Текст книги "Английский язык. Практический курс для решения бизнес-задач"

Lesson 9
Strategic Management Models

Read and translate the text and learn terms from the Essential Vocabulary.

The BCG Growth-Share Matrix

The BCG Growth-Share Matrix is a portfolio-planning model developed by Bruce Henderson of the Boston Consulting Group in the early 1970s. It is based on the product life-cycle theory that can be used to determine what priorities should be given in the product portfolio of a business unit. To ensure long-term value creation, a company should have a portfolio of products that contains both high-growth products in need of cash inputs and low-growth products that generate a lot of cash.

The matrix proceeds from the assumption that a company’s business units can be classified into four categories based on combinations of market growth and market share relative to the largest competitor, hence the name «growth-share». Market growth serves as a proxy for industry attractiveness, and relative market share serves as a proxy for competitive advantage. The growth-share matrix maps the business units’ positions within these two important determinants of profitability.

This framework assumes that an increase in relative market share will result in an increase in the generation of cash. This assumption often is true because of the experience curve; increased relative market share implies that the firm is moving forward on the experience curve relative to its competitors, thus developing a cost advantage. A second assumption is that a growing market requires investment in assets to increase capacity and therefore results in the consumption of cash. Thus the position of a business on the growth-share matrix provides an indication of its cash generation and its cash consumption.

The cash required by rapidly growing business units could be obtained from the firm’s other business units that were at a more mature stage and generating significant cash. By investing to become the market share leader in a rapidly growing market, the business unit could move along the experience curve and develop a cost advantage. From this reasoning, the BCG Growth-Share Matrix was born.

The four categories of the matrix are:

Dogs. Dogs have a low market share and a low growth rate and thus neither generate nor consume a large amount of cash. However, dogs are cash traps because of the money tied up in a business that has little potential. Such businesses are candidates for divestiture.

Question Marks. Question Marks are growing rapidly and thus consume large amounts of cash, but because they have low market shares they do not generate much cash. 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 mark does not succeed in becoming the market leader, then after 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 market share.

Stars. Stars generate large amounts of cash because of their strong relative market share, but also consume large amounts of cash because of their high growth rates; therefore the cash in each direction approximately nets out. If a star can maintain its large market share, it will become a cash cow when the market growth rate declines. The portfolio of a diversified company always should have stars that will become the next cash cows and ensure future cash generation.

Cash Cows. As leaders in a mature market, cash cows exhibit a return on assets that is greater than the market growth rate, and thus generate more cash than they consume. Such business units should be «milked», extracting the profits and investing as little cash as possible. Cash cows provide the cash required to turn question marks into market leaders, to cover the administrative costs of the company, to fund R&D, to service the corporate debt, and to pay dividends to shareholders. Because the cash cow generates a relatively stable cash flow, its value can be accurately determined by calculating the present value of its cash stream using a discounted cash flow analysis.

Under the growth-share matrix model, as an industry matures and its growth rate declines, a business unit will become either a cash cow or a dog, determined solely by whether it had become the market leader during the period of high growth.

While originally developed as a model for resource allocation among the various business units in a corporation, the growth-share matrix also can be used for resource allocation among products within a single business unit.

The BCG matrix can help understand a frequently made strategic mistake: having a one-size-fits-all approach to strategy such as a generic growth target or a generic return on capital for the entire corporation.

In such a scenario:

Cash Cows will beat their profit target easily; their managers have an easy job and are often praised anyhow.

Dogs fight an impossible battle and, even worse, investments are made now and then in hopeless attempts to «turn the business around».

As a result, Question Marks and Stars get mediocre investment funds. In this way they are unable to ever become cash cows and earn money.

Limitations

The BCG 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. The growth-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 (SBUs).

Source: www.netmba.com

The GE/McKinsey Matrix

The GE/McKinsey Matrix is a later and more advanced form of the BCG Matrix. It is a model to perform business portfolio analysis on the Strategic Business Units of a corporation. A business portfolio is the collection of SBUs that make up a corporation. The optimal business portfolio is one that fits perfectly to the company’s strengths and helps to exploit the most attractive industries or markets. A SBU can either be a midsize company or a division of a large corporation that formulates its own business level strategy and has separate objectives from the parent company.

The aim of a portfolio analysis is to:

– analyze its current business portfolio and decide which SBUs should be allocated more or less investment;

– develop growth strategies for adding new products and businesses to the portfolio;

– decide which businesses or products should be divested.

The GE/McKinsey Matrix is more sophisticated than the BCG Matrix:

1. Market (industry) attractiveness replaces market growth as the dimension of industry attractiveness. Market attractiveness includes a broader range of factors than just the market growth rate that can determine the attractiveness of an industry/market.

2. Competitive strength replaces market share as the dimension by which the competitive position of each SBU is assessed. Competitive strength likewise includes a broader range of factors than just the market share that can determine the competitiveness of a SBU.

3. The GE/McKinsey Matrix works with a 3*3 grid, while the BCG matrix has only 2*2.

SBUs are portrayed as a circle plotted in the GE/McKinsey Matrix whereby:

– The size of the circles represents the market size

– The size of the pies represents the market share of the SBUs

– Arrows represent the direction and the movement of the SBUs in the future.

A six-step approach to implementation of portfolio analysis using the GE/McKinsey Matrix could look like this:

1. Specify drivers of each dimension.

2. Weight drivers.

3. Score SBU’s each driver.

4. Multiply weights by scores for each SBU.

5. View resulting graph and interpret it.

6. Perform a review/sensitivity analysis using adjusted other weights and scores.

Some important limitations of the GE/McKinsey Matrix are:

– aggregation of the indicators is difficult;

– core competencies are not represented;

– interrelations between SBUs are not considered.

Source: www.valuebasedmanagement.net

Essential Vocabulary

1. product life-cycle – жизненный цикл товара

2. business unit – бизнес-единица

3. proxy n – доверенность; лицо, уполномоченное выступать за другого по доверенности; ориентир

4. industry n – промышленность, индустрия; отрасль промышленности

industrial a – промышленный, производственный; промышленная корпорация (США) – любая корпорация, которая не может быть отнесена к коммунальным, финансовым или транспортным компаниям

5. framework n – рамки

6. experience curve – кривая опыта

7. maturity n – зрелость; срок погашения (ценной бумаги), срок кредита

mature v – зреть; погашаться

mature a – зрелый; подлежащий оплате ввиду наступившего срока погашения

8. divestiture n – лишение права; реализация актива путем продажи

9. net a – чистый, нетто

net out v – вычитать, определять нетто-позицию, взаимозачитывать

10. return on assets (ROA) – доходность активов

11. service v debt – обслуживать долг

12. dividend (div) n – дивиденд

13. shareholder n – акционер

14. cash flow – денежный поток

15. present value – приведенная ценность

16. discounted cash flow (DCF) – дисконтированный денежный поток

17. allocation n – распределение, назначение; ассигнование; размещение

allocate v– распределять, назначать; ассигновать; размещать

18. one-size-fits-all – единый для всех, общий

19. generic a – родовой, общий, характерный для определенного рода или группы

20. fund n – фонд, финансовое средство, сумма денег

fund v – финансировать

21. strategic business unit (SBU) – стратегическая бизнес-единица

22. parent company – материнская компания

23. return n – возврат; доходность; налоговая декларация

24. entry barrier – барьер на выход в отрасль или на рынок

25. competency n – компетентность, умение, способность; компетенция

26. access n – доступ

access v – иметь доступ

accessible a – доступный

27. score n – счет, задолженность, долг; причина, основание; количество набранных очков; удача; истинные факты

score v – подсчитывать очки, вести счет; выигрывать, получать преимущество

28. sensitivity analysis – анализ чувствительности

29. core competency – основная сфера компетенции

Exercise 1. Answer the following questions.

1. What kind of product portfolio should a company have to ensure long-term value creation? 2. How can business units be categorized? 3. What are the characteristics of the Dog Business Units? 4. What is the potential future of Question Marks? 5. What are the specifics of Stars? 6. What is the function of Cash Cows in a company? 7. Why is it unadvisable to have a one-size-fits-all approach to strategy? 8. What are the limitations of the BCG matrix? 9. What is the basis of the GE/McKinsey matrix? 10. What is the aim of the portfolio analysis? 11. Why is the GE/McKinsey matrix more sophisticated than the BCG matrix? 12. What are the external factors that affect market attractiveness? 13. What are the internal factors that affect competitive strength? 14. What approach can be used to implement the portfolio analysis? 15. What are the limitations of the GE/McKinsey matrix?

Exercise 2. Analyze your own company using the BCG Matrix and the GE/McKinsey Matrix.

Exercise 3*. Fill in the blanks using terms given below.

Core Competence

The Core Competence model of Hamel and Prahalad is a……… model that starts the strategy process by thinking about the…….. strengths of an organization.

The Core Competence model states that in the long run competitiveness derives from an ability to build a…………, at…….. and more speedily than competitors. The real sources of advantage are to be found in management’s abilities to……… corporate-wide technologies and production skills into competencies, through which individual businesses can……. quickly to changing circumstances. A Core Competence can be any combination of specific, inherent, integrated and applied knowledge……. and attitudes.

Prahalad and Hamel dismiss the……….. perspective as a viable approach to corporate strategy. In their view, the……….. of the Strategic Business Unit is now clearly an anachronism. Hamel and Prahalad argue that a….. should be built around a core of shared competencies.

……….. must use and help to further develop the CCs. The corporate center should not be just another layer of accounting, but must……… by improving the strategic architecture that guides the process of……….

Three tests for identifying a Сore Сompetence

Provides potential……. to a wide variety of markets.

Makes a significant contribution to the benefits of the products as…….. by the customer.

A CC should be difficult for……… to imitate.

Building a Core Competence

A Core Competence is built through a process of continuous improvement and……… It should constitute the…….. for corporate strategy. At this level, the goal is to build………. in the design and development of a particular class of product functionality.

Once top management with the help of SBUs managers have………. an all-embracing Core Competence, it must ask businesses to find the projects and the people that are closely connected with it. Corporate auditors should……. an audit of the location, number and quality of the people related to the CC. CC carriers should be brought together frequently to…… ideas.

Source: www.valuebasedmanagement.com

Terms:

adapt, identified, focus, share, competitors, enhancement, corporate strategy, world leadership, primacy, perform, access, competence building, core, skills, portfolio, core competence, consolidate, business units, add value, perceived, lower cost, corporation

Exercise 4. Make 2 sentences with each term.

core – non-core:

– competence,

– assets,

– activities,

– business.

Exercise 5. Describe the core competence of your company.

Exercise 6. Translate into English.

Что могут и чего не могут управленческие модели

Вопрос о месте управленческих моделей в организации процесса стратегического планирования и их полезности в обеспечении эффективного функционирования компании до сих пор не закрыт. Причем споры о целесообразности использования любых таких моделей неизменно скатываются в одну и ту же плоскость. Широкая часть делового сообщества считает их неотъемлемой частью управления своим бизнесом. Другая, не менее многочисленная, уверяет, что данный инструментарий, завернутый в «громкие слова», – ловкий ход консультантов по рекламированию своей деятельности и выставлению напоказ своих профессиональных навыков. Кто из них прав, судить трудно, скорее всего истина, как всегда, лежит где-то посередине. Так что же необходимо знать и учитывать при использовании данного класса моделей?

Управленческие модели – это упрощенная картина деловой бизнес-среды.

Любая управленческая модель учитывает лишь те элементы окружающего мира, которые оказывают непосредственное влияние на функционирование конкретной отрасли либо компании, т. е. являются значимыми при решении конкретной задачи. Теми элементами, которые не значимы, в моделях, как правило, пренебрегают. Кроме того, исходя из соображений экономии операционных и аппаратных ресурсов определенному лимитированию подлежит и количество включаемых в нее входных параметров. К примеру, в Бостонской матрице анализируются доли, занимаемые компанией в определенных сегментах рынка, по отношению к рыночным долям конкурентов. При этом анализу подлежат только имеющиеся на рынке продукты и услуги, учет возможности анализа появления новых продуктов или услуг не предусматривается. Аналогично модель БКГ не позволяет анализировать возможные в будущем действия тех или иных участников рынка.

Вывод: нельзя принимать решения, базирующиеся на анализе работы только одной модели.

Каждая управленческая модель несет в себе черты «своей» экономической эпохи. В структуре любой модели, как правило, еще на стадии ее разработки, закладываются определенные предположения, касающиеся экономических условий (как текущих, так и будущих), в рамках которых будет протекать деятельность организации. Смена привычного делового климата, хотя далеко не всегда приводящая к изменению валидности выходных результатов, тем не менее ставит под вопрос степень адекватности данных результатов в новых экономических условиях.

Так, сегодня любой отдельный стартап может внести принципиально существенные коррективы в условия функционирования целого ряда отраслей (в качестве примера можно привести тот же Amazon.com), вследствие чего вполне естественно, что происходящие изменения в определенной мере ограничивают возможности адекватного использования многих «старых» моделей.

В результате, несмотря на сохранение общих принципов решения задач, таких как, например, удержание старых и привлечение новых клиентов путем низкой цены или высокого качества продукции, рассмотренных в рамках обобщенной теории Портера, далеко не означает, что данная модель полностью учитывает особенности именно сегодняшних реалий. Новые технологии и концепции продвижения аналогичной продукции/услуг в кратчайший промежуток времени могут кардинально нарушить позиции ценового лидера. Аналогично организация, специализирующаяся на отдельном виде товара, может быстро утратить свои конкурентные преимущества в случае копирования конкурентами ее продуктовой линейки и сервисного обслуживания.

Вывод: никогда не следует слепо использовать модели, руководствуясь лишь успешностью их применения в прошлом.

(Продолжение см. в уроке 10)

Источник: 20.09.2005, www.franklin-grant.ru

Lesson 10
Strategic Management Analysis

Read and translate the text and learn terms from the Essential Vocabulary.

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.

SWOT Analysis Framework

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 or certain expertise;

– 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 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. 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 environment also may present threats to the firm. Examples of such threats include:

– shift in consumer tastes away from the firm’s products;

– emergence of substitute products;

– new regulations;

– increased trade barriers.