Students'' only need to choose an organisation in order to apply and provide an

academic argument of the theories and models of HRM/SHRM taught throughout the
module. The organisation is relatively insignificant because students' will only use the
organisation to show how theory relates to practice and how they apply the theories
and the models from the taught module to that organisation.

Students do not have to analyse the organisations specific elements of HR strategies

of, for example, Resourcing strategy, L&D strategy, Reward strategy, ER strategy etc
because, and I agree, this will not be readily available and very onerous, which is why
we only require students to make an overarching assessment of how the organisation
manages it's human resources.

Students' only need to conduct an overarching/general assessment of the

organisation, form this assessment they will discover the organisation's approach to
managing it's human resources.

The student will then use their own educated judgment whether their organisation is
adopting a Best-Fit, Best Practice or RBV strategic approach. Students' will be able to
make this judgement because they will critically "argue" how the models they have
learned in the module are apparent/observable in the strategic perspective of that the
particular organisation. There is no right or wrong answer here, as long as students'
can compose an academic argument around the theoretical perspectives, theories and
models taught. Student's' are being assessed on their knowledge, understanding and
application of the theories and models taught in the module, they are not being
assessed on the organisation, the organisation is just a vehicle to apply their
knowledge and understanding to a practical/real example.

Lets assume the student chooses a fairly new restaurant with limited or no HRM, an
emphasis on flexibility and performance, no/little formal procedures etc? From their
knowledge of strategic perspectives taught the student can then apply a Best-fit,
strategic perspective using the Storey and Sisson, (1993) Lifecycle model, specifically
"Start-up" phase of the life-cycle.

Lets assume a student chooses Starbucks? Researching how Starbucks manage their
staff will lead students' to discover : no sophisticated R&S, causal/ ad-hoc
employment, fixed job descriptions, no learning and development, emphasis on
results, no employment relations/organised labour etc. This should inform the student
that Starbucks adopt a Best-Fit strategic perspective and can be argued using Schuler
and Jackson, (1987) Competitive advantage model, specifically "cost reduction"
strategy.

Lets assume the student chooses Microsoft.?The student will discover Microsoft
have sophisticated R&S, pay linked to organisational performance, self managed
teams, decentralised self-managed teams, R&D, transfer of
information/knowledge, etc. This will inform the student that Microsoft adopt a Best-
fit strategic perspective using the models of Pfeffer, 1998) or HPWS of Huselid,
(1995). Student's may go as far as arguing that Microsoft adopt a RBV strategic
perspective using Barney, (1991.1995), which would be acceptable as long as the
student shows understanding and application of Barney's VIRO model in the context
of their chosen organisation.

All students' cannot use the same organisation as this will encourage collusion and
plagiarism throughout the cohort. There are no examples of this assessment because
this is the first time that this assessment has been used.