Bcg Matrix Critique
Marketing Critique: BCG Matrix
Your Name Here
Table of Contents Introduction 3 Concept Overview 3 Functional Critique 5 Intellectual Critique 6 Ethical Critique 7 Political Critique 8 Conclusion 8 Bibliography 9
Introduction This paper will attempt to provide a broad critique of the Boston Consulting Group Matrix in light of the ideas of Hackley (2009). In his book Marketing:A Critical Introduction, Hackley presents a framework for analysing marketing models. He suggests that well established marketing concepts should be re-evaluated from time to time, to determine if the marketing studies for that area are applicable to current practice, and revisit the functional, intellectual, ethical, and political relevance of the said concept. I opted to evaluate the Boston Consulting Group model, which is an established tool of the strategic management field, used frequently in marketing circles to optimize product mix. Where alternative versions of the matrix have come up in recent studies, the traditional BCG Matrix continues to be popular and this paper intends to evaluate whether the support for the model is justified or needs to be rectified.
Concept Overview
The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Matrix was initially designed in the works of a leading management consulting firm, the Boston Consulting Group. Henderson (1970) first presented the concept of the Product Portfolio Matrix, the framework of which categorized products within a company 's portfolio as “stars”, “cash cows”, “dogs”, or “question marks”. Also called the Growth-Share Matrix, the model presented by Henderson (1970), organized the products as per their respective growth rate, market share, and positive or negative cash flow. The Matrix was said to create further growth opportunities for the firm if more resources were invested in those products which generated positive cash flows.
The model described “Stars” as those which enjoy a large market share in a rapidly
Your Name Here
Table of Contents Introduction 3 Concept Overview 3 Functional Critique 5 Intellectual Critique 6 Ethical Critique 7 Political Critique 8 Conclusion 8 Bibliography 9
Introduction This paper will attempt to provide a broad critique of the Boston Consulting Group Matrix in light of the ideas of Hackley (2009). In his book Marketing:A Critical Introduction, Hackley presents a framework for analysing marketing models. He suggests that well established marketing concepts should be re-evaluated from time to time, to determine if the marketing studies for that area are applicable to current practice, and revisit the functional, intellectual, ethical, and political relevance of the said concept. I opted to evaluate the Boston Consulting Group model, which is an established tool of the strategic management field, used frequently in marketing circles to optimize product mix. Where alternative versions of the matrix have come up in recent studies, the traditional BCG Matrix continues to be popular and this paper intends to evaluate whether the support for the model is justified or needs to be rectified.
Concept Overview
The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Matrix was initially designed in the works of a leading management consulting firm, the Boston Consulting Group. Henderson (1970) first presented the concept of the Product Portfolio Matrix, the framework of which categorized products within a company 's portfolio as “stars”, “cash cows”, “dogs”, or “question marks”. Also called the Growth-Share Matrix, the model presented by Henderson (1970), organized the products as per their respective growth rate, market share, and positive or negative cash flow. The Matrix was said to create further growth opportunities for the firm if more resources were invested in those products which generated positive cash flows.
The model described “Stars” as those which enjoy a large market share in a rapidly
Bibliography: Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1999). New product portfolio management: practices and performance. Journal of product innovation management, 16(4), 333-351. Hackley, C. (2009). Marketing: A critical introduction. Sage Publications Limited. Derkinderen, F. G., & Crum, R. L. (1984). Pitfalls in using portfolio techniques—Assessing risk and potential. Long Range Planning, 17(2), 129-136. O 'Shea, J., & Madigan, C. (1998). Dangerous company: Management consultants and the businesses they save and ruin. Penguin USA. Henderson, B. (1970). The product portfolio. BCG Perspectives series (The Boston Consulting Group, 1970). Hambrick, D. C., MacMillan, I. C., & Day, D. L. (1982). Strategic Attributes and Performance in the BCG Matrix--A PIMS-Based Analysis of Industrial Product Businesses. Academy of Management Journal, 25(3), 510-531. Barksdale, H. C., & Harris Jr, C. E. (1982). Portfolio analysis and the product life cycle. Long Range Planning, 15(6), 74-83. Marren, P. (2004). The matrix revisited. Journal of Business Strategy, 25(4). McDonald, M., & Leppard, J. W. (1992). Marketing by matrix: 100 practical ways to improve your strategic and tactical marketing. Butterworth-Heinemann. Morrison, A., & Wensley, R. (1991). Boxing up or boxed in?: A short history of the Boston Consulting Group share/growth matrix. Journal of Marketing Management, 7(2), 105-129. Schoeffler, S., Buzzell, R. D., & Heany, D. F. (1974). Impact of strategic planning on profit performance (pp. 137-145). Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. Seeger, J. A. (1984). Research note and communication. Reversing the images of BCG 's growth/share matrix. Strategic Management Journal, 5(1), 93-97. Stalk, G., & Stern, C. W. (Eds.). (1998). Perspectives on Strategy: From the Boston Consulting Group. J. Wiley. Wind, Y., Mahajan, V., & Swire, D. J. (1983). An empirical comparison of standardized portfolio models. The Journal of Marketing, 89-99.