BCG GE Hofner Etc

7/30/2019 BCG GE Hofner Etc

1/14

BCG Growth-Share Matrix

The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) developed a portfolio analysis tool that helps managers develop

organizational strategy based on market share of businesses and the growth of markets in which

businesses exist.

Strategic Business Units (SBUs)The first step in using the BCG Growth-Share Matrix is identifying the organizations strategic business

units (SBUs). A strategic business unit is a significant organization segment that is analyzed to develop

organizational strategy aimed at generating future business or revenue. Exactly what constitutes an SBU

varies from organization to organization. In larger organizations, an SBU could be a company division, a

single product, or a complete product line. In smaller organizations, it might be the entire company. 1

Although SBUs vary drastically in form, they have some common characteristics. All SBUs are a single

business (or collection of businesses), have their own competitors and a manager accountable for

operations, and can be independently planned for.

Categorizing SBUs

After SBUs have been identified for a particular organization, the next step is to categorize each SBU

within one of the following four matrix quadrants:

Stars SBUs that are stars have a high share of a high-growth market and typically need large amountsof cash to support their rapid and significant growth. Stars also generate large amount of cash for the

organization and are usually segments in which management can make additional investments and earn

attractive returns.

Cash Cows SBUs that are cash cows have a large share of a market that is growing only slightly. TheseSBUs provide the organization with large amounts of cash, but since their market is not growing

significantly, the cash is generally used to meet the financial demand of the organization in other areas,

such as the expansion of a star SBU.

Question Marks SBUs that are question marks have a small share of a high-growth market. They are

dubbed question marks because it is uncertain whether management should invest more cash in them togain a larger share of the market or deemphasize or eliminate them. Management will chose the first

option when it believes it can turn the question mark into a star, and second when it thinks furtherinvestment would be fruitless.

Dogs SBUs that are dogs have a relatively small share of a low-growth market. They may barely

support themselves; in some cases, they actually drain off cash resources generated by other SBUs.

Strategic Business Units Defined

A strategic business unit is a significant organization segment that is analyzed to develop organizationalstrategy aimed at generating future business or revenue.

Exactly what constitutes an SBU varies from organization to organization. In larger organizations, an

SBU could be a company division, a single product, or a complete product

line. In smaller organizations, it might be the entire company. 1 Although

SBUs vary drastically in form, they have some common characteristics. All

SBUs are a single business (or collection of businesses), have their own competitors and a manageraccountable for operations, and can be independently planned for.

.
http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/sbu.htmlhttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/sbu.htmlhttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/sbu.htmlhttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/strategy_bcg_matrix.html#SBUs%23SBUshttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/strategy_bcg_matrix.html#SBUs%23SBUshttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/sbu.html#SBUs%23SBUshttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/sbu.htmlhttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/sbu.htmlhttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/strategy_bcg_matrix.html#SBUs%23SBUshttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/sbu.html#SBUs%23SBUs


2/14

BCG MATRIX Cash cows are units with high market share in a slow-growing industry. These units typically

generate cash in excess of the amount of cash needed to maintain the business. They are regarded

as staid and boring, in a "mature" market, and every corporation would be thrilled to own as many

as possible. They are to be "milked" continuously with as little investment as possible, since such

investment would be wasted in an industry with low growth.

Dogs, or more charitably called pets, are units with low market share in a mature, slow-growingindustry. These units typically "break even", generating barely enough cash to maintain the

business's market share. Though owning a break-even unit provides the social benefit of providing

jobs and possible synergies that assist other business units, from an accounting point of view such

a unit is worthless, not generating cash for the company. They depress a profitable company's

return on assets ratio, used by many investors to judge how well a company is being managed.

Dogs, it is thought, should be sold off.

Question marks (also known as problem child) are growing rapidly and thus consume large

amounts of cash, but because they have low market shares they do not generate much cash. The

result is a large net cash consumption. A question mark has the potential to gain market share and

become a star, and eventually a cash cow when the market growth slows. If the question markdoes not succeed in becoming the market leader, then after perhaps years of cash consumption it

will degenerate into a dog when the market growth declines. Question marks must be analyzed

carefully in order to determine whether they are worth the investment required to grow marketshare.

Stars are units with a high market share in a fast-growing industry. The hope is that stars become

the next cash cows. Sustaining the business unit's market leadership may require extra cash, but

this is worthwhile if that's what it takes for the unit to remain a leader. When growth slows, stars

become cash cows if they have been able to maintain their category leadership, or they move from

briefstardom to dogdom.[citation needed]

As a particular industry matures and its growth slows, all business units become either cash cows ordogs.

The natural cycle for most business units is that they start as question marks, then turn into stars.

Eventually the market stops growing thus the business unit becomes a cash cow. At the end of the cycle the

cash cow turns into a dog.

The overall goal of this ranking was to help corporate analysts decide which of their business units to fund,and how much; and which units to sell. Managers were supposed to gain perspective from this analysis thatallowed them to plan with confidence to use money generated by the cash cows to fund the stars and,

possibly, the question marks. As the BCG stated in 1970:

Only a diversified company with a balanced portfolio can use its strengths to truly capitalize on

its growth opportunities. The balanced portfolio has:

stars whose high share and high growth assure the future;

cash cows that supply funds for that future growth; and

question marks to be converted into stars with the added funds.

Practical use of the BCG Matrix

For each product or service, the 'area' of the circle represents the value of its sales. The BCG Matrix thus

offers a very useful 'map' of the organization's product (or service) strengths and weaknesses, at least in

terms of current profitability, as well as the likely cashflows.

The need which prompted this idea was, indeed, that of managing cash-flow. It was reasoned that one of

the main indicators of cash generation was relative market share, and one which pointed to cash usage was

that of market growth rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_cowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_assetshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_assetshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_cowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_assetshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed


3/14

Derivatives can also be used to create a 'product portfolio' analysis of services. So Information System

services can be treated accordingly.[citation needed]

Relative market share

This indicates likely cash generation, because the higher the share the more cash will be generated. As a

result of 'economies of scale' (a basic assumption of the BCG Matrix), it is assumed that these earnings willgrow faster the higher the share. The exact measure is the brand's share relative to its largest competitor.

Thus, if the brand had a share of 20 percent, and the largest competitor had the same, the ratio would be

1:1. If the largest competitor had a share of 60 percent; however, the ratio would be 1:3, implying that the

organization's brand was in a relatively weak position. If the largest competitor only had a share of 5

percent, the ratio would be 4:1, implying that the brand owned was in a relatively strong position, which

might be reflected in profits and cash flows. If this technique is used in practice, this scale is logarithmic,not linear.

On the other hand, exactly what is a high relative share is a matter of some debate. The best evidence is that

the most stable position (at least in Fast Moving Consumer Goods FMCG markets) is for the brand leader

to have a share double that of the second brand, and triple that of the third. Brand leaders in this position

tend to be very stableand profitable; the Rule of 123.[2]

The reason for choosing relative market share, rather than just profits, is that it carries more informationthan just cash flow. It shows where the brand is positioned against its main competitors, and indicates

where it might be likely to go in the future. It can also show what type of marketing activities might be

expected to be effective.[citation needed]

Market growth rate

Rapidly growing in rapidly growing markets, are what organizations strive for; but, as we have seen, the

penalty is that they are usually net cash users - they require investment. The reason for this is often becausethe growth is being 'bought' by the high investment, in the reasonable expectation that a high market share

will eventually turn into a sound investment in future profits. The theory behind the matrix assumes,

therefore, that a higher growth rate is indicative of accompanying demands on investment. The cut-off

point is usually chosen as 10 per cent per annum. Determining this cut-off point, the rate above which the

growth is deemed to be significant (and likely to lead to extra demands on cash) is a critical requirement of

the technique; and one that, again, makes the use of the BCG Matrix problematical in some product areas.

What is more, the evidence,[2] from FMCG markets at least, is that the most typical pattern is of very low

growth, less than 1 per cent per annum. This is outside the range normally considered in BCG Matrix work,which may make application of this form of analysis unworkable in many markets.[citation needed]

Where it can be applied, however, the market growth rate says more about the brand position than just its

cash flow. It is a good indicator of that market's strength, of its future potential (of its 'maturity' in terms of

the market life-cycle), and also of its attractiveness to future competitors. It can also be used in growth

analysis.[citation needed]

Critical evaluation

The matrix ranks only market share and industry growth rate, and only implies actual profitability, the

purpose of any business. (It is certainly possible that a particular dog can be profitable without cash

infusions required, and therefore should be retained and not sold.) The matrix also overlooks other elements

of industry. With this or any other such analytical tool, ranking business units has a subjective element

involving guesswork about the future, particularly with respect to growth rates. Unless the rankings are

approached with rigor and scepticism, optimistic evaluations can lead to a dot commentality in which eventhe most dubious businesses are classified as "question marks" with good prospects; enthusiastic managers

may claim that cash must be thrown at these businesses immediately in order to turn them into stars, before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMCGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix#cite_note-fut-1%23cite_note-fut-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix#cite_note-fut-1%23cite_note-fut-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMCGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix#cite_note-fut-1%23cite_note-fut-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix#cite_note-fut-1%23cite_note-fut-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble


4/14

growth rates slow and it's too late. Poor definition of a business's market will lead to some dogs being

misclassified as cash bulls.

As originally practiced by the Boston Consulting Group, [2] the matrix was undoubtedly a useful tool, inthose few situations where it could be applied, for graphically illustrating cashflows. If used with this

degree of sophistication its use would still be valid. However, later practitioners have tended to over-

simplify its messages. In particular, the later application of the names (problem children, stars, cash cowsand dogs) has tended to overshadow all elseand is often what most students, and practitioners, remember.

This is unfortunate, since such simplistic use contains at least two major problems:

'Minority applicability'. The cashflow techniques are only applicable to a very limited number of markets(where growth is relatively high, and a definite pattern of product life-cycles can be observed, such as that

of ethical pharmaceuticals). In the majority of markets, use may give misleading results.

'Milking cash bulls'. Perhaps the worst implication of the later developments is that the (brand leader) cash

bulls should be milked to fund new brands. This is not what research into the FMCG markets has shown to

be the case. The brand leader's position is the one, above all, to be defended, not least since brands in this

position will probably outperform any number of newly launched brands. Such brand leaders will, of

course, generate large cash flows; but they should not be `milked' to such an extent that their position isjeopardized. In any case, the chance of the new brands achieving similar brand leadership may be slimcertainly far less than the popular perception of the Boston Matrix would imply.

Perhaps the most important danger[2] is, however, that the apparent implication of its four-quadrant form is

that there should be balance of products or services across all four quadrants; and that is, indeed, the main

message that it is intended to convey. Thus, money must be diverted from `cash cows' to fund the `stars' of

the future, since `cash cows' will inevitably decline to become `dogs'. There is an almost mesmeric

inevitability about the whole process. It focuses attention, and funding, on to the `stars'. It presumes, andalmost demands, that `cash bulls' will turn into `dogs'.

The reality is that it is only the `cash bulls' that are really importantall the other elements are supporting

actors. It is a foolish vendor who diverts funds from a `cash cow' when these are needed to extend the life

of that `product'. Although it is necessary to recognize a `dog' when it appears (at least before it bites you)

it would be foolish in the extreme to create one in order to balance up the picture. The vendor, who has

most of his (or her) products in the `cash cow' quadrant, should consider himself (or herself) fortunate

indeed, and an excellent marketer, although he or she might also consider creating a few stars as an

insurance policy against unexpected future developments and, perhaps, to add some extra growth. There isalso a common misconception that 'dogs' are a waste of resources. In many markets 'dogs' can be

considered loss-leaders that while not themselves profitable will lead to increased sales in other profitable

areas.

Alternatives

As with most marketing techniques, there are a number of alternative offerings vying with the BCG Matrix

although this appears to be the most widely used (or at least most widely taughtand then probably 'not'used). The next most widely reported technique is that developed by McKinsey and General Electric, which

is a three-cell by three-cell matrixusing the dimensions of `industry attractiveness' and `business

strengths'. This approaches some of the same issues as the BCG Matrix but from a different direction and in

a more complex way (which may be why it is used less, or is at least less widely taught). Perhaps the most

practical approach is that of the Boston Consulting Group's Advantage Matrix, which the consultancy

reportedly used itself though it is little known amongst the wider population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix#cite_note-fut-1%23cite_note-fut-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix#cite_note-fut-1%23cite_note-fut-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Consulting_Group's_Advantage_Matrixhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix#cite_note-fut-1%23cite_note-fut-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth-share_matrix#cite_note-fut-1%23cite_note-fut-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Consulting_Group's_Advantage_Matrix


5/14

Other uses

The initial intent of the growth-share matrix was to evaluate business units, but the same evaluation can be

made forproduct lines or any other cash-generating entities. This should only be attempted for real linesthat have a sufficient history to allow some prediction; if the corporation has made only a few products and

called them a product line, thesample variancewill be too high for this sort of analysis to be meaningful.

Drawbacks

The growth-share matrix once was used widely, but has since faded from popularity as more

comprehensive models have been developed. Some of its weaknesses are: Market growth rate is only one

factor in industry attractiveness, and relative market share is only one factor in competitive advantage. Thegrowth-share matrix overlooks many other factors in these two important determinants of profitability.

The framework assumes that each business unit is independent of the others. In some cases, a business unit

that is a "dog" may be helping other business units gain a competitive advantage. The matrix depends

heavily upon the breadth of the definition of the market. A business unit may dominate its small niche, but

have very low market share in the overall industry. In such a case, the definition of the market can make the

difference between a dog and a cash cow. While its importance has diminished, the BCG matrix still can

serve as a simple tool for viewing a corporation's business portfolio at a glance, and may serve as a starting

point for discussing resource allocation among strategic business units.

..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_linehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_linehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_variancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_variancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_variancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_linehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_variance


6/14

GENERAL ELECTRIC MATRIX (GE Matrix)

In the 1980s General Electric, along with the McKinsey and Company Consulting group,developed a more involved method for analyzing a company's portfolio of businesses or productlines. This nine-cell matrix considers the attractiveness of the market situation and the strength ofthe particular business of interest. These two dimensions allow a company to use much more data

in determining each business unit's position.

The key to the successful implementation of this strategic tool is the identification andmeasurement of the appropriate factors that define market attractiveness and business strength.Those individuals involved in strategic planning are responsible for determining the factors. Theattractiveness of the market may be based on such factors as market growth rate, barriers toentry, barriers to exit, industry profitability, power of the suppliers and customers, availability ofsubstitutes, negotiating power of both customers and members of the channel of distribution, as

well as other opportunities and threats.

The strength of a particular business may be based on such factors as market-share position, costplacement in the industry, brand equity, technological position, and other possible strengths and

weaknesses. The development of General Electric (GE) Matrix requires assessing the criteria to

evaluate both industry attractiveness and business strength. The calculation of scores for thesedimensions is frequently based on a simple weighted sum formula.

To consider this approach as a matrix analysis, market attractiveness is placed on the vertical axiswith the possible values of low, medium, and high (see Figure 2). Business strength is placed onthe horizontal axis with the possible values of weak, average, and strong. A circle on the matrixrepresents each business unit (or product line). The size (area) of each circle represents the size ofthe relevant market in terms of sales. A portion of the circle is shaded to represent the marketshare of each business unit or product line within the market.

Figure 2


7/14

GE Business Strength/Market Attractiveness

The nine cells of this matrix define three general zones of consideration for the strategic manager.According to this approach, the first zone contains businesses that are the best investments. Theseare units high in market attractiveness and strong in business strength, followed by those that arestrong in business strength and medium in market attractiveness, and those that are medium in

business strength and high in market attractiveness. Management should pursue investment andgrowth strategies for these units. Management should be very careful in determining theappropriate strategy for those business units located in any of the three cells in the diagonal ofthis matrix.

The second zone includes those business units that have moderate overall attractiveness andthose units that have medium business strength and market attractiveness, weak businessstrength and high market attractiveness, and strong business strength and low marketattractiveness. These businesses should be managed according to their relative strengths and thecompany's ability to build on those strengths. Moreover, possible changes in marketattractiveness should be carefully considered.

Those businesses that fall in the last zone are low in overall attractiveness; these are a good

investment only if additional resources can move the business from a low overall attractivenessposition to a moderate or strong overall attractiveness position. If not, these businesses should beconsidered for deletion or harvest.

The GE Matrix may be considered as an improvement over the BCG Matrix. The major advantageof using this matrix design is that both a business' strength and an industry's attractiveness areconsidered in the company's decision. Generally, it considers much more information than BCGMatrix, it involves the judgments of the strategic decision-makers, and it focuses on competitiveposition.

A major disadvantage, however, is the difficulty in appropriately defining business strength andmarket attractiveness. Also, the estimation of these dimensions is a subjective judgment that may

become quite complicated. Another disadvantage lies in the lack of objective measures available

to position a company; managers making these strategic decisions may have difficultydetermining their unit's proper placement. Too, some argue that the GE Matrix cannot effectivelydepict the positions of new products or business units in developing industries.


8/14

PORTER'S GENERICCOMPETITIVE STRATEGIES

Michael Porter has suggested a method of categorizing the various types of competitive strategies.He identified two generic competitive strategies: overall lower cost and differentiation. Thesestrategies are termed generic because they can be applied to any size or form of business. Overall

lower cost refers to companies that can develop, manufacture, and distribute products moreefficiently than their competitors. Differentiation refers to companies that are able to providesuperior products based on some factor other than low cost. Differentiation can be based oncustomer service, product quality, unique style, and so on.

Porter also suggests that another factor affecting a company's competitive position is itscompetitive scope. Competitive scope defines the breadth of a company's target market. Acompany can have a broad (mass market) competitive scope or a narrow (niche market)competitive scope. The combination of broad scope and narrow scope with a low-cost strategyand differentiation results in the following generic competitive strategies: cost leadership, costfocus, differentiation, and focused differentiation (see Figure 4).

The implementation of these strategies requires different organizational arrangements and

control processes. Larger firms with greater access to resources typically select a cost leadershipor a differentiation

Figure 4

Porter's Generic Competitionstrategy, whereas smaller firms often compete on a focus basis.

Cost leadership is a low-cost, broad-based market strategy. Firms pursuing this type of strategymust be particularly efficient in engineering tasks, production operations, and physicaldistribution. Because these firms focus on a large market, they must also be able to minimizecosts in marketing and R&D. A low-cost leader can gain significant market share enabling it toprocure a more powerful position relative to both suppliers and competitors. This strategy isparticularly effective in case of price-sensitive buyers in the market and small possibilities toachieve product differentiation.

A cost-focus strategy is a low-cost, narrowly focused market strategy. Firms employing thisstrategy may focus on a particular buyer segment or a particular geographic segment, and mustlocate a niche market that wants or needs an efficient product and is willing to do without theextras in order to pay a lower price for the product. A company's costs can be reduced byproviding little or no service, providing a low-cost method of distribution, or producing a no-frillsproduct.


9/14

A differentiation strategy involves marketing a unique product to a broad-based market. Becausethis type of strategy involves a unique product, price is not the significant factor. In fact,consumers may be willing to pay a high price for a product that they perceive as different. Theproduct difference may be based on product design, method of distribution, or any aspect of theproduct (other than price) that is significant to a broad market group of consumers. A companychoosing this strategy must develop and maintain a product that is perceived as different enoughfrom the competitor's products to warrant the asking price.

Effective implementation of a differentiation strategy requires an analytical study of customerneeds and preferences in order to offer a unique product. This usually helps businessorganizations to achieve customer loyalty, which can also serve as an entry barrier for new firms.Several studies have shown that a differentiation strategy is more likely to generate higher profitsthan a cost-leadership strategy, because differentiation creates stronger entry barriers. However,a cost-leadership strategy is more likely to generate increases in market share.

A differentiation-focus strategy is the marketing of a differentiated product to a narrow market,often involving a unique product and a unique market. This strategy is viable for a company thatcan convince consumers that its narrow focus allows it to provide better goods and services thanits competitors.

None of these competitive strategies is guaranteed to achieve success, and some companies thathave successfully implemented one of Porter's generic strategies have found that they could notsustain the strategy. Several risks associated with these strategies are based on evolved marketconditions (buyer perceptions, competitors, etc).

Recent researchers argue that both cost-leadership and differentiation strategies can besimultaneously achieved. The principal condition for this situation is superior quality, which maylead to increased customer commitment on the one hand, and minimized quality costs (throughlearning effects, economies of scale, etc.) on the other.


10/14

PORTER'S FIVE-FORCES MODEL

Before a company enters a market or market segment, the competitive nature of the market orsegment is evaluated. Porter suggests that five forces collectively determine the intensity ofcompetition in an industry: threat of potential entrants, threat of potential substitutes, bargainingpower of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers, and rivalry of existing firms in the industry. By

using the model shown in Figure 5, a firm can identify the existence and importance of the fivecompetitive forces, as well as the effect of each force on the firm's success.

Figure 5

Five Forces Model

The threat of new entrants deals with the ease or difficulty with which new companies can enteran industry. When a new company enters an industry, the competitive climate changes; there isnew capacity, more competition for market share, and the addition of new resources. Entry

barriers and exit barriers affect the entrance of new companies into a marketplace. If entrybarriers (capital requirements, economies of scale, product differentiation, switching costs, accessto distribution channels, cost of promotion and advertising, etc.) are high, a company is less likelyto enter a market. The same holds true for exit barriers.

The threat of substitutes affects competition in an industry by placing an artificial ceiling on theprices companies within an industry can charge. A substitute product is one that can satisfyconsumer needs also targeted by another product; for example, lemonade can be substituted for a

soft drink. Generally, competitive pressures arising from substitute products increase as therelative price of substitute products declines and as consumer's switching costs decrease.

The bargaining power of buyers is affected by the concentration and number of consumers, thedifferentiation of products, the potential switching costs, and the potential of buyers to integrate

backwards. If buyers have strong bargaining power in the exchange relationship, competition canbe affected in several ways. Powerful buyers can bargain for lower prices, better productdistribution, higher-quality products, as well as other factors that can create greater competitionamong companies.

Similarly, the bargaining power of suppliers affects the intensity of competition in an industry,especially when there is a large number of suppliers, limited substitute raw materials, orincreased switching costs. The bargaining power of suppliers is important to industry competition

because suppliers can also affect the quality of exchange relationships. Competition may becomemore intense as powerful suppliers raise prices, reduce services, or reduce the quality of goods orservices.

Competition is also affected by the rivalry among existing firms, which is usually considered asthe most powerful of the five competitive forces. In most industries, business organizations aremutually dependent. A competitive move by one firm can be expected to have a noticeable effecton its competitors, and thus, may cause retaliation or counter-efforts (e.g. lowering prices,enhancing quality, adding features, providing services, extending warranties, and increasingadvertising).


11/14

The nature of competition is often affected by a variety of factors, such as the size and number ofcompetitors, demand changes for the industry's products, the specificity of assets within theindustry, the presence of strong exit barriers, and the variety of competitors.

Recently, several researchers have proposed a sixth force that should be added to Porter's list inorder to include a variety of stakeholder groups from the task environment that wield over

industry activities. These groups include governments, local communities, creditors, tradeassociations, special interest groups, and shareholders.

The implementation of strategic planning tools serves a variety of purposes in firms, including theclear definition of an organization's purpose and mission, and the establishment of a standard

base from which progress can be measured and future actions can be planned. Furthermore, thestrategic planning tools should communicate those goals and objectives to the organization'sconstituents. Thus, the worth of these tools, as well as others, is often dependent on the objectiveinsight of those who participate in the planning process. It is also important for those individuals

who will implement the strategies to play a role in the strategic-planning process; this oftenrequires a team effort that should allow a variety of inputs and should result in a better overallunderstanding of the company's current and future industry position.

.


12/14

Directional Policy MatrixDescription of the Model

This matrix measures the health of the market andyour strength to pursue it. The results indicate thedirection for future investment. The recommendationmay be to invest, grow, harvest or divest.

Characterize Your Enterprise

The expert system will position your enterprise onthe chart based upon your description of:

Supplier Bargaining Power

Threat of Substitutes

Threat of New Entrants

Competitive Rivalry

Buyer Bargaining Power

Product Quality

Product Value

Relative Market Share

Reputation

Customer Loyalty

Staying Power

Experience

You can trace through the supporting analysis and

its conclusions, adjusting your input until you aresatisfied your description accurately characterizesyour enterprise.

Analysis of Your Enterprise Position

Invest Grow Harvest Divest

High MarketAttractivenessHigh Business Strengths

High MarketAttractivenessLow Business Strengths

Low MarketAttractivenessHigh Business Strengths

Low Market AttractivenessLow Business Strengths

This is the ideal quadrant.Your strengths aredirected at a highlyattractive market. Investyour best resources in

those parts of yourbusiness which are in thisquadrant.

You are in anuncomfortable quadrant.The market potential isattractive but you do nothave the business

strengths necessary forbeing really successful.The options facing youare either to take whatyou can while it is stillpossible or to invest inbuilding a bettercompetitive position. Youmust be selective in yourefforts here, as thissegment will cost you toinvest in every aspect ofthe business.

In this quadrant you havehigh strengths in amarket that has lost itsattractiveness in terms offuture potential. It is still

good for near termprofits, so maintain theposition for as long aspossible.

Think carefully about whatyou are doing to be in thisquadrant. The market isnot particularly attractiveand your business

strengths are belowaverage here. Keep in thissegment only if it supportsa more profitable part ofyour business (forinstance, if this segmentcompletes a product linerange) or if it absorbssome of the overheadcosts of a more profitablesegment.


13/14

.


14/14

Hofers Matrix

Hofer-Schendel Matrix

Brief HistoryThe principal purpose of analysis for strategic planning is to identify the

major opportunities and threats a business unit faces in the future and toidentify the skills around which it can develop a strategic intelligence planto exploit the opportunities and negotiate around the threats. Hofer andSchendel felt that the major weakness with the General Electric businessscreen was that it didnt effectively depict the positions of new businessesthat are just starting to grow in new industries. They suggested in 1975that changes in basic competitive positions are easier to accomplish atcertain stages in the evolution of an industry than others. The BostonConsulting Group also alluded to this with their assumption that marketgrowth was related to life cycle and was used as the one axis on theirmatrix. The competitive position / market evolution matrix was developedin the late 1970s by Charles W. Hofer and Dan Schendel.

.

BCG GE Hofner Etc

Documents

Transcript of BCG GE Hofner Etc