© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 1 SESSION 13: CORPORATE LEVEL STRATEGY: Analysis and Choice in The Multi-Business Company Rationalizing Diversification and Building Shareholder Value

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 2 The Concept of Corporate-Level Strategy Primary Question - Where to Compete? Are there other business opportunities? Entering or exiting Industries

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 3 CL Strategy – Whether to Diversify? Synergies Growth Opportunities Agency Issues – “Empire Building”

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 4 Multibusiness Corporations Corporations comprised of multiple businesses are often referred to as having a portfolio of businesses

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 5 By Definition a change in Corporate Level Strategy should be reflected in a change in Mission Statement

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 6

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 7

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 8

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 9

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 10

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 11

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 12

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 13

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 14

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 15 SONY PICTURES STUDIOS

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 16

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 17

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 18

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 19 The Portfolio Approach to Corporate Level Strategy Research Allocation Decisions How does Corporate Affiliation Provide Value?

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 20 GE and McKinsey The Concept of The SBU Corporate Review Capability Matrices to Facilitate/Illuminate the Resource Allocation Decision

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 21 To Be Designated an SBU, Businesses had to: Have a unique mission independent of other SBUs Have a clearly definable set of competitors Compete in external markets Be able to carry out integrative planning relatively independent of other SBUs Be able to manage resources in key areas Be large enough to justify senior management attention

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 22 Balancing Financial Resources: Portfolio Techniques Industry Attractiveness- Business Strength Matrix BCG Growth- Share Matrix Life Cycle- Competitive Strength Matrix

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 23 BCG Growth-Share Matrix High Low Cash Use (Growth Rate) Star Problem Child Cash Cow Dog Cash Generation (Market Share) High Low Market Share: Sales relative to those of other competitors in market (dividing point is usually selected to have only 2-3 largest competitors in any market fall into high market share region) Growth Rate: Industry growth rate in constant dollars (dividing point is typically GNP’s growth rate) Description of Dimensions

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 24 Factors Considered in Constructing an Industry Attractiveness-Business Strength Matrix Nature of Competitive Rivalry Number of competitors Size of competitors Strength of competitors’ corporate parents Price wars Competition on multiple dimensions Bargaining Power of Suppliers/Customers Relative size of typical players Numbers of each Importance of purchases from or dales to Ability to vertically integrate Threat of Substitutes/ New Entrants Technological maturity/stability Diversity of the market Barriers to entry Flexibility of distribution system Industry Attractiveness Factors

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 25 Fig. 9-3: Factors Considered in Constructing an Industry Attractiveness-Business Strength Matrix (continued) Economic Factors Sales volatility Cyclicality of demand Market growth Capital intensity Financial Norms Average profitability Typical leverage Credit practices Sociopolitical Considerations Government regulation Community support Ethical standards Industry Attractiveness Factors

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 26 Fig. 9-3: Factors Considered in Constructing an Industry Attractiveness-Business Strength Matrix (continued) Cost Position Economies of scale Manufacturing costs Overhead Scrap/waste/rework Experience effects Labor rates Proprietary processes Level of Differentiation Promotion effectiveness Product quality Company image Patented products Brand awareness Response Time Manufacturing flexibility Time needed to introduce new products Delivery times Organizational flexibility Business Strength Factors

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 27 Fig. 9-3: Factors Considered in Constructing an Industry Attractiveness-Business Strength Matrix (concluded) Financial Strength Solvency Liquidity Break-even point Cash flows Profitability Growth in revenues Human Assets Turnover Skill level Relative wage/salary Morale Managerial commitment Unionization Public Approval Goodwill Reputation Image Business Strength Factors

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 28 Fig. 9-4: Industry Attractiveness-Business Strength Matrix Invest Selective Growth Grow or Let Go Selective Growth Grow or Let Go Harvest Grow or Let Go Harvest Divest Low High Medium Business Strength MediumHighLow Industry Attractiveness Industry Attractiveness: Subjective assessment based on broadest possible range of external opportunities and threats beyond control of management Business Strength: Subject assessment of how strong a competitive advantage is created by a broad range of a firm’s internal strengths and weaknesses Description of Dimensions

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 29 Advantages of the Industry Attractiveness-Business Strength Matrix over the BCG Matrix Terminology is less offensive and more understandable Multiple measures associated with each dimension tap many factors relevant to business strength and market attractiveness Allows for broader assessment during both strategy formulation and implementation for a multibusiness company

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 30 Fig. 9-5: Market Life Cycle-Competitive Strength Matrix Stage of Market Life Cycle: See page 182 Competitive Strength: Overall subjective rating, based on wide range of factors regarding likelihood of gaining and maintaining a competitive advantage Description of Dimensions Low High Moderate Competitive Strength GrowthIntroductionMaturity Stage of Market Life Cycle Decline Push: Invest Aggressively Caution: Invest Selectively Danger: Harvest

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 31 Contributions of Portfolio Approaches Convey large amounts of information about diverse businesses and corporate plans in a simplified format Illuminate similarities and differences among businesses, conveying the logic behind corporate strategies for each business Simplify priorities for sharing corporate resources across diverse businesses Provide a simple prescription of what should be accomplished - a balanced portfolio of businesses

© 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Irwin/McGraw-Hill 32 Limitations of Portfolio Approaches Does not address how value is created across business units Accurate measurement for matrix classification not as easy as matrices implied Underlying assumption about relationship between market share and profits varies across different industries and market segments Limited strategic options viewed as basic strategic missions Portrays notion that firms need to be self-sufficient in capital Fails to compare competitive advantage a business receives from being owned by a particular company with costs of owning it