This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but with a whimper
(T.S. Eliot, 'The Hollow Men')
Such were my feelings at the end of the exam, for this marks the unofficial end of my MBA studies (the official end will presumably be when I get the results for this exam, or even at the ceremony next year in Edinburgh). The entire affair was anti-climatic. It was hard to revise for the exam because there wasn't exactly a set of facts which had to be learnt; true, there was a format (with about fifteen items) to be memorised, and one had to remember the advantages and disadvantages of the process model, but that was about it. Like the final exam of my first degree, the subject matter was, in a sense, everything that we had been taught in the preceding courses.
The exam consists of three questions: the first is a numerical exercise which requires a strategic evaluation (or recommendation); the second is a non-numerical real world case study which also requires a strategic evaluation, and the third is an essay question. Those with whom I spoke before the exam weren't too worried about the first question and only slightly worried about the second. Most of us were worried by the vagueness of the third question which could be about anything under the sun and phrased in inscrutable language which only hints at what is needed.
And so - the first question was, as usual, about the Acme company. Unlike most examples of this question which we have seen, this question had three current products as opposed to two current products and two in development. This made the question slightly easier although required more writing as all three products had to be covered. Two of the products have PLC (product life cycle) of maturity approaching slow death whereas one was in the growth phase. This means that all the strategic discussion was completely different for the third product. As a teaser, we also had to discuss the financial manager's suggestion that resources (work hours, marketing and development budgets) be shared equally between the three products. Obviously he was unaware of the different requirements due to different PLC stages. The question wasn't hard but it required an hour of concentrated writing.
We had been advised to start with question one, then continue to question three and finish with question two. So, dutifully, I read question three, which read something like this: The senior managers of the company were each specialists in their own field. Their CEO gathered them together for a meeting with a strategic analyst named Stanley. All the managers were dubious about the meeting but after two days with Stanley, their opinion changed completely and they were very happy to have taken part. What did Stanley tell them?
Assuming that one ignores facetious answers like the winning numbers in next week's lottery or that Stanley took the managers for a 48 hour orgy, one assumes that Stanley revealed the strategic planning/process model. Each manager has his own goals (most of which are short term) without being aware of the other managers' goals. Of course, some of the goals are diametrically opposed, especially those of the production manager and the sales manager. My answer noted the above, then gave examples of what those managers' goals might be. Then I explained about the process model (see, memorising the advantages and disadvantages paid off!), noting that the fourth advantage ('identifies areas of disagreement') was most pertinent. Looking at the material now, I slightly mangled the second disadvantage although I think that I explained it well enough. After a bit of expansion, I had filled one and a half pages, which might not be enough according to our lecturer, but contained the main points and showed understanding.
Then I turned to the second question. One of the practice questions which we had looked at was about HP and the factors which lead to the appointment of Ms Carla Fiorina; this question was also about HP and Ms Fiorina. At first I thought that it was the same question but it quickly became apparent that whereas the first question was about the start of Ms Fiorina, this question was about the end of her period. Basically, the question asked: was it fair for the Board of Directors to sack their CEO? Of course, there was a great deal of information which had to be analysed according to the model of strategic planning but a certain weight was placed on the student's recommendation (and of course, the reasoning behind said recommendation). I might well have presented the data in a rather more unstructured format than I should have, but I think that I was perfectly clear about my recommendation (I think that HP should have devolved into smaller companies, keeping Fiorina as CEO).
So how well did I do? From the grading guides which I have seen, it is very difficult to achieve an outstanding mark in this exam. It is also quite difficult to fail - as long as one uses the analysis format (which has been drummed into our heads) and one mentions the process method enough times. So it's clear that I passed although I have no idea what the final mark will be.
Results at the end of July.
No comments:
Post a Comment