Individual component (W7)

1
INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT OF THE CASE STUDY S2 2020 MGMT8045
Due: Individual component (W7), Value: Individual component 30%,
This assignment requires you to answer a specific question. It should be submitted through Turnitin at the latest
13 September 23.59. Title your document with your surname and student number, e.g., Smith20062007. Turnitin
can be found on the unit’s iLearn site.
Make sure that your name and student number can be found in the header of each page. Your answers should be
written in Times New Roman, size 12, single spaced just like this document. Note that you have a word cap of a
1000 words. The highest marks will be awarded to answers that are:
 parsimonious, i.e. the answer is to the point and does not include irrelevant concepts, theory or
arguments;
 well argued the, i.e. it is easy to follow the logic of the arguments and to see which assumptions they are
based upon;
 complete, i.e. they do not omit important components;
 correct, i.e. the answer addresses the task set in the question and the answer contains no errors; and
 well written, i.e. the answers are appropriately structured, clearly expressed and grammatically correct.
At the end of this document you find a marking guide that further specifies what is expected of the assignment.
You may use additional references to the journal papers we have covered in the unit, but are not required to do
so. The reference list does not count towards the word limit. On iLearn you can find the Trader Joe’s case. This
assignment, as well as the rest of the group assignment, is based on the Trader Joe’s case.
Note that you only have 1000 words at your disposal. Note also that there is no need to summarise the papers or
the case (you can assume the reader is well familiar with the texts). However, you may want to make a summary
of the papers for your own use to get a better overview, but do not incorporate summaries in your submission.
Your text should focus on analysis and evaluation. The most important aspect of your discussion is that you
demonstrate understanding of the theories and their application (this does NOT mean you should explain
these theories, rather you should use them appropriately in your discussion). A common mistake is to make
extensive references to facts in the case, but not explain why the facts are important. The argument is central,
facts should only be mentioned to support claims relevant to your argument. Every time you mention a fact from
the case, ask yourself “why am I mentioning this?” and “what theoretical construct or claim is this fact
supporting?”.
2
QUESTION
Trader Joe’s has been successful in a well-established industry; why do you think that is? Discuss what has made
Trader Joe’s so successful in the past (up to the date of the case, i.e. 2013). In the discussion draw on the
theory in Barney (1991) and Porter (1996, 2008). What are the sources of Trader Joe’s’ competitive advantage?
Can Trader Joe’s sustain its advantage (why/why not)? Note that the term “competitive advantage” is understood
differently by different people; therefore, be clear what you think is a good way of conceptualising “competitive
advantage” (justify why it is a good way to conceptualise competitive advantage). In addition, Barney is very
specific in what he means with “sustainable” in the concept “sustainable competitive advantage”; do you share
his view, or do you think “sustainable” should be conceptualised differently? (Note that it makes sense to start
your response by outlining what you mean by the term “sustainable competitive advantage”, even if you simply
adopt Barney’s 1991 view)
You may want to consider questions such as: How does Trader Joe’s differ from other supermarkets? What
existing supermarkets or potential entrants can copy Trader Joe’s’ competitive advantage? Can anyone or
anything make Trader Joe’s’ advantages obsolete? Can a dynamic perspective on strategy (e.g. Brandenburger
and Nalebuff, 1995). inform your argument?
Again, note that you only have 1000 words at your disposal, so you need to be concise.
REFERENCES
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1995). The right game: Use game theory to shape strategy. Harvard
Business Review, 73, 57-71.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.
Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78-93.
3
INDICATIVE MARKING GUIDE MGMT8045 INDIVIDUAL PART OF THE CASE STUDY