Review the Northstar Foods Ltd. case study. Prepare and submit a pre-recorded board-level presentation (maximum 8 minutes) to satisfy the management consultancy brief outlined in the case study.
Assessment Guide
MN1033 Introduction to Management
Module Leader:
Assessment Type: International Management Presentation to the board
Weightings: 100%
Submission Limitations: Maximum duration 8 minutes
Penalty:
There is an allowance of 30 seconds over the 8 minutes. Thereafter, there will be a penalty deduction of 5 marks for the first minute elapsed over the permitted limitation. Any remaining presentation material after the penalised duration will not be assessed towards the final mark.
Academic Year: 2025/26
Assignment Brief
Review the Northstar Foods Ltd. case study (attached as Appendix 1 to this assignment brief). Prepare and submit a pre-recorded board-level presentation (maximum 8 minutes) to satisfy the management consultancy brief outlined in the case study.
Transferable Skills
Transferable skills are skills that are developed in one scenario and can be transferred to another, such as communication, teamwork or analytical skills. The main transferable skill covered in this assessment is Communicating and Researching & Analysing.
The following skills are also covered in this assignment:
Problem solving & Decision making, Planning & Organising, Learning, Improving & Achieving.
Fair Use of Artificial Intelligence
The use of Generative AI is permitted within this assessment
You may use AI tools to support your preparation, for example to help you understand concepts, explore ideas, or identify relevant sources. However, your final submission must reflect your own understanding, analysis, and judgement.
This assessment is designed to evaluate your ability to interpret a managerial situation and communicate a clear recommendation. You should therefore ensure that your work demonstrates your own thinking and engagement with the module.
Important requirement:
Your presentation must be recorded using your own authentic voice. The use of AI-generated or synthetic voice recordings is not permitted. Submissions that do not use the student’s own voice may be treated as an academic offence.
The module team reserves the right to apply penalties where the use of AI undermines the quality, coherence, or integrity of the submission. Over-reliance on AI, without critical engagement, may also result in marks being reduced where the work does not meet the learning outcomes.
If you choose to use AI tools, you should do so critically and responsibly. For example, you should:
-
question the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content
-
ensure that ideas are properly understood before using them
-
avoid copying or reproducing AI-generated text directly
AI tools are not neutral technologies. They rely on large amounts of data and computing power, and they may collect and use user data in ways that are not always transparent. You are encouraged to be mindful of these issues and to use such tools in a thoughtful and responsible way.
Further Guidance
You must use the guidance in Unit 2, Lesson 2 to prepare your presentation.
There is no single required structure. You should use your own judgement on what details to include to introduce, discuss and conclude the case. However, please see the marking criteria below which directly correspond to the areas that the board require your analysis to address, it is essential that your structure covers these:
-
the key managerial problem facing Northstar Foods, including how rapid growth, organisational complexity, and current management systems are shaping decision making in this specific case
-
the tensions and trade-offs within the organisation, particularly how efficiency, sustainability, and coordination pressures are interacting in practice, and where current approaches may be creating unintended consequences
-
a justified recommendation for action, demonstrating how managerial judgement can be strengthened beyond existing metrics and systems, and how the organisation can move forward in a realistic and defensible way.
Key steps for getting started:
-
You must now carefully review the Northstar Foods Ltd. case study.
-
Identify key details of the practical details of the case study.
-
Use the module syllabus, including theories, technical concepts, key debates, insights and ideas relating to managerial thought and practice to analyse the practical circumstances the company is facing.
-
Prepare your presentation slides and script.
Marking criteria
|
Criteria |
First |
Upper Second |
Lower Second |
Third |
Compensated Pass |
Fail |
|
Problem Analysis (25%) |
Provides a clear, precise, and insightful identification of the key managerial problem in the Northstar case. Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how growth, organisational complexity, and management systems shape decision making. Analysis is well-focused and grounded in the specifics of the case. |
Clearly identifies the main managerial problem and demonstrates a strong understanding of the role of growth and organisational systems. Analysis is relevant and well linked to the case, with good clarity and focus. |
Identifies a relevant managerial problem with reasonable understanding of the case. Some links to organisational complexity and systems are present, though analysis may lack depth or precision. |
Demonstrates a basic understanding of the case but the managerial problem is simplified or partially unclear. Limited engagement with how organisational systems shape decision making. |
Limited or unclear identification of the managerial problem. Understanding of the case is superficial or descriptive, with little connection to key issues. |
Fails to identify a coherent managerial problem. Misunderstands or overlooks key aspects of the case. |
|
Evaluation of Tensions (25%) |
Provides a nuanced and critical evaluation of the tensions and trade-offs within the organisation. Demonstrates strong awareness of how efficiency, sustainability, and coordination pressures interact and create unintended consequences. Shows clear insight into competing priorities and stakeholder implications. |
Offers a clear and well-developed evaluation of key tensions in the case. Demonstrates good understanding of trade-offs and their implications, with relevant links to organisational priorities. |
Identifies relevant tensions and trade-offs with some explanation. Demonstrates a reasonable understanding, though evaluation may be uneven or partially descriptive. |
Identifies some tensions but analysis is limited or lacks depth. Tends toward description rather than evaluation of trade-offs. |
Limited recognition of tensions within the organisation. Discussion is largely descriptive or unclear, with minimal evaluation. |
Fails to identify or meaningfully engage with key tensions in the case. |
|
Managerial Recommendation (25%) |
Presents a clear, compelling, and well-justified recommendation. Demonstrates strong managerial judgement, recognising the limits of existing systems and metrics. Recommendation is realistic, defensible, and clearly linked to the analysis. |
Provides a clear and justified recommendation that is well connected to the analysis. Demonstrates good understanding of managerial judgement and organisational constraints. |
Provides a reasonable recommendation with some justification. Links to analysis are present but may lack depth or clarity. |
Recommendation is present but weakly justified or only partially linked to the analysis. May be overly simplistic or unclear. |
Recommendation is unclear, poorly justified, or not fully relevant to the case. |
No clear recommendation, or recommendation is inappropriate or unsupported. |
|
Presentation and Delivery (25%) |
Presentation is highly professional, clear, and engaging. Slides are well-designed and support the narrative effectively. Spoken delivery is confident, well-paced, and easy to follow. |
Presentation is clear and well-structured. Slides support the content appropriately. Delivery is generally clear and coherent. |
Presentation is generally clear but may lack polish or consistency. Slides and delivery are adequate but not always well aligned. |
Presentation is uneven or difficult to follow in places. Slides may be cluttered or unclear. Delivery lacks clarity or fluency. |
Presentation is poorly structured or difficult to follow. Limited clarity in slides or delivery. |
Presentation is unclear, incomplete, or not submitted in an appropriate format. |
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is to take the work of another person and use it as if it were one’s own in such a way as to mislead the reader. Whole pieces of work can be plagiarised (for example, if a student put his or her name on another student’s essay), or part pieces, where chapters or extracts may be lifted from other sources, including the Internet, without acknowledgement. Sometimes plagiarism happens inadvertently, where students fail to read instructions about or do not understand the rules governing the presentation of work which require sources to be acknowledged. In such cases, the problem is usually identified very early in the course and can be put right through discussion with tutors. Deliberate attempts to mislead the examiners, however, are regarded as cheating and are treated very severely by boards of examiners. Any plagiarism in assessments which contribute to the final degree class are likely to lead, at the very least, to the downgrading of the degree class by one division. In the worst cases, expulsion from the University is a possibility.
Additional guidance on academic integrity is available at:
https://uniofleicester.sharepoint.com/sites/academic-skills-online/SitePages/Academic-integrity.aspx
Referencing
You are required to use the Harvard Referencing style for your work. Please ensure that you have read the advice on referencing which is available at:
https://uniofleicester.sharepoint.com/sites/academic-skills-online/SitePages/Reference.aspx
Appendix 1
Board-Level Presentation: Northstar Foods Ltd. Case Study
Company background
Northstar Foods Ltd. is a UK based food manufacturer specialising in prepared meals sold through major supermarkets and online grocery platforms. The company positions itself as a “responsible convenience brand”, marketing products as high quality ready meals produced with attention to environmental sustainability and responsible sourcing.
The company has grown rapidly over the past five years. Annual revenue has increased from £8 million to approximately £31 million, and Northstar products are now sold in several European markets as well as across the UK. The firm operates two production facilities in the Midlands and manages a large network of ingredient suppliers across the UK and continental Europe.
This rapid growth has created both opportunities and challenges for the organisation. While sales continue to increase, the scale and complexity of operations have also expanded significantly. Senior managers now face difficult decisions about how to coordinate production, supply chains, sustainability commitments, and financial performance.
Recent management initiatives
In response to the growing complexity of the business, the executive team recently introduced a number of management systems intended to support more informed decision making.
First, the company launched a central management dashboard used by senior managers and the board to track organisational performance. The dashboard brings together data from across the organisation and presents key indicators in several areas, including:
-
production costs per unit
-
delivery reliability
-
supplier compliance ratings
-
carbon emissions per product
-
packaging reduction targets
-
customer satisfaction indicators
The CEO believes the dashboard helps managers identify problems quickly and align decisions across departments.
Second, Northstar has begun implementing data driven planning systems to improve forecasting and operational coordination. These systems analyse historical sales patterns and supply chain data to support decisions about procurement, inventory levels, and distribution.
The leadership team expects that these systems will make the organisation more efficient and allow it to manage growth without losing control over costs.
Emerging challenges
Despite these initiatives, several concerns have recently been raised within the organisation.
Operations managers have noted that the dashboard metrics sometimes create pressure to prioritise short term efficiency. For example, production managers report that meeting cost targets may conflict with sustainability initiatives that require sourcing ingredients from smaller local suppliers with higher prices.
Procurement teams have also questioned whether the supplier scoring system fully captures the realities of complex supply chains. The current system assigns suppliers a compliance score based on environmental and labour standards, but managers report that the scoring method simplifies information that may in reality be more complicated.
For example, one supplier recently received a high compliance score based on documentation submitted during an audit. However, a later internal review suggested that some practices further down the supply chain may not align with Northstar’s sustainability commitments.
At the same time, the company continues to face strong financial pressure. Several competitors have introduced lower priced alternatives in supermarkets, and investors expect Northstar to maintain strong growth and profitability.
This creates a difficult balance for the leadership team. Managers must control costs and maintain reliable production while also protecting the brand’s reputation for responsible business practices.
Board concerns
Members of the board have begun to question whether the organisation’s current management systems are helping leaders make better decisions or simply presenting a simplified picture of complex organisational realities.
One non-executive director recently noted that dashboards and performance indicators can be useful tools but may also shape how managers interpret problems. If managers focus only on what is measured, important issues may remain hidden.
Another board member raised concerns that the company’s sustainability claims could be challenged if stakeholders believe that reporting systems emphasise favourable metrics while overlooking broader supply chain risks.
The CEO remains confident that the organisation’s current strategy is sound but has acknowledged that the board would benefit from an independent perspective.
Your task
You have been invited to act as an external management consultant and provide an independent briefing to the board.
Using the guidance in Unit 2, Lesson 2, produce a pre-recorded board-level presentation (maximum 8 minutes).
The board would like your assessment of the managerial challenges currently facing Northstar Foods and your recommendation for how the organisation should move forward.
Your presentation should be structured to help the board understand:
-
the key managerial problem facing Northstar Foods, including how rapid growth, organisational complexity, and current management systems are shaping decision making in this specific case
-
the tensions and trade-offs within the organisation, particularly how efficiency, sustainability, and coordination pressures are interacting in practice, and where current approaches may be creating unintended consequences
-
a justified recommendation for action, demonstrating how managerial judgement can be strengthened beyond existing metrics and systems, and how the organisation can move forward in a realistic and defensible way
The board expects a clear, concise briefing that explains the situation and provides a justified recommendation for action.
The purpose of this exercise is not simply to describe the situation. The board is looking for an analysis that demonstrates an understanding of how organisations operate and how managers must make decisions when goals, information, and stakeholder expectations do not always align.
