The Boston Matrix is acknowledged as a strategic marketing tool, utilised by organisations in multi-channel, multi-product retailing. Lorange Institute of business in Zurich, states the matrix is “the common method of corporate planning” (Baker, 2001) and could be applied universally. However, this opinion is oversimplified and outdated.
I rejected using the Matrix in our simulation as its apparent simplicity belied the experience required to achieve advantageous outcomes. Professor Chris Hackley (2009) in his publication ‘Marketing: A Critical Introduction’, claims the Matrix is popular amongst marketeers, but appears to have minimal organisational impact. This is because companies lack the accounting sophistication to identify lucrative offerings and determine market share.
Professor David Campbell in his publication ‘Global and Transnational Business: Strategy and Management’ argues that the matrix model was never intended as a universal remedy that covered all aspects of strategy. Its function was to allow organisations to assess when to ‘push’ or ‘drop’ products and identify profitable trading conditions.
Problems included unnecessary jargon, limited information and the vague nature of its four quadrants. Academic theory, impacts the behaviours and practices of those who digest its content. A less rigid discourse would create a practical and relevant product.
The matrix is now considered less favourably by Fortune 500 C.E.O.’s. (Khan, 2014); in the skilled hands of a marketeer it is a useful insight tool that must be used with care to prevent it becoming a straight jacket. I found the Matrix simplified approach unsuited to evaluating market attractiveness and profit, instead opted to continue with our Horizontal Integration strategy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.