STRATEGIES FRAME WORK

STRATEGIES FRAME WORK



1. BCG Growth-Share Matrix

Companies that are large enough to be organized into strategic business units face the challenge of allocating resources among those units. In the early 1970's the Boston Consulting Group developed a model for managing a portfolio of different business units (or major product lines). The BCG growth-share matrix displays the various business units on a graph of the market growth rate vs. market share relative to competitors:

BCG Growth-Share Matrix


Resources are allocated to business units according to where they are situated on the grid as follows:
• Cash Cow - a business unit that has a large market share in a mature, slow growing industry. Cash cows require little investment and generate cash that can be used to invest in other business units.
• Star - a business unit that has a large market share in a fast growing industry. Stars may generate cash, but because the market is growing rapidly they require investment to maintain their lead. If successful, a star will become a cash cow when its industry matures.
• Question Mark (or Problem Child) - a business unit that has a small market share in a high growth market. These business units require resources to grow market share, but whether they will succeed and become stars is unknown.
• Dog - a business unit that has a small market share in a mature industry. A dog may not require substantial cash, but it ties up capital that could better be deployed elsewhere. Unless a dog has some other strategic purpose, it should be liquidated if there is little prospect for it to gain market share.
The BCG matrix provides a framework for allocating resources among different business units and allows one to compare many business units at a glance. However, the approach has received some negative criticism for the following reasons:
• The link between market share and profitability is questionable since increasing market share can be very expensive.
• The approach may overemphasize high growth, since it ignores the potential of declining markets.
• The model considers market growth rate to be a given. In practice the firm may be able to grow the market.

2. GE / McKinsey Matrix

In consulting engagements with General Electric in the 1970's, McKinsey & Company developed a nine-cell portfolio matrix as a tool for screening GE's large portfolio of strategic business units (SBU). This business screen became known as the GE/McKinsey Matrix and is shown below:

GE / McKinsey Matrix
Business Unit Strength
High Medium Low



High

Medium

Low

The GE / McKinsey matrix is similar to the BCG growth-share matrix in that it maps strategic business units on a grid of the industry and the SBU's position in the industry. The GE matrix however, attempts to improve upon the BCG matrix in the following two ways:
• The GE matrix generalizes the axes as "Industry Attractiveness" and "Business Unit Strength" whereas the BCG matrix uses the market growth rate as a proxy for industry attractiveness and relative market share as a proxy for the strength of the business unit.
• The GE matrix has nine cells vs. four cells in the BCG matrix.
Industry attractiveness and business unit strength are calculated by first identifying criteria for each, determining the value of each parameter in the criteria, and multiplying that value by a weighting factor. The result is a quantitative measure of industry attractiveness and the business unit's relative performance in that industry.

Industry Attractiveness
The vertical axis of the GE / McKinsey matrix is industry attractiveness, which is determined by factors such as the following:
• Market growth rate
• Market size
• Demand variability
• Industry profitability
• Industry rivalry
• Global opportunities
• Macro environmental factors (PEST)
Each factor is assigned a weighting that is appropriate for the industry. The industry attractiveness then is calculated as follows:

Industry attractiveness = factor value1 x factor weighting1
+ factor value2 x factor weighting2
.
.
.

+ factor valueN x factor weightingN



Business Unit Strength
The horizontal axis of the GE / McKinsey matrix is the strength of the business unit. Some factors that can be used to determine business unit strength include:
• Market share
• Growth in market share
• Brand equity
• Distribution channel access
• Production capacity
• Profit margins relative to competitors
The business unit strength index can be calculated by multiplying the estimated value of each factor by the factor's weighting, as done for industry attractiveness.
Plotting the Information
Each business unit can be portrayed as a circle plotted on the matrix, with the information conveyed as follows:
• Market size is represented by the size of the circle.
• Market share is shown by using the circle as a pie chart.
• The expected future position of the circle is portrayed by means of an arrow.
The following is an example of such a representation:

The shading of the above circle indicates a 38% market share for the strategic business unit. The arrow in the upward left direction indicates that the business unit is projected to gain strength relative to competitors, and that the business unit is in an industry that is projected to become more attractive. The tip of the arrow indicates the future position of the center point of the circle.
Strategic Implications
Resource allocation recommendations can be made to grow, hold, or harvest a strategic business unit based on its position on the matrix as follows:
• Grow strong business units in attractive industries, average business units in attractive industries, and strong business units in average industries.
• Hold average businesses in average industries, strong businesses in weak industries, and weak business in attractive industies.
• Harvest weak business units in unattractive industries, average business units in unattractive industries, and weak business units in average industries.
There are strategy variations within these three groups. For example, within the harvest group the firm would be inclined to quickly divest itself of a weak business in an unattractive industry, whereas it might perform a phased harvest of an average business unit in the same industry.
While the GE business screen represents an improvement over the more simple BCG growth-share matrix, it still presents a somewhat limited view by not considering interactions among the business units and by neglecting to address the core competencies leading to value creation. Rather than serving as the primary tool for resource allocation, portfolio matrices are better suited to displaying a quick synopsis of the strategic business units.

3. SWOT Analysis

A scan of the internal and external environment is an important part of the strategic planning process. Environmental factors internal to the firm usually can be classified as strengths (S) or weaknesses (W), and those external to the firm can be classified as opportunities (O) or threats (T). Such an analysis of the strategic environment is referred to as a SWOT analysis.
The SWOT analysis provides information that is helpful in matching the firm's resources and capabilities to the competitive environment in which it operates. As such, it is instrumental in strategy formulation and selection. The following diagram shows how a SWOT analysis fits into an environmental scan:






SWOT Analysis Framework
Environmental Scan
/ \
Internal Analysis External Analysis
/ \ / \
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
|
SWOT Matrix


Strengths
A firm's strengths are its resources and capabilities that can be used as a basis for developing a competitive advantage. Examples of such strengths include:
• patents
• strong brand names
• good reputation among customers
• cost advantages from proprietary know-how
• exclusive access to high grade natural resources
• favorable access to distribution networks

Weaknesses
The absence of certain strengths may be viewed as a weakness. For example, each of the following may be considered weaknesses:
• lack of patent protection
• a weak brand name
• poor reputation among customers
• high cost structure
• lack of access to the best natural resources
• lack of access to key distribution channels
In some cases, a weakness may be the flip side of a strength. Take the case in which a firm has a large amount of manufacturing capacity. While this capacity may be considered a strength that competitors do not share, it also may be a considered a weakness if the large investment in manufacturing capacity prevents the firm from reacting quickly to changes in the strategic environment.

Opportunities
The external environmental analysis may reveal certain new opportunities for profit and growth. Some examples of such opportunities include:
• an unfulfilled customer need
• arrival of new technologies
• loosening of regulations
• removal of international trade barriers

Threats
Changes in the external environmental also may present threats to the firm. Some examples of such threats include:
• shifts in consumer tastes away from the firm's products
• emergence of substitute products
• new regulations
• increased trade barriers

The SWOT Matrix
A firm should not necessarily pursue the more lucrative opportunities. Rather, it may have a better chance at developing a competitive advantage by identifying a fit between the firm's strengths and upcoming opportunities. In some cases, the firm can overcome a weakness in order to prepare itself to pursue a compelling opportunity.
To develop strategies that take into account the SWOT profile, a matrix of these factors can be constructed. The SWOT matrix (also known as a TOWS Matrix) is shown below:




SWOT / TOWS Matrix
Strengths Weaknesses

Opportunities S-O strategies W-O strategies

Threats S-T strategies W-T strategies

• S-O strategies pursue opportunities that are a good fit to the company's strengths.
• W-O strategies overcome weaknesses to pursue opportunities.
• S-T strategies identify ways that the firm can use its strengths to reduce its vulnerability to external threats.
• W-T strategies establish a defensive plan to prevent the firm's weaknesses from making it highly susceptible to external threats.

4. Competitive Advantage

When a firm sustains profits that exceed the average for its industry, the firm is said to possess a competitive advantage over its rivals. The goal of much of business strategy is to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.
Michael Porter identified two basic types of competitive advantage:
• cost advantage
• differentiation advantage
A competitive advantage exists when the firm is able to deliver the same benefits as competitors but at a lower cost (cost advantage), or deliver benefits that exceed those of competing products (differentiation advantage). Thus, a competitive advantage enables the firm to create superior value for its customers and superior profits for itself.
Cost and differentiation advantages are known as positional advantages since they describe the firm's position in the industry as a leader in either cost or differentiation.
A resource-based view emphasizes that a firm utilizes its resources and capabilities to create a competitive advantage that ultimately results in superior value creation. The following diagram combines the resource-based and positioning views to illustrate the concept of competitive advantage:

A Model of Competitive Advantage

Resources


Distinctive
Competencies



Cost Advantage
or
Differentiation Advantage


Value
Creation


Capabilities



Resources and Capabilities
According to the resource-based view, in order to develop a competitive advantage the firm must have resources and capabilities that are superior to those of its competitors. Without this superiority, the competitors simply could replicate what the firm was doing and any advantage quickly would disappear.
Resources are the firm-specific assets useful for creating a cost or differentiation advantage and that few competitors can acquire easily. The following are some examples of such resources:
• Patents and trademarks
• Proprietary know-how
• Installed customer base
• Reputation of the firm
• Brand equity
Capabilities refer to the firm's ability to utilize its resources effectively. An example of a capability is the ability to bring a product to market faster than competitors. Such capabilities are embedded in the routines of the organization and are not easily documented as procedures and thus are difficult for competitors to replicate.
The firm's resources and capabilities together form its distinctive competencies. These competencies enable innovation, efficiency, quality, and customer responsiveness, all of which can be leveraged to create a cost advantage or a differentiation advantage.

Cost Advantage and Differentiation Advantage
Competitive advantage is created by using resources and capabilities to achieve either a lower cost structure or a differentiated product. A firm positions itself in its industry through its choice of low cost or differentiation. This decision is a central component of the firm's competitive strategy.
Another important decision is how broad or narrow a market segment to target. Porter formed a matrix using cost advantage, differentiation advantage, and a broad or narrow focus to identify a set of generic strategies that the firm can pursue to create and sustain a competitive advantage.

Value Creation
The firm creates value by performing a series of activities that Porter identified as the value chain. In addition to the firm's own value-creating activities, the firm operates in a value system of vertical activities including those of upstream suppliers and downstream channel members.
To achieve a competitive advantage, the firm must perform one or more value creating activities in a way that creates more overall value than do competitors. Superior value is created through lower costs or superior benefits to the consumer (differentiation).
5. Porter's Generic Strategies

If the primary determinant of a firm's profitability is the attractiveness of the industry in which it operates, an important secondary determinant is its position within that industry. Even though an industry may have below-average profitability, a firm that is optimally positioned can generate superior returns.
A firm positions itself by leveraging its strengths. Michael Porter has argued that a firm's strengths ultimately fall into one of two headings: cost advantage and differentiation. By applying these strengths in either a broad or narrow scope, three generic strategies result: cost leadership, differentiation, and focus. These strategies are applied at the business unit level. They are called generic strategies because they are not firm or industry dependent. The following table illustrates Porter's generic strategies:

Porter's Generic Strategies
Target Scope Advantage
Low Cost Product Uniqueness

Broad
(Industry Wide) Cost Leadership
Strategy Differentiation
Strategy

Narrow
(Market Segment) Focus
Strategy
(low cost) Focus
Strategy
(differentiation)



Cost Leadership Strategy
This generic strategy calls for being the low cost producer in an industry for a given level of quality. The firm sells its products either at average industry prices to earn a profit higher than that of rivals, or below the average industry prices to gain market share. In the event of a price war, the firm can maintain some profitability while the competition suffers losses. Even without a price war, as the industry matures and prices decline, the firms that can produce more cheaply will remain profitable for a longer period of time. The cost leadership strategy usually targets a broad market.
Some of the ways that firms acquire cost advantages are by improving process efficiencies, gaining unique access to a large source of lower cost materials, making optimal outsourcing and vertical integration decisions, or avoiding some costs altogether. If competing firms are unable to lower their costs by a similar amount, the firm may be able to sustain a competitive advantage based on cost leadership.
Firms that succeed in cost leadership often have the following internal strengths:
• Access to the capital required to make a significant investment in production assets; this investment represents a barrier to entry that many firms may not overcome.
• Skill in designing products for efficient manufacturing, for example, having a small component count to shorten the assembly process.
• High level of expertise in manufacturing process engineering.
• Efficient distribution channels.
Each generic strategy has its risks, including the low-cost strategy. For example, other firms may be able to lower their costs as well. As technology improves, the competition may be able to leapfrog the production capabilities, thus eliminating the competitive advantage. Additionally, several firms following a focus strategy and targeting various narrow markets may be able to achieve an even lower cost within their segments and as a group gain significant market share.


Differentiation Strategy
A differentiation strategy calls for the development of a product or service that offers unique attributes that are valued by customers and that customers perceive to be better than or different from the products of the competition. The value added by the uniqueness of the product may allow the firm to charge a premium price for it. The firm hopes that the higher price will more than cover the extra costs incurred in offering the unique product. Because of the product's unique attributes, if suppliers increase their prices the firm may be able to pass along the costs to its customers who cannot find substitute products easily.
Firms that succeed in a differentiation strategy often have the following internal strengths:
• Access to leading scientific research.
• Highly skilled and creative product development team.
• Strong sales team with the ability to successfully communicate the perceived strengths of the product.
• Corporate reputation for quality and innovation.
The risks associated with a differentiation strategy include imitation by competitors and changes in customer tastes. Additionally, various firms pursuing focus strategies may be able to achieve even greater differentiation in their market segments.


Focus Strategy
The focus strategy concentrates on a narrow segment and within that segment attempts to achieve either a cost advantage or differentiation. The premise is that the needs of the group can be better serviced by focusing entirely on it. A firm using a focus strategy often enjoys a high degree of customer loyalty, and this entrenched loyalty discourages other firms from competing directly.
Because of their narrow market focus, firms pursuing a focus strategy have lower volumes and therefore less bargaining power with their suppliers. However, firms pursuing a differentiation-focused strategy may be able to pass higher costs on to customers since close substitute products do not exist.
Firms that succeed in a focus strategy are able to tailor a broad range of product development strengths to a relatively narrow market segment that they know very well.
Some risks of focus strategies include imitation and changes in the target segments. Furthermore, it may be fairly easy for a broad-market cost leader to adapt its product in order to compete directly. Finally, other focusers may be able to carve out sub-segments that they can serve even better
6. Porter's Five force Model
The Five Forces model of Porter is an Outside-in business unit strategy tool that is used to make an analysis of the attractiveness (value) of an industry structure. The Competitive Forces analysis is made by the identification of 5 fundamental competitive forces:
1. Entry of competitors. How easy or difficult is it for new entrants to start competing, which barriers do exist.
2. Threat of substitutes. How easy can a product or service be substituted, especially made cheaper.
3. Bargaining power of buyers. How strong is the position of buyers. Can they work together in ordering large volumes.
4. Bargaining power of suppliers. How strong is the position of sellers. Do many potential suppliers exist or only few potential suppliers, monopoly?
5. Rivalry among the existing players. Does a strong competition between the existing players exist? Is one player very dominant or are all equal in strength and size.




Sometimes a sixth competitive force is added:
6. Government.
Porter's Competitive Forces model is probably one of the most often used business strategy tools. It has proven its usefulness on numerous occasions. Porter's model is particularly strong in thinking Outside-in.



Threat of New Entrants depends on:
• Economies of scale.
• Capital / investment requirements.
• Customer switching costs.
• Access to industry distribution channels.
• Access to technology.
• Brand loyalty. Are customers loyal?
• The likelihood of retaliation from existing industry players.
• Government regulations. Can new entrants get subsidies?
Threat of Substitutes depends on:
• Quality. Is a substitute better?
• Buyers' willingness to substitute.
• The relative price and performance of substitutes.
• The costs of switching to substitutes. Is it easy to change to another product?
Bargaining Power of Suppliers depends on:
• Concentration of suppliers. Are there many buyers and few dominant suppliers?
• Branding. Is the brand of the supplier strong?
• Profitability of suppliers. Are suppliers forced to raise prices?
• Suppliers threaten to integrate forward into the industry (for example: brand manufacturers threatening to set up their own retail outlets).
• Buyers do not threaten to integrate backwards into supply.
• Role of quality and service.
• The industry is not a key customer group to the suppliers.
• Switching costs. Is it easy for suppliers to find new customers?
Bargaining Power of Buyers depends on:
• Concentration of buyers. Are there a few dominant buyers and many sellers in the industry?
• Differentiation. Are products standardized?
• Profitability of buyers. Are buyers forced to be tough?
• Role of quality and service.
• Threat of backward and forward integration into the industry.
• Switching costs. Is it easy for buyers to switch their supplier?
Intensity of Rivalry depends on:
• The structure of competition. Rivalry will be more intense if there are lots of small or equally sized competitors; rivalry will be less if an industry has a clear market leader.
• The structure of industry costs. Industries with high fixed costs encourage competitors to manufacture at full capacity by cutting prices if needed.
• Degree of product differentiation. Industries where products are commodities (e.g. steel, coal) typically have greater rivalry.
• Switching costs. Rivalry is reduced when buyers have high switching costs.
• Strategic objectives. If competitors pursue aggressive growth strategies, rivalry will be more intense. If competitors are merely "milking" profits in a mature industry, the degree of rivalry is typically low.
• Exit barriers. When barriers to leaving an industry are high, competitors tend to exhibit greater rivalry.
Strengths of the Five Competitive Forces Model. Benefits
• The model is a strong tool for competitive analysis at industry level. Compare: PEST Analysis
• It provides useful input for performing a SWOT Analysis.
Limitation of Porter's Five Forces model
• Care should be taken when using this model for the following: do not underestimate or underemphasize the importance of the (existing) strengths of the organization (Inside-out strategy). See: Core Competence
• The model was designed for analyzing individual business strategies. It does not cope with synergies and interdependencies within the portfolio of large corporations. See: Parenting Advantage
• From a more theoretical perspective, the model does not address the possibility that an industry could be attractive because certain companies are in it.
• Some people claim that environments which are characterized by rapid, systemic and radical change require more flexible, dynamic or emergent approaches to strategy formulation. See: Disruptive Innovation
• Sometimes it may be possible to create completely new markets instead of selecting from existing ones. See: Blue Ocean Strategy
7. Shell Directional Policy Matrix
The Shell Directional Policy Matrix is another refinement upon the Boston Matrix. Along the horizontal axis are prospects for sector profitability, and along the vertical axis is a company's competitive capability. As with the GE Business Screen the location of a Strategic Business Unit (SBU) in any cell of the matrix implies different strategic decisions. However decisions often span options and in practice the zones are an irregular shape and do not tend to be accommodated by box shapes. Instead they blend into each other.

Each of the zones is described as follows:
• Leader - major resources are focused upon the SBU.
• Try harder - could be vulnerable over a longer period of time, but fine for now.
• Double or quit - gamble on potential major SBU's for the future.
• Growth - grow the market by focusing just enough resources here.
• Custodial - just like a cash cow, milk it and do not commit any more resources.
• Cash Generator - Even more like a cash cow, milk here for expansion elsewhere.
• Phased withdrawal - move cash to SBU's with greater potential.
• Divest - liquidate or move these assets on a fast as you can.
8. Core Competencies

In their 1990 article entitled, The Core Competence of the Corporation, C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel coined the term core competencies, or the collective learning and coordination skills behind the firm's product lines. They made the case that core competencies are the source of competitive advantage and enable the firm to introduce an array of new products and services.
According to Prahalad and Hamel, core competencies lead to the development of core products. Core products are not directly sold to end users; rather, they are used to build a larger number of end-user products. For example, motors are a core product that can be used in wide array of end products. The business units of the corporation each tap into the relatively few core products to develop a larger number of end user products based on the core product technology. This flow from core competencies to end products is shown in the following diagram:

Core Competencies to End Products
End Products
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12

Business
1
Business
2
Business
3
Business
4




Core Product 1



Core Product 2



Competence
1
Competence
2
Competence
3
Competence
4





The intersection of market opportunities with core competencies forms the basis for launching new businesses. By combining a set of core competencies in different ways and matching them to market opportunities, a corporation can launch a vast array of businesses.
Without core competencies, a large corporation is just a collection of discrete businesses. Core competencies serve as the glue that bonds the business units together into a coherent portfolio.

Developing Core Competencies
According to Prahalad and Hamel, core competencies arise from the integration of multiple technologies and the coordination of diverse production skills. Some examples include Philip's expertise in optical media and Sony's ability to miniaturize electronics.
There are three tests useful for identifying a core competence. A core competence should:
1. provide access to a wide variety of markets, and
2. contribute significantly to the end-product benefits, and
3. be difficult for competitors to imitate.
Core competencies tend to be rooted in the ability to integrate and coordinate various groups in the organization. While a company may be able to hire a team of brilliant scientists in a particular technology, in doing so it does not automatically gain a core competence in that technology. It is the effective coordination among all the groups involved in bringing a product to market that results in a core competence.
It is not necessarily an expensive undertaking to develop core competencies. The missing pieces of a core competency often can be acquired at a low cost through alliances and licensing agreements. In many cases an organizational design that facilitates sharing of competencies can result in much more effective utilization of those competencies for little or no additional cost.
To better understand how to develop core competencies, it is worthwhile to understand what they do not entail. According to Prahalad and Hamel, core competencies are not necessarily about:
• outspending rivals on R&D
• sharing costs among business units
• integrating vertically
While the building of core competencies may be facilitated by some of these actions, by themselves they are insufficient.

The Loss of Core Competencies
Cost-cutting moves sometimes destroy the ability to build core competencies. For example, decentralization makes it more difficult to build core competencies because autonomous groups rely on outsourcing of critical tasks, and this outsourcing prevents the firm from developing core competencies in those tasks since it no longer consolidates the know-how that is spread throughout the company.
Failure to recognize core competencies may lead to decisions that result in their loss. For example, in the 1970's many U.S. manufacturers divested themselves of their television manufacturing businesses, reasoning that the industry was mature and that high quality, low cost models were available from Far East manufacturers. In the process, they lost their core competence in video, and this loss resulted in a handicap in the newer digital television industry.
Similarly, Motorola divested itself of its semiconductor DRAM business at 256Kb level, and then was unable to enter the 1Mb market on its own. By recognizing its core competencies and understanding the time required to build them or regain them, a company can make better divestment decisions.

Core Products
Core competencies manifest themselves in core products that serve as a link between the competencies and end products. Core products enable value creation in the end products. Examples of firms and some of their core products include:
• 3M - substrates, coatings, and adhesives
• Black & Decker - small electric motors
• Canon - laser printer subsystems
• Matsushita - VCR subsystems, compressors
• NEC - semiconductors
• Honda - gasoline powered engines
The core products are used to launch a variety of end products. For example, Honda uses its engines in automobiles, motorcycles, lawn mowers, and portable generators.
Because firms may sell their core products to other firms that use them as the basis for end user products, traditional measures of brand market share are insufficient for evaluating the success of core competencies. Prahalad and Hamel suggest that core product share is the appropriate metric. While a company may have a low brand share, it may have high core product share and it is this share that is important from a core competency standpoint.
Once a firm has successful core products, it can expand the number of uses in order to gain a cost advantage via economies of scale and economies of scope.

Implications for Corporate Management
Prahalad and Hamel suggest that a corporation should be organized into a portfolio of core competencies rather than a portfolio of independent business units. Business unit managers tend to focus on getting immediate end-products to market rapidly and usually do not feel responsible for developing company-wide core competencies. Consequently, without the incentive and direction from corporate management to do otherwise, strategic business units are inclined to underinvest in the building of core competencies.
If a business unit does manage to develop its own core competencies over time, due to its autonomy it may not share them with other business units. As a solution to this problem, Prahalad and Hamel suggest that corporate managers should have the ability to allocate not only cash but also core competencies among business units. Business units that lose key employees for the sake of a corporate core competency should be recognized for their contribution.