Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT THEORIES
Randall L. Schultz
University of Iowa
Management theories range from fads to those that become part of the
repertoire of decision making. This research classifies management
theories and proposes a "Beaufort-type" scale to measure organizational
impact.
March, 2006
2
MANAGEMENT THEORIES
One seemingly sure way to write a best selling book is to come up with a new diet
or a new management theory. The routine for management theories is straightforward:
take an idea—however small—write a book, visit the talk shows, count the royalties. As
a preliminary matter to developing a new scale for measuring the impact of such
“theories” of management, we collect most of these theories over the past four decades.
USE OF MANAGEMENT THEORIES
Our primary question is: Are any of these theories actually used in corporations?
The nature of use is subtle. Take the theory of “core competency,” proposed by Hamel
and Pralahad (1990). Is the theory used if an organization talks about it, perhaps often,
and perhaps in meetings as a matter of course? Is the theory used if it becomes a part of
reports that state the firm’s core competence? Or should we demand something more than
that to consider a theory to be “used,” such as the possible fact that some or all decisions
are made with reference to core competence?
Even then, such “use” of the theory may make no difference to the actual
decisions. What, then, does this mean? This hierarchy of use parallels the hierarchy of
use observed in the implementation of models and systems in organizations (cf. Schultz,
Ginzberg and Lucas, 1984), where measures of use range from no use at all to change
without use—a situation where the very fact that the model or system was introduced to
the organization in some way accounts for a change in decision making, but not the
model or system itself.
3
IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT THEORIES
Equally important is the question of impact: If a theory is used, did it
make any difference in performance? Like use, the nature of impact is varied.
There can be impact without change, change without impact, change with
impact, positive impact and negative impact. How can these types of impact
(and the types of use) be sorted out? We propose a simple scale that embodies
both use and impact so that the usefulness and consequences of all of these
popular—and not so popular—management theories can be judged for what
they are supposed to be: ways of improving organizational effectiveness.
LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING MEASURES OF USE
Most existing measures of use are of limited practicality, primarily because they
must be parameterized for each type of innovation and each organization. Consider the
most common way of looking at use in organizations: innovation and adoption.
ADOPTION
There is a vast literature on adoption that generally takes as its starting point the
influential book of Rogers (1995), the first edition of which was published in 1962. The
suggestion of Rogers was that innovation in organizations followed a five stage process,
viz.
1. Agenda-Setting
2. Matching
4
3. Redefining/Restructuring
4. Clarifying
5. Routinizing
This process begins with agenda-setting, conceived of as in continual operation with
action triggered by performance gaps between actual and desired states or goals.
Organizations scan the environment looking for new ideas—innovations—that could help
close the performance gaps. Matching is essentially a feasibility check and, according to
Rogers, this may result in termination of the idea if there seem to be too many problems
with fit. Although Rogers does not discuss this, it is implied that there would be some if
not considerable discussion about the innovation (i.e., talking about it in groups).
The first two stages are considered as an initiation process and the next three
stages as the implementation process. So, in this view, implementation only begins after
“talk” about fit. Redefining/restructuring implies that either the innovation or the
organization is changed so that the fit is improved. This concept is similar to the concept
of “organizational validity” used in the implementation research literature to show a pre-
condition for implementation (Schultz and Slevin, 1975a). The clarifying stage would
then occur (if the implementation proceeded), and here Rogers says that the innovation is
“put into more widespread use” (Rogers, 1975, p. 399). Since Rogers does not discuss
management innovations or theories per se, the nature of this use is not elaborated. But,
importantly, the innovation is linked with the question of who will be affected by the
implementation, especially the individual (“Will it affect me?”). This concept also finds
support in implementation research which has found that the single most important factor
5
is personal stake or what the innovation will do for the individual adopter (Schultz and
Slevin, 1975b).
Finally, in Roger’s scheme, comes routinizing, where the innovation “has become
incorporated into the regular activities of the organization, and the innovation loses its
separate identity” (Rogers, 1975, p. 399). This may or may not imply “use by all,” and
for many innovations from information and decision support systems to management
theories (that involve certain reports and stylized calculations) there would be reason to
believe that they would not lose their separate identity. Indeed, that is one way to
measure their continued use—by looking for the reports, calculations or decisions that
give evidence of the innovation.
LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING MEASURES OF IMPACT
Like measures of use, most existing measures of impact are of limited usefulness,
primarily because they must be parameterized for each type of innovation and each
organization. In addition, there is a “pro-innovation” bias in most research such that the
negative consequences of use are often ignored.
ORGANIZATIONAL CONSEQUENCES
Rogers (1995) ends his book on diffusion of innovations with a chapter on
“organizational consequences,” by which he means “the changes that occur to an
individual or to a social system as a result of the adoption or rejection of an innovation”
(p, 405). This definition does not attempt to separate changes that may be indicators of
6
use from changes that may be indicators of performance gains or loss. Rogers points to
one problem with almost all studies of organizational consequences: a pro-innovation
bias that looks for positives from the innovation but not negatives. This problem clearly
needs to be dealt with in any measure of organizational impact.
From the perspective of organizational innovations (and it should be noted that
Rogers does not focus on organizational innovations when he discusses organizational
consequences) Rogers examples of consequences are all related to “performance,” e.g.,
increased production or greater expense (Rogers, 1995, p. 410). Such measures are
clearly part of any change in organizational effectiveness due to an innovation. The
Rogers approach, however, is limited by its inclusion of any change in an organization as
evidence of organizational consequences.
A better approach would be one that separates change as an indicator of use and
change that serves as an indicator of effectiveness. This is because the adoption process
can lead to changes in effectiveness without actual adoption (use) and changes in
behavior that may be indicators of use that are not necessarily followed by changes in
organizational effectiveness. In other words, merely “talking” about a management
theory may improve things but actually using one may not.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
The implementation literature has long focused on organizational effectiveness as
the appropriate measure of organizational impact (Schultz and Slevin, 1979). In addition,
one definition of implementation separates use from effectiveness by arguing that
implementation is changed decision making and successful implementation is improved
7
decision making (Schultz and Henry, 1981). This view allows “organizational
consequences” to fall into the two logical groups of indicators of use and indicators of
organizational effectiveness.
Performance
A more straightforward indicator of organizational effectiveness—and one that
applies particularly to management theories—is performance.
In the information systems literature, the main impact measure of model use has
been performance. Depending on the nature of the model, performance could refer to an
individual decision maker’s performance (Schultz, Ginzberg and Lucas, 1984; Lucas,
Ginzberg and Schultz, 1990) or an organization-wide measure of performance such as
profit.
“Good” Performance. To most managers and shareholders, good performance
means good financial performance, although other measures of success such rates of
technology development or new product success may also be meaningful. So any
management theory that improves performance would be considered as having led to
good performance.
“Bad” Performance. But the use of management theories doesn’t necessarily lead
to good performance and businesses are all to aware of theories and plans leading
nowhere or, worse, to declines in performance. We must consider, then, bad performance
as a possible outcome of the use of a management theory that has had an impact, in this
case a poor one.
8
MEASURING THE IMPACT OF A THEORY
What is really interesting about a management theory is whether it has had an
impact on anything. Did it change the way decisions are made? Did it improve
performance? Did it simply lead to improvements without actually being “used?” These
questions suggest that a common scale of “force” of impact could be useful. Particularly
useful would be a scale that uses levels of force that are apparent to any observer. A
model of such a scale is the Beaufort scale for wind.
THE BEAUFORT SCALE
Although it takes his name, Admiral Francis Beaufort of the British Royal Navy
did not originate the “Beaufort Scale.” Attempts to measure wind force with a descriptive
scale were made many hundreds of years before Beaufort came up with his version in
1805. Not surprisingly, Beaufort scale points (13 at first, 12 later on) that ranged from
“calm” to “storm” were based on nautical observation of the wind by its effect on the
sails of a frigate. Thus, by 1838, the Royal Navy was using scale points that ranged from
Calm (0) to Hurricane (12) with descriptors such as Beaufort 1 (Light Air) “Just
sufficient to give steerage way” and Beaufort 11 (Storm) “With which she would be
reduced to storm staysails.”
More relevant to our current task is the version of the Beaufort scale for reckoning
wind force on land since that does not require sailing experience—especially in a frigate!
Any dictionary would have a table showing the Beaufort Scale. My old Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary (1960) has the definition shown in Table 1. The first thing to be
9
-------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here.
-------------------------------
noticed is that the scale has 12 points, each with a name, although some of the names are
the same, e.g., two levels of “Strong” wind. Next, miles per hour have been estimated for
the various levels of force. While this is exceedingly useful with modern anemometers, it
is less useful to a casual observer who is simply out in the wind. The final column is what
is so special about the Beaufort scale and why it provides a prototype for a scale of
organizational impact. It can be seen that the descriptions are so universal almost any
person would observe the same physical phenomena. The descriptions are so rich and
evocative—yet at the same time simply stated—that the picture they form is one that can
be easily recognized. More importantly, almost any observer would see the same thing
and thus arrive at the same level of wind force. This is what a good scale should do:
measure with accuracy independent of the observer.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT SCALE
The Organizational Impact Scale is shown in Table 2.
-------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here.
-------------------------------
10
This scale is currently being tested with data from corporations that have experience with
one or more—usually many—of the management theories and tools given in Table 3.
-------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here.
-------------------------------
We have also expanded the scope of the study to include marketing theories and tools as
shown in Table 4.
-------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here.
-------------------------------
We report the theories and tools under consideration here to invite comment on errors of
omission or commission.
CONCLUSION
This paper provides background and a preliminary scale for measuring the impact
of management theories on organizations modeled after a simple, but robust, weather
scale. We also provide the theories and tools under consideration. The empirical results
will be available in a revision to this paper.
11
REFERENCES
Rogers, Everett M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Lucas, Henry C. Jr., Michael J. Ginzberg and Randall L. Schultz (1990), Information
Systems Implementation: Testing a Structural Model. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation, 1990
Schultz, Randall L., Michael J. Ginzberg, and Henry C. Lucas, Jr. (1984), “A Structural
Model of Implementation,” in Management Science Implementation, Randall L.
Schultz and Michael J. Ginzberg, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 55-87.
——— and Michael D. Henry (1981), “Implementing Decision Models,” in Marketing
Decision Models, Randall L. Schultz and Andris A. Zoltners, eds. New York: Elsevier
North-Holland, 275-96.
——— and Dennis P. Slevin (1975a), “A Program of Research on Implementation” in
Implementing Operations Research/Management Science, Randall L. Schultz and Dennis
P. Slevin, eds. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company, 31-51.
——— and ——— (1975b), “Implementation and Organizational Validity: An Empirical
Investigation,” in Implementing Operations Research/Management Science, Randall L.
Schultz and Dennis P. Slevin, eds. New York: American Elsevier Publishing
Company, 153-82.
——— and ——— (1979), “Introduction: The Implementation Problem,” in The
Implementation of Management Science, Robert Doktor, Randall L. Schultz and
Dennis P. Slevin, eds. North-Holland/TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences,
Volume 13. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1-15.
Abell, Derek F. and John S. Hammond (1979), Strategic Market Planning: Problems and
Analytical Approaches, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Abell, Derek F. (1980), Defining the Business: The Starting Point of Strategic Planning,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Ansoff, Igor (1957), “Strategies for Diversification,” Harvard Business Review, 5, 113-
124.
Barney, Matt and Tom McCarty (2002), The New Six Sigma, A Leader's Guide to
Achieving Rapid Business Improvement and Sustainable Results, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Boston Consulting Group (1968), Perspectives on Experience, Boston: Boston
Consulting Group Inc.
12
Bowman, Cliff and D. Faulkner (1996), Competitive and Corporate Strategy,
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Irwin.
Buzzell, Robert D. (1965), Product Profitability Measurement and Merchandising
Decisions, Columbus, Ohio: McGraw Hill
Camp, Robert C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that
Lead to Superior Performance, University Park, Illinois: Productivity Press.
Cascio, W.F. (1993), “Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned?”
Academy of Management Executives, 1, 95-104.
Deming, W. Edwards (1966), “Some Remark on Recent Advances in the statistical
control of quality in Japan,” The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B, Vol.28, Part 1-2.
Doyle, Peter (1976), “The Realities of the Product Life Cycle,” Quarterly Review of
Marketing, Summer, 1-6.
Drucker, Peter F. (1955), the Practice of Management, New York: HarperBusiness.
Eliyahu M. Goldratt(1999), Theory of Constraints, Great Barrington, Massachusetts:
North River Press .
Feigenbaum, A.V.(1986), Total Quality Control, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gadiesh, Orit and James L.Gilbet (1998), “Profit Pools: A Fresh Look at Strategy,”
Harvard Business Review, 3,139-147.
Garvin, David (1987), Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality, Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Green, Paul E. and Yoram Wind (1975), “New Ways to Measure Consumers’
Judgments,” Harvard business review, 4, 107-117.
Hamel, Gary and C. K. Pralahad (1990), “The Core Competence of the Corporation,”
Harvard Business Review, 3, 79-91.
Hammer, Michael and James A. Champy (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A
Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York: HarperBusiness.
Henderson, Bruce D. (1970), “The Product Portfolio,” BCG Publications, January.
Ishikawa, Kaoru (1985), What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
13
Kaplan, Robert and David Norton (1992), “The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that
Drive Performance,” Harvard Business Review, 1, 71-79.
Kolter, Philip (2000), Marketing Management, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Kotter, John. P. (1985), Power and Influence: Beyond Formal Authority, New York: Free
Press.
McKenna, Regis (1995), Real-Time Marketing, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Moncrieff, J. (1999), “Is strategy making a difference?” Long Range Planning, 2, 273-
276.
Monden, Yasuhiro (1993), Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-
In-Time, Norcross, Georgia: Industrial Engineering & Management Press.
Moriarty, Rowland T. and Ursula Moran (1990), “Marketing Hybrid Marketing Systems”
Harvard business Review, 6, 146-155.
Ouchi, William G. (1981), Theory Z: How American Management Can Meet the
Japanese Challenge, New York: Avon Books.
Patel, Peter and Michael Younger (1978), “A Frame of Reference for Strategy
Development,” Long Range Planning, 2, 6-12.
Peter, Laurence J. (1969), The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong, New
York: William Morrow.
Peters, Tom and Richard Waterman (1982), In Search of Excellence, New York: Harper
& Row.
Peters, Tom, Robert Waterman and J.R. Phillip (1980), “Structure Is Not Organization,”
Business Horizon, 3, 14-26.
Porter, Michael (1979), “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy,” Harvard Business
Review, 2, 137-135.
Porter, Michael (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors, New York: Free Press.
Porter, Michael (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Performance,
New York: Free Press.
Rayport, Jeffrey F. and Bernard J. Jaworski (2001), E-Commerce, Columbus, Ohio:
McGraw Hill.
14
Ries, Al and Jack Trout (1981), Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, Columbus, Ohio:
McGraw Hill.
Robinson, S.J.Q. and R.E. Hichens, D.P. Wade (1978), “The Directional Policy Matrix-
Tool for Strategic Planning,” Long Range Planning, 3, 8-16.
Slywotzky, A. J. (1996), Value Migration: Strategies to Preempt the Markets of
Tomorrow, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
15
Table 1
The Beaufort Scale
Beaufort
number Name Miles per hour Description
0 Calm Less than 1 Calm; smoke rises vertically.
1 Light 1-3 Direction of wind shown by smoke, but
not by wind vanes.
2 Light 4-7 Wind felt on face, leaves rustle, ordinary
vane moved by wind.
3 Gentle 8-12 Leaves and small twigs in constant
motion; wind extends light flag.
4 Moderate 13-18 Raises dust and loose paper; small
branches are moved.
5 Fresh 19-24 Small trees in leaf begin to sway; crested
wavelets form on inland waters.
6 Strong 25-31 Large branches in motion; telegraph wires
whistle; umbrellas used with difficulty.
7 Strong 32-38 Whole trees in motion; inconvenience felt
in walking against wind.
8 Gale 39-46 Breaks twigs off trees; generally impedes
progress.
9 Gale 47-54 Slight structural damage occurs; chimney
pots and stales removed.
10 Whole gale 55-63 Trees uprooted; considerable structural
damage occurs.
11 Whole gale 64-75
Very rarely experienced inland;
accompanied by widespread damage.
12 Hurricane Above 75 Devastation occurs.
16
Table 2
The Organizational Impact Scale
Impact number Description
1 Talked about
No impact
2 Talked about
Small impact
3 Talked about
Large impact
4 Reports prepared
No impact
5 Reports prepared
Small impact
6 Reports prepared
Large impact
7 Some decisions made with
No impact
8 Some decisions made with
Small impact
9 Some decisions made with
Large impact
10 All decisions made with
No impact
11 All decisions made with
Small impact
12 All decisions made with
Large impact
17
Table 3
Management Theories and Tools1
Decade Initiators Theories and
Tools
Current
Status
Brief Description Resource
60s W. Edwards
Deming
Statistical
quality control
A method for
achieving quality
control in
manufacturing
processes by
measuring
variations in
manufacturing
output and setting
control limits.
W. Edwards Deming,
“Some Remark on
Recent Advances in
the statistical control
of quality in Japan,”
The Indian Journal of
Statistics, Series
B,Vol.28, 1966
60s Peter
Drucker
MBO -
management
by objectives
A method of
management
whereby the action
of analysis,
direction and
control are focused
on the end result.
Peter F. Drucker, The
Practice of
Management, 1955.
70s Kaoru
Ishikawa
Fishbone
analysis
diagram
A tool that visually
displays the many
potential causes for
a specific problem
or effect
Kaoru Ishikawa,
What is Total Quality
Control? The
Japanese Way, 1985.
70s Laurence J.
Peter
The Peter
principle
A theory that
employees within a
hierarchical
organization
advance to beyond
highest level of
competence to and
thus occupy
positions where
they are
incompetent.
Laurence J. Peter,
The Peter Principle:
Why Things Always
Go Wrong, 1969.
70s Tom Peters
and Richard
Waterman
Excellence
theory
A theory that
directs the
organization
leaders to identify
the factors
common to
excellent
companies through
empirical research
and use them to
achieve similar
excellence.
Tom Peters and
Richard Waterman,
In Search of
Excellence, 1982.
1 Prepared by Liming Zhu.
18
80s Robert
Camp
Benchmarking The art of learning
from companies
that perform
certain tasks better
than others in areas
such as quality,
speed and cost.
Robert C. Camp, Benchmarking: The
Search for Industry
Best Practices that
Lead to Superior
Performance, 1989.
80s W.F. Cascio Downsizing A method of
organizational
restructuring that
involves the
removal of one or
more hierarchical
levels from the
organization and a
pushing of
decision-making
downward in the
organization.
Cascio, W.F.,
Downsizing: What
Do We Know? What
Have We Learned?
1993.
80s Eliyahu M.
Goldratt
Theory of
constraints
Managing within
limits of
performance with
respect to a goal,
thus implying
management can
be made both
simpler and more
effective by
providing
managers with a
few specific areas
on which to focus.
Eliyahu M. Goldratt,
Theory of
Constraints, 1999.
80s Gary Hamel
and C. K.
Prahalad
Core
competency
An organization’s
capacity of doing
better than its
competitors. It
shows three
characteristics:
potential access to
a wide variety of
markets;
increasing
perceived customer
benefits; and
difficulty for
competitors to
imitate.
Gary Hamel and C.
K. Pralahad, “The
Core Competence of
the Corporation,”
Harvard Business
Review, 1990.
80s Kaoru
Ishikawa
and A.V
Feigenbaum
Total quality
management
A management
strategy to focus on
quality in all
organizational
processes. Quality
assurance through
statistical methods
is a key
Kaoru Ishikawa,
What is Total Quality
Control? The
Japanese Way, 1985;
A.V. Feigenbaum,
Total Quality
Control, 1986.
19
component. TQM
aims to do things
right the first time,
rather than fix
problems after they
emerge or get
worse.
80s John Kotter Leadership The strategic input
and utilization of
the human capital
within the
organization,
especially focusing
on developing
potential leadership
of individual.
John. P. Kotter,
Power and Influence:
Beyond Formal
Authority, 1985.
80s Constantinos
Markides
Strategy
dynamics
A way of
understanding how
strategic actions
occur by
recognizing that
strategic planning
and
implementation are
dynamic and
interactive
processes.
C. Markides, “A
Dynamic View of
Strategy,” Sloan
Management Review,
1999.
80s McKinsey &
Company
7-S framework
for business
success
The business
success depends on
seven factors of
strategy, structure,
systems, style,
skills, staff and
shared values.
Tom Peters, Robert
Waterman and J.R.
Phillip, Business
Horizons, 1980.
80s Motorola
Corp.
Six sigma (6Σ) A quality
management
program to achieve
a “six sigma” level
of quality. It targets
the total number of
quality failures or
customer
dissatisfaction
happening beyond
the sixth sigma of
likelihood in a
normal distribution
of customers, i.e.,
fewer than four in
one million
customers
complain about the
products or service
they received.
Matt Barney and
Tom McCarty, The
New Six Sigma, A
Leader's Guide to
Achieving Rapid
Business
Improvement and
Sustainable Results,
2003.
80s William G.
Ouchi
Theory Z The theory that
assumes employees
William G. Ouchi,
Theory Z: How
20
are motivated by
the self-
actualization need
and expect to be
more involved in
managing the
company, so
increasing
productivity
through employee
loyalty.
American
Management Can
Meet the Japanese
Challenge, 1981.
80s Toyota
Motor Corp.
Just-in-time
inventory
system
An inventory
system in which
suppliers deliver
parts just at the
time they are
needed by the
buying
organization to use
in its production
process. Used
properly, such a
system holds
inventory, storage,
and warehousing
costs to a
minimum.
Yasuhiro Monden,
Toyota Production
System: An
Integrated Approach
to Just-In-Time,
1993.
90s Michael
Hammer
Reengineering The concept that
the firm should be
redesign and
restructure into a
series of processes
rather than separate
functional units.
Michael Hammer,
James A. Champy,
Reengineering the
Corporation: A
Manifesto for
Business Revolution,
1993
90s Robert
Kaplan and
David
Norton
Balanced
scorecard
The management
tool which helps
managers at all
levels monitor
results in their key
areas. It broadens
the scope of the
measures to
include four areas:
financial
performance,
customer
knowledge,
internal business
processes and
learning and
growth.
Kaplan, Robert and
David Norton, “The
Balanced Scorecard -
Measures that Drive
Performance,”
Harvard Business
Review, 1992.
21
Table 4
Marketing Theories and Tools2
Decade Initiators Concepts and
Tools
Current
Status
Brief Description Resource
60s Igor Ansoff Product-
market
expansion
matrix
A model to search
for growth
opportunities by
investigating four
combinations of
product and
market: current
products in current
markets, current
products in new
markets, new
products in current
markets and new
products in new
markets.
Igor Ansoff,
“Strategies for
Diversification,”
Harvard Business
Review, 1957.
60s Boston
Consulting
Group
Experience
curve effect
The relationship
between
experience and
efficiency. The
more often a task is
performed, the
lower will be the
associated cost.
Boston Consulting
Group, “Perspectives
on Experience,”
1968.
60s Robert D.
Buzzell
PIMS study
(Profit Impact
of Market
Strategy)
A study which
indicates that a
company’s
profitability has a
positive correlation
with its market
share.
Robert D. Buzzell,
Product Profitability
Measurement and
Merchandising
Decisions, 1965.
70s Derek F.
Abell
Five patterns
of target
market
selection
A model used to
evaluate different
market segments
by considering five
patterns of target
markets: single-
segment
concentration,
selective
specialization,
product
specialization,
market
specialization and
full market
coverage.
Derek F.Abell,
Defining the
Business: The
Starting Point of
Strategic Planning,
1980.
2 Prepared by Liming Zhu.
22
70s Arthur D.
Little
(company)
Industry
maturity/comp
etitive position
matrix
A strategic model
(like GE) used for
product portfolio
analysis. Its scope
involves two
factors: company’s
competitive
position and stage
of industry
maturity.
Peter Patel and
Michael Younger, “A
Frame of Reference
for Strategy
Development,” Long
Range Planning,
April 1978.
70s Boston
Consulting
Group
Growth-share
matrix
A strategic model
used to help decide
what priority
should be given in
the product
portfolio of a
business unit. The
matrix consists of
four cells, each
representing a
different business
type with various
combinations of
growth rate and
relative market
share: stars, cash
cows, dogs and
question marks.
Bruce D. Henderson,
“the Product
Portfolio,” BCG
Publications, January
1970.
70s Peter Doyle Product life
cycles
A theory that the
sales of all
products which
have limited life
pass through
distinct four stages:
introduction,
growth, maturity
and decline.
Various marketing
strategies are
required in each
stage.
Peter Doyle, “The
Realities of the
Product Life Cycle,”
Quarterly Review of
Marketing, 1976.
70s General
Electric and
McKinsey
& Company
GE/McKinsey
Matrix
A strategic model
used for product
portfolio analysis,
similar to BCG but
more advanced. It
categorizes
business units
according to
industry
attractiveness and
competitive
strength by using a
matrix. Each
product or brand is
mapped in this
Philip Kotler,
Marketing
Management,2000
23
industry
attractiveness/busi
ness strength
space.
70s Paul E.
Green and
Yoram
Wind
Conjoint
analysis
A method for
exploring the
utility values that
consumers attach
to various levels of
a product’s
attributes.
Marketers can
identify the most
appealing offer and
the estimated
market share and
profit.
Paul E. Green and
Yoram Wind, “New
Ways to Measure
Consumers’
Judgments,” Harvard
business review,
1975.
70s SWOT
analysis
Overall evaluation
of a company’s
strengths,
weaknesses,
opportunities and
threats.
Philip Kotler,
Marketing
Management,2000
70s Michael
Porter
Generic
strategies
Marketing
strategies defined
along two
dimensions: supply
and demand, or
strategic scope and
strategic strength,
including cost
leadership strategy
differentiation
Strategy Market
Segmentation
Strategies
Michael Porter,
Competitive Strategy:
Techniques for
Analyzing Industries
and Competitors,
1980
70s Shell
Chemical
Directional
policy model
A strategic model
like GE used for
product portfolio
analysis. Its two
dimensions cover
the organization’s
competitive
capabilities and
prospects for
profitability.
S.J.Q.Robinson, R.E.
Hichens and
D.P.Wade, “The
Directional Policy
Matrix-Tool for
Strategic Planning,”
Long Range
Planning, June 1978.
80s Derek F.
Abell
Strategic
windows
The concept that
there is a certain
point in time at
which the right
environmental
conditions exist for
a particular
marketing
opportunity.
Derek F. Abell and
John S. Hammond,
Strategic Market
Planning: Problems
and Analytical
Approaches, 1979.
24
80s Michael
Porter
Value chain A tool for
identifying ways to
create more
customer value by
synthesizing
business functional
activities.
Michael Porter,
Competitive
Advantage: Creating
and Sustaining
Performance,1980.
80s Michael
Porter
Five forces
analysis
A way of
analyzing
competitive status
and deciding
competitive
strategy from 5
aspects: the
bargaining power
of customers, the
bargaining power
of suppliers, the
threat of new
entrants, the threat
of substitute
products, and the
intensity of
competitive
rivalry.
Michael Porter,
“How Competitive
Forces Shape
Strategy,” Harvard
Business Review,
1979.
80s Al Reis and
Jack Trout
Positioning
theory
A marketing
technique in which
marketers try to
create an image or
identity for a
product, brand or
company.
Al Ries and Jack
Trout, Positioning:
The Battle for Your
Mind, 1981.
90s Cliff
Bowman
The strategy
clock
A way to analyze a
company's
competitive
position in
comparison to the
offerings of
competitors. It
considers
competitive
advantage in
relation to cost
advantage and
differentiation
advantage.
Cliff Bowman and D.
Faulkner,
Competitive and
Corporate Strategy,
1996.
90s Orit
Gadiesh and
James
L.Gilbert
Profit pools A strategy model
with focus on
profit growth, not
revenue growth, by
breaking down the
value chain into
“profit pools,” i.e.,
areas of higher
margins.
Orit Gadiesh and
James L.Gilbet, “A
Fresh Look at
Strategy,” Harvard
Business Review,
1998.
25
90s David
Garvin
Eight
dimensions of
quality
Defines quality in
terms of eight
manageable factors
by which
consumers judge
products:
performance,
features, reliability,
conformance,
durability,
serviceability,
aesthetics and
perceived quality.
David Garvin,
Competing on the
Eight Dimensions of
Quality,1987.
90s Rowland T.
Moriart and
Ursula
Moran
The hybrid
grid for
channels
A model to plan
the channel
construction and
illustrate how to
meet the
management tasks
through various
marketing
channels.
Rowland T. Moriarty
and Ursula Moran,
“Marketing Hybrid
Marketing Systems,”
Harvard Business
Review, 1990.
90s Regis
McKenna
Real-time
management
The notion that
companies must
immediately
respond to
consumer demand.
Regis McKenna,
Real-Time
Marketing, 1995.
90s Jeffrey F.
Rayport and
Bernard J.
Jaworski
Competitor
map
A model to
illustrate the
competitive
environment of a
company and its
competitors’
positions.
Jeffrey F. Rayport
and Bernard J.
Jaworski, E-
Commerce, 2001.
90s Adrian
Slywotzky
Value
migration
The concept that
marketers satisfy
customers'
priorities by
shifting value-
creating forces to
find out the new
value of products
or service. Value
migrates between
industries,
companies or
business designs
within a company.
Adrian Slywotzky,
Value Migration:
Stragegies to
Preempt the Markets
of Tomorrow, 1996.
