Lt2--busiportfoanalysis_1

Business Portfolio Analysis Asia-Pacific Marketing Federation Certified Professional Marketer Copyright Marketing Institute of Singapore

Outline    

Introduction BCG (Boston Consulting Group) Matrix PIMS (Profit Impact of Market Strategy) GE(General Electric)/McKinsey MultiFactor Matrix

Introduction

 The creation of SBUs enables the  

setting of SBU’s mission and objectives and the allocation of resources across SBUs in the organization Senior management need to have a framework to evaluate SBUs and to assign limited resources among them; hence portfolio analysis Many models but only 3 are covered here: BCG, PIMS, & GE

BCG (Boston Consulting Group) Matrix

Provides a framework for

senior management in allocating resources across business units in a diversified firm by

Balancing cash flows among

business units, and Balancing stages in the product life-cycle (PLC)

BCG Product Portfolio Matrix Dimensions

Product Sales Growth Rate

Relative Market Share (Log Scale)

BCG Matrix (cont’d)

 The horizontal axis is the Relative Market Share shown in a log scale  Vertical line is usually set as 1.0 Relative Market Share  An SBU to the left of this line means 

it is the market leader in the industry or segment in which it operates Conversely, an SBU to the right of this line (1.o RMS) means it is not the leader

BCG Matrix (cont’d) The vertical axis is the growth rate

 5 levels may be used: product, product   

lines, market segment, SBU and business growth rate Horizontal line is usually set as 10% Growth Rate SBUs above the set value (10% line) represents high growth rates Conversely, SBUs below this value depicts slower growth rate

Matrix Quadrants Relative Market Share High Low High Product Sales Growth Rate Low

Key Assumptions of BCG Matrix

 Stable cost/price relationship

 Not valid if the firm is pricing on

projected lower average unit costs in the future

 Market leader influences the average costs  Profit margin is a function of market share

 This ignores profitable niches

Strategic Perspectives of Products in Different Quadrants Four different strategic perspectives Investment Earnings Cash-flow, and Strategy Implications

   

Question Marks (Problem Children)

 Investment—heavy initial capacity expenditures and high R&D costs  Earnings—negative to low  Cash-flow—negative (net cash user)  Strategy Implications  If possible to dominate segment, go after share. If not, redefine the business or withdraw

Stars

 Investment—continue to invest for   

capacity expansion Earnings—Low to high earnings Cash-flow—Negative (net cash user) Strategy Implications

 Continue to increase market share— even at the expense of short-term earnings

Cows

Investment—Capacity

maintenance Earnings—High Cash-flow—Positive (net cash contributor) Strategy Implications

  

 Maintain market share and cost

leadership until further investment

Dogs

 Investment  Gradually reduce capacity  Earnings—High to low  Cash-flow

 Positive (net cash contributor) if deliberately reducing capacity

 Strategy Implications

 Plan an orderly withdrawal to maximize cash flow

Example of a BCG Matrix for a Fastener Supplier in South East Asia Relative Market Share High Low High

Anchoring Systems

Product Sales Growth Rate Low

Cable Tray Systems Electric Power Tools

Powder Actuated Tools

Concrete Lifting Systems

Note that the Anchoring System SBU is forecasted to move to new positio

BCG Matrix (Three Paths to Success)

 Continuously generate cash cows  

and use the cash throw-up by the cash cows to invest in the question marks that are not self-sustaining Stars need a lot of reinvestments and as the market matures, stars will degenerate into cash cows and the process will be repeated. As for dogs, segment the markets and nurse the dogs to health or manage for cash

Three Paths to Success (cont’d) Relative Market Share High Low High Market Growth Rate Low

BCG Matrix (Three Paths to Failure)

 Over invest in cash cows and

under invest in question marks

 Trade further opportunities for present cash flow

 Under invest in the stars

 Allow competitors to gain share in a high growth market

 Over milked the cash cows

Three Paths to Failure (cont’d) Relative Market Share High Low High Market Growth Rate Low

PIMS (Profit Impact of Marketing Strategy) Program

 Database of nearly 3,800 SBUs  

Representing more than 500 firms Member firms have been in the program from 2 to 12 years The program provides

 Par ROI (Return of Investment)  Prediction of how ROI would change if policy change is made

Important Strategic Principles Derived From PIMS

 In the long run, product quality is the    

single most important factor affecting performance Market share and profitability closely correlated High-investment intensity reduces profitability Cash implications of growth rate and relative market share are affected by many factors Vertical integration is profitable for some business only

Examples of Application of some of the Principles of PIMS in ASPAC

Pursue of product quality

 Australian Quality Council  Hong Kong Awards for Industry (Quality cat.)  Japan Quality Award  Malaysia’s Prime Minister's Quality Award (Private Sector)  Philippines Quality Award  Singapore Quality Award  Sri Lanka’s National Quality Award Thailand Quality Award

Examples of Application of some of the Principles of PIMS in ASPAC (cont’d)

 Pursue of market share

 Nova Group and Europa Holdings of

Singapore expanding their pubs and restaurants business (Source: The Straits Times; Dec 10, 1992; pp.2)

 High investment reduces profitability

 The acquisition of new machinery caused a reduction in SM Summit Holdings gross margin SM (Source: SM Summit Holding’s Annual Report 2000)

Limitations of PIMS

 Key market-share variable is   

sensitive to product-market definition Other variables depend on subjective judgements Inherent limitations of crosssection analysis Sample biased toward larger firms that are industry leaders

GE(General Electric)/McKinsey Multi-Factor Matrix

 Originally developed by GE’s  

planners drawing on McKinsey’s approaches Market attractiveness is based on as many relevant factors as are appropriate in a given context Business-position assessment also made on a many factors

 SBU needs to be rated on each factor

GE Multifactor Portfolio Matrix High

Business Strengths

High

Industry Attractiveness Medium Low

Protect Position

Invest to Build

Build selectively

Selectively Limited Build Medium selectively manage for expansion earnings or harvest Low

Protect & Manage for refocus earnings

Divest

Invest/Grow Selectivity /earnings Harvest /Divest

GE Multifactor Portfolio Matrix (Cont’d) High

Industry Attractiveness Medium Low

Business Strengths

High

Medium

Invest/Grow Selectivity /earnings

Low

Harvest /Divest

Some Limitations of the GE Model

 Subjective measurements across SBUs  Process also highly subjective

 From the selection and weighting of

factors to the subsequent development of both a firm’s position and the market attractiveness

 Businesses may have been

evaluated with respect to different criteria