某著名咨询公司企业战略培训资料.ppt

THE CONCEPT OF STRATEGY,HENDERSONS CENTRAL IDEAS,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,Real UnitCost,Cumulative Experience,(85%slope),.,.,.,.,.,Profit,Market Share,The Experience Curve,The Value of Market Share,The Corporate Portfolio,Relative Market Share,MarketGrowth,PORTERS CENTRAL IDEAS,Entry BarriersEconomies of scaleProprietary product differencesBrand identitySwitching costsCapital requirementsAccess to distributionAbsolute cost differences:Proprietary learning curve Access to inputs Product designGovernment policyExpected retaliation,Supplier PowerInput differentiationSeller switching costsPresence of substitutesSupplier concentrationImportance of volumeCost relative to total purchasesThreat of forward integration,Industry Rivalry Industry growthFixed cost/value addedIntermittent overcapacityProduct differencesBrand identitySwitching costsConcentration&balanceInformation complexityDiversityCorporate stakesExit barriers,Buyer PowerBargaining leverageBuyer concentrationBuyer volumeBuyer switching costsBuyer informationAbility to backward integrateSubstitute productsPull-throughPrice sensitivity,Substitution ThreatRelative price/performance of substitutesSwitching costs,Strategic Advantage,Strategic Target,Broad,Narrow,Low Cost,Differentiation,BroadCost,Focus Cost,Broad Differentiation,FocusDifferentiation,The Value Chain,Successive stages of value-added,Jockeying for positionamong currentcompetitors,The industry,Threat ofnew entrants,Threat ofsubstituteproducts,Bargainingpower ofcustomers,Bargainingpower ofsuppliers,Sources:Porters Writings,Structure versus BehaviorWHY STRUCTURAL SEGMENTS MATTERThe Premises of Traditional Competitive Theory,Structural segments can be identified objectivelyThey can be measuredThey are stableThey differentiate among competitorsDifferences in structural segments explain differences in profitsThe value of dominating structural segments can be specifiedThe method for dominating structural segments can be specified,DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BCGS AND PORTERSCONCEPTS OF STRATEGY,BCG:The MissionaryPrescriptiveRefutableSpecificChallengingGeneralizing from the isolated experiment,Porter:The SchoolmanDescriptiveTautologicalGeneralResonatingSynthesizing from multiple instances,The Structural Paradigm of Strategy ContentSEGMENT POSITIONING,WE,Products,White Space,(Pre-empt),(Identify),Disputed Space,Enclosed Space,(Consolidate),THEY,THEY,THEY,Products,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,Cumulative Experience,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,Experience Curve,Multidimensional Scaling,Supply Curve,A,B,C,The Structural Paradigm of ManagementADDITIVITY,The performance of a system can best be understood analytically,as the sum of the performances of sub-units.Through disaggregation of profitability and of the value-chainRelying largely on accounting measures of performanceOrganizations should be designed using:Markets where information exchange is of low value or low cost Hierarchies where information exchange is of high value and high costHence the philosophy of decentralized profit centers and corporate controlIncluding the analysis of shareholder value by businessand the apparent nullity of corporate strategyHence,also,the emphasis on accountability and individual motivation,The Structural Paradigm of ChangeDESIGN,Strategy formulation is a process of controlled and conscious thoughtStrategy is formulated by the CEO(or by a small group)Strategy is simpleStrategy should be uniqueStrategy emerges from this thought process fully-formedStrategy should be explicit and articulatedImplementation occurs only after formulation is complete,Challenges to the Structural ParadigmsCOUNTER-EXAMPLES,Honda,Motorola,NEC,Wal-Mart,and dozens of others:Scored spectacular reverses against corporations practicing/exemplifying the three standard paradigmsRarely have explicit strategies,except at the crudest levelAttacked competitors head-on instead of segmenting away from themDeliberately mismatch goals against current strengths&weaknessesFormulate strategy incrementally among middle management,rather than through an elite and deliberative processEvolve continuously in response to success or failureP&G,GM Saturn,and dozens of others:Attempted big attacks,and failed,Challenges to the Structural ParadigmsSEVEN TRENDS,Exhaustion of the incremental advantage from structural playsVarietyDemanded at any point in time smaller segmentsOffered through time briefer segmentsFaster technology changeGlobalizationRedefines market shareInformation technologies Permit finer understanding and greater flexibilityImplementation gapBCGs own practiceRejection of the machine bureaucracy,The New Paradigm:Behavior THE NEW LOCUS OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE,The key competitive advantage lies increasingly with behavior,rather than structureLess:factor cost,product,segment,locationwhat you haveAnd more:innovation,speed,quality,customer response,understanding customer needswhat you doAnd the behavior that results from the strategy becomes indistinguishable for that which formulates it,Time,A,B,C,D,A,B,C,D,The Global Pharmaceutical IndustrySTRUCTURAL DRIVERS OF PROFITABILITY?,Economies of Scale,R&D Expenditure,15,20,25,10,5,1500,2500,3500,4500,Sales(Average 1985-1989),Returnon Sales(%),Upjohn,SK,Ciba,BM,Pfizer,Lilly,Merck,Glaxo,15,20,25,10,5,350,250,R&D Expenditure(Average 1985-1989),Returnon Sales(%),Upjohn,SK,Ciba,BM,Pfizer,Lilly,Merck,Glaxo,450,550,500,400,300,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,0,5,10,15,20,25,30,0,2,4,6,8,10,12,The Global Pharmaceutical IndustryBEHAVIORAL DRIVERS OF PROFITABILITY,Drug Development Time,Ability to Identify High Potential Compounds,Returnon Sales(%),Returnon Sales(%),Average time from US IND to NDA Filing(Index),Average Clinical Gain of Drugs Externally Licenced(Index,as rated by the FDA),Upjohn,SK,Ciba,Pfizer,Lilly,Merck,Glaxo,Bristol Meyers,Upjohn,SK,Ciba,Pfizer,Lilly,Merck,Glaxo,Bristol M,The Global Pharmaceutical IndustryCOMPETITIVE POSITIONING IN CAPABILITIES SPACE,External Innovativeness Index1,Squibb,Ciba,Merck,Pfizer,Bristol,SK,Schering,Upjohn,Glaxo,Roche,Lilly,1.Average innovativeness(as rated by the FDA)of licensed drugs approved by the FDA in the 1980s.2.Time from U.S.IND filing to NDA filing,The Global Pharmaceutical IndustryCOMPETITIVE POSITIONING IN CAPABILITIES SPACE,-80%,-60%,-40%,-20%,0%,20%,40%,60%,0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,Structure versus BehaviorWHY CAPABILITIES MATTERThe Premises of New Competitive Theory,Capabilities can be identified objectivelyThey can be measuredThey are stableThey differentiate among competitorsDifferences in capabilities explain differences in profitsThe value of building capabilities can be specifiedThe method for building capabilities can be specified,The Behavioral Paradigm of Strategy ContentCAPABILITIES-BASED POSITIONING,WE,Products,White Space,(Pre-empt),(Identify),Disputed Space,Enclosed Space,(Consolidate),THEY,THEY,THEY,Capabilities,The Behavioral Paradigm of ManagementNETWORK,Information technology enables nodal information flowsTeams are more effective than markets and hierarchiesEmpowerment is worth more than accountabilityShared purpose(vision)is worth more than controlThe informal organization is more valuable than the formalThe performance of a system must be understood holisticallySystems dynamics,not accounting analysisAssets may be additive,but capabilities are multplicativeThe role of organization is to facilitate the flow of knowledge among nodes,The Behavioral Paradigm of ChangeLEARNING,The world is too complex and too fast moving for centralized,deliberate strategies to be feasible or valid for longEmployees at all levels need and expect challenge,responsibility and freedom to innovateThey need to own the strategy Adaptation needs to occur:Continuously,not continuallyAt all levels of the organization,not just the topIn response to events,not abstracted from themStrategy formulation and implementation are continuous and mutually modifying,STRUCTURAL VERSUS BEHAVIORAL PARADIGMS,Segment Positioning Competitive advantage is achieved in product/market spaceAdditivity The performance of an organization is the sum of the performances of its partsDesign Strategy and implementation are separate processes,STRUCTURAL,STRATEGY,MANAGE-MENT,CHANGE,BEHAVIORAL,Capabilities Positioning Competitive advantage is achieved in capabilities space Network The performance of an organization depends on its behavior as a systemLearning Thought,action and experience are intertwined,not sequential,AN EXAMPLETime Based Competition,Segment Positioning TBC cannot be understood as a new segmentAdditivity The problem addressed by TBC arises from managing each value-added step or function separately Design TBC cannot be implemented through a grand plan,Capabilities Positioning But it can be understood as a new capability Network But the OE methodology comprises managing the system as an integrated wholeLearning But it can be implemented through collaboration and incrementalism,STRUCTURAL,BEHAVIORAL,STRATEGY,MANAGE-MENT,CHANGE,AN ANALOGYThe Advent of Mechanized Warfare 1916-1936,FROM:Static,positional,defensiveInfrequent,major assaults Concentration of strengthPreparatory logisticsFront line numbersCentralized staff planningDeterministic planningFunctional divisions,TO:Mobile,tactical,aggressiveContinuous operationsSurprise,speedBattlefield logisticsIntelligence,technologyField commandImprovisational Joint operations,BCGs CONSULTING METHOD,Identify key capabilities&competences required in the businessMeasure the clients capabilities and competences Map the competitive space Identify how trends will change the mapDevelop the strategy Specify the platforms required to enable the strategyAssess the current platforms in relation to the ideal Build the new platforms,BCGs CONSULTING METHOD,Identify the key capabilities&competences required in your businessThose that your organization is pursuing-beliefs auditThose that competitors are pursuing-competitive assessmentThose that customers value-focus groups,market interviews Measure your capabilities and competences Your performance versus the best competitors-benchmarkingTheir value to the customer-behavioral research,conjointRelation of capabilities to profitability-profitability analysis,BCGs CONSULTING METHOD,Map the competitive space strategic mappingDimensions of the space(capabilities,competences,products,markets)Relative positioning(competitive advantage)Value potential(where the paying customers are)Identify how the map will change trends analysisDemand-side:trends in capabilities expected/valued by the customerSupply-side:trends in technologies that enable new capabilitiesCompetitive and regulatory trends,BCGs CONSULTING METHOD,Develop the strategy strategic analysisFocussing on,or investing in,or leveraging offA current capability or a competence or a product/market positionTo achieve a new capability or competence or product/market positionThat offers a desired combination of profit and growth Specify the ideal platforms required by the strategy platform specificationDefine a small list of required platforms,one per capabilitySpecify the content of each separately,in terms of:-information systems,-human resource management policies,-organizational structure,-common culture,-systems dynamics(ie.internal process flows)and-shared vision,BCGs CONSULTING METHOD,Assess the current platforms in relation to the idealIdentify gapsSet priorities Build the new platform Acquisitions,alliances corporate developmentInternal restructuring change managementLearning by doing OEInformation systems IT architectureMeasures of progress in gaining capabilities capability metrics,diagnostics:organizationinformationOEculture human resources,An Agenda for the FutureSOME HYPOTHESES TO TEST,Capability differences explain variations in company or industry profitability more than do structural differencesCapability differences are more stable than structural differencesAll capabilities can be measuredCapability differences determine(and therefore predict)structural differences more than the reverseSegmentation is emerging in which different competitors each excel at different capabilities rather than differ in their success at a single capability(or a covariant set of capabilities),An Agenda for the FutureSOME HYPOTHESES TO TEST,Industries can evolve from structural-to capability-based competition;they can also evolve:From competing on one capability to competing on another(or others)From competing on capabilities to competing on structureAssociated with each generic capability is a characteristic and different set of platform elementsA key process can be optimized only for one capabilityA company can be world class with respect to only one(generic)capability,An Agenda for the FutureSOME HYPOTHESES TO TEST,The top managerial priorities will become building capabilities within main sequences,and spreading competences across main sequencesPlatforms will replace markets and hierarchies as the central managerial mechanisms of the corporationCapabilities and competences,rather than products/markets will be the defining elements of corporate identity and of the corporate portfolioCapability-based competitors will vertically integrate;competence based competitors will horizontally integrateCompetitive dynamics will be platform against platform,not business against business,