Week 1 Strategic Planning and Strategic Management

Week 1 Strategic Planning and Strategic Management

Purpose of Assignment 

The purpose of this assignment is to help students understand strategic business terminology (vision, mission, goals, objectives, specific objectives, internal and external scanning), to recognize the components of a strategic plan and to be familiar with the core information and steps needed to create a strategic plan. Furthermore, this assignment allows students to recognize the difference between strategic planning and strategic management.

Assignment Steps

Write a 700-word analysis in which you complete the following:

• Describe and define the primary components of the Strategic Management Process.
• Describe and define internal and external analysis.
• Describe and define the responsibilities and duties of the Strategic Manager.
• Explain why companies need strategic management planning.

Cite 3 scholarly references, including at least two peer-reviewed references from the University Library.

Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.

Does this evidence address my EBP question?

Yes

No

Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence

Level of Evidence (Study Design)

A. Is this a report of a single research study? If No, go to B.

1. Was there manipulation of an independent variable?

2. Was there a control group?

3. Were study participants randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups?

If Yes to all three, this is a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) or Experimental Study

If Yes to #1 and #2 and No to #3, OR Yes to #1 and No to #2 and #3, this is Quasi Experimental (some degree of investigator control, some manipulation of an independent variable, lacks random assignment to groups, may have a control group)

If No to #1, #2, and #3, this is Non-Experimental (no manipulation of independent variable, can be descriptive, comparative, or correlational, often uses secondary data) or Qualitative (exploratory in nature such as interviews or focus groups, a starting point for studies for which little research currently exists, has small sample sizes, may use results to design empirical studies)

NEXT, complete THE bOTTOM SECTION ON THE Following PAGE, “STUDY FINDINGS THAT HELP YOU ANSWER THE EBP QUESTION”

LEVEL I

LEVEL II

LEVEL III

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

B. Is this a summary of multiple research studies? If No, go to Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Form.

1. Does it employ a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method (Systematic Review)? If No, use Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool; if Yes:

a. Does it combine and analyze results from the studies to generate a new statistic (effect size)? (Systematic review with meta-analysis)

b. Does it analyze and synthesize concepts from qualitative studies? (Systematic review with meta-synthesis)

If Yes to either a or b, go to #2B below.

2. For Systematic Reviews and Systematic Reviews with meta-analysis or meta-synthesis:

a. Are all studies included RCTs?

b. Are the studies a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental or quasi-experimental only?

c. Are the studies a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental and non-experimental or non-experimental only?

d. Are any or all of the included studies qualitative?

complete THE NEXT SECTION, “STUDY FINDINGS THAT HELP YOU ANSWER THE EBP QUESTION”

LEVEL I

LEVEL II

LEVEL IIl

LEVEL IIl

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Study findings that help you answer the EBP question:

NOW COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGE, “QUALITY APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH STUDIES”, AND ASSIGN A QUALITY SCORE TO YOUR ARTICLE

Quality Appraisal of Research Studies

· Does the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how the study will address any gaps in knowledge?

· Was the purpose of the study clearly presented?

· Was the literature review current (most sources within last 5 years or classic)?

· Was sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale?

· If there is a control group:

· Were the characteristics and/or demographics similar in both the control and intervention groups?

· If multiple settings were used, were the settings similar?

· Were all groups equally treated except for the intervention group(s)?

· Are data collection methods described clearly?

· Were the instruments reliable (Cronbach’s α [alpha] > 0.70)?

· Was instrument validity discussed?

· If surveys/questionnaires were used, was the response rate > 25%?

· Were the results presented clearly?

· If tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content?

· Were study limitations identified and addressed?

· Were conclusions based on results?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Quality Appraisal of Systematic Review with or without Meta-Analysis or Meta-Synthesis

· Was the purpose of the systematic review clearly stated?

· Were reports comprehensive, with reproducible search strategy?

· Key search terms stated

· Multiple databases searched and identified

· Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated

· Was there a flow diagram showing the number of studies eliminated at each level of review?

· Were details of included studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths and limitations)?

· Were methods for appraising the strength of evidence (level and quality) described?

· Were conclusions based on results?

· Results were interpreted

· Conclusions flowed logically from the interpretation and systematic review question

· Did the systematic review include both a section addressing limitations and how they were addressed?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No
Quality Rating Based on quality appraisal

A High quality: consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence

B Good quality: reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control, and fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence

C Low quality or major flaws: little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn

© The Johns Hopkins Hospital/Johns Hopkins University. May not be used or reprinted without permission. Page 3