Differences Between BCG, IE, and Grand Strategy Matrix: Axis/Dimensions
The principles according to which the assessment is carried out can be deemed as the primary difference between the matrix types mentioned above. For instance, the BCG framework implies that the market share position and the industry growth rate should be compared to each other based on the analysis of four factors (“four quadrants,” i.e., question marks, cows, stars, and dogs).
IE, in its turn, requires splitting the information available in a nice-cell display. Similarly to the BCG Matrix, IE allows using a schematic diagram as the means of arranging the existing information. However, the data that it needs is much more numerous than the one used in the BCG Matrix. Moreover, each matrix suggests different implications for the further choice of an appropriate strategy.
The Grand Strategy Matrix, in its turn, suggests that the data should be arranged in four quadrants based on two primary concepts which are competitive position and market growth (Freeze 43).
Therefore, when defining the difference between the frameworks mentioned above, one must mention the fact that the three approaches imply different types of data arrangement. Particularly, the areas that the frameworks above suggest to arrange information differ greatly in terms of their number and the order, in which the information is presented. As a result, each of the matrices drives the audience’s attention to different factors.
Differences Between BCG, IE, and Grand Strategy Matrix: Content/Cells/Quadrant
Although each of the frameworks mentioned above implies that the information should be placed in quadrants or cells, the content thereof is quite different. For instance, the BCG framework is aimed at evaluating the relative market share position of the company by using the cells identified as “dogs,” “cash cows,” “stars,” and “question marks” (Enz 19). The IE matrix, in its turn, addresses the internal and external factors that affect the development of an organization, in general.
As a result, a variety of financial issues apart from the market share are evaluated in the framework. Also, the location of the actors in the quadrants of the model is defined by the implications that they have on the company. Finally, the Grand Strategy Matrix places each organization in one of the four quadrants based on the efficacy of the strategic position thereof. While the identified approach may seem similar to the one of the iE framework, the Grand Strategy Matrix focuses on the factors that define the strategic position only, whereas the IE tool may also help identify the items that determine the entrepreneurship’s competitive advantage, etc. The contextual difference between the frameworks mentioned above, therefore, concerns mostly the choice of factual information.
QSPM and Its Effects on SF
Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix, or QSPM, is a tool for evaluating the existing strategies and choosing the most appropriate one. Particularly, the model allows considering the strategic factors that define the success of the approach to be implemented. Although QSPM has its flaws, it is a generally strong tool that can be applied to evaluate the efficacy of a particular approach in the context of an organization.
As far as the financial operations of a company are concerned, it will be rather sensible to adopt the identified approach as it will serve as the foundation for outlining the numerous options that entrepreneurship has in the context of a particular environment. However, it would be wrong to rely on QSPM entirely as it may provide a rather superficial analysis of the existing options. Therefore, each of the strategies to be taken has to be analyzed separately so that the proper course of action should be chosen.
Please indicate and explain the 3 positions where should be the SBU in a company structure. Please explain the position in the case of an innovative-based company existing in the high-tech oriented market
As a rule, the SBU framework is applied in the context of a multidivisional organization and implies that entrepreneurship should be organized in three essential levels, or positions. The first one is the corporate headquarters, i.e., the focus of the essential operations. The second one includes the groups that function in the identified environment. The third one, in its turn, suggests that the elements of the second group should be arranged according to the market that they are aimed at and the product that they are supposed to promote.
For instance, Apple, Inc. could be split into the levels mentioned above in the following way: the first one will be the headquarters of the entrepreneurship (“Apple Specialized Business Unit” par. 2); the second one will include the groups that function in its environment, i.e., the variety of strategic business units existing in the organization. For instance, firm production embraces the goods that can be arranged into the SBUs such as software, hardware, applications, etc.
Please explain the differences between financial and strategic objectives
The difference between a financial and a strategic object is related to the area that they are derived from. As a rule, strategic objectives are related directly to the market environment, In other words, the goals that are based on the environment of a particular market are typically referred to as strategic objectives.
The financial objectives, in their turn, are based on the financial statements made by an organization. In other words, the goals that the members of entrepreneurship set after a financial analysis is carried out can be defined as financial objectives.
Consequently, the areas of the application of the objective are also different. Specifically, financial objectives are set in the context of the financial factors that define the evolution of the company (e.g., the change in the market shares), whereas the strategic ones focus on the process of promoting the product to the target audience (Nilanjan 58).
Give examples of strategic performance. Are they also used financial performance?
The concept of strategic performance is typically rendered as the activities that are aimed at promoting an increase in the overall efficacy of an organization (Osman 118). Seeing that the process above implies a consistent improvement in all domains of a company’s operations, it is reasonable to assume that strategic performance is linked directly to the financial one.
Indeed, a closer look at the recent change in Wal-Mart’s operations will reveal that the brand consolidation approach, which was aimed primarily at improving the marketing framework, led to altering the financial performance of the organization as the firm’s revenue reached an impressive amount of $60 bln (“Walmart Strategy Drives Growth and Sustainable Returns, Plans $20 Billion Share Repurchase Program over Two Years” par. 2).
What is the importance of the audit, especially for assessing the CFO by the CEO?
Unfortunately, financial fraud remains a consistent threat to the modern business environment. As the infamous case of Enron (Li 38) has shown, audits must be carried out regularly. Herein lies the importance of appointing the CEO for conducting audits, as the CFO may be dishonest with the company’s financial operations.
Is strategic management mostly art or mostly a science or equally both? Give an example for business and one from non-business
On the one hand, strategic management requires carrying out careful and accurate calculations and making choices based on the existing theories. Therefore, it can be assumed that the subject matter is linked to science closely. On the other hand, strategic management implies the necessity to approach problems from an original angle. Innovations are welcome in the target environment. Thus, strategic management has distinct features of an artistic process. Therefore, it should be viewed as a combination of art and science.
Works Cited
Apple Specialized Business Unit. 2013. Web.
Enz, Cathy A. Hospitality Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Print.
Freeze, Imo. The Evolution of Strategic Management: By Imo Freeze. Australia: InGeniusResults, 2013. Print.
Li, Yang. ”The Case Analysis of the Scandal of Enron.” International Journal of Business and Management, 5.10 (2010), 37-41. Print.
Nilanjan, Ray. Strategic Infrastructure Development for Economic Growth and Social Change. New York, NY: IGI Global, 2015. Print.
Osman, Ibrahim. Handbook of Research on Strategic Performance Management and Measurement Using Data Envelopment Analysis. New York, NY: IGI Global, 2013. Print.
Walmart Strategy Drives Growth and Sustainable Returns, Plans $20 Billion Share Repurchase Program over Two Years 2015. Web.