Search results

An essential corporate decision-making tool, the Boston Consulting Group's growth-share matrix, is due for an upgrade. The purpose of this paper is to upgrade this growth matrix for use by corporate managers in the current platform age. Designed in the conglomerate age of the 1960s and 1970s to help corporate managers make disciplined and systematic portfolio investment decisions, the matrix is ill-adapted to the platform age in which we now live. The most valuable companies in the world are now platform companies, and many companies are transitioning to a more platform-based corporate portfolio. In this paper, the author explains how corporate managers can build and execute a sustainable platform portfolio.

The author started with a thorough study of the contextual assumptions and theoretical background of the original Boston Consulting Group growth-share matrix (which the author has been teaching for the past decade). He contrasted these with the assumptions and theoretical background developed in the platform strategy literature. To test and refine the framework, the author presented and discussed its applicability at companies such as GSK and with local consultants. He then used five consecutive cohorts of master students [280 students (70 groups)] to test this framework on a total of 20 companies (both “born platform” and “product to platform” companies).

The platform ecosystem age requires a corporate decision-making matrix that discriminates between businesses on the basis of platform market growth and platform commercialization capability, rather than product market growth and market share. As in the original matrix, these businesses correspond to three different investment horizons (Figure 1): the continuous renewal of blockbuster business, the integration of emerging killer businesses and the experimentation with joint innovation businesses. This paper helps corporate managers build and execute a sustainable platform portfolio by means of a sequence of six decision-making steps and a clear organizational template for successful execution.

The portfolio matrix, decision-making sequence and organizational execution advice presented in this paper are fit for both “born platform” companies such as Google (Alphabet) and “product to platform” hybrids such as Lego. The paper illustrates this with practical examples for both types of companies.

The purpose of this paper is to present strategic responses of leading Indian pesticide manufacturers to the voice of stakeholders and regulatory authorities regarding environment friendly products and processes. The study has made a unique attempt to analyze the product portfolio of selected Indian vs multinational companies with respect to market attractiveness as well as environmental attractiveness.

A comparison of corporate, business and operational level strategies of domestic vs multinational companies impacting environment has been made by selecting two companies of each type from the industry on the basis of their turnover. The product portfolios of selected companies have been analyzed on the basis of a matrix constructed for market attractiveness and environmental attractiveness.

The study finds that both domestic and multinational companies have been making efforts to reorient their product strategy towards a relatively greener portfolio. Also, multinationals are having more environmentally safer products than their domestic counterparts. Indian firms have been catching up by acquiring brands/companies to expand/reorient their product portfolios, whereas multinationals have been adopting merger and acquisition strategies as well as launching new products using indigenous research and development of their parent companies. Related diversification is the preferred strategic move by both the groups, though in different areas.

The study classifies the products of various companies on the basis of market as well as environmental attractiveness and also recommends the strategies to manage a product portfolio. Similar kind of portfolios could be constructed and used for analyzing the product mix of firms in other sectors.

The originality of the study lies in the fact that, although the pesticide industry is very important to study from both an environmental and a strategic perspective, no effort has ever been made to study the environmental strategies of firms and also the comparison of domestic as well as multinational firms. The product portfolio based on market as well as environmental attractiveness devised in the study is novel in nature.

The purpose of this paper is to bring together theory, research and practice to inform library management.

Explores the library context using CD‐ROM based services. Analyzes the product life cycle and portfolio matrix concepts.

Most library and information services function in an entirely different context so there needs to be caution when extrapolating between sectors is not straightforward. Despite these challenges, the ideas and concepts have resonances that can be used by those managing library and information services.

Reflects on how the concepts of product life cycle and portfolio matrix can be applied in library management.

Strategy Question: How do I assess the “market health” of my products or services?

Summary: This isn’t really a new tool per se, as it is based on the original Boston Consulting Group’s Growth–Share matrix and General Electric/McKinsey Consulting 9-box version. We base our tool on the 9-box version that plots a point for each product/service form relative to our preferred elements of “Competitive Position” and “Market Attractiveness.” The chapter explains how to breakdown the products/services, construct plot points for the matrix (in qualitative fashion that most companies can easily construct) for both the “competitive position” and “market attractiveness” metrics. The tool consists of a one-page, 3 × 3 matrix along with a process to gather, assess, and organize the information so the strategist can determine how the various products and services of the business are positioned in the respective markets, how well each is performing, how much each contributes to overall firm performance, which have potential for future performance, and what types of approaches might be appropriate for allocating resources. Once products/services are respectively plotted and grouped in common ways suggested, the output is extremely helpful in framing the competitive state and providing a baseline for constructive intercompany debate.

The purpose of this paper is to report on research undertaken within a European‐based airline services firm. As a result of pressures within the airline industry the firm embarked on a cost reduction programme, recognising the need to achieve more synergy from its procurement spend, located in semi‐autonomous business units (BUs). The paper describes sequentially the two stages of the author's involvement in the project and the outputs and results realised.

The aim was to design a practical tool, based on academic inputs, which could be used by the business to achieve purchasing synergy. The research is reported in a case study format and develops an original mixed method approach. This approach combines interviews, a focus group, cognitive mapping and portfolio analysis and leads to the production of a decision‐making framework for implementing purchasing pooling.

The results illustrate that prior to the study, procurement was highly fragmented with little co‐ordination between BUs. The company needed to standardise many of its item specifications to facilitate purchasing pooling. A hierarchy is created as a valuable tool for understanding the various and conflicting factors in item selection for pooling initiatives. In addition, four purchasing strategies are identified, to support synergy in the firm.

The decision‐making framework developed for the business is used to illustrate how the firm achieved purchasing synergy across its BUs. The approach can similarly be adopted in organisations with a high level of fragmentation in their spend.

The research demonstrates the value of applying academic knowledge and multiple methods in creating practical solutions for managers. It also addresses some of the weaknesses identified in using single methods of analysis such as portfolios.

Adapting to external and internal transformations is a difficult task that managers and scholars must face while attempting to keep their organisations alive and well-established. This chapter explores the various decision-making tools that can assist practitioners and scholars to improve their understanding of the external scenario to determine the contemporary appropriateness of these approaches for analysing the environment and their implications for various types of organisations. The chapter investigates the barriers and drivers of these methods and proposes existing alternative paradigms created by academics and practitioners to analyse and comprehend the context. It demonstrates how these decision-making tools can be implemented by providing examples and case studies.

Strategy Question: How do we determine and prioritize which products/services need action?

Summary: This very important tool helps provide a perspective on where product/service improvements are needed relative to performance and margin parameters. It is designed to provide a concise “current state” assessment of product/service offerings using three categories: (1) No deficiency — competitive in both Product and Price/Cost areas (color coded white), (2) One deficiency — Product performance or Price/Margin deficiency (color coded gray); and (3) Two deficiencies — Product performance and Price/margin deficiency (color coded black). When these product/service deficiencies are displayed relative to the most important market segments (ranked in decreasing order of priority), the tool output serves as an insightful baseline from which to scope, frame, define and prioritize product improvement and margin-enhancement projects needed. Your list of potential projects begins here. Many of the prior tools come together at this point. Through previous tools, the markets, environment, and the current competitive positions of the products or services are understood. This tool helps to define a structure to pull all this information together in a simple way to add perspective toward defining and prioritizing potential actions.

The purpose of this article is to address one aspect of management (port‐folio management) that will help set the future of an organisation as well as provide an input to short‐range operational planning.

The globalisation of markets, emerging concepts of sustainable development, and circular economy have defined the boundaries within which organisations must compete and address the needs of key stakeholders. As circumstances change, boundaries are often replaced by the relationships between companies and the communities they serve. Consequently, strategy has become a central aspect of sustainable leadership and the foundation for implementing strategic management in a dynamic system of relationships. Every company is born and grows within social and economic ecosystems. Drawing on the metaphor of biology, ecosystems are described as dynamic interconnections among various elements that influence and foster entrepreneurship. Interconnections between players (such as marketplaces, organisations, governments, and universities) create a flow of expertise, abilities, knowledge, experience, and tangible resources. Economic and social ecosystems involve various actors and components that continuously coexist and interact, leading to the creation of numerous mutual relationships. Consequently, it is crucial for managers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the internal and external environments. Various decision-making tools and strategies can be used to achieve this goal. These tools were developed to assist managers, researchers, and consultants in making informed decisions under complex scenarios. This chapter presents several decision-making strategies and tools, including the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) matrix, General Electric (GE) matrix, Balanced Scorecard (BSC), PEST, PESTEL analysis, and SWOT analysis.

The product portfolio and product life cycle concepts are not recent in management education. Indeed the product life cycle has been around for some considerable time and the product portfolio concept of a range of products at various stages of their respective life cycles with differential market share and growth rate values has been implicit in many companies' policies for some time.