Strategic Review
Clipboard Tablet Company operates in the communications industry. It manufactures and markets computer tablets. It has had three main products namely, X5, X6, and X7. The earliest model, namely X5, has been in the market for more than 7 years. Model X6 and X7 have been in the market for more than 6 and 5 years respectively.
Company strategic review seeks to determine the capacity of an organization to meet its target business requirements and goals. For the Clipboard Tablet Company, this strategy helps in the identification of past and the present state of the performance of X5, X6, and X7. This plan leads to an illustration of the company strengths, threats, existing opportunities, and more importantly, its weaknesses.
The information aids in the prioritization of areas that require change or attention. Different sensitivities of the Clipboards Tablet Company’s products imply that it has to market and price its products differently.
For instance, for the success of X5, its marketing has to be done as a low cost product while X6 needs to be marketed as a high performance product. This different promotional tactics can aid in segregation of the company’s markets. The strategy leads to the creation of different brand equities for different products.
The promotion strategy that was deployed by Joe Schmoe as the ex-company’s chair involved setting a financial plan for investigations and establishment of recommendable charges for X5, X6, and X7, which were somewhat constant between 2012 and 2015.
X5 traded at roughly $300 with an approximate $8,000,000 financial resources in research and design. X6 went for $ 430 with a research and design budget of $8,160,000. Finally, X7 was placed in the market at a price of $190 with a budget allocation of $7, 920, 000 for research and design.
Irrespective of the sales levels and price fluctuations of the tablets, Joe Schmoe planned to maintain a budget for research and design constantly at $24, 000,000 over the years from 2012 to 2015. This observation suggests a strong belief of the company in the strategy of product improvements through research and design to drive sales.
In fact, this strategy was effective in the extent that the company’s overall profitability increased from 10% in 2011 to 26% in 2012. However, the strategy does not reflect strengths of each of the products in the market.
For instance, even though X6 customers mainly worry about its performance as opposed to price fluctuations, no budgetary allocation, especially for placing the products in the market as high performance product, was considered by the marketing VP. Clipboard Company could have increased its profits margin by increasing prices for X6 by positioning and creating brand image of high performance in its potential consumers.
Different success strategies are effective for a given period and for products at different phases of their life cycle. This claim also applies to the case of utilizing research and design as a strategy for increasing profitability of an organization. For instance, Clipboard Tablet Company had an increase of 40 percent in sales of its X5 brand in 2011 to 2012. As a result, the company earned a profit margin of $139,504,962.
This figure was an increase by 16% to settle at 30% profitability increase up from 14% in 2011. The total costs for the organization also raised by 30 percent. These changes were also accompanied by changes in the company’s market saturation for X5. It increased from 15 percent in 2011 to 27 percent in 2012. This increase highlights a product that is approaching the maturation phase in its life cycle.
X5 also acquired immense success since its repeat customers doubled in 2012. Upon considering that the performance of the X5 brand was at its peak, Clipboard Tablet Company could have considered it beneficial to reduce budgetary allocations for its research and development in 2013. However, as revealed before, its budgetary allocation for research and development has remained constant.
This observation evidences a weakness in the change of strategy to improve profitability of the organization since cutting down research and design budget would have resulted in higher profit margins for model X in 2013.
Market research theory suggests that ensuring customer connections and their retention requires the creation of a dialogue that is sensible with the customers. Holt and Quelch (2010) assert, “The importance of brand in a business strategy affirms a paradigm of calculating its economic value called brand equity” (p.73). Brand equity encompasses a long-term investment that an organization has to manage effectively.
It measures the economic worth of an organization. Without effective management of the brand equity for Clipboard Tablet Company, it is practically impossible to gain optimal profitability.
Organizations that are globalizing their brands face the problem of seeking various ways of improving their brand equity. This challenge is particularly significant for an organization that is attempting to position its products that have varying customer appeals such as the case of Clipboard Tablet Company.
Upon considering that Clipboard Tablet Company customers value different characteristics of products while making purchases, it implies that the organization needs to create different brand equities, inventories, and loyalties. Unfortunately, the strategy deployed by the marketing VP has no clear indication of these aspects.
For instance, the budgetary allocation for X7 is equal to budgetary allocation of X5 for 2012 to 2015 ($7,920,000), yet X5 customers are concerned only with the product prices. X7 customers are also interested with the performance of the product and not its price.
While this situation sounds as a weakness for the company, it is an opportunity, which can help in redefining the company’s success. Clipboard Tablet Company can reduce budgetary allocation for X5 in research to improve its performance, especially by noting that it has reached the maturity phase as discussed before.
The savings on X5 can be channeled to further research and development of X7, which was introduced in the market in 2012, and is still in the growth phase. For X7, apart from investing in the product research and development to improve its performance, the strategy of investing in the emerging new cost-cutting production techniques can also change the company profitability equation.
In fact, the marketing VP for the company set the price of the products at $190, yet customers needed less costly products of superior performance. This claim suggests that the success of the X7, now and in the future, depends on exploration of low-cost strategy in production so that the company can position it as a low-cost brand without compromising its performance expectations.
Although investing in high-tech low-cost production technologies is expensive, X6 serves as a major strength for the company in terms of availing financial resources. Its customers are insensitive to prices. Thus, with little investment in research and development for its performance, the company can raise its market price without harming its demand.
Organizational Diagnosis
Organizational analysis involves a comprehensive approach that details both inside and outside forces that interact with an organization. Holt and Quelch (2010) state that it leads to the development of a clear understanding on organizational weaknesses, threats, opportunities, and strengths whilst laying a foundation of understanding their environmental implications on the success of an organization.
In an effort to develop the capacity for reproducing the approach for 2016, a promotion model is applied to help in predicting and assessing the outcome of every item in the four years starting from 2012. The main objective of forecasting rests in the need for maximization of profits in a bid to increase the performance of Clipboard Tablet Company.
This ambition can be accomplished by harmonizing of overheads and merchandise costing strategies (Clancy, Kreig & Wolf, 2006). Over the four years, beginning 2012 and ending in December 2015, the company experienced higher growth in terms of total sales, profit, and revenues.
However, marketing performance of different products experiences fluctuations due to changes in marketing saturation while the different products transcend from one phase to another in the product development cycle.
In 2012, Clipboard Tablet Company sold X5 at 285 dollars, X6 at 430 dollars, and X7 at 190 dollars. It allocated its costs for X5 at 33 percent, X6 at 34 percent, and X7 at 33 percent. Through the sales of 3,102,177 dollars, it gained annual revenue amounting to $1,055,294,575 dollars. While research and design costs stood at $784,720,740, its profits margin rose by 26 percent or $270,573,835.
Among the three models, X5 recorded the highest sales (1,647,592), thus garnering an annual revenue amounting to $469,563,809 and profits of $139,504, 962 or 30 percent of yearly sales revenue for X5. X7, which was introduced in the market for the first time in 2012 recorded a 73% drop of sales from 165,586 compared to a loss of 0% in 2011.
In summary, in 2012, both X5 and X7 recorded an increase in profit margins while X7 was on a decline. These findings represent the growths phase for X5 and X6, with X5 getting nearly in the maturity phase for product development. X7 was at the infancy phase.
In 2013, the prices for X5, X6, and X7 remained as in 2012. The company allocated its costs for X5 at 34 percent, X6 at 33 percent, and X7 at 33 percent. Compared to 2012, all the products recorded positive profit margins in 2013 with a clear indication of future growth. Total company sales rose to 4,517,754. By selling 2, 145, 622 units of X5, the product yielded 34% profit, a 4% increase compared to 2012.
Upon selling 2,134,931 units, the profit for X6 model increased by 3 percent. X7 trailed with sales of 237, 202. However, during this year, it recorded a loss of 30%. This finding showed a significant stride towards obtaining positive figures for X7 sales.
In 2014, the company decided to take advantage of customer sensitivity in terms of the prices of X7 in the effort to boost its sales volumes. It changed the price from $190 to $170 or a 10.5% decrease in the previous year’s price. The cost allocations and prices for X6 and X5 did not change.
The effects of these changes encompassed a reduction of the total sales and profits that had been derived from X5 and X6 sales, which were then in the maturity phase about to start declining in terms of sales volumes. However, their decline was enough to encourage positive sales growth for X7.
Decreasing the price of X7 is inconsistent with Joe Schmoe’s strategy of maintaining the prices and cost allocation for design and development constant from 2012 to 2015. The overall profits were at 30%, as derived from sales of 4,630,914 units of X5, X6, and X7. This figure translates to $1,608,712,408 in terms of year revenue.
X5 profits margin decreases form 34 to 32% while X6 improves from 31% to 32% using 2013 as the reference year. In terms of total sales for each product, X6 and X5 are declining while X7 is shooting to register a 0% in profitability. In this case, it has reached the break-even point, meaning that the total cost of its production and marketing is equivalent to its total dollar sales.
In 2015, the company will eliminate X5 from the market, as its market will be saturated (94%). Very few people (394,921) out of the installed capacity (6,640,079) will be in need of the product. More resources are committed to research and development of X7, which has a market saturation of 4% in 2014, although it is expected to be 5% in 2015 with only 972,506 customers being served in 2015 and 16,867,494 yet to be served.
Since customers are sensitive to prices, it will continue to sell at $170 while X6 will sell at $430 by January 2016 with the cost for each being set at 50%. Since the market for X6 will also be saturated (93%) in 2015, more profits for Clipboard Tablet Company, and hence its performance, would come from the sales of X7.
The total number of units sold for X7 will be 479,872. This outcome will generate 21% profitability. This observation clearly shows that X7 will then start to take the place of X5 in generating revenue for Clipboard Tablet Company.
Upon considering the marketing information relating to years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, X6 prices seem higher than other products on offer in the market. In 2012, the sales were in the phase of rapid growth of product development life cycle, with many potential customers not purchasing the product. X5’s performance coincided with other products in a similar category. The gain in collective earnings stood at $ 352,144,973.
In 2013, the growth in market saturation for X7 began, with over 95% potential customers not buying it to imply a below par performance when compared to the competing products that are already available in the tablet market. Combined gain for this year in terms of income was close to $ 850,000,000 while that of 2014 was roughly1, 300,000,000.
Promotion information for 2015 indicates that clients will be remunerated equivalent charges for the company’s items compared to the rival goods in the relevant lines. However, productions of X5 will be stopped as the cumulative score hits 1,473,237,118, which is the highest in comparison with all other years starting from 2012.
In 2016, apart from aligning the prices of the X6 and X7 with market prices to increase sales, balances in allocating cost will also constitute essential strategies for ensuring continuous sustainable profitability. Since the total cumulative sales score for 2015 will be 1,315,627,937, which is higher than all the four years, as the new marketing executive for Clipboard Tablet Company, I have done better in relation to Joe Schmoe.
Input Diagnosis
The input diagnosis for Clipboard Tablet Company looks at the input for the different models that are used to arrive at the total profits. The input in organizations determines how the organization performs after the subtraction of all the incurred costs. For the Clipboard Tablet Company, input decisions are critical in enhancing the company’s success.
The main input in any business enterprise is the capital where entrepreneurs invest significant amounts of money to ensure that they arrive at the final targets.
Clipboard Tablet Company and its many brands made a number of inputs, which contributed to the current and expected returns, including the available capital in the organization. The costs incurred by this organization are also those that are used by the organization to generate the final profits.
During the period starting from 2014, Clipboard Tablet Company had a stable input in the form of costs and capital. The company invested most of the money obtained from the previous years in the organization. It used this money to expand its operations.
The input into this organization may be divided into fixed and variable costs. All the brands of the organization had their respective fixed and variable input costs, which contributed to the general costs in the organization. 2014 has some of the most variable of these costs. The variable cost for this year stands at 946,707,952, which is significantly large for an organization of this size and nature.
The variable costs in an organization are the costs that fluctuate based on some controlling variables. They determine the overall organizational profit. The variable costs in Clipboard Tablet Company include the cost of marketing and advertising that the organization incurred over the described period.
The marketing and advertising costs in the organization were significantly large for 2024, with this situation contributing to the overall unpredictable costs. The organization also had variable costs in the form of overheads. The performance of the local and international markets contributed to the alteration of the variable costs, including overheads in the organization.
The variable costs in an organization are dependent on the prevailing economic conditions in addition to other factors, and hence the changes seen between 2014 and 2015. An organization’s performance may be accessed through the difference between the input and output costs. These costs contribute to the calculation of profit in these organizations. There is evident change between the variable costs in 2014 and 2015.
The efficiency of an organization may also be assessed using the variable costs that the organization posts with respect to how they are distributed among the various products and services in the organization. The dawn of 2015 saw changes in variable costs, with a reduction of over 450,000,000. The company had variable costs of 478,445,847 during this year. These costs were mainly being distributed between X5, X6, and X7 brands.
The management was able to reduce the variable costs for the three brands, with the greatest of this reduction occurring in the X6 model. The variable costs for this model were at 277,976548, with those projected for 2015 being 144,566,341. The change in variable cost for this model indicated that the performance of the brand between 2014 and 2015 was set to improve.
The other brands also experienced significant changes in their variable costs, with the X6 model having variable costs of 650,116,782. The cost reduces to 307,489,042 for 2015, with this change reflecting the performance of the brand and the prioritization in the organization.
The last model of X7 that the organization produced also recorded a significant change in the variable costs. This model is the only one in the organization that had a positive change in these costs. The variable costs for 2014 were 18,614,622, with the year that followed having costs of 26,390,464.
The positive change in this amount may be explained by the desire of the organization to market the brand. The X7 model has the least input in the form of variable costs among the three brands. The reasons behind the few charges may be explained by the prioritization that the organization has put on the brand.
Fixed costs in an organization also form part of the input. While these charges are constant, variation occurs between the different products in the company. For example, Clipboard Computer Company is one of the organizations with fixed costs that vary between the different brands.
The organization had a fixed cost of 150,000,000 for 2014. The costs remained constant for the year that followed, indicating stagnation in the market and the organization. The fixed costs in any organization may indicate the performance of an organization. They may be used to gauge its future success.
Predictably, the fixed costs for the different brands in Clipboard Computer Company remain the same for the period of two years. The X5 model had a fixed cost of 75,000,000 in 2014, with the same cost reflecting in 2015. The variable cost for X6 was constant for 2014 at 37,500,000, with expectations of the same for 2015.
The X7 model had a fixed cost of 37,500,000 for 2014. These costs remained the same for 2015. The X6 and X7 models have similar fixed costs for the two years. However, this similarity is not evident on the variable costs of the two models.
The other costs in the organization that may be described as part of the input are the R&D costs. These costs also contribute to the assessment of input within organizations. The R&D costs within Clipboard Computer Company remain constant for 2014 and 2015. The cost is 7,920,000 for the two consecutive years.
The constant R&D costs are not only reflected in the company as a whole, but also in the individual brands within the organization. However, the company has managed to restrict the R&D costs in the organization to make the organization more profitable and manageable. Any organization that is willing to achieve the same should target on reducing the R&D costs while they operate.
The total costs that the organization hopes to incur increase from 2014 to 2015. The expected total costs for 2015 are 71,810,464, an increase from the previous year’s total costs of 64,034,622.
The bulk of these costs go to production where the organization spends significant sums of money in the procurement of the raw materials and other components. Clipboard Computer Company also spends significant sums of money in advertising and marketing of its products. The assessment shows that the organization is well positioned in terms of costs. Although the input is increasing, it is adequate to assure profitability.
Output Diagnosis
Business management executives require skills in decision-making processes for them to arrive at strategic decisions that enhance the performance of their organizations. Over the last five decades, scholarly research has recognized the importance of strategic decision making in organizational success.
Strategic decisions are “important in terms of the taken actions, the committed resources, or the set precedents” (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 2006, p.17). The Clipboard Tablet Company has had significant performance in the different brands that it produces.
The output diagnosis for this organization can be made based on the revenue that the organization generated over the past few years and the current year of operation (Homburg, Artz, & Wieseke, 2012).
However, the actual performance of an organization is only measured through the profitability that it attains, or in the accomplishment of the set organizational objectives for a given period. Clipboard Tablet Company has had significant improvement over the years in terms of revenues and profits that have been collected over the past five-year period.
The most consistent model in this organization is the X7 that has had a relatively slow but continuous increase in the collected revenues. Two of the other products in the organization recorded a major increase in their revenues between 2011 and 2013, with revenue collection beginning to drop over the same year for the X5 model.
The revenue for this model will continue to drop even in 2015, with the value reaching the one that was originally attained in 2011. The revenue collection for the X6 model continues to increase until 2014, despite a reduction in the rate of increase for the revenues between 1013 and 2014. The brand X6 has a reduction in revenue collection after 2014, with a sharp decline occurring in this period.
The other output whose assessment contributes in the output diagnosis is the profit within the organization over the same period. T
he company records a growth in profit that corresponds to the revenue collection. The three different products from this company generate different profits for the organization, with each of the products having independent changes in the profit growth. The revenue collection for each of the different products closely resembles the profitability of these products, including the income from the least performing model X7.
The most profitable of the three products in 2011 was the X5 model followed by X6. This order changes between 2011 and 2012, with a tangential increase in profitability taking place for X6 between 2012 and 2013.
The profitability for the X5 product takes a dip in 2013, with a slowdown in profitability being evident in the X6 model after the same year. X6 profitability reduces after 2014, with profits from X5 also taking the same path. The only consistent profitability among all brands between 2012 and 2015 is the X7 model whose profitability continues to rise after 2012 until 2015.
Between 2014 and 2015, the profitability of Clipboard Tablet Company reduced. The profits for the year 2014 were 488,298,787, compared to the profits that were recorded in 2015 at 194,198,305. The respective profitability is 30% and 23% for the two years. As previously stated, the most profitable brand was the X6 model for 2014 and 2015.
However, the model’s profits changed from 320,769,459 for 2014 to those obtained in 2015, which stood at 127,652,006. Therefore, the model saw a marked reduction in profitability over the same period, with this observation indicating that the organization needed to increase marketing for the product.
X5 continued to perform poorer in 2014 compared to previous years, with the performance reducing through 2015. The profits that this model generated in 2015 were 47,189,707, which was a drop from the previous year’s performance of 167,258,894. The profitability of the X7 brand was dismal for the years of analysis. However, there was an increase in the profitability of this product between 2014 and 2015.
The brand made a profit of 19,356,593 for the organization in 2015, which was an improvement from the performance of the previous year, which stood at 270,435. Despite the performance of these different models over the indicated period, the prices remained constant for the three brands.
The other measure that was used to assess the output of the organization is the sales volume in the organization for the various products. The product with the most significant sales volume was X5 for the period between 2011 and 2013, with this volume increasing over the same period. However, the sales volume for X6 overtook those for X5 in 2013 when the former model’s sales volume plummeted.
The increase in sales volume for X6 was short-lived, with a reduction occurring after 2014. The brand with the least sales volume over the discussed period is the X7 product whose sales volume remained low for the period under investigation.
The performance of the organization based on the sales volume, the revenues, and profits provides a positive outlook for this organization. An organization’s performance may be gauged by the output that it generates over a given period.
Therefore, the performance of Clipboard Tablet Company can easily be deduced from the sales volume, the profits within the organization, and the amount of collected revenues. All these values are important in arriving at the final profitability of the organization.
The profitability of Clipboard Tablet Company over the five years of assessment demonstrates that the organization performed well between 2011 and 2014. The company continued on positive performance for this period due to the large sales volume and revenues. The revenue generated by an organization allows external parties to calculate the estimated profits of the organization.
These earnings are used to project its future profitability (Homburg et al., 2012). The future performance of Clipboard Tablet Company is in question, following the organization’s recent performance between 2014 and 2015. If the company continues in the downward trend in revenue collection and sales volume, the profits will continue reducing and eventually lead to loss generation.
The output analysis shows that there is a need to change the existing frameworks within the organization to ensure continued positive performance in this organization. The output analysis also reveals that the different brands perform differently, with the X7 performing significantly poor compared to the other models.
However, this brand provides the key to the future performance of Clipboard Tablet Company because of the increase in sales and revenue observed for the brand compared to the reducing performance of the other models. The organization should focus on products that perform well in the market and/or whose future looks promising. Therefore, the company should invest in the marketing and advertising of the X7.
System Feedback Loops
The system feedback loops in an organization are important guides in the future performance of this organization. The desired output within an organization determines the system feedback loops, with organization altering their performance to achieve specific outcomes (Homburg et al., 2012). The output in a system is used to influence future output from the same system (Unni, Sarala, Taras, & Tarba, 2013).
In the case of Clipboard Tablet Company, the feedback loop should focus on maximizing the output of the organization in terms of revenues, sales, and profits. The organization’s output in the areas discussed above should be used in the system feedback loop to ensure a positive performance in the subsequent years.
The output value for Clipboard Tablet Company in terms of profit is 167,258,894 for 2014. This output value if used in a feedback loop to alter the performance of the organization for the next year should ensure that the organization’s output stabilizes or improves. The reverse is true, with the organization performing significantly poor because of a reduction in the output value.
For 2016, the organization’s managers should implement a feedback loop that allows the organization to position itself in a profit-making situation. Between 2014 and 2015, the system feedback loop should provide a negative feedback that will allow the organization to act in a manner as to control the profitability of the organization.
Positive feedback in a feedback loop ensures that the output in an organization is encouraged, including ensuring that the organization generates enough output to assure profitability in the following years. On the other hand, a negative feedback loop will discourage poor performance through institution of measures that are aimed at curtailing the poor performance.
The negative feedback loop that should have been used in the Clipboard Tablet Company to ensure a return to original values of profitability includes improved marketing and advertising. The organization should have an elaborate campaign to aggressively market the various brands under production. The other plan will be to make the organization more successful through the provision of better pricing of different products.
Negative feedback entails dissuading the organization and its stakeholders on negative performance and reduced output. Clipboard Tablet Company should mainly utilize negative feedback to improve its performance on various products such as the X5 and X6.
The market for these products may improve with adequate advertising and marketing, with changes being made in the administrative activities towards the production of these models. The organization should also embark on a sensitization campaign for the public and a reduction of inefficiencies, which lead to poor performance.
The other negative feedback methods that are applicable in the organization above include the provision of incentives to employees and other stakeholders on the improvement of the organization’s performance. In organizations where performance and profitability have reduced significantly in the past, managers often alter their staff to compensate for the drops in the profits and other outcome measures.
The commonest negative feedback method is a reduction of the workforce where organizations engage in mass retrenchment of employees. This method leads to improved performance through the reduced operations cost of the organization (Homburg et al., 2012). Many organizations have managed to improve their performance through the institution of negative opinion in their systems feedback loop through a reduction of employees.
Positive feedback is not applicable for some of the organization’s output such as the profits. The organization continues to perform poorly for 2014 and 2015 in terms of profit. Positive feedback is not a way of altering this performance.
The application of a positive reaction in the systems feedback loops occurs where the desired outcome is achieved. The organization is only left with the option of encouraging stakeholders to continue with this performance. The only area where positive performance may be applied is in the output for X7. This model is consistent with the output, despite the volumes reported being low.
The organization should embark on ways to improve the performance of x7, including marketing it as the company’s main brand. Such positive feedback could increase the output for this model, while at the same time guaranteeing the positive performance of the organization.
When positive feedback is applied in the system feedback loop in organizational performance, the outcome is encouraged (Homburg et al., 2012). The results of positive feedback often include the positive performance of the organization in question, but these are not always a guarantee.
The system feedback that should be used at Clipboard Tablet Company should entail both the positive and negative feedback. The application of both feedback pathways should ensure an improved performance in this organization in terms of output.
The output in these organizations is mainly in the form of sales volumes, profits, and revenue. When these outputs are considered individually for the different models, managers in the organization have a chance to target the different aspects of the outputs to improve on the organizational performance.
The company continues to perform well because there is profitability, despite the indications that the future will have reduced profits or even losses. Therefore, the actions in the system feedback loops as discussed above need to be taken in the near future if the organization is to improve in performance. The feedback systems in place at the organization have been effective over the past few years.
However, there is a need to change these systems, as they seem to have been overtaken by time based on the performance for 2015 and 2014. The change of system feedback loop may be done through changes in management and other stakeholders.
Judging from the performance of Clipboard tablet Company over the last three years, it is evident that the organization needs to change the tactics that it applied in the system. System feedback loops are not fixed. They should vary based on the desired performance of an organization.
When organizations desire encouraging performance from a previous positive outcome, positive feedback should be employed. However, negative feedback is mostly applied where organizations report negative outcomes (Homburg et al., 2012). These measures are adopted as part of the resolutions within the organization.
Clipboard Tablet Company has effective system feedback loops, which are effective only for a short period. The organization has had significant success in the application of these loops. Therefore, it should ensure that they help it achieve the best results for the future.
The other level of feedback loops that the organization should experiment with is the institution of marketing and advertising for all he products. Clipboard Tablet Company can reverse the profitability trends for the last few years by applying the feedback loops.
Reference List
Clancy, K., Krieg, P., & Wolf, M. (2006). Market New Products Successfully. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Eisenhardt, K., & Zbaracki, M. (2006). Strategic Decision Making. Strategic Management Journal, 13(3), 17-37.
Holt, A., & Quelch, T. (2010) How Global Brands Compete. Harvard Business Review, 7(3), 68-75.
Homburg, C., Artz, M., & Wieseke, J. (2012). Marketing Performance Measurement Systems: Does Comprehensiveness Really Improve Performance? Journal Of Marketing, 76(3), 56-77.
Unni, P., Sarala, M., Taras, V., & Tarba, Y. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: A meta-analysis. Academy Of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299-312.