practitioner, praxis, and practices (Johnson et al. 2007).
The practitioner engulfs all actors actively involved in the formulation and execution of str
(Whittington 2006) and goes beyond the scope of the traditional approach, attributing stra
to senior management and neglecting the effect of consultants, middle management, and
functional players on strategy. The concept of praxis is covered by some specific activities
are related to the formulation and execution of a practitioners’ strategy. In relation to practice,
Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1977) and Gidden’s theory of structuration (1984) as a third SAP,

MBA 7013
5
are two major social theories that closes the loop between individuals and systems. Practi
specifically denotes the social structure namely traditions, shared routines, rules and norm
(Whittington 2006) continuously designed, transformed and restored in praxis. Although th
three concepts stand discretely, it is relevant to consider their interrelations when studyin
(Jarzabkowski et al.,2007). Figure 1. below depict the three main components of SAP name
practice, praxis, and practitioner.
PRAXIS
PRACTITIONERSPRACTICES
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for Strategy as Practice (Benson, 2019)
STRATEGIC FORMULATION
(combining 3 P’S)

MBA 7013
6
PRACTICE - Practice relates more to the macro-level episodes that serves as a direction f
actions; that includes formal and informal interactions, activities at the heart and fringe of
organization (Regnér, 2003). As Jarzabkowski et al. (2007, p. 9) quoted, Reckwitz (2002) d
practice as a“routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to
one another”. In order to improve the capability for studying strategic activity construction, t
should be utilization of resources and the creation of proper patterns for strategic
implementation (Jarzabkowski et al., 2007).
PRAXIS– Praxis, derived from a Greek word, refers to the activities done in practice by peop
comprises of the“social, symbolic, and material tools through which strategy work is done”
(Jarzabkowski & Spee, 2009, p. 70). Praxis is the stream of the happenings inside organiza
and the doings of actors; exists on both the micro and macro levels (Jarzabkowski et al., 2
is argued by Whittington (2006) that praxis covers a vast domain including management r
board meetings, and presentations or simple talks.
PRACTITIONERS– The real human beings that carries out strategic activities are the practition
In order to adopt a practice approach, there is the need for a profound understanding of th
human agency and the interaction with what practitioners actually do in strategic work
(Whittington, 2006; Jarzabkowski et al., 2007); they engage in execution, shaping, and
formulation of strategy. Practitioners are very important due to the fact that, their skill set
characteristics are what makes the difference between practices generally and what happ
practice (Whittington, 2006).
As specified in figure 1 above, there is an overlap across all three concepts which raises a
of fascinating questions about strategic behavior within Radic8. This report could ask Radi

MBA 7013
7
within the overlap area of practices and practitioners a question; “what kinds of method does
Richard Greenwood use to help Radic8 strategize?”. Equivalently, the praxis and practices
overlap could also ask “what actions do away-days encourage”? and do specific strategic tools
help Radic8 think in a more innovative terms about their strategy?”.
In order to find answers to the above questions stemming from SAP, there is the need to
critically evaluate the strategic management tools that managers use to find challenges a
use them to gain a competitive advantage. As the core strategic elements depicts (Johnso
2013), there is strategic analysis (whichwill be done using the tools; porter’s five forces and
balance scorecard), strategic development (after analysis) and strategic implementation (
will be applying a feasible strategic tool to evaluate Radic8).

MBA 7013
8

MBA 7013
9
1.5COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
Strategy relates to competitive advantage and about deciding the direction a business sho
follow and how to arrive there. Competitive advantage, being a core focus of nearly all
corporate strategy is explained clearly by Michael Porter; Competitive Advantage, 1985, p
saying“Competitive advantage grows out of value a firm is able to create for its buyers that
exceeds the firm's cost of creating it. Value is what buyers are willing to pay, and superio
stems from offering lower prices than competitors for equivalent benefits or providing uniq
benefits that more than offset a higher price. There are two basic types of competitive
advantage: cost leadership and differentiation.”
1.6CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING AND DEPLOYING STRATEGY
Developing and deploying strategy is more of strategic implementation considering any fir
develop a best fit strategy, however, implementing them is strenuous. Strategic implemen
entails the motivation of staff and organization of the firm’s resources to achievethe set
objectives (Ramesh, 2011). Considering the complex global environment competition,
dynamism, and unpredictability (Acur & Englyst, 2006), the environmental conditions face
many firms have rapidly changed (Machuki & Aosa, 2011). Albeit consistent strategy form
is considered a difficult task for managers, implementation through the organization is eve
more difficult (Hrebiniak, 2006). Machuki (2005) also denoted that a strategy is only good
implementation yields an acceptable or desired result. Strategy becomes challenging due
unpredicted market changes, absence of support from senior management, lack of focus,
communication (Sterling, 2003)

MBA 7013
10
2. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT TOOLS (STRATEGIC AN
Today, more than ever, organizational managers and decision-makers need appropriate to
procedures, and mechanisms to make strategic decisions (Rahnemaye Roudposhti, 2008)
Applying these tools enables managers control complex issues, and by so doing, make
appropriate decisions that will yield prosperity and progress for organizations and employe
(Rigby, 2015). Strategic management tools and techniques is not limited to analytical purp
only, but also for providing business strategy and maintaining a competitive advantage (A
and Chalupsky, 2012). However, March (2006: 211) (and others such as Mintzberg, 1994;
criticizes the excessive reliance on these ’technologies of rationality’ as potentially unsuitable
brace for decision-making that defends the theory of how strategic tools should be used a
the realism of experience. This section of the report will focus precisely on two strategic to
namely; Porters Five Forces (P5F) and Balance Scorecard
2.1PORTERS FIVE FORCES (P5F)
Industries compete and operate within unpredictable boundaries where they compete one
another to manufacture similar or related products. Industry structures are determined by
structures which together determine potential profitability of a firm and industry as a who
Hence, an understanding of the five forces is essential in gaining an understanding of the
competitive environment within which an organization operates in (Lansley et al., 1994).
Developed by Michael Porter (1980), P5F has dominated the strategy paradigm since its
introduction in the 1980s. Figure 2 below shows the model and its five industry forces nam

MBA 7013
11
threat of substitutes, threat of new entrants, rivalry among existing firms, argaining powe
buyers, and bargaining power of suppliers. The notion from the five forces is for firms to d
and build a position in the industry that can be used to influence them in their favor or def
themselves against competitive forces, then deduce that to determine if the firm can atta
competitive advantage or snag.
Threat of new entrants– This is the decree of penetration into an industry of new competitors
and inclination to attain part of the total market share, hence, the potential of lowering pr
Figure 2. Porter’s Five Forces of Competitive Advantage Framework (Porter, 1980)

MBA 7013
12
levels already gained by exiting firms in the industry. The seriousness attached to threat o
entrants is determined by the reaction of veritable firms in the industry and the reaction t
possibly be expected by new entrants from existing competitors (Porter, 1980).
Porter (1980) argues again that, higher barriers results to lower seriousness of threat for n
entrants. Some of the major sources of barriers to entries include; product differentiation,
switching cost, economies of scale, capital requirement, government policies, access to
distribution channels, and cost advantage regardless of size (Ronan Mclvor 2005)
Bargaining power of buyers– This specifies that customers exerts power on the industry throug
the efforts in reducing prices and enhancing a better bargain either in a quality term for a
quality or in a more quantitative service. Consequently, it creates a tougher competition in
market for current competing firms. This element is dependent on definite characteristics
market conditions and purchases relative to its overall business (Porter, 1980).
Bargaining power of suppliers– This factor suggests that suppliers affect industries by possible
means which includes reducing the quality of provided goods and services or price increm
Powerful suppliers end up gaining a higher profit within the industry from the firms who en
unable to recover cost increment by suppliers within its own pricing structure (Hit et al., 1
Threats of substitution– This factor argues that substitute products (goods and services) with
similar or same functions fulfill the same needs. However, there is a limitation outside the
industry which restricts the possible return of the industry by placing a ceiling on firm pric
they can charge profitably (Hit et al., 1995).
Rivalry among existing competitors– The aggregate of direct competition between firms in the
industry determines the competitive disposition of most industries and their general profit

MBA 7013
13
within an industry where operating firms are mutually independent. Industry profits are at
level when firms within the industry demonstrates a higher degree of rivalry (Porter, 1980
Although P5F is widely used, it has some criticisms. Porter (2008) himself confesses the
communication misapplications of the framework. Magretta (2012), Allio and Fahey (2012
Lee et al. (2012) proposed a managerial difficulty within the use of P5F. Porter (2008) ulul
the lack of quantitative appraisals used in a conventional application of the framework and
analytical devotion into a succession of qualitative series. Given the reality of business in
sense that markets are unstable within an industry structure on a constant basis consideri
industry transitions; which is the reality of all firms, Prahalad and Hamel (1994) queried th
model based on the reality of firms. Gordon (1997) also queries P5F in the sense that it is
the government factor, which has a direct impact on all the other five forces in the model,
favorable or unfavorable.
2.2BALANCE SCORECARD
This section will dive into explaining the concept of balance scorecard (BSC) and the mode
what the perspectives are based on in terms of analysis. The BSC’s justification strategy is to
explain a firm’s vision by developing a series of objectives and measures that are focused around
four main perspectives illustrated below in figure 3.

MBA 7013
14
Financial performance– This is the most important component in the application of a firm
strategy because of the role it plays in sustaining, supporting and improving a firm. The pr
financial performance target is to increase growth and profitability, value, and shareholde
value. Firms use BSC to attain their long-term financial goals in setting objectives used to
measure their financial performance coupled with a succession of other activities possible
engaging with employees, internal processes, customers, financial processes, and system
(Kaplan & Norton, 1992).
Figure 3. The balanced scorecard perspectives (Kaplan & Norton, 1994)

MBA 7013
15
Measures, critical goals, and objectives of finances assist firms in prediction and evaluatin
financial performances by the use of BSC (Kaplan & Norton, 2000b). Non-financial factors
proposed by Schneiderman (2001) to be considered if firms seek to gain an optimum adva
from BSC; which is the intellectual and intangible assets that play a major role in the
development of an organization (Kaplan & Norton, 1996b).
Customer Satisfaction– In recent years, most firms have based their vision development on
customer satisfaction considering the great importance and growth it brings to a firm in m
market (Kaplan & Norton, 1993). The main aim for customer satisfaction is to provide
outstanding and quality services, and to guarantee customer satisfaction for the firm to m
a good reputation amongst customers (Amaratunga et al., 2000). This can be achieved by
following a set measures, factors, and objectives (as in Table 3. Below).
Table 2. The financial performance, factors, measures, and objectives

MBA 7013
16
A vital factor that firms usually underestimate but must be considered is ensuring punctua
product deliverey and market conditions classified in order to assess account shares in co
sectors (Kaplan & Norton, 1996).
Internal business process– This perspective ensures the highest feasible quality of goods and
serviceswhereby the firms’ goods and services should meet market requirements in both
qualitative and quantitative measures. Supply chain management and process improveme
some of the key performance indicators (Dan, 2017).
Table 3. The customer satisfaction factors, measures, and objectives

MBA 7013
17
Learning and growth– This perspective emphasizes on the intangible assets of the firm; that is
the internal skills and competence of employees required to support the internal value cre
processes. It also focusses on information, human, and organizational capital. Another ma
objective of this factor describes how technology, people, and organizational atmospheric
conditions integrate to support strategy. Some of the measures of learning and growth are
measures for improvements in the internal processes, financial performance, and custome
satisfaction (Narayanamma & Lalitha, 2016).
Regardless of the wide usage of the BSC in organizations, it has some criticisms like other
measurement systems.Mohobbot (2004), Henk and Kim (2002) argue that BSC doesn’t
recognize performance measurement as a two-way process. Supported by Mohobbot (200
Table 4. The internal business processes factors, measures, and objectives

MBA 7013
18
Hink and Kim (2002), Thomas (2003) argue that the traditional BSC view is ineffective in r
to contributing to corporate sustainability. BSC is criticized to neglect time dimension; Nor
(2003) accounts that BSC ignores the incorporation of time dimension in the causes and e
relationships and additionally doesn’t separate the time related to the cause-and -effect
relationship.
3. THEORETICAL APPLICATION OF STRATEGIC TOOL TO RADIC 8
This section will focus on the theories that have been discussed above (section 2.1 and 2.2
the application of the most relevant and feasible tool to analyze Radic 8 for any insightful
observations and arguments. Varieties of techniques and tools are developed to help man
identify and deal with strategic decisions (Ramanujam et al., 1986) and to help them reco
valuable data into suitable forms for decision making and implementation (Fleisher and
Bensoussan, 2003).
Considering the size and set up of Radic 8, it is vital to consider the best tool for its operat
(Kalkan and Bozkurt, 2013) in order to attain the required strategic analysis outcome. Thu
section will focus on P5F in analyzing and providing support for any arguments.
3.1RADIC 8 COMPANY BACKGROUND
Radic8 has been designing and supplying advanced sterilization and air purification techno
since 2012. In 2017, it partnered with INBAir, a clean air industry leading technology provi
based in South Korea to develop a global sophisticated type of air purifier called the VK20
industry of operation is anticipated to gain $59 billion by 2021. Radic8 has recently launch

MBA 7013
19
global campaign projected towards spreading awareness– We Share Clean Air, which enable
organizations to advertise the way they provide a clean-air indoor.Radic8’s market distribution
of its products and services are in the area of; healthcare, education, government, hospita
and corporate houses. Radic8 has already established a strong distribution network in Indi
where the air purifier market is forecasted to reach $209 million by 2021. Considering the
growth with Radic8, there is still room for improvement and this can only be attained thro
analysing the company with strategic management models to find the shortfalls and capit
gaining a competitive advantage within the market it operates.
3.2ANALYSING RADIC 8; APPLICATION OF P5F (STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION)
Slater, Hult, & Olson (2007) defines a business-related strategy to infuse various activitie
necessitates the creation of quality customer value within the market and with the objecti
gaining a peculiar performance. Although BSC and P5F has been critically evaluated above
will be used in application of Radic8 in this section in order to be able to analyze the exter
factors which influences the ability of afirm’s profitability (Kotler, 2009). Nonetheless,
considering current international marketing, companies are bound to not only compete
nationally, but, internationally due to the advancement in technology and rapid growth of
globalization (Ickis,2006; Brenes et al., 2011). P5F is best fit for application because it pos
various magnitudes of effect in specific industries (Mohapatra, 2012).

MBA 7013
20
Threat of New Entrance– Radic8 operates in an industry that has a high entry barrier; it is
strenuous for new firms to instantly obtrude an advantage over their competitors (within t
clean air technology industry) and will face a fierce reaction from competitors (Porter, 197
Radic8, Dyson, etc. The major factors that makes the barrier high is the capital requireme
government policies, and access to distribution channels (Porter, 2008). This high barrier g
Radic8 an advantage to operate to its fullest capacity and build a competitive advantage o
few industry competitors. Profitability can be capitalized upon for product and operational
expansion.
Bargaining Power of Suppliers– Radic8 being strategically wise, it has been able to an
environment that has made its bargaining power of suppliers low. Radic8 with its partners
with INBair in South Korea in 2017 (Radic8, 2019) makes them their sole producers for its
RADIC8
Threat of New
Entry
LOW
Power of Suppliers
LOW
Government/Brexit
MILD
COMPETITIVE
RIVALRY
LOW
Threat of
Substitution
LOW
Power of Buyers
LOW
Figure 4. Porters five forces Analysis; Re-adjusted and applied for Radic 8 (Benson 2019)

MBA 7013
21
technology. There is therefore no threat of unforeseen cost increment in technology, whic
makes operational cost profitability stable for Radic8. Power of suppliers only has an impa
profitability either by reducing or raising cost and quality of goods and services respective
(Porter, 1979).More importantly, INBair doesn’t only depend on Radic8 to for revenue
generation as they invest in other industries (INBair, 2019), which reflects what Porter (19
2008) argued by depicting that since companies are more dependent on suppliers, if the s
is not contingent on the industry for profit, there is not threat (low bargaining power).
Bargaining Power of Buyers– Buyers take advantage of their position by placing pressure on
suppliers when suppliers are dependent on buyers (Porter, 2008). In the case of Radic8, th
have a low bargaining power of suppliers because of the quality of goods and services offe
Although major competitors like Dyson offers similar products, Radic8 uses an advanced p
catalytic oxidation that destroys all known respiratory viruses with a kill rate of 99.9999%
(Radic8, 2019).
Threat of Substitutes– There is always a substitute although they are simple to be missed due
the different nature from the industry’s product (Porter, 2008). This is true for Radic8 because
although they produce a better quality for consumers, there is the presence of Dyson prod
which are similar (sometimes in size, color, design, and shape). However, VK 002 Radic8 p
(sleek and stylish design, small footprint-30cm, simple installation, and x8 UVC lamps) is t
the UK market currently (Radic8, 2019). Hence, there is low threat of substitutes for Radic
Rivalry Among Existing Competitors– According to Porter (2008), there will be a limitation in
profitability where there is high rivalry due to competition. Currently, Radic8 is the only UK
company that manufactures and supplies the VK 002 (Virus Killer), hence, a low rivalry am

MBA 7013
22
existing competitors. Although they supply a vast range of institutions, Radic8 does not h
vast variety of products due to their effort to offer specialized products and quality service
(Radic8, 12019). This strategy has definitely reduced the competition from other big comp
to compete with them, thus, maintaining their customer base and satisfaction. From a sem
by Mr. Richard Greenwood (C.E.O of Radic8), he pointed out that LG, JM, etc. have reached
in the hopes to partner with them. This depicts how far Radic8 has gone to completely era
any rivalry competition.
Government/Brexit– Consideringsituation on Brexit; there’s a certainty of changes relating to
cost of policy uncertainties (Bloom 2014; Handley and Limão 2015). In order to neutralize
uncertainty, Radic8 would have to make adjustments for its macro econometric model
(Armstrong and Portes 2016). This situation leaves Radic8 in a high risk of organizational s
post Brexit. However, Economists for Brexit (2016) argues that unilateral trade liberalizati
build a striking income gain. To add, a survey confirmation by Collinson (2016) suggests th
people of the UK believed that the economy will not be adversely affected post Brexit.
The North Korea branch of Radic8 was not mentioned because of its autonomous status in
industry. INBair has reached its highest ladder and doesn’t face any threats in the industry.
However, Radic8 doesn’t have full control of the affairs of INBair so it will be less relevant to
analyze that aspect; will not be affected by Brexit because it only operates with Radic8 in
4. RECOMMENDATION FOR RADIC8 ( STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT)
The main recommendation that can be deduced from the strategic analysis will be a focus
Radic8 to expand its product and find more or new suppliers other than INBair. It could be

MBA 7013
23
argued that there is a strong partnership but due to globalization and rapid technological
advancement, markets are changing rapidly, hence, making stability uncertain. If Radic8 p
with another firm, it will be able to create another product other than the VKW200. This w
bring in more profit (higher profitability) for expansion of the overall business structure of
Radic8. Thus, it can compete on a broader geographical scope and gain more awareness a
become autonomous in the long run.
The challenge however rests in creating awareness among the people and onboarding the
distribution partners within multifarious market sectors and different geographical location
appears thatmost people don’t know the benefits of havingRadic8 products installed in homes,
offices, hospitals, etc. Hence, the need for a deeper marketing strategy and team that will
the majority of audiences both locally and globally. Personally, I know there is an audience
ready market in Ghana-West Africa, where the new health minister is keen on air purificat
and has set up a small team to research in that area. Radic8 will increase its profitability i
focuses a bit more there.
5. REFLECTIVE ASSESSMENT
In undertaking this assignment, I have been able to attain a critical understanding of strat
management models and the key relevance in analysing a firm in order to develop a strat
Prior to this assignment, I did not value the relevance of strategy but this report has broad
my knowledge and the importance of strategy in managing an organization. I have also co
a better understanding of why organizations fail to get the best out of the entire business
process as they fail to understand the relevance of strategy as practice and the respective

MBA 7013
24
they play in bringing together all the pieces for a smooth and harmonious operation of an
organization. Most importantly, I have learned that although strategy is vital in the running
structure of an organization, it should be adjusted as objectives are achieved in order for a
progressive growth and expansion.
Finally, I have so much confidence in the understanding of strategic management and its
application once I get into the practical business world. I believe I will make an impact with
knowledge acquired. I would also take this opportunity to thank Mr. Martin McAreavey for
time and knowledge transformation within the module context; I wish you the best of luck
has been a pleasure.

MBA 7013
25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acur, N., & Englyst, L. (2006). Assessment of strategy formulation: How to ensure quality i
process and outcome. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(1
91.
Allio, R.J. and Fahey, L. (2012), “Joan Magretta: whatexecutives can learn from revisiting Michael
Porter”, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 5-10.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., & Sarshar, M. (2000). Assessment of facility management
performance—What next? Facilities, 18(2), 66-75.
Ansoff, I., & McDonnel, E. (1990). Implanting strategic management, 2nd edition, London,
Prentice Hall
Armstrong, Angus, and Jonathan Portes. 2016. “Commentary: The Economic Consequences of
Leaving the EU.” National Institute Economic Review 236: 2–6.
Bloom, Nicholas. 2014. “Fluctuations in Uncertainty.”Journal of Economic Perspectives 28, no. 2:
153–76.
Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
Collinson, Patrick. 2016. “Brexit: Two-Thirds Foresee No Negative Impact on Their Finances.”The
Guardian, June 1.
Economists for Brexit. 2016. “The Economy after Brexit.” http://www.economists
forbrexit.co.uk/publications
European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (2),243 263.‐
Fleisher G, Bensoussan B. 2003. Strategic and competitive analysis. New Jersey: Prentice
Frost F. 2003. The use of strategic tools by small and medium-sized enterprises: an Austra
study. Journal of Strategic Change 12. 49-62.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cam
Polity Press.
Handley, Kyle, and Nuno Limão. 2015. “Trade and Investment under Policy Uncertainty: Theory
and Firm Evidence.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 7, no. 4: 189–222.
Henrik, V. Andersen, G. Michael, S. 2000. The Balanced Scorecard vs. The EFQM business
excellent model. Which is better strategic management tool? 2GC limited. pp 1-16.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (2006). Obstacles to effective strategy implementation. Organizational Dy
35, 12-31.

MBA 7013
26
Hudson, M. Smart, A. Bourne, M. 2001. Theory and practice in SME performance measurem
systems. International journal of operations and production management 21. Pp 1096-111
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as Practice: Recursiveness, Adaptation, and Practices-in-
Organization Studies.
Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, A. P. (2009).Strategy as practice:‐ ‐ A review and future directions for
the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11 (1),69 95.‐
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., & Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: The Challenges of a Practice
tive. Human Relations, 60 (1),5 27.‐
Johnson G and Scholes K. (2002). Exploring Corporate Strategy (6th Edition) Prentice Hall,
Auturn, WA, U.S.A.
Johnson, G., Scholes, K., Whittington, R., 2008. Exploring Corporate Strategy, 8th edition.
Prentice Hall.
Kalkan, A. and Bozkurt, Ö. Ç. 2013. The Choice and use of strategic planning tools and tec
in Turkish SMES according to attitudes of executives. Procedia‑Social and Behavioral Sciences,
99: 1016– 1025.
Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1992) The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Perform
Harvard Business Review, (January-February): 71-79
Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1993) Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work, Harvard Bus
Review (September-October).
Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1996a) The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into A
Boston: HBS Press.
Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1996b) Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Manag
System,” Harvard Business Review (January-February):75-85.
Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton (2000) The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Sc
Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment, Harvard Business School Press
Knights D, Morgan G. 1991. Corporate-Strategy, Organizations, and Subjectivity - a Critiqu
Organization Studies 12(2): 251-273.
Kotler, Philip, Roland Berger and Nils Bickhoff, 2015, The Quintessence of Strategic Manag
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Kvint, V. (2009). The Global Emerging Market: Strategic Management and Economics. Rou
Lee, H., Kim, M. and Park, Y. (2012), “An analytic network process approach to operationalization
of five forces model”, Applied Mathematical Modeling, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1783-1795.

MBA 7013
27
Machuki, V. N. (2005). Challenges to strategy implementation at CMC Motors Group Ltd
(Unpublished MBA Project, University of Nairobi).
Machuki, V. N., & Aosa, E. (2011). The influence of the external environment on the perfor
of publicly quoted companies in Kenya. Prime Journals, Business Administration and
Management (BAM) 1(7), 205-218.
Magretta, J. (2012), Understanding Michael Porter: The Essential Guide to Competition and
Strategy, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Making. Journal of Management Studies, 40 (1),57 8‐ 2.
Mohobbot, A. 2004. The Balanced Scorecard (BSC)– A critical analysis. Journal of humanities and
social. Volume 18. November 2004. Pp 219 -232.
Norreklit, H. 2003. The balance on the Balanced Scorecard: a critical analysis of some of it
assumptions. Management accounting research. Volume 11, Issue 1. Pp 65-88.
Pettigrew AM. 1977. Strategy formulation as a political process. International Studies of
Management & Organization 7(2): 78.
Pfeffer J, Sutton RI. 2006. Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: profiting f
evidence-based management. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Mass.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Compe
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performanc
Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (2008), “The five competitive forces that shape strategy”,Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 78-93.
Ramesh, R. (2011). Strategic management. Structured Notes as per the Syllabus of MD
University, Rohtak, Haryana.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in cultural theoriz
Regnér, P. (2003). Strategy Creation in the Periphery: Inductive Versus Deductive Strategy
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Scienc
Quarterly, 28: 339-358.
Stenfors, Sari, Leena Tanner, Mikko Syrjänen, Tomi Seppälä and Ilkka Haapalinna, 2007,
“Executive Views Concerning Decision Support Tools”,European Journal of Operational Research,
181(2), pp. 929–938. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.024
Sterling, J. (2003). Translating strategy into effective implementation: dispelling the myths
highlighting what works. Strategy & Leadership, 31(3), 27-34.

MBA 7013
28
Thomas B. 2003. Sustainability Management with Balanced Scorecard. International summ
academy on technology studies-corporate sustainability 13. Jul 2003 - 18. Jul 2003. Univer
st Gallen.
Thompson, A. A., & Strickland, A. (2003). Strategic management concept and cases editio
York, USA.
Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning: 29(5): 731-735.
Whittington, R., 2006. Completing the Practice Turn in Strategy Research. Organizational S
27(5). 613-634.
Whittington, Richard, Paula Jarzabkowski, Michael Mayer, Eléonore Mounoud, Janine Nahap
and Linda Rouleau, 2003, “Taking Strategy Seriously: Responsibility and Reform for an Important
Social Practice”, Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), pp. 396–409, cited by Jarzabkowski et al.,
2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492603258968
Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1990). The strategy process, middle management involvem
and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 231-241.