Home Contact About Sitemap
Promoting Thought Leadership...
Alagse Articles
Total Quality
Leadership
Strategy
Business Process Management
Human Resources
Change Management
Marketing Management
Alagse Insights
Management on Ground Zero
Trends
Thought leadership blog
 
 

Comparison of strategic planning frameworks

Historically four major strategy frameworks have emerged – SWOT during 1960s, Strategic planning matrix of BCG in 1970s, competitive strategy in 1980s and core competency in 1990s.

SWOT
Evolution of different frameworks was a direct result of distinct changes in business environment of the times. SWOT analysis was suitable for time when the industry in general focused on growth, due to continued boom in demand and emergence of new industries like electronics, communications etc. SWOT analysis enabled companies to match opportunities and risks in the environment with the internal capability of the company and find the best way to grow in the industry – opportunity led diversification or expansion. Market share was the predominant concern for any business.

BCG matrix
During 1970s there was a realization that different businesses may have different levels of profitability and the focus shifted to calibrated diversification. The concept was also known as portfolio management and was developed by BCG and Arthur D. Little. Typically the business was assessed in terms of its potential for growth and the present market strength. Having favourable market share in business having high growth potential was considered ideal and so deserved greatest capital investment. This also meant divestment of weak business having no promise for future growth. This strategic planning matrix and SWOT framework were typically used to uncover the best opportunities – competition was still not a concern of strategists.

Competitive strategy
The end of boom era and intensification of competition faced in 1970s was addressed by Michael porters’ competitive strategy concept. The five forces framework advocated by Porter helps companies in analyzing competitive forces in the industry and their own competitive position to draw out a clear competitive strategy based on cost, differentiation or focus. This was a revolutionary advance in strategy formulation and one of the most popular one too. The focus of competitive strategy is to build distinct competitive advantage in the market place for the company to be successful against the competition.

Core competency model
The most recent strategy framework was proposed by Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahlad which is based on the notion of core competency, where a company needs to identify those capabilities that it does so well and can not only build sustainable competitive advantage in the current business but also can leverage those distinct capabilities to create new business opportunities. This concept suggests that strategy must be woven around the core competence of the company. This framework suits the business environment of the time when the concern is market capitalization and aggressive focus on core activities.

Comparison of strategy frameworks
Key AspectSWOTStrategy matrixFive forces frameworkCore competency
ProponentKenneth A. AndrewsBCG and Arthur D. LittleMichael E. PorterGary Hamel & C.K. Prahlad
Time1960s1970s1980s1990s
FocusExpanding businessGrowth in profitable businessesCompetitionAggressive market capitalization
Analysis criteriaMatch opportunities and threats with capability of the firmFuture growth potential and current profitable businessesIndustry and competitive factorsProspects with respect to core capabilities
ViewpointInside out and currentInside out and futureOutside in and currentInside out and future

Conclusion
Each of these frameworks provides definite response to the specific challenge of the business environment at different times. Each of these strategy frameworks were built upon the previous ones and do not contradict the others. In fact today we see that many companies use combination of these frameworks to build their strategy.

© Alagse