The more successful we desire our business to be, the more planning will be required. Numerous economists and intellectuals acknowledge the importance of strategy to the success of any enterprise. Currently, all stages of a typical entity's existence are planned, reviewed, and described beforehand. Due to the existing theories of strategy, which industrial leaders use to organize their actions, it is essential to select the one that fills all the holes in the given conditions; otherwise, even a single omission might be the cause of failure.
In his works, Donald Hambrick defies the whole concept of strategy. He asserts that decisions about R&D funding, capacity, and pricing should not be made in isolation from one another. I believe that Hambrick had a somewhat critical outlook on the sound decision-making procedures of the period. He also mentions Porter's design, describing it as "narrow" and stating that such an approach to strategic planning is considerably less complex than it should be. According to him, strategy derives its meaning not from an objective theory, but from the expectations and ambitions of each "strategist" (Hambrick and Fredrickson 52). I can see that he considers implementing a strategy to be of the utmost importance. After identifying the business's objectives, the thinker formulates a strategy. The fundamental components of his method are economic logic, regions, vehicles, differentiations, and staged implementation. Together, the pieces form a diamond that Hambrick, as I believe, designed to clarify the theory (Carpenter, Bauer and Erdogan par. 3). Due to strategic thinking, he connects a question to each piece that must be answered. Additionally, he outlines organizational actions that support strategy. Included are interactions with people, symbols, rewards, and operational norms and procedures. The presented hypothesis appears to be well-considered, somewhat optional, and applicable. It is distinct from the other two in its direct approach and equal emphasis on all elements.
In his opinions, Michael Porter emphasizes the importance of a competitive market. He counts rivals among the fundamental forces upon which a strategy must rely (Porter 79). As previously stated, these forces include substitute products, suppliers, potential new entrants, customers, and competitors. In my perspective, Porter considers competition to be the most influential factor because he emphasizes it most in his books. Portes, like Hambrick, speculates on the nature of "strategy" ("Michael Porter Asks, and Answers: Why Do Good Managers Set Bad Strategies?," par. 6) But if Hambrick places economic logic at the center of his diamond, Porter places competitor relations at the center of his study. Such an approach is sound in contemporary economics, albeit it tends to leave certain old ideas in the dust, as was the case previously (Warsh par. 6). Porter notes that providers have the option of joining the market on a huge scale in order to be a significant competitor, or of accepting a cost disadvantage. He also considers incumbents, noting that a company may have advantages while being smaller than its rivals. As examples, the economist cites technology, access to better raw resources, and geographic location, each of which offers distinct advantages (Ingram par. 8). Additionally, Porter attempts to distinguish between forces and factors. It appears he wishes to emphasize what is fundamental and what is secondary. As factors, he discusses the government, innovations, and the growth rate of industries. Porter's theory appears somewhat "aggressive" because it is continually focused on competitors, yet it gives an effective strategic strategy that teaches entrepreneurs how to stay ahead.
Frederic Frery gave an alternative perspective regarding the meaning of strategy. He splits it into dimensions as opposed to determining elements, like Porter did (Gonzalez par. 1). Frery identifies value creation as the primary objective of every strategy. He asserts that the production of value might be focused primarily toward shareholders or customers, but the ultimate goal is to satisfy both. Moreover, he contends that focusing on one while ignoring another may result in corporate failure. If both shareholders and customers are satisfied, there is a balance between revenues and customer satisfaction. The second characteristic is mimic handling. The author discusses the originality of a business, citing the prevention of copying as a decisive factor in strategy formulation. He adds that a firm must appear as implausible as possible to others. I believe that the significance of a given dimension is slightly overdone, and in comparison to Porter's perspective on rivalry, Frery is emphasizing the wrong component of rivalry. In addition, he omits strategy optimization, cost reduction, and similar considerations, emphasizing that competitors can make the same choices. The perimeter defines the final dimension. According to Frery, two questions must be answered: what is the business and where does it stand in the value network? After identifying it, a series of strategic decisions can be made. Among them are refocusing, outsourcing, diversification, and integration. Frery's theory appears to be considerably weaker than that of earlier economists. It does not provide guidance for all significant business decisions and elements.
"Mary Key" was chosen as an example of successful market strategy execution. The specified company is in the industry of marketing beauty and body care items ("The Marketing Strategies of Mary Key Products," par. A feature of the company's marketing is presenting the goods in a way that generates a desire to give it as a gift to loved ones, friends, and family. This strategy is very new to global markets, therefore we can link it to the Frery dimension of uniqueness. I consider it one of the most important decisions affecting the company's performance. A second characteristic of a specific organization is its trade centers' meticulous client service. This makes every consumer feel special, which increases their devotion to "Mary Key." Regarding client benefits is a crucial concern (Berry par. 2). This is exactly what Porter referred to when describing demand-side scale benefits. A set of distribution channels represented an additional method of value creation. Direct selling with the option to purchase products via one-on-one or group consultations and phone calls provides the business with a competitive advantage over its rivals. As benefits of this technique, we can list convenience, speed, and access to comparable pricing information, which is another aspect of Porter's thesis that he unearthed in his perspective of distribution channels.
Overall, "Mary Key" is today a world-famous institution not in the least due to its strategic planning, which creates value for customers by demonstrating care for them. The company's marketing plan seemed to be more in line with Porter's philosophy, and it produced the expected results. As for Porter himself, I think his perspectives and approaches to be the most persuasive and effective.
Sources Cited
2015 Web. Berry, Tim. Focus on Customers' Benefits.
Carpenter, Bauer, and Berrin Erdogan. 2015. Web.
Gonzalez, Victor, and Frederic Frery's The Fundamental Dimensions of Strategy. 2011. Web.
Donald C. Hambrick and James W. Fredrickson. Are You Certain You Have a Strategy? Academy of Management Executive Quarterly 19.4 (2005): 51-62. Print.
The Internet 2015. Ingram, David. The Benefits of Geographical Organizational Structure.
Michael Porter asks and answers the question, "Why Do Good Managers Choose Poor Strategies?" 2006. Web.
Porter, Michael. Five Competitive Forces That Influence Strategy, Harvard Business Review 86.1 (2008): 78-93. Print.
2015.Web.The Marketing Strategies of Mary Key Products.
Warsh, David, The Rivals. 2015. Web.
[supanova question]