ZeePedia Add to Favourites   |   Contact us


Strategic Management

<<< Previous INDUSTRY ANALYSIS:Global challenge, The Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM) Next >>>
 
img
Strategic Management ­ MGT603
VU
Lesson 11
INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
Objectives:
The EFE Matrix and five-force model can help strategists evaluate the market and industry, but these tools
must be accompanied by good intuitive judgment. Multinational firms especially need a systematic and
effective external-audit system because external forces among foreign countries vary so greatly. This lecture
provides you complete details of EFE matrix as a component of SWOT analysis.
Competitive Intelligence Programs and competitive analysis:
Systematic and ethical process for gathering and analyzing information about the competition's activities and general business
trends to further a business' own goals.
Competitive Analysis: Porter's Five-
Forces Model
Potential development
of substitute products
Rivalry among
Bargaining power
Bargaining power
Competing firms
of suppliers
of consumers
Potential entry of new
competitors
The central point lays the stress on rivalry of the competing firm. This relates to the intensity of the rivalry.
How the firms compete with each other and to what extent? That should be taken into account very
carefully.
Potential entry for new competitors shows a balance between different firms competing in a market. It also
refers whenever a new partner enter into a market he may become threat for one and opportunity for other
competing partners. As all the new entries and existing firms are competing with each other so the new
entry will definitely make an effect on every one transacting in the market.
A potential development of substitute products also develops an environment of competition in the market
among the competing partners. As all firms want to compete in term of quality and substitute will lasts for
longer in the market if the quality of the substitute will be greater than the existing alternate. Other factors
also have a major impact on the substitutes.
Collective bargaining power of suppliers and consumers: if vendors are less in the market and the
organizations that have to purchase from those vendors are more then the demand for those suppliers will
be more as the firms have to purchase from that less suppliers. The reverse is the case if suppliers are more
and buyers are less. Then the demand for those suppliers will be less. Such circumstances create difficulties
in bargaining.
These above five components constitute the basics elements for the competitive analysis.
43
img
Strategic Management ­ MGT603
VU
Global challenge:
International Challenge faced by Pakistani firms:
o  How to gain and maintain exports to other nations
o  How to defend domestic markets against imported goods
The first challenge is the much bigger in the sense that we have to search for new market and retain in that
market as the competition goes on increasing with every passing second. For this, we have to make a
research in the market that how to retain in that market.
Second challenge is also depends upon the research that how we can retain in that market through
competition and how to defend our market with violation of exports laws.
Industry Analysis: The External Factor Evaluation (EFE) Matrix
We can prepare EFE matrix after evaluating the key external factors discuss in the later lectures. There are
all key factors which are needed to be summarized in order to make EFE matrix.
An External Factor Evaluation (EFE) Matrix allows strategists to summarize and evaluate economic, social,
cultural, demographic, environmental, political, governmental, legal, technological, and competitive
information. The EFE matrix consists of five steps process.
Five-Step process:
 List key external factors (10-20)
Opportunities & threats
You have to prepare a list of all external factors which will affect the EFE matrix. These factors should be
two points to be kept in mind these are opportunities and threats.
 Assign weight to each (0 to 1.0)
Sum of all weights = 1.0
Now you have to arrange them according to their weight age that which factor is most important. It should
be weight age in % ages. The sum of the total of all the factors should always be one.
 Assign 1-4 rating to each factor
 Firm's current strategies response to the factor: how well firms response to these factors.
 Multiply each factor's weight by its rating
 Produces a weighted score
How the firm will respond to these factors external factors. Such criteria are known as rating.
 Sum the weighted scores for each
Determines the total weighted score for the organization.
 Highest possible weighted score for the organization is 4.0; the lowest, 1.0. Average = 2.5
Illustrated in Table 3-11, the EFE Matrix can be developed in five steps:
1. List key external factors as identified in the external-audit process. Include a total of from ten to
twenty factors, including both opportunities and threats affecting the firm and its industry. List the
opportunities first and then the threats. Be as specific as possible, using percentages, ratios, and
comparative numbers whenever possible.
2. Assign to each factor a weight that ranges from 0.0 (not important) to 1.0 (very important). The
weight indicates the relative importance of that factor to being successful in the firm's industry.
Opportunities often receive higher weights than threats, but threats too can receive high weights if
they are especially severe or threatening. Appropriate weights can be determined by comparing
successful with unsuccessful competitors or by discussing the factor and reaching a group
consensus. The sum of all weights assigned to the factors must equal 1.0.
3. Assign a 1-to-4 rating to each key external factor to indicate how effectively the firm's current
strategies respond to the factor, where 4 5 the response is superior, 3 5 the response is above average, 2 5 the
response is average, and 1 5 the response is poor. Ratings are based on effectiveness of the firm's
strategies. Ratings are, thus, company based, whereas the weights in Step 2 are industry based. It is
important to note that both threats and opportunities can receive a 1, 2, 3, or 4.
4. Multiply each factor's weight by its rating to determine a weighted score.
5. Sum the weighted scores for each variable to determine the total weighted score for the
organization.
44
img
Strategic Management ­ MGT603
VU
An Example External Factor Evaluation Matrix for UST, Inc.
WEIGHTED
KEY EXTERNAL FACTORS
WEIGHT RATING
SCORE
Opportunities
1. Global markets are practically untapped by
.15
1
.15
smokeless tobacco market
2. Increased demand caused by public banning of
.05
3
.15
smoking
3. Astronomical Internet advertising growth
.05
1
.05
4. Pinkerton is leader in discount tobacco market
.15
4
.60
5. More social pressure to quit smoking, thus
.10
3
.30
leading users to switch to alternatives
Threats
1. Legislation against the tobacco industry
.10
2
.20
2.  Production  limits  on
tobacco
increases
.05
3
.15
competition for production
3. Smokeless tobacco market is concentrated in
.05
2
.10
southeast region of United States
4. Bad media exposure from the FDA
.10
2
.20
5. Clinton administration
.20
1
.20
TOTAL
1.00
2.10
Regardless of the number of key opportunities and threats included in an EFE Matrix, the highest possible
total weighted score for an organization is 4.0 and the lowest possible total weighted score is 1.0. The
average total weighted score is 2.5. A total weighted score of 4.0 indicates that an organization is responding
in an outstanding way to existing opportunities and threats in its industry. In other words, the firm's
strategies effectively take advantage of existing opportunities and minimize the potential adverse effect of
external threats. A total score of 1.0 indicates that the firm's strategies are not capitalizing on opportunities
or avoiding external threats.
An example of an EFE Matrix is provided in Table for UST, Inc., the manufacturer of Skoal and
Copenhagen smokeless tobacco. Note that the Clinton administration was considered to be the most
important factor affecting this industry, as indicated by the weight of 0.20. UST was not pursuing strategies
that effectively capitalize on this opportunity, as indicated by the rating of 1.01. The total weighted score of
2.10 indicates that UST is below average in its effort to pursue strategies that capitalize on external
opportunities and avoid threats. It is important to note here that a thorough understanding of the factors
being used in the EFE Matrix is more important than the actual weights and ratings assigned.
Total weighted score of 4.0 =
Organization response is outstanding to threats & weaknesses
Total weighted score of 1.0 =
Firm's strategies not capitalizing on opportunities or avoiding threats
UST (in the previous example), has a total weighted score of 2.10 indicating that the firm is below average
in its effort to pursue strategies that capitalize on external opportunities and avoid threats.
Note: Understanding of the factors used in the EFE Matrix is more important than the actual weights and
ratings assigned.
45
img
Strategic Management ­ MGT603
VU
This is important to understand the factors for which you are preparing the EFE matrix than the weight age
given to the each factors.
The Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM)
The Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM) identifies a firm's major competitors and their particular strengths and weaknesses in
relation to a sample firm's strategic position.
The weights and total weighted scores in both a CPM and EFE have the same meaning. However, the
factors in a CPM include both internal and external issues; therefore, the ratings refer to strengths and
weaknesses, where 4 5 major strength, 3 5 minor strength, 2 5 minor weakness, and 1 5 major weakness.
There are some important differences between the EFE and CPM. First of all, the critical success factors in
a CPM are broader; they do not include specific or factual data and even may focus on internal issues. The
critical success factors in a CPM also are not grouped into opportunities and threats as they are in an EFE.
In a CPM the ratings and total weighted scores for rival firms can be compared to the sample firm. This
comparative analysis provides important internal strategic information.
A sample Competitive Profile Matrix is provided in Table. In this example, advertising and global expansion
are the most important critical success factors, as indicated by a weight of 0.20. Avon's and L'Oreal's
product quality is superior, as evidenced by a rating of 4; L'Oreal's "financial position" is good, as indicated
by a rating of 3; Procter & Gamble is the weakest firm overall, as indicated by a total weighted score of 2.80.
A Competitive Profile Matrix
AVON
L'OREAL
PROCTER&GAMBLE
CRITICAL SUCCESS
WEIGHT RATING SCORE RATING SCORE RATING
SCORE
FACTORS
Advertising
0.20
1
0.20
4
0.80
3
0.60
Product Quality
0.10
4
0.40
4
0.40
3
0.30
Price Competitiveness
0.10
3
0.30
3
0.30
4
0.40
Management
0.10
4
0.40
3
0.30
3
0.30
Financial Position
0.15
4
0.60
3
0.45
3
0.45
Customer Loyalty
0.10
4
0.40
4
0.40
2
0.20
Global Expansion
0.20
4
0.80
2
0.40
2
0.40
Market Share
0.05
1
0.05
4
0.20
3
0.15
TOTAL
1.00
3.15
3.25
2.80
Note: (1) The ratings values are as follows: 1 = major weakness, 2 = minor weakness, 3 = minor strength, 4 =
major strength. (2) As indicated by the total weighted score of 2.8, Competitor 3 is weakest. (3) Only eight
critical success factors are included for simplicity; this is too few in actuality.
Other than the critical success factors listed in the example CPM, other factors often included in this
analysis include breadth of product line, effectiveness of sales distribution, proprietary or patent advantages,
location of facilities, production capacity and efficiency, experience, union relations, technological
advantages, and e-commerce expertise.
A word on interpretation: Just because one firm receives a 3.2 rating and another receives a 2.8 rating in a
Competitive Profile Matrix, it does not follow that the first firm is 20 percent better than the second.
Numbers reveal the relative strength of firms, but their implied precision is an illusion. Numbers are not
magic. The aim is not to arrive at a single number but rather to assimilate and evaluate information in a
meaningful way that aids in decision making.
46
Table of Contents:
  1. NATURE OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT:Interpretation, Strategy evaluation
  2. KEY TERMS IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT:Adapting to change, Mission Statements
  3. INTERNAL FACTORS & LONG TERM GOALS:Strategies, Annual Objectives
  4. BENEFITS OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT:Non- financial Benefits, Nature of global competition
  5. COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIC MODEL:Mission statement, Narrow Mission:
  6. CHARACTERISTICS OF A MISSION STATEMENT:A Declaration of Attitude
  7. EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT:The Nature of an External Audit, Economic Forces
  8. KEY EXTERNAL FACTORS:Economic Forces, Trends for the 2000ís USA
  9. EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT (KEY EXTERNAL FACTORS):Political, Governmental, and Legal Forces
  10. TECHNOLOGICAL FORCES:Technology-based issues
  11. INDUSTRY ANALYSIS:Global challenge, The Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM)
  12. IFE MATRIX:The Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE) Matrix, Internal Audit
  13. FUNCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT:Planning, Organizing, Motivating, Staffing
  14. FUNCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT:Customer Analysis, Product and Service Planning, Pricing
  15. INTERNAL ASSESSMENT (FINANCE/ACCOUNTING):Basic Types of Financial Ratios
  16. ANALYTICAL TOOLS:Research and Development, The functional support role
  17. THE INTERNAL FACTOR EVALUATION (IFE) MATRIX:Explanation
  18. TYPES OF STRATEGIES:The Nature of Long-Term Objectives, Integration Strategies
  19. TYPES OF STRATEGIES:Horizontal Integration, Michael Porterís Generic Strategies
  20. TYPES OF STRATEGIES:Intensive Strategies, Market Development, Product Development
  21. TYPES OF STRATEGIES:Diversification Strategies, Conglomerate Diversification
  22. TYPES OF STRATEGIES:Guidelines for Divestiture, Guidelines for Liquidation
  23. STRATEGY-FORMULATION FRAMEWORK:A Comprehensive Strategy-Formulation Framework
  24. THREATS-OPPORTUNITIES-WEAKNESSES-STRENGTHS (TOWS) MATRIX:WT Strategies
  25. THE STRATEGIC POSITION AND ACTION EVALUATION (SPACE) MATRIX
  26. THE STRATEGIC POSITION AND ACTION EVALUATION (SPACE) MATRIX
  27. BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP (BCG) MATRIX:Cash cows, Question marks
  28. BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP (BCG) MATRIX:Steps for the development of IE matrix
  29. GRAND STRATEGY MATRIX:RAPID MARKET GROWTH, SLOW MARKET GROWTH
  30. GRAND STRATEGY MATRIX:Preparation of matrix, Key External Factors
  31. THE NATURE OF STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION:Management Perspectives, The SMART criteria
  32. RESOURCE ALLOCATION
  33. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE:Divisional Structure, The Matrix Structure
  34. RESTRUCTURING:Characteristics, Results, Reengineering
  35. PRODUCTION/OPERATIONS CONCERNS WHEN IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES:Philosophy
  36. MARKET SEGMENTATION:Demographic Segmentation, Behavioralistic Segmentation
  37. MARKET SEGMENTATION:Product Decisions, Distribution (Place) Decisions, Product Positioning
  38. FINANCE/ACCOUNTING ISSUES:DEBIT, USES OF PRO FORMA STATEMENTS
  39. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
  40. STRATEGY REVIEW, EVALUATION AND CONTROL:Evaluation, The threat of new entrants
  41. PORTER SUPPLY CHAIN MODEL:The activities of the Value Chain, Support activities
  42. STRATEGY EVALUATION:Consistency, The process of evaluating Strategies
  43. REVIEWING BASES OF STRATEGY:Measuring Organizational Performance
  44. MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
  45. CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTIVE EVALUATION SYSTEM:Contingency Planning