flowchart TB
subgraph Generic [Porter's Generic Strategies]
CL[Cost Leadership<br/>Broad market, lowest cost]
D[Differentiation<br/>Broad market, unique]
F[Focus<br/>Narrow market]
end
CL --- D
D --- F
style CL fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#1565C0
style D fill:#FCE4EC,stroke:#AD1457
style F fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#2E7D32
55 Strategy Formulation
55.1 What is Strategy Formulation?
Strategy formulation is the process of choosing what the organisation will do — its goals, its competitive position, and the actions through which it will compete. It comes after the diagnostic stage (vision, mission, strategic analysis) and before implementation.
Strategy is formulated at three levels (covered in topic 53): corporate, business, functional. Each level has its own classical frameworks.
| Level | Question | Classical frameworks |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate | What businesses to be in? | Ansoff matrix · BCG matrix · GE-McKinsey matrix · Grand strategies |
| Business / SBU | How to compete in a chosen business? | Porter’s generic strategies · Blue-Ocean strategy |
| Functional | How does each function support? | Functional strategies — marketing, HR, finance, ops |
55.2 Porter’s Generic Strategies
Michael Porter’s Competitive Strategy (1980) identifies three generic strategies a firm can pursue at the business level (porter1980?; porter1985?):
| Strategy | What it pursues | Key levers | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost Leadership | Low cost across the industry | Scale, experience curve, tight cost control, lean operations | Imitation; technology change |
| Differentiation | Uniqueness valued by customers | Brand, design, R&D, service, quality | Imitation; customer indifference |
| Focus / Niche | Cost or differentiation in a narrow segment | Targeted expertise | Segment shrinks; broad players catch up |
Porter warns against being stuck in the middle — pursuing both cost leadership and differentiation typically leaves the firm with neither advantage. Modern critics (e.g., Toyota, with both quality and cost) suggest a hybrid strategy is sometimes feasible — but is hard to sustain.
55.3 Ansoff Matrix — Product-Market Growth
Igor Ansoff’s Corporate Strategy (1957, 1965) introduced the product-market matrix — four growth strategies based on combinations of existing/new products and existing/new markets (ansoff1957?):
| Existing Product | New Product | |
|---|---|---|
| Existing Market | Market Penetration | Product Development |
| New Market | Market Development | Diversification |
| Strategy | What it does | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Market Penetration | Sell more of existing products to existing customers | Low |
| Product Development | New products to existing customers | Medium |
| Market Development | Existing products to new customers / geographies | Medium |
| Diversification | New products to new markets | Highest |
55.4 BCG Matrix — Portfolio Analysis
The Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) Growth-Share Matrix (Bruce Henderson, late 1960s) classifies SBUs into four quadrants by market growth rate (vertical) and relative market share (horizontal):
| Quadrant | Market Growth | Relative Share | Cash | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Star | High | High | Neutral | Invest to maintain leadership |
| Cash Cow | Low | High | Generates | Milk for cash; harvest |
| Question Mark | High | Low | Consumes | Invest selectively or divest |
| Dog | Low | Low | Drains | Divest |
The corporate logic: cash cows fund stars and selected question marks; dogs are divested.
flowchart LR
subgraph BCG [BCG Matrix]
S[Star<br/>High Growth + High Share] --- Q[Question Mark<br/>High Growth + Low Share]
C[Cash Cow<br/>Low Growth + High Share] --- D[Dog<br/>Low Growth + Low Share]
end
C -- "Cash flow" --> S
C -- "Selective funding" --> Q
style S fill:#FFF8E1,stroke:#F9A825
style C fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#2E7D32
style Q fill:#E3F2FD,stroke:#1565C0
style D fill:#FFEBEE,stroke:#C62828
55.5 GE-McKinsey Matrix
A nine-cell extension of BCG. Industry attractiveness (low/medium/high) on one axis and business strength / competitive position (weak/average/strong) on the other. Recommendations are invest/grow, hold, or harvest/divest depending on cell.
| Zone | Cells | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Green (Invest / Grow) | Top-left three cells | Invest aggressively |
| Yellow (Selective / Hold) | Diagonal three cells | Maintain selectively |
| Red (Harvest / Divest) | Bottom-right three cells | Reduce, harvest, exit |
The GE-McKinsey is richer than BCG — it uses multiple variables for each axis — but is also more subjective.
55.6 Grand Strategies — Corporate Direction
Glueck and Jauch’s classic categorisation of corporate-level grand strategies:
| Family | Sub-types | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Stability | No-change · Profit · Pause / Proceed-with-caution | Mature firms; environment unstable; consolidation |
| Growth | Concentration · Vertical integration · Horizontal integration · Diversification (related / unrelated) | Strong firms in growing markets |
| Retrenchment | Turnaround · Divestment · Liquidation | Distress; loss-making units |
| Combination | Two or more applied to different SBUs | Multi-business firms |
55.7 Blue-Ocean Strategy
W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne’s Blue-Ocean Strategy (2005) reframes competition: instead of fighting in red oceans (existing markets where competition is bloody), firms should create blue oceans — uncontested market spaces — through value innovation (kimmauborgne2005?).
| Feature | Red Ocean | Blue Ocean |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy | Compete in existing market | Create uncontested market |
| Demand | Exploit existing demand | Create new demand |
| Cost-differentiation | Trade-off | Both — value innovation |
| Logic | Strategic positioning | Value innovation |
| Examples | Most industries | Cirque du Soleil; iPad; Nintendo Wii |
The signature Four Actions Framework — Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, Create — and the Strategy Canvas are Kim and Mauborgne’s tools for designing blue-ocean moves.
55.8 Cooperative Strategies
Not all strategy is competitive. Modern firms also pursue cooperative strategies:
| Form | What it does |
|---|---|
| Strategic alliance | Long-term cooperation without equity link |
| Joint venture | New entity with equity from each partner |
| Licensing / franchising | Use of brand / IP under contract |
| Research consortia | Shared R&D investment |
| Co-opetition | Compete and cooperate at the same time (Brandenburger & Nalebuff) |
55.9 Practice Questions
Porter's three generic strategies are:
View solution
A firm pursuing both cost leadership and differentiation simultaneously, with no clear focus, is, in Porter's terms:
View solution
Selling existing products to new geographic markets is, in Ansoff's matrix:
View solution
An SBU with high market share in a slow-growth industry is, in BCG terms, a:
View solution
The GE-McKinsey nine-cell matrix uses which two axes?
View solution
Selling off a loss-making division to focus on the rest of the business is an example of a:
View solution
Blue Ocean Strategy was developed by:
View solution
Disney expanding from films into theme parks is best described as:
View solution
- Strategy formulation = choosing what to do. Three levels: corporate, business, functional.
- Porter’s Generic Strategies: Cost Leadership · Differentiation · Focus. Beware “stuck in the middle”.
- Ansoff Matrix: 2×2 of existing/new product × existing/new market — Penetration, Product Development, Market Development, Diversification.
- BCG Matrix: Stars · Cash Cows · Question Marks · Dogs. Cash cows fund stars; divest dogs.
- GE-McKinsey: industry attractiveness × business strength → invest/hold/harvest.
- Grand strategies: Stability, Growth, Retrenchment, Combination. Diversification: related vs unrelated. Rumelt (1974) — related does better.
- Blue Ocean Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005): create uncontested space via value innovation. Tools: Four Actions Framework + Strategy Canvas.
- Cooperative strategies: alliances, JVs, licensing, consortia, co-opetition.