Complete A Growth Share BCG Matrix For An Organization

Complete A Growth Share Bcg Matrix For An Organization Of Your Choic

Complete a growth-share (BCG) matrix for an organization of your choice, along with a preparation worksheet in which you assess information for the matrix.

Introduction

A BCG matrix, also known as a growth-share matrix, identifies departments and divisions within an organization that should receive fewer resources than others. It may also identify divisions that can be divested. Every organization needs to communicate clear objectives. Analytical tools like BCG, a Boston Consulting Group evaluation of relative market share position and industry sales growth rate, and grand strategy matrix, a four-block model that recommends strategies based on competitive position and industry market growth, can improve the quality of strategic decisions, but leaders must make these choices.

Behavioral, cultural, and political aspects of the process and selection are important to manage. Boards of directors are assuming a more active role in strategy because of legal pressures.

Preparation

The following resources are required to complete the assessment.

Capella resources include the BCG Matrix Template [DOC]. It is recommended to review suggested readings and do additional research into completing a BCG matrix to prepare for this assessment.

Complete the following:

  • Select an organization with multiple divisions or product lines to analyze. For example, Apple would likely be considered to have multiple divisions, such as those associated with iTunes, iPods, iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers.
  • Assess your organization's key divisions by placing five column headings at the top of a worksheet: Divisions, Revenues, Profits, Market Share Position, and Industry Growth Rate.
  • Evaluate your organization's key divisions in each of these five categories. This information will provide the foundation necessary to complete a BCG matrix successfully.
  • Submit this worksheet along with your completed BCG matrix for your chosen organization.
  • It may be beneficial to compare and discuss your results with individuals from the organization.

Additional Requirements

  • Written communication must be free of errors that detract from the overall message.
  • Use current APA formatting for sources and citations.
  • Font should be Times New Roman, 12-point.

Paper For Above instruction

The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) matrix serves as a strategic management tool that helps organizations analyze their various divisions or product lines based on market growth and relative market share. This strategic framework enables companies to allocate resources effectively, prioritize investments, and identify divisions that warrant divestment or further development. The process involves understanding the internal and external factors influencing each division's position in the matrix, which provides insights critical for strategic planning and decision-making. For this analysis, I selected Apple Inc., a technology powerhouse with several distinct divisions, including iPhone, iPad, Mac, Wearables, and Services segments.

Preparation of the BCG matrix begins with assessing the organization's key divisions by gathering data on revenue, profits, market share, and industry growth rate. These metrics form the basis for plotting each division within the four quadrants of the matrix: Stars, Cash Cows, Question Marks, and Dogs. Each of these quadrants signifies a different strategic stance. For example, divisions classified as Stars hold high market share in fast-growing industries, thus requiring significant investment to sustain growth. Conversely, Cash Cows possess high market share in mature industries with low growth, generating steady cash flow with minimal investment need. Question Marks are divisions with low market share in high-growth sectors, demanding strategic evaluation to decide whether to invest further or divest. Dogs have low market share in low-growth industries and are often candidates for divestment or restructuring.

Applying this framework to Apple Inc., the iPhone division can be categorized as a Star due to its significant market share and the industry’s high growth rate, attributable to continuous innovation and consumer demand. The Services division, including iCloud, Apple Music, and App Store, also qualifies as a Star, supported by high industry growth and expanding market share. The Mac division, while still profitable, has seen slower growth, placing it in the Cash Cow quadrant, as it provides consistent revenue with less aggressive investment. Conversely, the iPad division has experienced fluctuating growth and market share, positioning it as a Question Mark, requiring strategic decisions about whether to invest or divest. Some of the accessory divisions, such as Beats headphones or AirPods, may fall into the Dog category, given their lower market share and growth prospects, suggesting a need for strategic review.

Creating a comprehensive assessment worksheet enhances the strategic clarity necessary for this process. The worksheet includes columns for divisions, revenues, profits, market share position, and industry growth rate. For each division, data collection involves analyzing annual reports, industry reports, and sales data. Such detailed data provides the requisite foundation for plotting divisions accurately within the matrix. The overall goal is to visualize where each division stands and develop strategies accordingly—whether that entails reinvesting in Stars, harvesting Cash Cows, evaluating options for Question Marks, or divesting Dogs.

Strategic implications drawn from the BCG matrix for Apple include prioritizing investments in high-growth, high-share divisions like iPhone and Services, while optimizing returns from Cash Cows like Mac and iPad through cost management. Divisions identified as Question Marks necessitate further market analysis to decide on investing or disinvesting, ensuring resource optimization aligned with long-term growth objectives. Divestment of low-performing units (Dogs) might release capital that could be reallocated to strategic emphasis areas, thus enhancing overall organizational performance.

References

  • Chesbrough, H. (2007). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Publishing.
  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2015). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization. Cengage Learning.
  • Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy. Pearson Education.
  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business Press.
  • Li, S., & Calantone, R. (1998). The Impact of Market Knowledge Competence on New Product Advantage: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 13-29.
  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press.
  • Yoffie, D. B., & Kim, R. (2021). Apple Inc. In Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Publishing.
  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2015). Blue Ocean Strategy, Expanded Edition: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Harvard Business Review Press.
  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
  • Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Publishing.

Related Assignments