UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA

FAKULTAS EKONOMI & BISNIS

DEPARTEMEN MANAJEMEN
PROGRAM STUDI MAGISTER MANAJEMEN

SYLLABUS
Subject Code ECMM 801021
Subject Title Strategic Management
Credit Value 3 Credits
Year/Semester 2017-2018/Odd
Day/Hour

Subject Type Compulsory

Pre-requisite/
Co-requisite/
Exclusion
Role and Role:
Purposes This particular course in strategic management study is specifically combined with the
perspective of strategic or business model innovation. Mastery of the principles of Strategic
Management is necessary for executives acting as company leaders who run a company to do
better than its competitors. This course explores various kinds of thinking frameworks and
techniques of analysis in the practice and process of strategic making and implementation in
order to determine the objectives of the business, to identify the impacts of external
environment, to develop internal resources, to select competitive strategies in the market
place. Strategic Management is characterized as integrated, combining the functions of
management (marketing, finance, operations, technology, human resources, etc.) to make a
move in sustaining a competitive advantage in the market, and to maintain the balance among
the company’s various interests.
Purposes:
1. To equip participants with the strategic thinking frameworks, along with the principles and
best practices that may increase the managerial capabilities to run and develop the
company.
2. To train participants contributing creatively in the work place, to company’s
competitiveness, by identifying and mapping the development of resources and capabilities,
excellent competitive position in the context of turbulent environment.
Subject Program Objectives:
Learning MM-FEBUI graduates should:
Outcomes 1. Demonstrate integrity, ethical behavior, and respect for diversity.
2. Demonstrate concerns towards the society.
3. Demonstrate effective leadership qualities.
4. Have effective communication skill within global setting.
5. Be able to conduct applied business research.
6. Exhibit entrepreneurial spirit.
7. Demonstrate creativity and innovative thinking.
8. Be able to formulate business models using contemporary approaches.

1
Learning Goals (LG) & Learning Objectives (LO):
1. LG 1: ETHICS AND SOSIAL RESPONSIBILITY – Students have awareness are aware of ethics and
social responsibility
LO: Students are sensitive to ethical and social issues in management decisions
Traits: Able to distinguish between ethical and unethical behavior (T1)

2. LG 3: ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS – Students are able to demonstrate oral communication skills.
LO: Students are able to present their business ideas properly.
Traits: Able to introduce their presentation in a clear and interesting way (T1), Able to deliver
content with logical structure (T2), Able to organize their ideas in a presentation (T3), Able to use
presentation techniques (body language, facial expression, appropriate voice and tone)
appropriately (T4), Able to develop and use of visual aids or technology (T5), Able to apply
appropriate technique to engage with the audience (T6)
3. LG 4: WRITTEN COMMUNICATION SKILLS – Students are able to demonstrate written
communication skill.
LO: Students are able to convey the idea briefly, clearly, and persuasively through written
communication.
Traits: Able to develop idea logically in paragraphs and connect them with effective transition (T1),
Able to use appropriate language, correct spelling, and grammar (T2), Able to provide supporting
ideas/reasoning/details relevant to the idea (T3)
4. LG 5: CRITICAL THINKING – Students are able to demonstrate that they are critical thinkers.
LO: Students are able to argue and draw conclusion on an issue based on supportive evidence in
business cases.
Traits: Able to deliver key idea or point (T1), Able to compare, analyze and evaluate alternatives
choices (T2), Able to justify an argument or solution with supporting evidence/relevant references
(T3), Able to draw conclusion (T4)

ONLY LG 5 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR AACSB PURPOSE

5. LG 6: DESIGN THINKING – Students are able to demonstrate that they are design thinkers.
LO: Students are able to identify problems, create alternative solutions, create prototype of the
solutions and implement the solutions.
Traits: Able to identify problems (T1), Able to create alternative solutions (T2), Able to create
prototype of the solutions (T3), Able to test the solutions (T4)

2
Subject Week Topic Sub-Topics Reading Materials
Synopsis/ 1 Introduction a. What is Strategy? 1. Thompson et al.
Indicative to Strategic b. Transient Advantage (2018): Ch. 1
Syllabus Management 2. McGrath (2013)
Strategic a. Strategizing for Competitiveness 1. Thompson et al.
Management b. Building Company’s Vision (2018): Ch. 2
Process Case Analysis: Mystic Monk Coffee 2. Collins & Porras
AACSB Traits: (1996)
LG 6: Design Thinking (Traits: T1, T2) Thompson et al.
TLA only (2018): Case #1
 T1: Able to identify problems
 T2: Able to create alternative solutions
3 External a. Macro-Environment Analysis 1. Thompson et al.
Environment b. Scenario Planning (2018): Ch. 3
Analysis Case Analysis: Uber in 2016 2. Garvin & Levesque
(2006)
Thompson et al.
(2018): Case #12
4 Internal a. Resources, Capabilities, Competencies 1. Thompson et al.
Environment b. Commitments & Capabilities (2018): Ch. 4
Analysis Case Analysis: Ford Motor Company in 2016 2. Ghemawat & Pisano
AACSB Traits: (1997)
LG 3: Oral Communication Skills (Traits: T1, T2, T3) Thompson et al.
TLA only (2018): Case #18
 T1: Able to develop idea logically in paragraphs
and connect them with effective transition.
 T2: Able to use appropriate language, correct
spelling, and grammar.
 T3: Able to provide supporting
ideas/reasoning/details relevant to the idea
5 Business a. Generic Strategies b. Digital Strategy 1. Thompson et al.
Strategy Case Analysis: Tesla Motors in 2016 (2015): Ch. 5
2. Dawson et al.(2016)
Thompson et al.
(2018): Case #16
6 Competitive a. Strategic Moves 1. Thompson et al.
Position b. Global Gamesmanship (2015): Ch. 6
Analysis Case Analysis: Amazon.com’s Business Model 2. MacMillanetal (2003)
AACSB Traits: Thompson et al.
LG 4: Written Communication Skill (Traits: T1, T2) (2018): Case #3
TLA only
 T1: Able to develop idea logically in paragraphs
and connect them with effective transition.
 T2: Able to use appropriate language, correct
spelling, and grammar.
7. Business a. Business Model Concept 1. Eyring et a l. (2011)
Model b. Trans formative Business Model 2. Cavadias et al. (2016
Case Analysis: Airbnb in 2016 Thompson et al.
AACSB Traits: (2018): Case #2
LG 4: Written Communication Skill (Traits: T1, T2)
TLA only
 T1: Able to develop idea logically in paragraphs
and connect them with effective transition.
 T2: Able to use appropriate language, correct
spelling, and grammar.
Mid Term Examination
AACSB Traits:
LG 5: Critical Thinking (Traits: T1, T2)
 T1: Able to deliver key idea or point.
 T2: Able to compare, analyze and evaluate alternatives choices.

3
8. International a. Entering Global Market 1. Thompson et a l .
Strategy b. Born Global Firm (2018): Ch. 7
2. Gabrielson &
Kirpalani (2004)
9. Corporate a. Business Diversification 1. Thompson et a l.
Strategy b. Parenting Advantage (2015): Ch. 8
Case Analysis: LVMH in 2016 2. Kruehler et a l.
AACSB Traits: (2012)
LG 6: Design Thinking (Traits: T3, T4) Thompson et al.
TLA only (2018): Case #22
 T3: Able to create prototype of the solutions.
 T4: Able to test the solutions.
10. Corporate a. Ethics , Governance & Social Responsibility 1. Thompson et a l .
Sustainability b. Sustainability Management (2018): Ch. 9
Case Analysis: Conflict Palm Oil & PepsiCo 2. Buxel et a l. (2015)
AACSB Traits: Thompson et al.
LG 1: Ethics & Social Responsibility (Traits: T1) (2018): Case #31
TLA only
 T1: Able to distinguish between ethical and
unethical behavior.
11. Strategy a. Strategy Execution Process 1. Thompson et a l.
Execution b. Strategy Implementation Framework (2018): Ch. 10
Case Analysis: Under Armour’s Strategy in 2. Okumus (2003)
2016 Thompson et al.
AACSB Traits: (2018): Case #8
LG 3: Oral Communication Skills (Traits: T3, T4,
T5)
TLA only
 T3: Able to organize their ideas in a
presentation.
 T4: Able to use presentation techniques (body
language, facial expression, appropriate voice
and tone) appropriately.
 T5: Able to develop and use of visual aids or
technology.
12. Managing a. Adopting Process Management Tool s 1. Thompson et a l .
Internal b. Embracing Agile (2018): Ch. 11
Operations Case Analysis: Southwest Airlines in 2016 2. Rigby et a l. (2016)
Thompson et al.
(2018): Case #25
13. Corporate a. Structure, Culture & Control 1. Thompson et a l.
Culture & b. Leadership Agility (2018): Ch. 12
Leaders hi p Case Analysis: Tim Cook’s Leadership 2. Horney et a l. (2010)
AACSB Traits: Thompson et al.
LG 4: Written Communication Skill (Traits: T3) (2018): Case #28
TLA only
 T3: Able to provide supporting ideas/
reasoning/details relevant to the idea.
14. Strategic a. Disruptive Innovation 1. Christens en et a l.
Responses in b. Disrupting Beliefs (2015)
the Sharing Case Analysis: Nucor Corp. In 2016 2. De Jong & van Di j k
Economy Era (2015)
Thompson et al.
(2018): Case #27
Final Paper
AACSB Traits:
LG 5: Critical Thinking (Traits: T3 & T4)
 T3: Able to justify an argument or solution with supporting evidence/relevant references.
 T4: Able to draw conclusion.
4
Assessment st nd
Method in Description 1 Half Description 2 Half
Alignment (Weight) (Weights)
Participation/Discussion/Quiz 10% Participation/Discussion/Quiz 10%
with Intended
Reading Material Summary 10,0% Reading Material Summary 10,0%
Learning
Case Analysis Paper 10.0% Case Analysis Paper 10.0%
Outcomes
Mid-term Exam 20% Final Paper 20%
Total 50.0% Total 50.0%

Percentage of LG5 LG5

Description
Evaluation (%) T1 T2 T3 T4
Participation/ Discussion/ Quiz
10%
First Half
Reading Material Summary 10%
Case Analysis Paper– First Half 10%
Mid Term Exam 20% 100% 100%
Participation/ Discussion/ Quiz
10%
Second Half
Reading Material Summary 10%
Case Analysis Paper– Second Half 10%
Final Paper 20% 100% 100%
Total 100 %

Details of No. 1. Case Analysis Paper

Each group has to write a case analysis (based on syllabus) paper every week and one group will be
learning
assigned to present the case analysis.
method
No. 2. Mid Term Exam
Covering only the session on the 1st half of semester

No. 3. Reading material summary

 Each student has to write a reading material summary covering the article in each
session.
 The summary should not exceed 2 pages.

No. 4. Final paper

 Each student has to write an analysis about a company / institution
 Choose one issue from the syllabus and relate the issue with the following topics:
a. The influence of digital technology towards company competitive advantage
b. The influence of sharing economy towards company’s business model
c. The influence of millennia generation towards the strategy execution.
d. The impact of big data to strategy process and business model.
e. The strategy and public sector
f. The anticipation towards disruptive innovation phenomenon

 Each paper should be 8-15 pages, excluding cover, references or appendixes.

 Well typed with 1,5 space, times new romans font 12.

Student Class Contacs:

Study Lectures 35 hours
Effort Presentation & Discussion (Q&A) 6 hours
Expected Other Student Study Effort:
Preparation for reading/assignment/quiz 40 hours

5
 Reading List Main Textbook
& References Thompson, A. A.; Peteraf, M. A.; Gamble, J. E. & Strickland III, A. J. (2018). Crafting & Executing
Strategy ‒ The Quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts & Cases. 21st Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Note:
This course depends on textbook as class material guidance and reference. Therefore, each student
must have the main textbook. Fail to fulfill this, students are not allowed to attend the class.
Reading List & References:
1. Buxel, H.; Esenduran, G. & Griffin, S. (2015). “Strategic Sustainability: Creating Business Value with
Life Cycle Analysis”. Business Horizons. 58.
2. Christensen, C, M.; Raynor, M. & McDonald, R. (2015). ”What is Disruptive Innovation?”. Harvard
Business Review. December.
3. Collins, J. C. & Porras, J. I. (1996). “Building Your Company’s Vision”. Harvard Business Review.
September-October.
4. Dawson, A.; Hirt, M. & Scanlan, J. (2016). “The Economic Essentials of Digital Strategy”. McKinsey
Quarterly. March.
5. de Jong, M. & van Dijk, M. (2015). “Disrupting Beliefs: A New Approach to Business- Model
Innovation”. McKinsey Quarterly. July.
6. Eyring, M. J.; Johnson, M. W. & Nair, H. (2011). “New Business Models in Emerging Markets”.
Harvard Business Review. January-February.
7. Gabrielson, M. & Kirpalani, V. H. M. (2004). ”Born Globals: How to Reach New Business Space
Rapidly”. International Business Review. 13.
8. Garvin, D. A. & Levesque, L. C. (2006). “A Note on Scenario Planning”. Harvard Business School. 9-
306-003.
9. Ghemawat, P. & Pisano, G. (1997). “Sustaining Superior Performance: Commitments and
Capabilities”. Harvard Business School. 9-798-008.
10. Horney, N.; Pasmore, B. & O’Shea, T. (2010). “Leadership Agility: A Business Imperative for a
VUCA World”. People & Strategy. 33(4).
11. Kavadias, S.; Ladas, K. & Loch, C. (2016). “The Transformative Business Model”. Harvard Business
Review. October.
12. Kruehler, M.; Pidun, U. & Rubner, H. (2012). “How to Assess the Corporate Parenting Strategy? A
Conceptual Answer”. Journal of Business Strategy. 33(4).
13. MacMillan, I. C.; van Putten, A. B. & McGrath, R. G. (2003). “Global Gamesmanship”. Harvard
Business Review. May.
14. McGrath, R.G (2013).“Transient Advantage”. Harvard Business Review. June.
15. Okumus, F. (2003). “A Framework to Implement Strategies in Organizations”. Management
Decision. 41(9).
16. Rigby, D. K.; Sutherland, J. & Takeuchi, H. (2016). “Embracing Agile”. Harvard Business Review. May.
17. Pasaribu, M. (2016). Knowledge, Innovation and Entrepreurship. Gramedia (KPG) Jakarta
18. Pasaribu, M. (2017). “Big Data and Strategic Entrepreneurship”. Sonvaldy Media Nusantara Jakarta.

Plagiarism Plagiarism is defined as inserting words/sentences/ideas belonging to other author/s in part or in

whole without referring to the sources. Students must indicate the source of any
words/sentences from other author/s in his/her writing.
Plagiarism also refers to the copying in part or in whole other student’s assignment, or copying
from books, journals, web, magazines, news papers, etc.
Plagiarism includes also the act of auto-plagiarism defined as the use of one’s own words/
sentences/ideas taken from other assignment/paper that have been submitted for grading in
other or the same course without any reference to its/their source(s).
In accordance to the disciplinary rules and code of ethics for students as indicated on the
Guidebook of FEBUI, students are prohibited to conduct plagiarism, and will be sanctioned/
punished accordingly.

The sanctions/ punishment are as follows:

• First time offense, the minimum sanction is a Zero (0) grade for the assignment or
maximum an F.
• Second time offense, the grade for the course will be an F.
Third time offense, the student will be expelled from Department of Management, FEBUI.

6
Statement of It is mandatory that a Statement of Authorship must be included and posted on the front
Authorship page of the assigned paper.

Statement of Authorship
I/We.........................the undersigned declare to the best of my/our ability that the
paper/assignment here with is an authentic writing carried out by myself/ourselves. No other
authors or work of other authors have been used without any reference to its sources.
This paper/assignment has never been presented or used as paper’ assignment for other
courses except if I/we clearly stated otherwise.
I/We fully understand that this assignment can be reproduced and/or communicated for
the purpose of detecting plagiarism.

Name :
Student’s ID Number :
Signature :
Course :
Paper/Assignment Title :
Date :
Lecturer :
(signed by all and every single student if its a group assignment)

Date of assesment: …………………. (Example)

Program Studi: Magister Manajemen – S2
DAFTAR PENILAIAN LG/LO PERIODE 2016/2017 – 2
FAKULTAS EKONOMI & BISNIS, PROGRAM STUDI MAGISTER MANAJEMEN
Student Angkatan
No. NPM AACSB Critical Thinking
Name - ORG
ECMM801021 – Strategic • Students are able to demonstrate that they are critical
Mata Kuliah Kelas: ……. LG 5
Management thinkers (Critical Thinking).
• Students are able to argue and draw conclusion on an
Pengajar Dr. Ir. Manerep Pasaribu, MM. ………………. LO issue based on supportive evidence in business cases
(Critical Thinking].
Able to justify
Able to
an argument or
Able to compare, Able to
solution with
deliver analyze and draw
Pengajar Sisdjiatmo K. Widaningrat, Msc ………………. Traits supporting Score
key idea or evaluate conclusi
evidence/releva
point (T1) alternatives on (T4)
nt references
choices (T2)
(T3)
SOAL NO: 4 SOAL NO: 4
Pertanyaan 1 Pertanyaan 2
Case Study: Case Study:
Mastercard vs Mastercard vs Final Paper
Visa. Visa.
Are mobile What are the
payments an different
incremental / technologies
evolutionary and who is
change to positioned
payment under each
processing or technology?
a revolutionary How might a
/ disruptive company like
change? How Visa or

7
 do you define MasterCard
the industry - position itself
use Porter’s in the mobile
five forces to payments
analyze? (T1) field? (T2)

MID TERM EXAM FINAL TERM EXAM

1 1606937773 ABDILLAH MUHAMMAD ALAM
2 1606850431 ADISTY LIRASHA ADHARINI S.
3 1606937836 AKBARI JAMALULLAIL FAISAL
4 1606850463 ALDI PUTRA LAKSANA
5 1606937861 ANDI HAKIM
6 1606937874 ANDREAS BRIAN PRADIPTA
7 1606850476 ANDREAS HARTOYO YAPUTRA
8 1606850495 ANGGARA MASTANGI
9 1606937943 ARIEF KHARISVAN
10 1606850532 ARIEF TRIANTO
11 …. ….

Critical Thinking Rubric

(Example)

Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary Score

TRAIT
(1: < 70) (2: 70-84) (3: 85-100) (Max 3)
Deliver key  Failure to identify the  Able to identify some  Accurate identification of all
ideas/points (T1) core ideas and issues core ideas/issues core ideas/issues
 Only show or present  Explain some  Explain connection between
data/fact connections between core ideas/issues and the
core ideas/issues the data/facts (content)
data/fact.
Able to compare,  Failure to compare,  Able to compare,  Accurate to compare,
analyze and analyze and evaluate analyze and evaluate analyze and evaluate
evaluate alternatives choices alternatives choices alternatives choices
alternatives
choices (T2)
Able to justify an  Failure to justify an  Able to justify an  Accurate to justify an
argument or argument or solution argument or solution argument or solution with
solution with with supporting with supporting supporting
supporting evidence/relevant evidence/relevant evidence/relevant
evidence/relevan references references references
t references (T3)
Able to draw  Failure to draw  Able to draw  Accurate to draw
conclusion (T4) conclusion conclusion conclusion