BCG Growth-Share Matrix

Companies that are large enough to be organized into strategic business units face the challenge of allocating resources among those units. In the early 1970's the Boston Consulting Group developed a model for managing a portfolio of different business units (or major product lines). The BCG growth-share matrix displays the various business units on a graph of the market growth rate vs. market share relative to competitors:

BCG Growth-Share Matrix

Resources are allocated to business units according to where they are situated on the grid as follows:

Cash Cow - a business unit that has a large market share in a mature, slow growing industry. Cash cows require little investment and generate cash that can be used to invest in other business units. Star - a business unit that has a large market share in a fast growing industry. Stars may generate cash, but because the market is growing rapidly they require investment to maintain their lead. If successful, a star will become a cash cow when its industry matures. Question Mark (or Problem Child) - a business unit that has a small market share in a high growth market. These business units require resources to grow market share, but whether they will succeed and become stars is unknown. Dog - a business unit that has a small market share in a mature industry. A dog may not require substantial cash, but it ties up capital that could better be deployed elsewhere. Unless a dog has some other strategic purpose, it should be liquidated if there is little prospect for it to gain market share.

The BCG matrix provides a framework for allocating resources among different business units and allows one to compare many business units at a glance. However, the approach has received some negative criticism for the following reasons:

The link between market share and profitability is questionable since increasing market share can be very expensive. The approach may overemphasize high growth, since it ignores the potential of declining markets. The model considers market growth rate to be a given. In practice the firm may be able to grow the market.

These issues are addressed by the GE / McKinsey Matrix, which considers market growth rate to be only one of many factors that make an industry attractive, and which considers relative market share to be only one of many factors describing the competitive strength of the business unit.

Recommended Reading
The Boston Consulting Group, Perspectives on Strategy Perspectives on Strategy contains Bruce Henderson's original writings on the BCG growth-share matrix. Specific articles include: The Product Portfolio - introduces the growth-share matrix and its dynamics, including the success sequence and the disaster sequence. Cash Traps - explains why the majority of products are cash traps. The Star of the Portfolio - and why market share is so important. Anatomy of the Cash Cow - including the buying and selling of market share for cash cows. The Corporate Portfolio - discussing the advantages of diversified companies. Renaissance of the Portfolio - after the portfolio concept's falling out of favor, this article makes the case for its return.

Ansoff Matrix
To portray alternative corporate growth strategies, Igor Ansoff presented a matrix that focused on the firm's present and potential products and markets (customers). By considering ways to grow via existing products and new products, and in existing markets and new markets, there are four possible product-market combinations. Ansoff's matrix is shown below:

Ansoff Matrix Existing Products Existing Markets New Products

Market Penetration

Product Development

New Markets

Market Development

Diversification

Ansoff's matrix provides four different growth strategies:

Market Penetration - the firm seeks to achieve growth with existing products in their current market segments, aiming to increase its market share. Market Development - the firm seeks growth by targeting its existing products to new market segments. Product Development - the firms develops new products targeted to its existing market segments. Diversification - the firm grows by diversifying into new businesses by developing new products for new markets.

Selecting a Product-Market Growth Strategy The market penetration strategy is the least risky since it leverages many of the firm's existing resources and capabilities. In a growing market, simply maintaining market share will result in growth, and there may exist opportunities to increase market share if competitors reach capacity limits. However, market penetration has limits, and once the market approaches saturation another strategy must be pursued if the firm is to continue to grow. Market development options include the pursuit of additional market segments or geographical regions. The development of new markets for the product may be a good strategy if the firm's core competencies are related more to the specific product than to its experience with a specific market segment. Because the firm is expanding into a new market, a market development strategy typically has more risk than a market penetration strategy. A product development strategy may be appropriate if the firm's strengths are related to its specific customers rather than to the specific product itself. In this situation, it can

leverage its strengths by developing a new product targeted to its existing customers. Similar to the case of new market development, new product development carries more risk than simply attempting to increase market share. Diversification is the most risky of the four growth strategies since it requires both product and market development and may be outside the core competencies of the firm. In fact, this quadrant of the matrix has been referred to by some as the "suicide cell". However, diversification may be a reasonable choice if the high risk is compensated by the chance of a high rate of return. Other advantages of diversification include the potential to gain a foothold in an attractive industry and the reduction of overall business portfolio risk.

GE / McKinsey Matrix
In consulting engagements with General Electric in the 1970's, McKinsey & Company developed a nine-cell portfolio matrix as a tool for screening GE's large portfolio of strategic business units (SBU). This business screen became known as the GE/McKinsey Matrix and is shown below:

GE / McKinsey Matrix Business Unit Strength High Medium Low High

Medium

Low

The GE / McKinsey matrix is similar to the BCG growth-share matrix in that it maps strategic business units on a grid of the industry and the SBU's position in the industry.

The GE matrix however, attempts to improve upon the BCG matrix in the following two ways:

The GE matrix generalizes the axes as "Industry Attractiveness" and "Business Unit Strength" whereas the BCG matrix uses the market growth rate as a proxy for industry attractiveness and relative market share as a proxy for the strength of the business unit. The GE matrix has nine cells vs. four cells in the BCG matrix.

Industry attractiveness and business unit strength are calculated by first identifying criteria for each, determining the value of each parameter in the criteria, and multiplying that value by a weighting factor. The result is a quantitative measure of industry attractiveness and the business unit's relative performance in that industry.

Industry Attractiveness The vertical axis of the GE / McKinsey matrix is industry attractiveness, which is determined by factors such as the following:

Market growth rate Market size Demand variability Industry profitability Industry rivalry Global opportunities Macroenvironmental factors (PEST)

Each factor is assigned a weighting that is appropriate for the industry. The industry attractiveness then is calculated as follows:

Industry attractiveness

factor value1 x factor weighting1 + factor value2 x factor weighting2 . . . + factor valueN x factor weightingN

Business Unit Strength The horizontal axis of the GE / McKinsey matrix is the strength of the business unit. Some factors that can be used to determine business unit strength include:

Market share Growth in market share Brand equity Distribution channel access Production capacity Profit margins relative to competitors

The business unit strength index can be calculated by multiplying the estimated value of each factor by the factor's weighting, as done for industry attractiveness.

Plotting the Information Each business unit can be portrayed as a circle plotted on the matrix, with the information conveyed as follows:

Market size is represented by the size of the circle. Market share is shown by using the circle as a pie chart. The expected future position of the circle is portrayed by means of an arrow.

The following is an example of such a representation:

The shading of the above circle indicates a 38% market share for the strategic business unit. The arrow in the upward left direction indicates that the business unit is projected to gain strength relative to competitors, and that the business unit is in an industry that is projected to become more attractive. The tip of the arrow indicates the future position of the center point of the circle.

Strategic Implications Resource allocation recommendations can be made to grow, hold, or harvest a strategic business unit based on its position on the matrix as follows:

Grow strong business units in attractive industries, average business units in attractive industries, and strong business units in average industries. Hold average businesses in average industries, strong businesses in weak industries, and weak business in attractive industies.

Harvest weak business units in unattractive industries, average business units in unattractive industries, and weak business units in average industries.

There are strategy variations within these three groups. For example, within the harvest group the firm would be inclined to quickly divest itself of a weak business in an unattractive industry, whereas it might perform a phased harvest of an average business unit in the same industry. While the GE business screen represents an improvement over the more simple BCG growth-share matrix, it still presents a somewhat limited view by not considering interactions among the business units and by neglecting to address the core competencies leading to value creation. Rather than serving as the primary tool for resource allocation, portfolio matrices are better suited to displaying a quick synopsis of the strategic business units.

The Product Life Cycle

Product Life Cycle Diagram

Introduction Stage In the introduction stage, the firm seeks to build product awareness and develop a market for the product. The impact on the marketing mix is as follows:

Product branding and quality level is established, and intellectual property protection such as patents and trademarks are obtained. Pricing may be low penetration pricing to build market share rapidly, or high skim pricing to recover development costs. Distribution is selective until consumers show acceptance of the product. Promotion is aimed at innovators and early adopters. Marketing communications seeks to build product awareness and to educate potential consumers about the product.

Growth Stage In the growth stage, the firm seeks to build brand preference and increase market share.

Product quality is maintained and additional features and support services may be added. Pricing is maintained as the firm enjoys increasing demand with little competition. Distribution channels are added as demand increases and customers accept the product. Promotion is aimed at a broader audience.

Maturity Stage

At maturity, the strong growth in sales diminishes. Competition may appear with similar products. The primary objective at this point is to defend market share while maximizing profit.

Product features may be enhanced to differentiate the product from that of competitors. Pricing may be lower because of the new competition. Distribution becomes more intensive and incentives may be offered to encourage preference over competing products. Promotion emphasizes product differentiation.

Decline Stage As sales decline, the firm has several options:

Maintain the product, possibly rejuvenating it by adding new features and finding new uses. Harvest the product - reduce costs and continue to offer it, possibly to a loyal niche segment. Discontinue the product, liquidating remaining inventory or selling it to another firm that is willing to continue the product.

The marketing mix decisions in the decline phase will depend on the selected strategy. For example, the product may be changed if it is being rejuvenated, or left unchanged if it is being harvested or liquidated. The price may be maintained if the product is harvested, or reduced drastically if liquidated.