Evolution of Strategy (PowerPoint PPT Slide Deck)

The timeline outlines the evolution of strategy and management thinking across 5 key areas: Scientific Management, Government Regulation, Marketing and Diversification, Strategy and Social Change, and Competitive Challenge and Restructuring. It begins with the 1920s, highlighting Scientific Management led by F. Taylor, focusing on efficiency and productivity. The 1930s introduced government regulation influenced by the Great Depression. The 1940s saw the rise of global brands like Coca-Cola. The 1950s and 1960s emphasized marketing strategies and diversification, exemplified by Procter & Gamble and McDonald's. The 1970s introduced lean production concepts from Toyota. Technological advancements, from the ENIAC computer to the Internet, have driven changes in strategic thinking. The timeline concludes with globalization and shifts in the service economy, illustrating the continuous evolution of strategy in response to external pressures.

This PPT slide details the evolution of strategic thought from the 1970s to the 1990s. In the 1970s, the focus was on market share, with diversification for growth and the emergence of corporate raiders leading to significant shifts in corporate strategy. Key frameworks like Porter's generic strategies, the experience curve, and product life cycle influenced market approaches. The 1980s introduced competition from Japan and Germany, emphasizing shareholder value, cost-cutting, and quality, alongside methodologies like Total Quality Management (TQM) and Just-In-Time (JIT). By the 1990s, speed and process optimization became crucial, highlighting execution as strategy and the integration of business functions with operational capabilities. This timeline illustrates how external pressures and internal capabilities have shaped corporate strategies over 3 decades.

This PPT slide illustrates the correlation between market share and profitability, highlighting findings from empirical studies. A graph plots Return on Investment (ROI) against Relative Market Share, showing a positive trend: as Relative Market Share increases, ROI rises. The graph segments market share levels from .125x to 8x, with each increment reflecting a marked increase in ROI. Companies with larger market presence achieve better financial outcomes. Notably, a company could potentially double its returns by increasing market share to match that of its nearest competitor. Companies aiming for growth should prioritize strategies that enhance market share to improve profitability, guiding resource allocation and strategic planning.

This PPT slide illustrates the evolution of strategy formulation from the 1970s to the early 2000s, categorizing strategic approaches by decade. In the 1970s, the focus was on "Market Share/Growth Share," establishing foundational market dynamics. The 1980s introduced "Industry Structure Differentiation vs Cost," highlighting competitive positioning and cost management. The 1990s shifted towards "Competing on Competence/Capabilities," emphasizing internal strengths and resource allocation. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the focus pivoted to "Innovation, Venturing and Value Networks," reflecting the importance of innovation and collaborative networks for growth. Notable contributors like Ghoshal and Prahalad/Hamel lend credibility to these frameworks, guiding organizations in adapting strategies to meet changing market demands in growth and eCommerce.

This PPT slide illustrates the relationship between intended, deliberate, and realized strategies in strategic formulation. The "Intended Strategy" represents the initial vision set by leadership, defining goals and objectives. The "Deliberate Strategy" involves actions taken to implement the intended strategy, aligning resources and capabilities for desired outcomes. The downward arrows indicate internal and external influences, such as market dynamics, competitive actions, regulatory changes, and organizational culture, affecting strategy realization. The "Realized Strategy" reflects the actual achievements of the organization, which may differ from the original intent due to execution complexities. This framework highlights the need for adaptability and responsiveness in strategic management.

The matrix categorizes businesses into 4 quadrants based on attractiveness and competitive position: Question-Marks, Core Businesses, Non-Core Businesses, and Weak. The vertical axis measures industry attractiveness through profitability, while the horizontal axis reflects business strength. Quadrant B, "Question-Marks," features businesses with high industry attractiveness, but uncertain competitive positioning, indicating growth potential. Quadrant C, "Core Businesses," includes entities that are both attractive and competitively strong, representing valuable assets that yield significant returns. Quadrant D, "Non-Core Businesses," shows lower attractiveness with a stronger competitive position, potentially serving niche markets. Quadrant A, "Weak," signifies businesses that lack both attractiveness and strength, likely requiring reevaluation or divestment. The matrix serves as a strategic tool for evaluating business units based on market positioning and potential value.

This PPT slide presents a framework illustrating the relationship between market share and rate of return. The vertical axis represents the rate of return, while the horizontal axis shows relative market share on a logarithmic scale. Three strategies are depicted: - Operational Strategies (A) focus on lowering costs and enhancing customer value to meet target return rates. - Sustainable Improvements in Return (B) indicate that exceeding target returns requires gaining market share, often through acquisitions. - Unsustainable Milking Strategies (C) suggest that excessive returns typically signal under-investment or resource exploitation, making them unsustainable long-term. These insights establish strategic position as a critical driver of performance, emphasizing the need for executives to balance short-term gains with sustainable practices for informed strategic decisions.

The Growth/Share Matrix categorizes business units based on market growth rate and relative market share into 4 quadrants: Stars, Question Marks, Cash Cows, and Dogs. Stars, in the upper left quadrant, indicate high growth and high market share, generating significant revenue and requiring investment. Question Marks, in the upper right quadrant, have high growth potential, but low market share, necessitating analysis for investment or divestment decisions. Cash Cows, in the lower left quadrant, exhibit low growth, but high market share, providing steady cash flow with minimal investment. Dogs, in the lower right quadrant, show low growth and low market share, often draining resources and requiring reevaluation. High relative market shares lead to super-normal profits and cash flow, while low industry growth rates can still yield substantial cash flows with limited investment. Understanding each unit's position aids in strategic prioritization and resource allocation.