all what you need to answer these questions. Also, you don’t need to be logic.

…………………

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

Indicate how your SSM company strategy integrates key elements of the Formulation and Implementation model (Exhibit 8.1, page 237)

Carpenter and Sanders (2008) point out that good strategies enable organizations to achieve their objectives, where strategy formulation is deciding what to do, while strategy implementation is the process of executing what the firm has planned to do (pp 237). Firm A strategy is to produce the highest quality vehicles by deploying Six Sigma methods, achieve the lowest costs through lean manufacturing, keep overhead costs low by utilizing just-in-time (JIT) inventory methods while gaining the leading market share in the vehicles our customers prefer. Firm A has had significant difficulty successfully implementing above strategy, particularly in terms of reaching desired results. Text lists three questions fo firms that are experimenting difficulty with strategy formulation and implementation: a. Is the strategy flawed?, b. Is the implementation of the strategy flawed?, c. Are both the strategy and implementation flawed? (Carpenter, 2008, pp 237). Firm A stock price has plummeted over last several periods, market share has steeply declined, net income and cumulative net income have similarly trended negative. Inventory for Ace and Alfa is significant, over 100k ea for both models which points to failure to effectively utilize Just-In-Time production. Despite efforts for reduced production costs each period, we are not the leader in terms of lowest Cost of Goods Sold (COGS). Further, even though Firm A had focus on quality from the beginning, we are not the leader in quality vehicles where every competitor has a vehicle with higher quality ratings than we do. My perception is Firm A is a victim of straddling, where we spent significant resources to differentiate with the Apprise (AEV) and Accel (high performance truck), and simultaneously tried to reduce COGS while increasing quality. In this case, do not believe the strategy was flawed, do believe the implementation of strategy was flawed by pursuing too much differentiation resulting in straddling position.

Hansen, Nohria & Tierney (1999) study displays the error in straddling strategy with example of Knowledge Management, key for consulting industries where some firms focus on strategy centers around computers where it knowledge is carefully stored and codified (codification strategy) vs. other firms who focus on the knowledge shared between individuals through direct person-to-person contacts where the chief focus is on communicating knowledge (personalization strategy) as opposed to storing the knowledge (pp 56). This is not unique to consulting where study notes that healthcare and and computer companies operate similarly (Hansen, 1999, pp 56). Some key examples from the case for codification strategy were Earnst and Young and Anderson Consulting who deploy a people-to-documents approach which removes client sensitive information and develops knowledge objects such as interview guides, work schedules, benchmark data, and market segmentation info which is then stored in electronic repository (Hansen, 1999, pp 56). Main advantage of codification strategy is knowledge is stored without need to contact person who originally developed it (Hansen, 1999, pp 56). Case examples of personalization strategy were Bain, Boston Consulting Group and Mckinsey who focus on dialog between individuals rather than information in a database, so they invest heavily and focus on building networks of people (Hansen, 1999, pp 58). Interestingly, both strategies have success and merit and there is some crossover, but in both cases successful firms focus on one strategy or the other to avoid straddling (Hansen, 1999, pp 58). Example is the personalization firms also do not provide knowledge objects but consultants can scan documents to see what work has been previously done on the topic, then approach the individuals directly (Hansen, 1999, pp 58). To avoid straddling firms choose one strategy then use the other second strategy to support the first; they call this the 80-20 split where 80% of knowledge sharing follows one strategy and 20% to the other (Hansen, 1999, pp 63). In the case of our Firm A in SSM simulation, we may have benefited from pursuing an 80-20 strategy in terms of low cost and differentiation, where instead of pursuing two different new models we may have just pursued one and focused the other resources on achieving lowest possible costs in line with our stated strategy.

What causes the Knowing-Doing Gap?

Carpenter and Sanders (2008) describe the Knowledge-doing gap as a phenomenon where firms tend to be better at generating new knowledge than at creating new products based on that knowledge (pp 238). Insightful statistic from the text was study that found 46% of firms survey regarded themselves as good or excellent at generating new knowledge, while only 14% of the same firms reported having launch new products based on the application of new knowledge (Carpenter, 2008, pp 238). In terms of cause for Knowledge-doing gap, text points out that often strategy-formulation process itself is not shared with those stakeholders, including lower-level managers who will be integral in rolling out the strategy (Carpenter, 2008, pp 238). For case example, Grover & Davenport (2001) further investigate knowledge management and show that closing the knowledge doing gap firms should not seek stand alone businesses but should seek to embed knowledge management into other aspects of their business (Grover, 2001, pp 5). Study notes that many firms have repositories of knowledge accumulated since the advent of the computer but in terms of strategically deploying this information in optimal fashion has proved difficult (Grover, 2001, pp 6). Despite the chief importance of knowledge in terms of relevance to decisions and actions, the use of knowledge typically requires the minds of human beings to disseminate and apply in correct way (Grover, 2001, pp 6). Reminds me of my good friend Stephen who works for Tealium whos advanced online data metrics and tools enable them to optimize information in ways that are deemed most useful for executives of client firms. Study found the following key points with regards to storage and use of key industry knowledge: a. Personalization vs. codification (see above), b. Knowledge markets (folks capitalizing on their personal knowledge, c. communities of practice ie. networks of people with same work interests, and d. Intangible assets, such as valuable knowledge and intellectual capital (Grover, 2001, pp 8). Knowledge managers are proposed who perform the following tasks 1. Facilitate knowledge-sharing networks and communities of practice, 2. Creation, editing, and pruning of knowledge objects in repositories, 3. Incorporating knowledge oriented job descriptions, motivational approaches, and evaluation/reward systems into Human Resource Mgt. processes, 4. Redesigning knowledge work processes and incorporating knowledge tasks and activities into them (Grover, 2001, pp 10). Seems the key to successful deployment of knowledge to action involves continuous effort, systems, processes and roles to ensure that knowledge acquired is transferred into actionable items and results.

References:

Carpenter, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2008). Strategic Management: A Dynamic Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Integrated StratSim Simulation Experience

Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s Your Strategy For Managing Knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 55-69. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.library2.csumb.edu:2048/apps/doc/A54077794/AONE?u=csumb_main&sid=AONE&xid=dcb50466

Grover, V., & Davenport, T. (2001). General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda.
Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(1), 5-21. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398515

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

Create a Competitive Profile Matrix, an EFE Matrix, and an IFE Matrix for the company Facebook. Write in APA format. Description and example of a Competitive Profile Matrix, EFE Matrix, and IFE Matrix is below:

The Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM) identifies a firm’s major competitors and its particular strengths and weaknesses in relation to a sample firm’s strategic position. The weights and total weighted scores in both a CPM and an EFE have the same meaning. However, critical success factors in a CPM include both internal and external issues; therefore, the ratings refer to strengths and weaknesses, where 4 = major strength, 3 = minor strength, 2 = minor weakness, and 1 = major weakness. The critical success factors in a CPM 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. Avoid assigning the same rating to firms included in your CPM analysis.

An Example Competitive Profile Matrix

	Company 1	Company 2	Company 3
Critical Success Factors	Weight	Rating	Score	Rating	Score	Rating	Score
Advertising	0.20	1	0.20	4	0.80	3	0.60
Product Quality	0.10	4	0.40	3	0.30	2	0.20
Price Competitiveness	0.10	3	0.30	2	0.20	1	0.10
Management	0.10	4	0.40	3	0.20	1	0.10
Financial Position	0.15	4	0.60	2	0.30	3	0.45
Customer Loyalty	0.10	4	0.40	3	0.30	2	0.20
Global Expansion	0.20	4	0.80	1	0.20	2	0.40
Market Share	0.05	1	0.05	4	0.20	3	0.15
Total	1.00		3.15		2.50		2.20

Note: The ratings values are as follows: 1 = major weakness, 2 = minor weakness, 3 = minor strength, 4 = major strength. As indicated by the total weighted score of 2.20, Company 3 is weakest overall. Only eight critical success factors are included for simplicity; in actuality, however, this is too few.’

An External Factor Evaluation (EFE) Matrix allows strategists to summarize and evaluate economic, social, cultural, demographic, environmental, political, governmental, legal, technological, and competitive information, illustrated earlier in Figure 3-2. The EFE Matrix can be developed in five steps:

1. List 20 key external factors as identified in the external-audit process, including both opportunities and threats that affect 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. Recall that Edward Deming said, “In God we trust. Everyone else bring data.” In addition, utilize “actionable” factors as defined earlier in this chapter.
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 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 rating between 1 and 4 to each key external factor to indicate how effectively the firm’s current strategies respond to the factor, where 4 = the response is superior, 3 = the response is above average, 2 = the response is average, and 1 = 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.

Example of EFE Matrix for a Local 10-Theater Cinema Complex

Key External Factors	Weight	Rating	Weighted Score
Opportunities
1. Two new neighborhoods developing within 3 miles	0.09	1	0.09
2. TDB University is expanding 6% annually	0.08	4	0.32
3. Major competitor across town recently closed	0.08	3	0.24
4. Demand for going to cinemas growing 10%	0.07	2	0.14
5. Disposable income among citizens up 5% in prior year	0.06	3	0.18
6. Rowan County is growing 8% annually in population	0.05	3	0.15
7. Unemployment rate in county declined to 3.1%	0.03	2	0.06
Threats
8. Trend toward healthy eating eroding concession sales	0.12	4	0.48
9. Demand for online movies and DVDs growing 10%	0.06	2	0.12
10. Commercial property adjacent to cinemas for sale	0.06	3	0.18
11. TDB University installing an on-campus movie theater	0.04	3	0.12
12. County and city property taxes increasing 25%	0.08	2	0.16
13. Local religious groups object to R-rated movies	0.04	3	0.12
14. Movies rented at local Red Box’s up 12%	0.08	2	0.16
15. Movies rented last quarter from Time Warner up 15%	0.06	1	0.06
Total	1.00		2.58

A summary step in conducting an internal strategic-management audit is to construct an Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE) Matrix. This strategy-formulation tool summarizes and evaluates the major strengths and weaknesses in the functional areas of a business, and it also provides a basis for identifying and evaluating relationships among those areas. Intuitive judgments are required in developing an IFE Matrix, so the appearance of a scientific approach should not be interpreted to mean this is an all-powerful technique. A thorough understanding of the factors included is more important than the actual numbers. Similar to the EFE Matrix and the Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM) described in Chapter 3, an IFE Matrix can be developed in five steps:

1. List key internal factors as identified in the internal-audit process. Use a total of 20 internal factors, including both strengths and weaknesses. List strengths first and then weaknesses. Be as specific as possible, using percentages, ratios, and comparative numbers. Recall that Edward Deming said, “In God we trust. Everyone else bring data.” Include actionable factors that can provide insight regarding strategies to pursue. For example, the factor “Our Quick Ratio is 2.1 versus industry average of 1.8” is not actionable, whereas the factor “Our chocolate division’s ROI increased from 8 to 15 percent in South America” is actionable. Also, be as divisional as possible, because consolidated data oftentimes is not as revealing or useful in deciding among strategies as the underlying by-segment or division data.
2. Assign a weight that ranges from 0.0 (not important) to 1.0 (all-important) to each factor. The weight assigned to a given factor indicates the relative importance of the factor to being successful in the firm’s industry. Regardless of whether a key factor is an internal strength or weakness, factors considered to have the greatest effect on organizational performance should be assigned the highest weights. The sum of all weights must equal 1.0.
3. Assign a 1 to 4 rating to each factor to indicate whether that factor represents a major weakness (rating = 1), a minor weakness (rating = 2), a minor strength (rating = 3), or a major strength (rating = 4). Note that strengths must receive a 3 or 4 rating and weaknesses must receive a 1 or 2 rating. Ratings are thus company-based, whereas the weights in step 2 are industry-based.
4. Multiply each factor’s weight by its rating to determine a weighted score for each variable.
5. Sum the weighted scores for each variable to determine the total weighted score for the organization.

Example of IFE Matrix for a Retail Computer Store

Key Internal Factors	Weight	Rating	Weighted Score
Strengths
Inventory turnover increased from 5.8 to 6.7.	0.05	3	0.15
Average customer purchase increased from $97 to $128.	0.07	4	0.28
Employee morale is excellent.	0.10	3	0.30
In-store promotions resulted in 20% increase in sales.	0.05	3	0.15
Newspaper advertising expenditures increased 10%.	0.02	3	0.06
Revenues from repair/service in the store up 16%.	0.15	3	0.45
In-store technical support personnel have MIS college degrees.	0.05	4	0.20
Store’s debt-to-total assets ratio declined to 34%.	0.03	3	0.09
Revenues per employee up 19%.	0.02	3	0.06
Weaknesses
Revenues from software segment of store down 12%.	0.10	2	0.20
Location of store negatively impacted by new Highway 34.	0.15	2	0.30
Carpet and paint in store somewhat in disrepair.	0.02	1	0.02
Bathroom in store needs refurbishing.	0.02	1	0.02
Revenues from businesses down 8%.	0.04	1	0.04
Store has no website.	0.05	2	0.10
Supplier on-time delivery increased to 2.4 days.	0.03	1	0.03
Often customers have to wait to check out	0.05	1	0.05
Total	1.00		2.50

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

Be 800 words in length

Be type-written, double-spaced, and in 12-pt font

Have a title page that includes the assignment title, your name and student number, the number and name of the course, the names of the professor and your teaching assistant, and the due date

I drop a file below, you can choose one of the title to write in this file. I’d prefer the first one “the raising of the minimum wage to $15 per hour”

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.