general electric strategic business planning grid

B2U – Business-to-you.com

THE place that brings real life business, management and strategy to you

GE McKinsey Matrix: A Multifactorial Portfolio Analysis in Corporate Strategy

The GE-McKinsey Matrix (a.k.a. GE Matrix, General Electric Matrix, Nine-box matrix) is just like the BCG Matrix a portfolio analysis tool used in corporate strategy  to analyse strategic business units or product lines based on two variables: industry attractiveness and the competitive strength of a business unit. By combining these two variables into a matrix, a corporation can plot their business units accordingly and determine where to invest, where to hold their position, and where to harvest or divest. However, different from the BCG Matrix, the GE-McKinsey Matrix uses multiple  factors that are combined to determine the measure of the two variables industry attractiveness and competitive strength. This is an important distinction, since the BCG Matrix has been criticized a lot on its use of only one single (and perhaps outdated) variable for each axis.

The name of the framework stems from the year 1970 in which General Electric (GE) hired the strategy consulting firm McKinsey&Company to consult GE in managing their large and complex portfolio of strategic business units. Therefore, it is McKinsey (not GE) that created the framework as a means to help GE cope with its strategic decisions on a corporate level. 

Figure 1: GE McKinsey Nine Box Matrix

Industry Attractiveness

On the vertical axis of the GE Mckinsey Matrix, we find the variable Industry Attractiveness which can be divided into High, Medium and Low. Industry attractiveness is demonstrated by how beneficial it is for a company to enter and compete within a certain industry based on the profit potential of that specific industry. The higher the profit potential of an industry is, the more attractive it becomes. An industry’s profitability in turn is affected by the current level of competition and potential future changes in the competitive landscape. When evaluating industry attractiveness, you should look at how an industry will change in the long run rather than in the near future, because the investments needed for a business usually require long lasting commitment. Industry attractiveness consists of many factors that collectively determine the level of competition and thus its profit potential. The most common factors to look at are:

• Industry size
• Long-run growth rate
• Industry structure (use Porter’s Five Forces or Structure-Conduct-Performance model)
• Industry life cycle (use Product Life Cycle )
• Macro environment (use PESTEL Analysis )
• Market segmentation

Competitive  Strength

On the horizontal axis we find the Competitive Strength of a business unit which can also be divided into High, Medium and Low. This variable measures how strong or competent a particular company is against its rivals: it is an indicator of its ability to compete within a certain industry. A company’s strengths are its characteristics that give it an advantage over others (competitions/rivals). These strengths are often referred to as unique selling points (USP’s), firm-specific advantages (FSA’s) or more widely known as sustainable competitive advantages. Apart from a company’s competitive position right now, it is also very important to look at how sustainable its position is in the long run. So where Industry Attractiveness is about the level of competition in the entire industry, Competitive Strength is about the (future) ability to compete of one single company within that specific industry. Competitive strength also consists of multiple factors that together make up a company’s total score. The most common factors to look at are: 

• Profitability
• Market share
• Business growth
• Brand equity
• Level of differentiation (use the Value Disciplines or Porter’s Generic Strategies )
• Firm resources (use the VRIO Framework )
• Efficiency and effectiveness of internal linkages (use the Value Chain Analysis )
• Customer loyalty (use the Net Promoter Score )

Figure 2: GE McKInsey Matrix Strategies

Strategic implications

Based on the 3 degrees (High, Medium and Low) of both Industry Attractiveness and Competitive Strength, the matrix can be crafted consisting of 9 different boxes with 9 different scenarios and corresponding strategic actions. The strategic actions to choose from are: Invest/Grow strategy, Selectivity/Earnings strategy (sometimes referred to as Hold strategy), and the Harvest/Divest strategy. 

Invest/Grow strategy

The best section for a company or business unit to be in is the Invest/Grow section. A company can reach this scenario if it is operating in a moderate to highly attractive industry while having a moderate to highly competitive position within that industry. In such a situation there is a massive potential for growth. However, in order to be able to grow, a company needs resources such as assets and capital. These investments are necessary to increase capacity, to reach new customers through more advertisements or to improve products through Research & Development. Companies can also choose to grow externally via Mergers & Acquisitions apart from growing organically. Again, a company will need investments in order to realize such an endavour. The most notable challenge for companies in these sections are resource constraints that block them from growing bigger and becoming/maintaining market leadership.

Selectivity/Earnings strategy

Companies or business units in the Selectivity/Earnings sections are a bit more tricky. They are either companies with a low to moderate competitive position in an attractive industry or companies with an extremely high competition position in a less attractive industry. Deciding on whether to invest or not to invest largely depends on the outlook that is expected of either the improvement in competitive position or the potential to shift to more interesting industries. These decisions have to be made very carefully, since you want to use most of the investments available to the companies in the Invest/Grow section. The “left-over” investments should be used for the companies in the Selectivity/Earnings section with the highest potential for improvements, while being monitored closely to measure its progress on the way.

Harvest/Divest strategy

Finally we are left with companies or business units that either have a low competitive position, are active in an unattractive industry or a combination of the two. These companies have no promising outlooks anymore and should not be invested in. Corporate strategists have two main options to consider: 1. They divest the business units by selling it to an interested buyer for a reasonable price. This also known as a carve-out. Selling the business unit to another player in the industry that has a better competitive position is not a strange idea at all. The buyer might have better competences to make it a success or they can create value by combining activities (synergies). The cash that results from selling the business unit can consequently be used in Invest/Grow business units elsewhere in the portfolio. 2. Or corporate strategists can choose a harvest strategy. This basically means that the business unit gets just enough investments (or non at all) to keep the business running, while reaping the few fruits that may be left. This is a very short-term perspective action that allows corporate strategists to subtract as much remaining cash as possible, but is likely to result in the liquidation of the business unit eventually.

GE McKinsey Matrix In Sum

The GE McKinsey Matrix is a good alternative for the BCG Matrix and has the advantage that the two variables used consist of multiple factors combined. It may be quite a task however to quantify factors such as brand equity and industry structure,F and combine them all into a single number that can be plotted on the nine-box matrix. For corporate strategist in portfolio management, the model functions as a great starting point to base investment decisions on.

Further Reading:

• McKinsey & Company (2008). Enduring Ideas: The GE–McKinsey Nine-box Matrix. McKinsey Quarterly.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• ← Product Life Cycle: The Introduction, Growth, Maturity and Decline of a Product Category
• Porter’s Generic Strategies: Differentiation, Cost Leadership and Focus →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

McKinsey GE Matrix: Importance & How To Use It (2024)

Making the right decision at the right time is hard.  It's a struggle business leaders know well. 

A broken decision-making process , the wrong strategic tools, and no visibility into the company's portfolio performance can lead to failed strategies and large organizations going out of business. 

But the ability to recognize growth opportunities and cut dead-end strategies in time has always been a competitive advantage. And  GE Matrix - also known as GE McKinsey Matrix - is one of the  strategic tools  that can help you in the process. 

In this article, we will cover everything you need to know about this framework, including HOW to use it, and WHEN you should use it.

⚠️ Go beyond the matrix! While it helps prioritize investments, the GE Matrix shouldn't be the final stop.  Cascade Strategy Execution Platform  bridges the gap between portfolio analysis and action.  Talk to a strategy expert  and translate your GE Matrix insights into a strategic plan with clear ownership and measurable results.

What Is The GE Matrix?

The GE McKinsey Matrix is  a strategic framework  that helps multi-business corporations manage portfolios and prioritize investments across products and SBUs (Strategic Business Units).

The GE Matrix looks at two factors: the competitive strength of an SBU and the attractiveness of the market in which it operates.

Based on where the SBU sits within the 3x3 GE Matrix,  portfolio managers  can quickly answer three strategic questions:

• How to allocate capital throughout the organization's portfolio of companies?
• What products or additional strategic business units are needed in their portfolio?
• Which strategic business units should be divested?

🎥 Prefer watching over reading? Check out our video on the GE Matrix for a concise visual breakdown of this powerful framework:

The Components Of The GE McKinsey Nine Box Matrix

Let's look at the components of the GE McKinsey Matrix to make sense of the results.

The vertical axis scores the industry attractiveness (either low, medium, or high) of SBUs. A higher score on this axis will place an SBU higher in the GE Matrix.

The horizontal axis indicates the SBU's strength as either low, medium, or high. It moves from right to left, but it goes from high to low.

Invest/Grow (Green)

SBUs in these blocks have a mixture of solid business performance and an attractive industry. They are primed for growth and should be allocated resources and capital.

Selectivity/Earnings (Orange)

SBUs that fall within these blocks aren't performing optimally or operate in an unattractive industry. These business units require a more conservative approach to either growth or divestment strategies.

Harvest/Divest (Red)

If a business unit is mapped in the red blocks, this indicates that a divestment/harvest strategy should be taken. Generally, this means that a business should be closed, further investment should be withheld, or the company should be run for cash.

How To Use GE Matrix?

1. determine the industry attractiveness of each sbu.

Calculate the market attractiveness in which each SBU operates. Remember, this is a subjective estimate based on your understanding of the business unit industry or sector.

Score the SBUs industry attractiveness by looking at factors like:

• Market size
• Industry profitability
• Market growth potential
• Industry segmentation
• Market profitability
• Differentiation
• Market growth rate
• Level of competition

‍ Important note:  The scale you use to score SBU strength and industry attractiveness will depend on your needs. Most businesses use a 1-10 scorecard, but you may want to use a different range when assigning values.

2. Determine the competitive strength of your strategic business units

You'll then repeat this process for each company in your portfolio. Look at the strength of the business unit and its competitive position in the market.

Factors you can consider when working out the strength of a business unit:

• Sustainable competitive advantages (use  VRIO analysis )
• Brand equity
• Customer loyalty
• Market share
• Internal competencies
• Strength of the value chain (use  value chain analysis ) 
• Production capacity
• Product lines
• Pricing and cash flows
• Profit margin compared to competitors

Important note:  Different factors have different levels of importance. When calculating industry attractiveness and business strength scores, you'll need to weigh numerous factors to reflect this.

3. Plot the information on the GE McKinsey Matrix

Next, plot the values for each strategic business unit on your Matrix. Use the market attractiveness score to plot your Y-axis position and the business strength score to plot your X-axis position. 

The location of each SBU on the 3x3 chart will indicate whether the company should grow, hold, or harvest specific business units.

4. Identify the future direction of each strategic business unit

The GE Matrix only provides a view of the current state of business units in a portfolio and doesn't account for other variables that may impact a business's viability.  

This means that teams that use the GE Matrix must analyze business units in more detail to understand all strategic implications.

Using different strategic analysis tools, such as  SWOT analysis , Porter's 5 Forces , or PESTEL analysis , could help you analyze internal and external environmental factors. This will also help you to identify potential risks in the future.

5. Choose where to invest and focus your attention

Once you have a picture of your portfolio mapped out on the GE Matrix, you'll still need to answer some critical questions before making decisions about SBUs.

For example, how much money should you put into a specific business unit? Does investing in these SBUs align with your long-term strategy? Which parts of a particular business unit should you invest in? 

As Michael Porter, the father of the modern business strategy , says, “ The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do ”.

 At this point, you should clearly understand what your organization will focus on. This will help your organization to stay on the right track and prevent wasting resources on misaligned efforts.

6. Turn insights into results

With a clear idea of direction and new priorities, you should take those insights and turn them into an actionable strategic plan . 

A strategy execution platform like  Cascade  can streamline the process of communicating new goals, strategizing, and executing strategic initiatives . It can also help your organization ensure performance and align your portfolio strategy with the company's high-level strategy.

3 Examples Of GE Matrix And Its Possible Strategic Scenarios

Ge matrix example (harvest strategy): microsoft internet explorer.

At one point, Microsoft Internet Explorer, was the dominant internet browser in the market. In 2003,  more than 95%  of all internet users were using it to surf the web. Here's how the GE McKinsey Matrix might look for the Internet Explorer SBU over time.

The 2003 Microsoft Internet Explorer was:

1. A strong business unit

2. In an attractive industry

It would have been somewhere in the top left corner of a GE McKinsey Nine Box.

However, more web browsers started to appear, and the industry became more competitive. By 2010, Microsoft had  lost 35%  of its web browser market share to other competitors such as Firefox, Chrome, and Safari. 

After 2010, the Internet Explorer SBU likely scored lower in competitive strength and market attractiveness compared to its earlier days.

Based on these significant changes, Microsoft likely decided that the Internet Explorer business unit would need to be closed, run for cash, or selectively harvested. 

And that's the strategy the company followed over the next 12 years.

• In  2013 , Microsoft released the last version of Internet Explorer (IE 11).
• In  2015 , they launched a new web browser, Microsoft Edge.
• In  2022 , they ended support and retired the program.

GE Matrix Example (Hold Strategy): David Jones 

In 2014, Woolworths Holding Ltd., a prominent South African retail chain, acquired Australian retailer David Jones, believing it could generate  A$130 million per annum  in earnings within five years. 

According to Woolworths Holding Ltd., David Jones had:

• A strong business unit with a 176-year history in Australia
• High industry attractiveness and a strong position in the retail market.

Here's an example of how David Jones' GE Matrix might have looked between 2014 and 2021:

However, the David Jones brand underperformed, and original plans to expand operations stagnated. Here's how its position might have looked in 2015.

Woolworths Holding Ltd. likely decided to take a selective harvest/grow approach in response to the changing Australian retail market. This strategy is evident in some of their significant decisions between 2015 and 2022.

In 2015, David Jones implemented several cost-cutting measures, such as restructuring the organization, cutting floor space in all stores, reducing product ranges, and  firing top IT executives .

One year later, in  2016 , they shifted their head office from Sydney to Melbourne, citing lower real estate costs as one of the factors. 

By 2020, David Jones  closed 48 stores ; and in 2021, they  sold two properties  worth A$620M to free up capital.

GE Matrix Example (Grow Strategy): Netflix

Nowadays, Netflix, the online streaming company that revolutionized the entertainment industry, is a household name. 

However, when Netflix released its  streaming service in 2007 , it made up a tiny portion of the company's revenue, offering 1,000 titles for streaming, compared to the 70,000 titles in physical DVD format. 

Here's an example of how Netflix's streaming business unit might have looked in 2007.

In  2010 , Blockbuster, Netflix's largest competitor, filed for bankruptcy, further propelling its online entertainment streaming industry dominance. 

As internet speeds increased, technology improved, and consumer preferences shifted towards streaming, Netflix's video-on-demand service business unit would have moved to an aggressive growth strategy block on the GE McKinsey Matrix.

Netflix continued its growth path and rapidly expanded between 2012 and 2021:

• In 2012 , the platform had 20 million subscribers, consumed 30% of all residential US bandwidth, and launched in the UK.
• By 2018 , Netflix had 125 million subscribers and a market value of $151 B.
• In 2020, Netflix added 36 million subscribers to its user base and had a net income of $2.76 B .

Advantages of GE Matrix

The advantages of GE McKinsey Matrix are: 

• A simplified approach to portfolio analysis and investment allocation decisions
• Highly replicable and consistent framework
• Applicable across different industries
• An efficient method of determining strategic paths for multiple business units
• Helps measure and map the strategic position of business units
• Helps understand which businesses are making a profit and which aren't

Limitations of GE Matrix

The possible limitations of GE McKinsey Matrix are: 

• The GE Matrix is only a snapshot of your portfolio's performance
• It relies on subjective estimations of market attractiveness and business strength
• Lacks nuance in differentiating between business units
• Teams may need to do more research before they can make investment decisions
• May not be suited for emerging or rapidly-evolving industries

When Is The GE Matrix Framework The Best Choice?

While the GE McKinsey Matrix doesn't offer a complete picture of SBU performance, its simple design means that strategic thinkers can quickly get a snapshot of how different businesses or product portfolios are performing.

Strategic portfolio management ,  PMOs , and corporate-level decision-makers will benefit from using the GE Matrix to inform their strategic investment planning.

Recommended reading:   How successful PMOs deliver value and avoid the hot seat

GE Matrix + Strategy Execution = 🚀

GE McKinsey Matrix and other strategic frameworks are great for fleshing out your strategy, but to successfully execute strategy and adapt as needed, you also need the right software. 

A great strategy execution platform will help you to create a single source of truth for your strategy,  eliminating wasted time in disconnected spreadsheets , confusion and potentially preventing a failed strategy execution.

A single home for your strategy will help you to keep everyone on the same page,  allowing leaders to focus on the most critical parts of strategy execution:  robust goals, context, and strategic thinking. 

And when you are not wasting time in meetings to keep everyone aligned, you can focus on maximizing the ROI from your portfolio. 

Cascade makes it easy to build strategic portfolio plans and assign KPIs and owners to drive accountability. It lets your team collaborate on shared goals to drive strategy execution across the organization. 

Interested in seeing Cascade in action?  Get started for free or book a demo with Cascade's expert .

FAQs About GE Matrix 

Who created the ge matrix.

The GE Matrix was created for General Electric by McKinsey - thus the name GE McKinsey Matrix - in the 1970s to help decision-makers with investment decisions about their various SBUs. 

What is the difference between the GE and the BCG Matrix?

The GE Matrix is used by businesses to prioritize investments and looks at industry attractiveness and business unit strength. Boston Consulting Group's BCG Matrix is used to deploy resources and looks at the product growth rate and market share for SBUs.

Is the GE McKinsey Matrix better than the BCG Matrix?

No, the GE Matrix and BCG Matrix have different purposes. Depending on your current needs, one may be better than the other. However, both are  useful tools for strategic planning .

What are other names for the GE Matrix?

The GE Matrix is also known as the GE McKinsey Matrix, the GE Nine-Cell Matrix, or the McKinsey Nine-Box Matrix.

Popular articles

6 Steps To Successful Strategy Execution & Best Practices

How To Be More Strategic: 7 Tips & Best Practices For Leaders

Red Ocean Vs Blue Ocean Strategy Overview + Examples

The Differences Between Strategy, Planning, And Execution

Your toolkit for strategy success.

The GE Matrix Model: A Beginner’s Guide

Basics of the ge matrix model, three main reasons why the ge matrix important, how to construct the ge matrix, factors to consider when constructing a ge matrix, examples of using the ge matrix model, starbucks coffee company, general electric (ge), limitations and criticisms of the ge matrix model, subjective analysis, complexity issues, fluctuating market conditions, high resource commitment, categorization challenges, focus on current business, comparison to the bcg matrix, video: using the free ge matrix template, about the author, geoff fripp, related posts, value proposition, what is a swot analysis, example swot for 7-eleven, example swot for 3m.

GE McKinsey Matrix

GE-McKinsey nine-box matrix is a strategy tool that offers a systematic approach for the multi-business corporation to prioritize its investments among its business units. [1]

GE-McKinsey is a framework that evaluates business portfolio, provides further strategic implications and helps to prioritize the investment needed for each business unit (BU). [2]

What is GE McKinsey Matrix

In the business world, much like anywhere else, the problem of resource scarcity is affecting the decisions the companies make. With limited resources, but many opportunities to use them, businesses need to choose how to use their cash best.

The fight for investments takes place at every level of the company: between teams, functional departments, divisions or business units. The question of where and how much to invest is an ever-going headache for those who allocate the resources.

How does this affect the diversified businesses? Multi-business companies manage complex business portfolios, often, with as many as 50, 60 or 100 products and services. The products or business units differ in what they do, how well they perform, or what their future prospects are.

This makes it very hard to make a decision on which products the company should invest. At least, it was hard until the BCG matrix and its improved version, the GE-McKinsey matrix came to help. These tools solved the problem by comparing the business units and assigning them to the groups that are worth investing in or the groups that should be harvested or divested.

In the 1970s, General Electric was managing a huge and complex portfolio of unrelated products and was unsatisfied with the returns from its investments in the products. At the time, companies usually relied on projections of future cash flows, future market growth or some other future projections to make investment decisions, which was an unreliable method to allocate resources.

Therefore, GE consulted McKinsey & Company and as a result the nine-box framework was designed. The nine-box matrix plots the BUs on its 9 cells that indicate whether the company should invest in a product, harvest/divest it or do further research on the product and invest in it if there are still some resources left. The BUs are evaluated on two axes: industry attractiveness and the competitive strength of a unit.

Industry Attractiveness

Industry attractiveness indicates how hard or easy it will be for a company to compete in the market and earn profits. The more profitable the industry is, the more attractive it becomes. When evaluating the industry attractiveness, analysts should look at how an industry will change in the long run rather than in the near future, because the investments needed for the product usually require long-lasting commitment.

Industry attractiveness consists of many factors that collectively determine the competition level in it. There’s no definite list of which factors should be included to determine industry attractiveness, but the following are the most common: [1]

• Long-run growth rate
• Industry size
• Industry profitability: entry barriers, exit barriers, supplier power, buyer power, threat of substitutes and available complements (use Porter’s Five Forces analysis to determine this)
• Industry structure (use Structure-Conduct-Performance framework to determine this)
• Product life cycle changes
• Changes in demand
• Trend of prices
• Macro environment factors (use PEST or PESTEL for this)
• Seasonality
• Availability of labor
• Market segmentation

Competitive strength of a business unit or a product

Along the X axis, the matrix measures how strong, in terms of competition, a particular business unit is against its rivals. In other words, managers try to determine whether a business unit has a sustainable competitive advantage (or at least a temporary competitive advantage ) or not. If the company has a sustainable competitive advantage, the next question is: “For how long will it be sustained?”

The following factors determine the competitive strength of a business unit:

• Total market share
• Market share growth compared to rivals
• Brand strength (use brand value for this)
• Profitability of the company
• Customer loyalty
• VRIO resources or capabilities (use VRIO framework to determine this)
• Your business unit strength in meeting industry’s critical success factors (use Competitive Profile Matrix to determine this)
• Strength of a value chain (use Value Chain Analysis and Benchmarking to determine this)
• Level of product differentiation
• Production flexibility
• Helps to prioritize the limited resources in order to achieve the best returns.
• Managers become more aware of how their products or business units perform.
• It’s more sophisticated business portfolio framework than the BCG matrix.
• Identifies the strategic steps the company needs to make to improve the performance of its business portfolio.

Disadvantages

• Requires a consultant or a highly experienced person to determine industry’s attractiveness and business unit strength as accurately as possible.
• It is costly to conduct.
• It doesn’t take into account the synergies that could exist between two or more business units.

Difference between GE McKinsey and BCG matrices

GE McKinsey matrix is a very similar portfolio evaluation framework to the BCG matrix. Both matrices are used to analyze a company’s product or business unit portfolio and facilitate investment decisions.

The main differences:

• Comprehensiveness . The reason why the GE McKinsey framework was developed is that the BCG portfolio tool wasn’t sophisticated enough for the guys from General Electric. In the BCG matrix, the competitive strength of a business unit is equal to the relative market share, which assumes that the larger the market share a business has the better it is positioned to compete in the market. This is true, but it’s too simplistic to assume that it’s the only factor affecting the competition in the market. The same is true with industry attractiveness that is measured only as the market growth rate in BCG. It comes as no surprise that GE, with its complex business portfolio, needed something more comprehensive than that.

Using the tool

There are no established processes or models that managers could use when performing the analysis. Therefore, we designed the following steps to facilitate the process:

Step 1. Determine industry attractiveness of each business unit

• Make a list of factors. The first thing you’ll need to do is to identify, which factors to include when measuring industry attractiveness. We’ve provided the list of the most common factors, but you should include the factors that are the most appropriate to your industries.
• Assign weights. Weights indicate how important a factor is to industry’s attractiveness. A number from 0.01 (not important) to 1.0 (very important) should be assigned to each factor. The sum of all weights should equal to 1.0.
• Rate the factors. The next thing you need to do is to rate each factor for each of your products or business units. Choose the values between ‘1-5’ or ‘1-10’, where ‘1’ indicates the low industry attractiveness and ‘5’ or ‘10’ high industry attractiveness.
• Calculate the total scores. Total score is the sum of all weighted scores for each business unit. Weighted scores are calculated by multiplying weights and ratings. Total scores allow for a comparison of industry attractiveness for each business unit.

Industry Attractiveness (1/2)

Industry Attractiveness (2/2)

This is a tough task and one that usually requires involving a consultant who is an expert in the industries in question. The consultant will help you to determine the weights and to rate them properly so the analysis is as accurate as possible.

Step 2. Determine the competitive strength of each business unit

‘Step 2’ is the same as ‘Step 1’ only this time, instead of industry attractiveness, the competitive strength of a business unit is evaluated.

• Make a list of factors. Choose the competitive strength factors from our list or add your own factors.
• Assign weights. Weights indicate how important a factor is in achieving sustainable competitive advantage. A number from 0.01 (not important) to 1.0 (very important) should be assigned to each factor. The sum of all weights should equal to 1.0.
• Rate the factors. Rate each factor for each of your product or business units. Choose the values between ‘1-5’ or ‘1-10’, where ‘1’ indicates the weak strength and ‘5’ or ‘10’ powerful strength.
• Calculate the total scores. See ‘Step 1’.

Competitive Strength (1/2)

Competitive Strength (2/2)

Step 3. Plot the business units on a matrix

With all the evaluations and scores in place, we can plot the business units on the matrix. Each business unit is represented as a circle. The size of the circle should correspond to the proportion of the business revenue generated by that business unit.

For example, ‘Business unit 1’ generates 20% of the revenue and ‘Business unit 2’ generates 40%of the revenue for the company. The size of a circle for ‘Business unit 1’ will be half the size of a circle for ‘Business unit 2’.

Step 4. Analyze the information

There are different investment implications you should follow, depending on which boxes your business units have been plotted. There are 3 groups of boxes: investment/grow, selectivity/earnings and harvest/divest boxes. Each group of boxes indicates what you should do with your investments.

Investment implications

Invest/Grow box. Companies should invest into the business units that fall into these boxes as they promise the highest returns in the future. These business units will require a lot of cash because they’ll be operating in growing industries and will have to maintain or grow their market share.

It is essential to provide as much resources as possible for BUs so there would be no constraints for them to grow. The investments should be provided for R&D, advertising, acquisitions and to increase the production capacity to meet the demand in the future.

Selectivity/Earnings box. You should invest into these BUs only if you have the money left over the investments in invest/grow business units group and if you believe that BUs will generate cash in the future.

These business units are often considered last as there’s a lot of uncertainty with them. The general rule should be to invest in business units that operate in huge markets and there are not many dominant players in the market, so the investments would help to easily win larger market share.

Harvest/Divest box. The business units that are operating in unattractive industries, don’t have sustainable competitive advantages or are incapable of achieving it and are performing relatively poorly fall into harvest/divest boxes. What should companies do with these business units?

First, if the business unit generates surplus cash, companies should treat them the same as the business units that fall into the ‘cash cows’ box in the BCG matrix. This means that the companies should invest into these business units just enough to keep them operating and collect all the cash generated by it. In other words, it’s worth to invest into such a business as long as investments into it doesn’t exceed the cash generated from it.

Second, the business units that only make losses should be divested. If that’s impossible and there’s no way to turn the losses into profits, the company should liquidate the business unit.

Step 5. Identify the future direction of each business unit

The GE McKinsey matrix only provides the current picture of industry attractiveness and the competitive strength of a business unit and doesn’t consider how they may change in the future.

Further analysis may reveal that investments into some of the business units can considerably improve their competitive positions or that the industry may experience major growth in the future. This affects the decisions we make about our investments into one or another business unit.

For example, our previous evaluations show that the ‘Business Unit 1’ belongs to invest/grow box, but further analysis of an industry reveals that it’s going to shrink substantially in the near future.

Therefore, in the near future, the business unit will be in the harvest/divest group rather than invest/grow box. Would you still invest as much in ‘Business Unit 1’ as you would have invested initially? The answer is no and the matrix should take that into consideration.

How to do that? Well, the company should consult with the industry analysts to determine whether the industry attractiveness will grow, stay the same or decrease in the future. You should also discuss with your managers whether your business unit’s competitive strength will likely increase or decrease in the near future.

When all the information is collected you should include it to your existing matrix, by adding the arrows to the circles. The arrows should point to the future position of a business unit.

The following table shows how industry attractiveness and business unit competitive strength will change in 2 years.

Step 6. Prioritize your investments

The last step is to decide where and how to invest the company’s money. While the matrix makes it easier by evaluating the business units and identifying the best ones to invest in, it still doesn’t answer some very important questions:

• Is it really worth investing into some business units?
• How much exactly to invest in?
• Where to invest into business units (more to R&D, marketing, value chain?) to improve their performance?

Doing the GE McKinsey matrix and answering all the questions takes time, effort and money, but it’s still one of the most important product portfolio management tools that significantly facilitate investment decisions.

• McKinsey & Company (2008). Enduring Ideas: The GE–McKinsey nine-box matrix.
• David, F.R. (2009). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. 12th ed. FT Prentice Hall
• Wiki (2008). BCG Matrix & GE/McKinsey Matrix.
• McKinsey 7S Model
• Competitive Profile Matrix (CPM)
• Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Growth-Share Matrix
• Ansoff Matrix Explained

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment.

• About / Contact
• Privacy Policy
• Alphabetical List of Companies
• Business Analysis Topics

General Electric’s (GE) Generic Competitive Strategy & Growth Strategies

General Electric Company (GE) has a generic competitive strategy that, along with intensive growth strategies, ensures business growth in global markets. Michael Porter’s generic strategies are used to develop and maintain firms’ competitive advantages. In this case, GE uses its generic strategy for competitive advantage in the aerospace/aviation industry. On the other hand, based on the Ansoff Matrix, a company’s intensive growth strategies are employed to support and sustain business growth. General Electric relies on product development as a major growth factor through the years. The combination of intensive growth strategies used in GE’s business facilitates continued growth despite changing economic conditions and challenges involving competitors, like Rolls-Royce and Siemens. These strategies boost business resilience to reach the strategic goals of General Electric’s mission statement and vision statement . For long-term growth and competitiveness, General Electric’s generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies must remain relevant to industry conditions.

General Electric’s management uses the company’s generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies to determine business tactics and operational approaches. For example, GE’s operations management approaches are evaluated based on how they contribute to the competitive advantage and growth of the business. The managerial aim is to address the external forces coming from General Electric’s competitors.

General Electric’s Generic Competitive Strategy (Porter Model)

General Electric’s main generic strategy for competitive advantage is differentiation . In this strategy, the company’s goal is to attract target customers to products that are special and unique. These products are made through research and development that GE is known for. For example, the company has advanced research and development processes for products in the aviation industry. Because of its focus on research and development, General Electric Company has one of the biggest portfolios of company-owned patents in the United States. Also, this generic competitive strategy involves offering products to many market segments. GE maximizes sales based on a larger customer base. This generic competitive strategy influences other strategies and tactics in the business, such as General Electric’s marketing mix or 4Ps . GE aligns its intensive growth strategies with the competitive advantage targets based on strategic differentiation objectives.

One of the strategic objectives in using the differentiation generic competitive strategy is to intensify General Electric’s research and development programs. This objective supports product uniqueness necessary to capture and retain customers in GE’s target markets. Another strategic objective based on this generic strategy is to strengthen the company’s presence in market segments. For example, General Electric can utilize its competitive advantage to maximize customer loyalty to the GE brand in the avionics market. Moreover, an additional strategic objective is to implement intensive growth strategies that contribute to General Electric’s business growth while enabling the successful application of the differentiation generic competitive strategy.

General Electric’s Intensive Growth Strategies

Product Development (Primary) . Product development is the primary intensive growth strategy in General Electric’s business. Growth is achieved through new products that increase the company’s sales revenues. For example, under this intensive strategy, GE maintains high-productivity research and development processes. These processes ensure a leading edge against competitors in the aerospace industry, thereby contributing to the strengths identified in the SWOT analysis of General Electric . The differentiation generic competitive strategy requires that product development must focus on product uniqueness. In this regard, a strategic objective based on product development is to integrate cutting-edge technologies in every new product that General Electric develops.

Market Penetration (Secondary) . General Electric Company implements market penetration as its secondary intensive growth strategy. In market penetration, the company grows by increasing its customer base in current markets. For example, General Electric applies this intensive strategy through marketing campaigns that aim to add new customers and corresponding accounts. In this way, GE grows its revenue base despite competitive forces. The generic competitive strategy of differentiation enables General Electric to succeed in implementing market penetration. For instance, through competitive advantages based on product uniqueness and advanced features, GE penetrates the market for jet engines. A strategic objective based on market penetration is to increase General Electric’s aggressiveness in marketing its products against the products of competitors, like Rolls-Royce, 3M, and Siemens.

Diversification . Diversification is a minor intensive growth strategy in General Electric’s operations. In diversification, growth occurs through new businesses. For example, through this intensive strategy, General Electric entered multiple industries throughout its business history, with operations in the energy, aerospace/aviation, healthcare, electric lighting, oil and gas, and transportation industries. However, the company is currently in a spin-off process. Diversification has only a minor role in contributing to GE’s growth because it is applied only infrequently, as it entails major investment and organizational change, among other challenges. General Electric’s differentiation generic competitive strategy is applied every time diversification happens, such as when the company develops new products upon adding a new industry to its portfolio. A strategic objective based on diversification is to spread risk across various industries and markets to minimize market-specific risk exposure. The PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of General Electric shows that various industries develop business opportunities based on technological advancement. In diversification, GE continuously searches for such opportunities in industries where it currently does not operate.

Market Development . General Electric Company implements market development as a minor intensive growth strategy. In this strategy, the company grows by establishing new applications, new markets, or new market segments for its current products. For example, this intensive strategy is applied whenever GE introduces its aviation technologies into the transportation industry and creates a new market or market segment, accordingly. However, market development has a minor role in the business because General Electric focuses on advancing products in its current industries of operations. The generic competitive strategy of differentiation helps facilitate market development for GE products. Differentiation creates competitive advantages that General Electric uses to successfully enter new markets or market segments. A strategic objective based on market development is to create new revenue streams by developing hybrid or new applications of General Electric’s current products.

• Ali, B. J., & Anwar, G. (2021). Porter’s Generic Competitive Strategies and its influence on the Competitive Advantage. International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science, 7 (6), 42-51.
• General Electric Company – Form 10-K .
• General Electric Company – Our Innovation .
• López, D., & Oliver, M. (2023). Integrating innovation into business strategy: Perspectives from innovation managers. Sustainability, 15 (8), 6503.
• U.S. Department of Commerce – International Trade Administration – Aerospace Industry .
• Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved.
• This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s.
• Educators, Researchers, and Students: You are permitted to quote or paraphrase parts of this article (not the entire article) for educational or research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.

BUS501: Strategic Management

The ge approach.

Read this article on the GE/McKinsey matrix model. Strategic planning is a system that allows managers to make decisions regarding processes or choices they need to make on behalf of the organization. The planning process helps leaders organize their reasoning behind specific objectives by mapping out the process for implementation.

The GE / McKinsey matrix is a model used to assess the strength of a strategic business unit (SBU) of a corporation.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

Review the definition of the GE Approach and its uses

• The GE matrix analyzes market attractiveness and competitive strength to determine the overall strength of an SBU.
• External factors of market attractiveness that affect a business include market size, market growth, entry barriers, segmentation, and overall risk.
• Internal factors of competitive strength include assets, competencies, brand strength, profit margins, innovation, and quality.
• The GE matrix can also be used to determine if an organization should enter a market or if it should reposition a product line or brand within a market.

A mid-sized business or a division of a corporation that has different strategies and objectives than its parent company.

GE Approach to Strategic Planning

The GE / McKinsey matrix is a model used to assess the strength of a strategic business unit (SBU) of a corporation. It analyzes market attractiveness and competitive strength to determine the overall strength of an SBU.

The GE Matrix is plotted in a two-dimensional, 3 x 3 grid. The Y-axis measures market attractiveness based on a high, medium, or low score. The X-axis measures business unit strength on a high, medium, or low score.

GE/McKinsey Matrix -  The matrix shows market attractiveness and business strength.

Market Attractiveness

Market attractiveness deals with different external factors. These factors can include such things as market size, market growth rate, and market profitability. External factors that can affect market attractiveness also include pricing trends, competitive intensity, overall risk, and entry barriers. Other considerations regarding market attractiveness include what if any opportunities there are to differentiate products and services, demand variability, segmentation, distribution structure, and technology development.

Competitive Strength

Competitive strength focuses on internal factors and the ability of the SBU to overcome specific issues with the market and competitors. Different internal factors that need to be considered include assets and competencies, brand strength, market share, market share growth, and customer loyalty. Other factors that should be considered include relative cost position, profit margins, innovation, quality, financial resources, and management strength.

Uses for a GE Matrix

While the GE / McKinsey matrix was originally used to assess an SBU, corporations can use this for other purposes as well. It is a good way to determine if a company should enter a specific market. It is also a good way to assess how a company is doing in a specific market and if repositioning may be necessary to revive a faltering product line, brand, or organization.

• Personality Development
• ECONOMY ANALYSIS
• Gandhian Philosophy
• Development4You
• Mushroom Production

Management for All

Webpage on Management Functions, Human Resource Management, Economic and Social Environment, Accounting and Finance for Managers, Marketing, Management Information System, Quantitative Analysis, Management Economics, Organisational Design Development & Change, Strategic Management, Social Processes and Behavioural issues, Human Resource Development, HR Planning, Managing Change, Wage & Salary Administration, Organisational Dynamics.

Subscribe through E-mail

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

• TECHNOLOGY FORECASTING
• INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION
• TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE EFFECT ON PRODUCTION FUNCTION
• TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
• APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY
• TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND PLANNING
• DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DSS MIS & EIS
• DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
• BUILDING DSS ESS IN ORGANISATION
• TECHNOLOGY LIFE CYCLE
• DATA MINING PROJECT
• DATA MINING
• DATA WAREHOUSE AND WEB
• METADATA OF DATA WAREHOUSE
• DATA WAREHOUSE SCHEMA
• DATA WAREHOUSE
• MODELLING DATA
• DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
• ORGANISING DATA
• INFORMATION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
• SYSTEMS DESIGN
• SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
• SYSTEMS LIFE CYCLE
• TRADITIONAL SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE
• TOTAL QUALITY WITH INFORMATION SYSTEM
• OUTSOURCING INFORMATION SYSTEM
• EXECUTION SYSTEM
• ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEM
• TRANSACTION PROCESSING SYSTEMS
• ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
• OFFICE AUTOMATION SYSTEM
• COMPUTER BASED INFORMATION SYSTEM
• SAP SOFTWARE SOLUTION
• INTEGRATED SOFTWARE APPLICATION
• INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY
• VALUE & COST OF INFORMATION
• DATA, INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE
• MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
• INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
• COMPUTER SOFTWARE
• BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE OF IT
• ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT-1955
• PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT
• INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION
• MRTP ACT-1969
• CYBER MARKETING
• GOVT. CONTROL ON BUSINESS
• SALES MANAGEMENT
• CHALLELS OF DISTRIBUTION
• SALES FORECASTING
• SALES DETERMINANTS
• PERSONAL SELLING
• PROMOTION MIX
• MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS
• PRICING OVER PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
• PRICING METHODS
• PRICING DECISION
• NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
• PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
• PRODUCT DIVERSIFICATION
• PRODUCT DECISIONS AND STRATEGIES
• DECISION PROCESS OF BUYER
• REPORT PRESENTATION
• DATA ANALYSIS
• MARKETING RESEARCH DESIGN
• MARKETING RESEARCH PROCEDURE
• MARKETING RESEARCH
• MARKETING RESEARCH APPLICATIONS
• MATRIX ORGANISATION
• MARKET-CENTRED ORGANISATION
• PRODUCT MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION
• FUNCTIONAL ORGANISATION-MARKETING
• MARKETING ORGANISATION DESIGNING
• MARKETING MIX
• MARKET SEGMENTATION
• MARKETING-MEANING N CONCEPT

GE's STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLANNING GRID

• BCG'S GROWTH SHARE MATRIX
• BUSINESS PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS
• STRATEGIC CONTROL PROCESS
• CORPORATE CULTURE & LEADERSHIP
• LEADERSHIP STYLE
• LEADERSHIP ROLE & CONCEPT
• STRATEGY AND STRUCTURE
• STAGES MODEL OF STRUCTURE
• SURVIVAL STRATEGY
• TURNAROUND STRATEGY
• RETRENCHMENT STRATEGIES
• ORGANISATIONAL DECLINE CAUSES
• STRATEGIC ALLIANCE
• M & A AND STEPS IN M & A
• DIVERSIFICATION
• INTERNATIONAL EXPANSION
• EXPANSION STRATEGIES
• STABILITY STRATEGY
• CORPORATE STRATEGIES
• MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
• DIFFERENTIATION
• COST LEADERSHIP
• COST STRATEGY
• EXPERIENCE CURVE
• PROCESS OF STRATEGY
• PORTER'S FIVE FORCE FRAMEWORK
• ORGANISATIONAL CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
• VALUE CHAIN FRAMEWORK
• CULTURAL CHANGE
• LEARNING ORGANISATION
• ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
• POWER & POWER SOURCES
• POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT
• COUNSELING PROCESS
• COMMUNICATION BARRIERS
• TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
• INTERPERSONAL RELATION
• COMMUNICATION PROCESS
• TECHNOLOGY IN BUSINESS STRATEGY
• TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
• TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION
• WAGE ACT -1936
• MERGER AND ACQUISITION
• FACTORS OF CHANGE
• RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
• INTERVENTIONS FOR CHANGE
• BEHAVIORAL THEORIES
• ORGANISATION CULTURE
• HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
• BUILDING TEAMS AND ROLES
• REWARD SYSTEM
• JOB ANALYSIS
• COMPETENCY MAPPING

Valuable Websites for All :

• High Value Sandal Plantation to earn Rs 4 Crores / Ac in 15 years
• MageNet Contextual Ad for Bloggers to earn $ 100 to $1000 per month

Popular Posts

• DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DSS, MIS & EIS With the exposure to all the above information systems, let us find out the differences between DSS and MIS. Table-1 enlists some basic di...
• RETRENCHMENT STRATEGIES RETRENCHMENT STRATEGIES Retrenchment is a short-run renewal strategy designed to overcome organizational weaknesses that are contribu...
• TURNAROUND STRATEGY TURNAROUND STRATEGY   Turnaround is a strategy adopted by firms to arrest the decline and revive their growth. A turnaround situ...
• STABILITY STRATEGY STABILITY OR CONSOLIDATION STRATEGY   Nature Of Stability Strategy   A firm following stability strategy maintains its cu...

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive

• ►  May (2)
• ►  April (2)
• ►  February (1)
• ►  December (6)
• ►  September (5)
• ►  November (1)
• ►  July (3)
• ►  June (6)
• ►  April (7)
• ►  March (13)
• ►  February (16)
• ►  January (5)
• ►  December (12)
• ►  November (6)
• ►  October (2)
• GE's STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLANNING GRID
• BCG's GROWTH-SHARE MATRIX
• EVALUATION OF STRATEGY
• CORPORATE CULTURE & LEADERSHIP
• LEADERSHIP STYLES
• ►  June (4)
• ►  December (1)
• ►  November (5)
• ►  October (5)
• ►  September (1)
• ►  June (1)
• ►  August (2)
• ►  July (8)
• ►  June (2)
• ►  January (3)
• ►  November (7)
• ►  October (3)
• ►  August (1)

Subject Cloud

Explore with blogupp, my webpages.

• BOOK AN ADVICE CALL
• Knowledge Articles

• Professional Qualifications
• Which Qualification Is Right For You?
• CIM Marketing Qualifications
• Sales Qualifications
• Management & Leadership Qualifications
• CIM Specialist Awards
• eLearning Short Courses
• Study Methods
• 100% Pass Guarantee
• Our Pass Rates
• Testimonials
• Prospectus Download
• Workshop Dates
• In-Company Training
• Management & Leadership Training
• Sales Training
• Digital Marketing Training
• Productivity & Growth Training
• Media & PR Training
• Diplomas in Business Excellence
• Accredited Qualification Pathways
• Delivery Methods
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Measuring the ROI of Training
• Download Brochure
• Apprenticeships
• Management Apprenticeships
• Marketing Apprenticeships
• Digital Marketing Apprenticeships
• Sales Apprenticeships
• Benefits of Apprenticeships

Marketing Theories - GE Matrix

Visit our  Marketing Theories Page  to see more of our marketing buzzword busting blogs. 

You will have most likely heard of the Boston Consulting Group matrix (or BCG matrix), if not you can read about it in our BCG Blog ! However the GE matrix is considered by many to be an extension, and even an improvement of that model. Like the BCG, the GE matrix helps you to determine how to allocate resources but it allows more flexibility.

The GE matrix was developed by Mckinsey and Company consultancy group in the 1970s. The nine cell grid measures business unit strength against industry attractiveness and this is the key difference. Whereas BCG is limited to products, business units can be products, whole product lines, a service or even a brand. You can plot these chosen units on the grid and this will help you to determine which strategy to apply.

Before you can plot anything on the grid however first you need to decide how you will determine both industry attractiveness and business unit strength.

Industry Attractiveness:

Factors you could choose to base this on include:

• Market size
• Market growth
• Technological
• Environmental
• Competitive rivalry
• Buyer power
• Supplier power
• Threat of new entrants
• Threat of substitution

You need to decide which factors you will use as a determining factor as these will be applied to ALL business units.

Step 1: Decide on determining factors

Step 2: Give each factor a weighting number based on its magnitude (make the total weight of all factors add up to 1.00 or 10.00 for example)

Step 3: Rate each business unit against each factor on a scale. For example 1 – 5 where 1 is extremely attractive and 5 is extremely unattractive.

Step 4: Give each business unit a weighted rating on each factor by multiplying its rating by the weight for that factor.

Step 5: Total up all the weighted ratings for each business unit.

Business Unit Strength:

Factors to determine how strong a unit is compared to others in its industry include:

• Market share
• Growth in market share
• Brand equity
• Profit margins compared to competition
• Distribution channel process – the strength of

Repeat steps 1 to 5 here.

Now you have the measurements you can plot your business units on the GE matrix and depending on where they are plotted will determine your strategy from one of the following:

Grow/Invest :

Units that land in this section of the grid generally have high market share and promise high returns in the future so should be invested in.

Hold/Selectivity :

Units that land in this section of the grid can be ambiguous and should only be invested in if there is money left over after investing in the profitable units.

Harvest/Divest:

Poor performing units in an unattractive industry end up in this section of the grid. This should only be invested in if they can make more money than is put into them. Otherwise they should be liquidated.

As you can see this model is very useful for analysing your business units against multiple factors rather than the 2 dimensional approach of the BCG. In doing so you will have a starting point in which to build your strategy for allocating resources and expanding products. 

If you would like to develop your marketing strategy knowledge further why not look in to studying a CIM Diploma in Professional Marketing with Professional Academy? Contact us today for more information.  

If you would like help referencing this blog, check out our Harvard Referencing Blog .

Call: 01223 365 505

Email: [email protected].

Copyright © 2024 Professional Academy All Rights Reserved.

Mission Statement Company Name Origin Alexandria's Services AMA Code of Ethics ASQ Code of Ethics Strategic Business - Planning Grid This tool, developed by General Electric, maps the external industry vs. the internal firm's forces using multiple factors to determine grid placement. It is a systematic perception measurement used to determine the attractiveness of the industry and the business strengths of the firm. The grid can be used to identify the strategic development of the product and evaluation of market share. The value of this tool lies in its power to allow an organization to analyze potential new products' or existing products' relationships to business opportunities, environmental threats and the firm's strengths and weaknesses. The tool provides an annualized evaluation of the effectiveness and performance of long-term strategic planning. The Leading Source of Insights On Business Model Strategy & Tech Business Models BCG Matrix Vs. GE Matrix Both are strategic frameworks developed to device a product development strategy . Through a model where companies look to prioritize products that can turn into high market shares and high margins businesses, the BCG does that. The GE Matrix focuses on prioritizing products with a high industry attractiveness and a high competitive strength of the business unit. Aspect The BCG Matrix is a strategic planning tool that helps companies analyze their product portfolio in terms of market growth rate and relative market share. This analysis helps identify where to allocate resources for maximum profitability. The GE Matrix, also known as the McKinsey Matrix, is a strategic tool used to evaluate business units or products based on two dimensions: industry attractiveness and business unit strength. Its purpose is to prioritize investment decisions. The BCG Matrix categorizes products or business units into four categories: Stars, Cash Cows, Question Marks (or Problem Children), and Dogs. Each category represents a different stage in a product’s lifecycle and requires a specific strategy. The GE Matrix uses a 9-cell grid, with three levels of industry attractiveness (high, medium, and low) and three levels of business unit strength (strong, medium, and weak). Business units are positioned within this grid, resulting in nine possible cells. The BCG Matrix primarily focuses on a company’s products and their position in the market. It emphasizes market share and market growth as the key factors for analysis. The GE Matrix takes a broader approach. In addition to assessing business unit strength, it considers industry attractiveness as a critical factor. This broader perspective allows for a more comprehensive evaluation. In the BCG Matrix, market growth rate measures the industry’s potential for growth. High growth rates indicate opportunities, while low rates suggest maturity or decline. The GE Matrix assesses industry attractiveness to identify growth opportunities. Factors such as market size, market growth rate, and competitive intensity are considered. The BCG Matrix analyzes a product’s or business unit’s market share relative to its competitors. A high market share indicates a strong competitive position. The GE Matrix evaluates business unit strength, considering various factors like market share, profitability, technological capabilities, and competitive advantage. The BCG Matrix offers specific strategic recommendations for each category: – : Invest heavily to maintain growth. – : Harvest profits and reinvest selectively. – : Decide whether to invest for growth or divest. – : Consider divestiture or harvesting. The GE Matrix recommends different strategies for business units in various cells: – : Allocate resources to business units in strong industry positions. – : Strengthen business units with the potential for future growth. – : Maintain current positions with moderate investment. – : Maximize short-term cash flow from mature businesses. – : Sell or liquidate business units with low potential. The BCG Matrix has some limitations: – It may oversimplify complex business situations. – It focuses solely on market share and growth and neglects other critical factors. – It doesn’t provide guidance on how to assess industry attractiveness. The GE Matrix also has limitations: – It requires subjective assessments of industry attractiveness and business unit strength. – It can be resource-intensive to implement and maintain, especially for large organizations. The BCG Matrix was developed by the Boston Consulting Group in the early 1970s as a tool for managing a diversified portfolio of businesses. The GE Matrix, also known as the McKinsey Matrix, was developed by General Electric in the 1980s as part of its strategic planning process. Table of Contents GE McKinsey Matrix Key Similarities between BCG Matrix and GE McKinsey Matrix: Portfolio Analysis: Both BCG Matrix and GE McKinsey Matrix are portfolio analysis tools used to assess a company’s product portfolio or business units. They provide a structured approach for evaluating and prioritizing different elements within the portfolio. Strategic Decision Making: Both frameworks aim to guide strategic decision making by helping companies allocate resources, identify growth opportunities, and determine the appropriate strategy for each product or business unit. Growth Focus: Both matrices consider growth as a critical factor in assessing the potential of products or business units. They identify high-growth areas that may require more investment and low-growth areas that might need to be managed differently. Market Share Consideration: Both models take market share into account when evaluating products or business units. Market share is an essential aspect of determining their current position and potential future performance. Key Differences between BCG Matrix and GE McKinsey Matrix: Origin and Creator: The BCG Matrix was developed by Bruce D. Henderson of the Boston Consulting Group, while the GE McKinsey Matrix was developed by McKinsey & Company for General Electric. Factors for Assessment: The BCG Matrix assesses products based on their potential growth (market growth rate) and current market share, categorizing them into stars, cash cows, question marks, and dogs. In contrast, the GE McKinsey Matrix evaluates business units based on two factors: industry attractiveness (market growth rate, market size, profitability) and competitive strength (market share, brand strength, technological capabilities). Application: The BCG Matrix is mainly used for product portfolio analysis , while the GE McKinsey Matrix is used for business unit portfolio analysis . The BCG Matrix focuses on individual products, while the GE McKinsey Matrix looks at business units as a whole. Categories and Recommendations: The BCG Matrix categorizes products into four distinct categories (stars, cash cows, question marks, and dogs) with specific strategic recommendations for each category. The GE McKinsey Matrix categorizes business units into three scenarios (invest, protect, harvest/divest) with corresponding strategies for resource allocation and management. Degree of Detail: The BCG Matrix provides a simpler, high-level view of the product portfolio, making it easier to understand and apply. The GE McKinsey Matrix offers a more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of business units, considering multiple factors that contribute to their attractiveness and competitive strength. BCG Matrix Examples : Stars : iPhone (High market growth rate, high market share) Cash Cows : iPad (Low market growth rate, high market share) Question Marks : Apple Watch (High market growth rate, low market share) Dogs : iPod (Low market growth rate, low market share) Stars : Coca-Cola Zero Sugar Cash Cows : Classic Coca-Cola Question Marks : New flavored beverages or experimental products Dogs : Tab (which they discontinued) Stars : Azure (Cloud Computing Services) Cash Cows : Microsoft Office Suite Question Marks : Newer software or experimental products Dogs : Windows Phone GE McKinsey Matrix Examples : Invest : Electric vehicles (High industry attractiveness due to increasing demand, strong competitive strength due to technology and brand ) Protect : SUVs (Moderate industry attractiveness, strong competitive strength) Harvest/Divest : Traditional Sedans (Low industry attractiveness due to declining market, weaker competitive strength) Invest : PlayStation gaming consoles (High industry attractiveness in the gaming market, strong competitive strength due to brand loyalty and technology) Protect : Sony Pictures (Moderate industry attractiveness in the entertainment industry, moderate competitive strength) Harvest/Divest : Older electronic gadgets or those with declining demand Invest : Sustainable and organic personal care products (High industry attractiveness due to growing demand for green products, strong competitive strength because of R&D and branding) Protect : Established brands like Dove and Axe (Moderate industry attractiveness, strong competitive strength due to brand recognition) Harvest/Divest : Outdated product lines or those with declining consumer interest Key Highlights : Both BCG and GE McKinsey Matrix are strategic frameworks to guide product development strategy . BCG prioritizes products with potential for high market shares and margins. GE McKinsey focuses on products with high industry attractiveness and business unit competitive strength. Developed in the 1970s by Bruce D. Henderson of the Boston Consulting Group. Evaluates products based on potential growth and market shares. Categories: cash cows, pets (dogs), question marks, and stars. Developed in the 1970s by McKinsey & Company for General Electric. A strategy tool guiding corporations on business unit investment priorities. Scenarios: invest, protect, harvest, and divest. Portfolio Analysis : Both are tools for assessing a company’s portfolio (products or business units). Strategic Decision Making : They guide companies in resource allocation, identifying growth opportunities, and strategizing. Growth Focus : Both matrices consider growth essential in evaluating products/business units. Market Share : Both models incorporate market share in their assessments. Origin and Creator : BCG Matrix was by Boston Consulting Group, while GE McKinsey was by McKinsey & Company for GE. BCG: Potential growth and market share. GE McKinsey: Industry attractiveness and business unit competitive strength. BCG: Product portfolio analysis . GE McKinsey: Business unit portfolio analysis . BCG: Four categories (stars, cash cows, question marks, dogs). GE McKinsey: Three scenarios (invest, protect, harvest/divest). BCG: Simpler, high-level view. GE McKinsey: More detailed, considering multiple factors. Related Frameworks, Models, or Concepts Description When to Apply – The BCG Matrix, or Boston Consulting Group Matrix, is a strategic tool used for portfolio analysis. – It classifies a company’s products or services into four categories: Stars (high market share, high growth rate), Question Marks (low market share, high growth rate), Cash Cows (high market share, low growth rate), and Dogs (low market share, low growth rate). – The BCG Matrix helps in resource allocation, strategic planning, and identifying investment priorities. – When analyzing a company’s product portfolio and allocating resources effectively. – To identify growth opportunities and investment priorities. – To make strategic decisions about product development, divestment, or market expansion. – The GE Matrix, or General Electric Matrix, is a strategic tool used for portfolio analysis similar to the BCG Matrix. – It evaluates business units based on their market attractiveness and competitive strength. – The GE Matrix consists of nine cells, with each cell representing a combination of market attractiveness and competitive strength. – It helps in prioritizing investment, resource allocation, and strategic decision-making. – When assessing the attractiveness of different markets and the competitive position of business units. – To prioritize investment and resource allocation based on market attractiveness and competitive strength. – To make strategic decisions about divestment, acquisition, or market entry strategies. – The Ansoff Matrix is a strategic tool for identifying growth opportunities by analyzing four growth strategies: market penetration, market development, product development, and diversification. – It helps in assessing risk and identifying strategic growth options for businesses. – When seeking to identify growth opportunities and develop strategic plans. – To analyze potential risks and benefits of different growth strategies. – To align business objectives with market opportunities and capabilities. – SWOT Analysis is a strategic planning tool used to identify a company’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. – It helps in assessing internal capabilities and external factors affecting the business. – SWOT Analysis is often used for strategic decision-making, business planning, and competitive analysis. – When conducting strategic planning and business analysis. – To identify internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats. – To develop strategies that leverage strengths, mitigate weaknesses, capitalize on opportunities, and address threats. – Porter’s Five Forces is a framework for analyzing the competitive forces in an industry. – It assesses the threat of new entrants, bargaining power of buyers, bargaining power of suppliers, threat of substitute products or services, and intensity of competitive rivalry. – Porter’s Five Forces helps in understanding industry dynamics and formulating competitive strategies. – When assessing the attractiveness of an industry or market. – To understand the competitive forces shaping industry profitability. – To develop strategies to position the business effectively within the industry. – Value Chain Analysis is a framework for analyzing a company’s activities to identify value-adding processes and activities. – It divides a company’s activities into primary activities (such as production and distribution) and support activities (such as human resources and procurement). – Value Chain Analysis helps in understanding cost drivers, competitive advantage, and opportunities for efficiency improvement. – When analyzing a company’s internal operations and value creation processes. – To identify opportunities for cost reduction, differentiation, or value enhancement. – To optimize internal processes and create competitive advantage. – The Balanced Scorecard is a strategic management framework used to translate vision and strategy into actionable objectives and measures. – It consists of four perspectives: financial, customer, internal business processes, and learning and growth. – The Balanced Scorecard helps in aligning strategic objectives with key performance indicators and monitoring performance across multiple dimensions. – When translating strategic objectives into measurable outcomes. – To align organizational goals and initiatives with strategic priorities. – To monitor and evaluate performance across financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth perspectives. – Blue Ocean Strategy focuses on creating uncontested market space and making competition irrelevant. – It involves innovating new products or services and differentiating from competitors in meaningful ways. – Blue Ocean Strategy encourages businesses to shift from competing in existing market spaces to creating new ones. – When seeking to differentiate from competitors and create new market opportunities. – To identify untapped market spaces and innovate new products or services. – To drive innovation, growth, and value creation within the organization. – The Value Proposition Canvas is a tool for designing and analyzing value propositions. – It helps in understanding customer needs, pains, and gains, as well as how products or services create value for customers. – The Value Proposition Canvas consists of two sides: the customer profile (needs, pains, gains) and the value map (products, services, gains, pains relievers). – When designing or refining value propositions for products or services. – To understand customer needs, pains, and gains, and how to address them effectively. – To create compelling value propositions that resonate with target customers. – Customer Journey Mapping is a tool for visualizing and understanding the customer’s experience across touchpoints and interactions with a company. – It helps in identifying pain points, opportunities for improvement, and moments of truth in the customer journey. – Customer Journey Mapping enables businesses to design customer-centric experiences and improve customer satisfaction and loyalty. – When analyzing and improving the customer experience across touchpoints. – To understand customer needs, preferences, and behaviors throughout their journey. – To design and deliver seamless, personalized, and engaging customer experiences. Read Next:  BCG Matrix ,  GE McKinsey Matrix . Related Strategy Concepts:  Go-To-Market Strategy ,  Marketing Strategy ,  Business Models ,  Tech Business Models ,  Jobs-To-Be Done ,  Design Thinking ,  Lean Startup Canvas ,  Value Chain ,  Value Proposition Canvas ,  Balanced Scorecard ,  Business Model Canvas ,  SWOT Analysis ,  Growth Hacking ,  Bundling ,  Unbundling ,  Bootstrapping ,  Venture Capital ,  Porter’s Five Forces ,  Porter’s Generic Strategies , Ansoff Matrix . More Strategy Tools:  Porter’s Five Forces ,  PESTEL Analysis ,  SWOT ,  Porter’s Diamond Model ,  Ansoff ,  Technology Adoption Curve ,  TOWS ,  SOAR ,  Balanced Scorecard ,  OKR ,  Agile Methodology ,  Value Proposition ,  VTDF Framework . Connected Strategy Frameworks ADKAR Model Ansoff Matrix Business Model Canvas Lean Startup Canvas Blitzscaling Canvas Blue Ocean Strategy Business Analysis Framework Balanced Scorecard Blue Ocean Strategy  GAP Analysis GE McKinsey Model McKinsey 7-S Model McKinsey’s Seven Degrees McKinsey Horizon Model Porter’s Five Forces Porter’s Generic Strategies Porter’s Value Chain Model Porter’s Diamond Model SWOT Analysis PESTEL Analysis Scenario Planning STEEPLE Analysis Main Guides: Business Models Business Strategy Marketing Strategy Business Model Innovation Platform Business Models Network Effects In A Nutshell Digital Business Models More Resources About The Author Gennaro Cuofano Discover more from fourweekmba. Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive. Type your email… Continue reading Org. Structures The Elusive Breed: Organizational Effectiveness Practitioners in the HR Landscape Bridging the gap: aligning organizational effectiveness and organizational development for sustainable success, unlock your potential: crafting a captivating employee value proposition for your organization, unlocking organizational effectiveness: where practitioners and consultants converge. Blog by Dr. Arpita Sen Talent Ignition: Firing Up Organizational Effectiveness with Data-Driven Talent Management Organizational Alchemists: How In-House OE Practitioners Transmute Trust into Transformative Change Unveiling general electric’s 9-box grid framework: a strategic tool for talent management and industry insights. Human Resource In the dynamic landscape of talent management, strategic tools that aid in identifying and developing high-potential employees are essential for organizational success. General Electric (GE), a global conglomerate, introduced the 9-Box Grid Framework, a seminal tool for talent assessment. This framework has not only become a hallmark of GE’s human resources strategy but has also inspired other organizations to adopt similar approaches to align their workforce with strategic objectives. Understanding the 9-Box Grid Framework The 9-Box Grid Framework is a matrix that classifies employees based on their performance and potential. Originating from GE’s practice, this matrix is divided into three performance categories (low, medium, and high) and three potential categories (low, medium, and high), resulting in a 3×3 grid. Each intersection represents a specific segment of the employee population, providing a comprehensive overview of the talent within an organization. Original 9-Box Grid: The “original” 9-Box Grid is typically associated with General Electric (GE), where it gained prominence as a talent management tool. Developed in the 1970s, it has a historical significance as one of the earliest talent assessment frameworks. In the original 9-Box Grid, employees are evaluated based on two key factors: their current performance and their potential for future growth and advancement within the organization. Originally designed for succession planning, the grid helps identify high-potential individuals who can be groomed for leadership positions, ensuring a continuous pipeline of capable leaders. 9-Box Talent Grid: The term “9-Box Talent Grid” may be used to signify a modernized or adapted version of the original framework. Organizations might introduce modifications to align with contemporary talent management practices. Some variations of the 9-Box Talent Grid include the consideration of specific competencies or skills, providing a more detailed assessment of an employee’s capabilities beyond the original performance and potential criteria. The “talent” aspect in the term might emphasize a broader view of talent, suggesting a more flexible and customizable approach to assessing and developing individuals within an organization. Key Similarities: Both the original 9-Box Grid and the 9-Box Talent Grid maintain a matrix structure, dividing employees into categories based on their performance and potential. The primary purpose of both frameworks is to identify and categorize employees, particularly high-potential individuals, to inform talent management strategies, succession planning, and development programs. Both models aim to align the organization’s workforce with strategic goals, ensuring that the talent composition supports long-term objectives. Components of 9 box grid: Performance Categories: High Performers (Top Row): Employees who consistently exceed performance expectations. Medium Performers (Middle Row): Employees who meet performance expectations. Low Performers (Bottom Row): Employees who struggle to meet performance expectations. Potential Categories: High Potential (Right Column): Employees who show promise and potential for growth and advancement. Medium Potential (Middle Column): Employees with moderate growth potential. Low Potential (Left Column): Employees with limited growth potential. Application of the 9-Box Grid Framework Talent Identification: The 9-Box Grid helps organizations identify high-potential individuals who can contribute significantly to the company’s future success. This identification facilitates targeted development programs to nurture and retain top talent. Succession Planning: By assessing both performance and potential, organizations can create a roadmap for succession planning. High-performing, high-potential employees can be groomed for leadership roles, ensuring a smooth transition when key positions become vacant. Performance Management: The framework aids in making informed decisions about performance improvement plans, training initiatives, and talent realignment. Managers can tailor their approach based on an individual’s current performance and potential for growth. Strategic Workforce Planning: Aligning the 9-Box Grid with strategic business goals allows organizations to ensure that their workforce composition supports long-term objectives. It enables a proactive approach to workforce planning, anticipating future talent needs rather than reacting to immediate requirements. Employee Development: Employees falling into the high-potential category with moderate current performance can be targeted for specific development programs. This ensures that they are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to excel in future roles. Challenges and Considerations While the 9-Box Grid Framework is a powerful tool, its effectiveness depends on accurate and unbiased assessments. Challenges may arise if the criteria for performance and potential are not clearly defined or if there is a lack of objectivity in the evaluation process. Additionally, the framework should be dynamic and regularly reviewed to reflect changes in individual performance and potential. Pros and Cons of the 9-Box Grid in Talent Management Pro: The 9-Box Grid provides a clear visual representation of both an individual’s current performance and potential, aiding in straightforward talent assessment. Pro: It excels at identifying high-potential individuals, allowing organizations to nurture and invest in the future leaders of the company. Pro: Enables effective succession planning by identifying and grooming high-performing, high-potential employees for leadership roles. Pro: Aligning the grid with strategic goals helps organizations ensure that their workforce composition supports long-term objectives. Pro: Provides a structured approach to decision-making, reducing biases and subjectivity in talent assessment. Con: The 9-Box Grid may oversimplify talent by reducing it to a two-dimensional representation, potentially neglecting nuanced skills and qualities. Con: The framework can be static, potentially missing real-time changes in an employee’s performance or potential. Con: Without careful calibration, there is a risk of bias in assessments, leading to inaccurate placement of individuals on the grid. Con: The grid may not capture the full spectrum of employee nuances, such as specialized skills or contributions to team dynamics. Other Models and Frameworks: Outweighs Cons: The Balanced Scorecard considers financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth perspectives, providing a more comprehensive view of organizational performance. Outweighs Cons: By incorporating specific competencies into the grid, organizations can address the oversimplification concern, offering a more detailed evaluation. Outweighs Cons: Gathering feedback from multiple sources provides a holistic understanding of an employee’s performance and potential, mitigating biases. Integration with Other Models: The 9-Box Grid can be used in conjunction with other models, such as the Balanced Scorecard and 360-Degree Feedback, to create a more holistic talent management approach. Organizations can tailor the 9-Box Grid to incorporate specific competencies or performance metrics from other models, ensuring a more customized and nuanced assessment. Step-wise Implementation for Talent Management and Succession Planning: Clearly define the criteria for performance and potential, ensuring alignment with organizational goals. Train assessors to ensure consistency and minimize biases. Regular calibration sessions can help fine-tune evaluations. Customize the 9-Box Grid to include competencies or metrics relevant to the organization’s unique needs. Explore ways to integrate the 9-Box Grid with other models, fostering a comprehensive approach to talent management. Periodically review and update the grid to reflect changes in employee performance and potential, maintaining its relevance. Implement a robust feedback mechanism, incorporating inputs from multiple sources for a more comprehensive talent assessment. Foster a culture of continuous improvement, allowing the talent management system to evolve based on organizational needs and industry trends. By carefully considering the pros and cons, integrating with other models, and following a step-wise implementation approach, organizations can leverage the 9-Box Grid effectively for talent management and succession planning, ensuring a well-rounded and forward-thinking workforce. Industry Insights: Companies Embracing Similar Frameworks Microsoft’s Nine-Box Performance and Potential Matrix: Microsoft, a technology giant, has adopted a nine-box matrix similar to GE’s for talent assessment. By evaluating both performance and potential, Microsoft identifies individuals who not only excel in their current roles but also have the capability to take on higher responsibilities in the future. Procter & Gamble’s Talent Marketplace: Procter & Gamble (P&G) utilizes a talent marketplace model, akin to the principles of the 9-Box Grid, to identify and develop high-potential employees. This model emphasizes cross-functional experiences, allowing employees to showcase their potential for growth in various roles within the organization. Coca-Cola’s Leadership Pipeline Assessment: Coca-Cola employs a leadership pipeline assessment that considers both current performance and future potential. By doing so, the company ensures a steady flow of talent into leadership positions, aligning its workforce with the strategic goals of the organization. General Electric’s 9-Box Grid Framework remains a cornerstone in the field of talent management. By providing a structured approach to evaluating employees based on both performance and potential, organizations can make strategic decisions that foster growth, innovation, and success. As businesses evolve, the 9-Box Grid continues to be a valuable tool for aligning talent with organizational objectives and ensuring a resilient and forward-thinking workforce. Related News Integrations Learning Center MoSCoW Prioritization What is moscow prioritization. MoSCoW prioritization, also known as the MoSCoW method or MoSCoW analysis, is a popular prioritization technique for managing requirements.    The acronym MoSCoW represents four categories of initiatives: must-have, should-have, could-have, and won’t-have, or will not have right now. Some companies also use the “W” in MoSCoW to mean “wish.” What is the History of the MoSCoW Method? Software development expert Dai Clegg created the MoSCoW method while working at Oracle. He designed the framework to help his team prioritize tasks during development work on product releases. You can find a detailed account of using MoSCoW prioritization in the Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) handbook . But because MoSCoW can prioritize tasks within any time-boxed project, teams have adapted the method for a broad range of uses. How Does MoSCoW Prioritization Work? Before running a MoSCoW analysis, a few things need to happen. First, key stakeholders and the product team need to get aligned on objectives and prioritization factors. Then, all participants must agree on which initiatives to prioritize. At this point, your team should also discuss how they will settle any disagreements in prioritization. If you can establish how to resolve disputes before they come up, you can help prevent those disagreements from holding up progress. Finally, you’ll also want to reach a consensus on what percentage of resources you’d like to allocate to each category. With the groundwork complete, you may begin determining which category is most appropriate for each initiative. But, first, let’s further break down each category in the MoSCoW method. Start prioritizing your roadmap Moscow prioritization categories. 1. Must-have initiatives As the name suggests, this category consists of initiatives that are “musts” for your team. They represent non-negotiable needs for the project, product, or release in question. For example, if you’re releasing a healthcare application, a must-have initiative may be security functionalities that help maintain compliance. The “must-have” category requires the team to complete a mandatory task. If you’re unsure about whether something belongs in this category, ask yourself the following. If the product won’t work without an initiative, or the release becomes useless without it, the initiative is most likely a “must-have.” 2. Should-have initiatives Should-have initiatives are just a step below must-haves. They are essential to the product, project, or release, but they are not vital. If left out, the product or project still functions. However, the initiatives may add significant value. “Should-have” initiatives are different from “must-have” initiatives in that they can get scheduled for a future release without impacting the current one. For example, performance improvements, minor bug fixes, or new functionality may be “should-have” initiatives. Without them, the product still works. 3. Could-have initiatives Another way of describing “could-have” initiatives is nice-to-haves. “Could-have” initiatives are not necessary to the core function of the product. However, compared with “should-have” initiatives, they have a much smaller impact on the outcome if left out. So, initiatives placed in the “could-have” category are often the first to be deprioritized if a project in the “should-have” or “must-have” category ends up larger than expected. 4. Will not have (this time) One benefit of the MoSCoW method is that it places several initiatives in the “will-not-have” category. The category can manage expectations about what the team will not include in a specific release (or another timeframe you’re prioritizing). Placing initiatives in the “will-not-have” category is one way to help prevent scope creep . If initiatives are in this category, the team knows they are not a priority for this specific time frame.  Some initiatives in the “will-not-have” group will be prioritized in the future, while others are not likely to happen. Some teams decide to differentiate between those by creating a subcategory within this group. How Can Development Teams Use MoSCoW?   Although Dai Clegg developed the approach to help prioritize tasks around his team’s limited time, the MoSCoW method also works when a development team faces limitations other than time. For example:  Prioritize based on budgetary constraints. What if a development team’s limiting factor is not a deadline but a tight budget imposed by the company? Working with the product managers, the team can use MoSCoW first to decide on the initiatives that represent must-haves and the should-haves. Then, using the development department’s budget as the guide, the team can figure out which items they can complete.  Prioritize based on the team’s skillsets. A cross-functional product team might also find itself constrained by the experience and expertise of its developers. If the product roadmap calls for functionality the team does not have the skills to build, this limiting factor will play into scoring those items in their MoSCoW analysis. Prioritize based on competing needs at the company. Cross-functional teams can also find themselves constrained by other company priorities. The team wants to make progress on a new product release, but the executive staff has created tight deadlines for further releases in the same timeframe. In this case, the team can use MoSCoW to determine which aspects of their desired release represent must-haves and temporarily backlog everything else. What Are the Drawbacks of MoSCoW Prioritization?   Although many product and development teams have prioritized MoSCoW, the approach has potential pitfalls. Here are a few examples. 1. An inconsistent scoring process can lead to tasks placed in the wrong categories.   One common criticism against MoSCoW is that it does not include an objective methodology for ranking initiatives against each other. Your team will need to bring this methodology to your analysis. The MoSCoW approach works only to ensure that your team applies a consistent scoring system for all initiatives. Pro tip: One proven method is weighted scoring, where your team measures each initiative on your backlog against a standard set of cost and benefit criteria. You can use the weighted scoring approach in ProductPlan’s roadmap app . 2. Not including all relevant stakeholders can lead to items placed in the wrong categories. To know which of your team’s initiatives represent must-haves for your product and which are merely should-haves, you will need as much context as possible. For example, you might need someone from your sales team to let you know how important (or unimportant) prospective buyers view a proposed new feature. One pitfall of the MoSCoW method is that you could make poor decisions about where to slot each initiative unless your team receives input from all relevant stakeholders.  3. Team bias for (or against) initiatives can undermine MoSCoW’s effectiveness. Because MoSCoW does not include an objective scoring method, your team members can fall victim to their own opinions about certain initiatives.  One risk of using MoSCoW prioritization is that a team can mistakenly think MoSCoW itself represents an objective way of measuring the items on their list. They discuss an initiative, agree that it is a “should have,” and move on to the next. But your team will also need an objective and consistent framework for ranking all initiatives. That is the only way to minimize your team’s biases in favor of items or against them. When Do You Use the MoSCoW Method for Prioritization? MoSCoW prioritization is effective for teams that want to include representatives from the whole organization in their process. You can capture a broader perspective by involving participants from various functional departments. Another reason you may want to use MoSCoW prioritization is it allows your team to determine how much effort goes into each category. Therefore, you can ensure you’re delivering a good variety of initiatives in each release. What Are Best Practices for Using MoSCoW Prioritization? If you’re considering giving MoSCoW prioritization a try, here are a few steps to keep in mind. Incorporating these into your process will help your team gain more value from the MoSCoW method. 1. Choose an objective ranking or scoring system. Remember, MoSCoW helps your team group items into the appropriate buckets—from must-have items down to your longer-term wish list. But MoSCoW itself doesn’t help you determine which item belongs in which category. You will need a separate ranking methodology. You can choose from many, such as: Weighted scoring Value vs. complexity Buy-a-feature Opportunity scoring For help finding the best scoring methodology for your team, check out ProductPlan’s article: 7 strategies to choose the best features for your product . 2. Seek input from all key stakeholders. To make sure you’re placing each initiative into the right bucket—must-have, should-have, could-have, or won’t-have—your team needs context.  At the beginning of your MoSCoW method, your team should consider which stakeholders can provide valuable context and insights. Sales? Customer success? The executive staff? Product managers in another area of your business? Include them in your initiative scoring process if you think they can help you see opportunities or threats your team might miss.  3. Share your MoSCoW process across your organization. MoSCoW gives your team a tangible way to show your organization prioritizing initiatives for your products or projects.  The method can help you build company-wide consensus for your work, or at least help you show stakeholders why you made the decisions you did. Communicating your team’s prioritization strategy also helps you set expectations across the business. When they see your methodology for choosing one initiative over another, stakeholders in other departments will understand that your team has thought through and weighed all decisions you’ve made.  If any stakeholders have an issue with one of your decisions, they will understand that they can’t simply complain—they’ll need to present you with evidence to alter your course of action.   Related Terms 2×2 prioritization matrix / Eisenhower matrix / DACI decision-making framework / ICE scoring model / RICE scoring model Prioritizing your roadmap using our guide Talk to an expert. Schedule a few minutes with us to share more about your product roadmapping goals and we'll tailor a demo to show you how easy it is to build strategic roadmaps, align behind customer needs, prioritize, and measure success. Share on Mastodon 407 COMMENTS GE McKinsey Matrix EXPLAINED with EXAMPLES The GE-McKinsey Matrix (a.k.a. GE Matrix, General Electric Matrix, Nine-box matrix) is just like the BCG Matrix a portfolio analysis tool used in corporate strategy to analyse strategic business units or product lines based on two variables: industry attractiveness and the competitive strength of a business unit. By combining these two variables into a matrix, a corporation can plot their ... General Electric Approach: Strategic Business-Planning Grid for General Electric introduced a comprehensive portfolio planning tool called a strategic business-planning grid. Like the BCG approach, it uses a matrix with two dimensions - one representing industry attractiveness (the vertical axis) and the other one representing company strength in the industry (the horizontal axis).The best businesses are those located in highly attractive industries ... McKinsey GE Matrix: Importance & How To Use It (2024) The GE McKinsey Matrix is a strategic framework that helps multi-business corporations manage portfolios and prioritize investments across products and SBUs (Strategic Business Units). GE Matrix diagram. The GE Matrix looks at two factors: the competitive strength of an SBU and the attractiveness of the market in which it operates. The GE Matrix Model: A Beginner's Guide The General Electric GE Matrix Model is a strategic business planning tool that assists companies in making informed decisions. This model, developed by the General Electric Company and McKinsey consultants, provides an analytical approach to portfolio management, helping businesses prioritize their product lineup in terms of market attractiveness and business unit strength. GE McKinsey Matrix: The Ultimate Guide Definition. GE-McKinsey nine-box matrix is a strategy tool that offers a systematic approach for the multi-business corporation to prioritize its investments among its business units. [1] GE-McKinsey is a framework that evaluates business portfolio, provides further strategic implications and helps to prioritize the investment needed for each business unit (BU). General Electric's (GE) Generic Competitive Strategy & Growth GE maximizes sales based on a larger customer base. This generic competitive strategy influences other strategies and tactics in the business, such as General Electric's marketing mix or 4Ps. GE aligns its intensive growth strategies with the competitive advantage targets based on strategic differentiation objectives. BUS501: The GE Approach The GE / McKinsey matrix is a model used to assess the strength of a strategic business unit (SBU) of a corporation. It analyzes market attractiveness and competitive strength to determine the overall strength of an SBU. The GE Matrix is plotted in a two-dimensional, 3 x 3 grid. The Y-axis measures market attractiveness based on a high, medium ... GE Strategic Planning Grid General Electric's portfolio planning tool.Reference: C, Arnoldo and N. Majluf, The use of industry attractiveness in business strengths in strategic plannin... Rise and Fall To help answer these questions, we study the history and evolution of strategic planning at the General Electric Company (GE). Since the early 1970s - if not earlier - GE has been a model and archetype for effective strategic management practices, and the introduction of portfolio planning and the implementation of the strategic business unit (SBU) concept by then-CEO Fred Borch in the early ... General Electric Strategic Business Portfolio Planning Grid General Electric Strategic Business Portfolio Planning Grid. a portfolio analysis and planning grid developed by General Electric; it uses a two-dimensional matrix based on industry attractiveness and business strength. Back to previous Rate this term +1-2. Search. Browse A-Z. Management for All: GE's STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLANNING GRID For each business in the portfolio, a circle denoting the size of the industry is shown in the 3 x 3 matrix grid while shaded portion corresponds to the company's market share as shown in Figure-1. GE's Business Planning Matrix : GE rates each of its businesses every year on such a framework. If Industry's Attractiveness as well as GE's ... Marketing Theories Step 2: Give each factor a weighting number based on its magnitude (make the total weight of all factors add up to 1.00 or 10.00 for example) Step 3: Rate each business unit against each factor on a scale. For example 1 - 5 where 1 is extremely attractive and 5 is extremely unattractive. Step 4: Give each business unit a weighted rating on ... General Electric's Strategic Planning Grid Flashcards Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like what is the GE strategic planning grid?, what is on the vertical axis, what is on the horizontal axis and more. ... General Electric's Strategic Planning Grid. Flashcards; Learn; Test; Match; ... Business Operations and Decision Making. 22 terms. Hannah_Mills27. Preview. Chapter 4 ... Strategic Business Planning Grid Strategic Business - Planning Grid. This tool, developed by General Electric, maps the external industry vs. the internal firm's forces using multiple factors to determine grid placement. It is a systematic perception measurement used to determine the attractiveness of the industry and the business strengths of the firm. The grid can be used to ... Rise and Fall The Evolution of Strategic Planning at the General Electric Company, 1940-2006. June 2008; Long Range Planning 41(3):248-272; ... planning, business review, financial control, budgeting and ... BCG Matrix Vs. GE Matrix The GE Matrix uses a 9-cell grid, with three levels of industry attractiveness (high, medium, and low) and three levels of business unit strength (strong, medium, and weak). ... or General Electric Matrix, is a strategic tool used for portfolio analysis similar to the BCG Matrix. - It evaluates business units based on their market ... Unveiling General Electric's 9-Box Grid Framework: A Strategic Tool for Strategic Workforce Planning: Aligning the 9-Box Grid with strategic business goals allows organizations to ensure that their workforce composition supports long-term objectives. It enables a proactive approach to workforce planning, anticipating future talent needs rather than reacting to immediate requirements. ... General Electric's 9-Box ... PDF GE Plans to Form Three Public Companies Focused on ... remains committed to continued debt reduction along with strategic capital deployment • Company to host a call with investors at 8:15 am ET BOSTON - November 9, 2021 - GE (NYSE:GE) today announced its plan to form three industry-leading, global public companies focused on the growth sectors of aviation, healthcare, and energy, by: 1. MoSCoW method The MoSCoW method is a prioritization technique used in management, business analysis, project management, and software development to reach a common understanding with stakeholders on the importance they place on the delivery of each requirement; it is also known as MoSCoW prioritization or MoSCoW analysis.. The term MOSCOW itself is an acronym derived from the first letter of each of four ... Baltic States to Disconnect From Russian Electric Grid in Early 2025 The Baltic states will join the Continental European (UCTE) grid on Feb. 9, 2025, the day after disconnecting from BRELL. Desynchronisation was previously planned for the end of 2025. Energy ... Moscow United Electric Grid Company held the Annual General meeting of 25.06.2015. June 24, JSC Moscow United Electric Grid Company (part of Russian Grids state company) held the Annual General meeting of Shareholders. The owners of 44.98 bln of the company's common shares participated, which made up 92% of the voting stock. The members of the Board, Moscow Oblast energy minister, management of JSC "MOESK" and ... What is MoSCoW Prioritization? MoSCoW prioritization, also known as the MoSCoW method or MoSCoW analysis, is a popular prioritization technique for managing requirements. The acronym MoSCoW represents four categories of initiatives: must-have, should-have, could-have, and won't-have, or will not have right now. Some companies also use the "W" in MoSCoW to mean "wish.". assignment business plan case study course work essay report research paper speech term paper thesis