Question

Topic: Strategy

Mintzberg 5p, Porter's Value Chain And Vsm Query.

Posted by ap49 on 11/12/2013 at 2:56 PM ET 250 Points
Hi all,

I am embarking on a project in organisational strategy, evaluating its great contributors for my own research that I am hoping next year, to develop into a model for me to do further study in and apply to my organisation upon return.

I have looked into Porter's Value Chain, Mintzberg's 5 P's, Galbraith Star model, McKinsey's 7S and Beer's Viable Systems Model.

I have to assess, which is best for an organisation simply.

Clearly, my reply is no singular model is best for any one organisation, and you must pick one depending on your specific situation rather than a "one size fits all policy".

Nevertheless, to prove this I have decided to analyse 2-3 of these models giving a small mix of contrasting and comparing models, proving their different applications.

I have (wrongly or rightly) chosen Mintzberg's 5's of Strategy, Porter's Value Chain, and the completely different model from Stafford Beer, the Viable Systems Model (VSM) because I believe these 3 are most appropriate to demonstrate clearly, that no singular model is best, and more rightly, depend on your actual organisation.

Does anyone know how these can be applied to different industry applications, say a manufacturing organisation. I know these models quite well in their purpose and how they can be implemented from my own leisurely interest.

But I lack the application knowledge of why you would pick one over the other, and their significant drawbacks or advantages in driving an organisations' strategy forward within the sector stated.



Thanks in advance.

Andy Harmon.
To continue reading this question and the solution, sign up ... it's free!
SUBSCRIBE
Or, SIGN IN

RESPONSES

  • Posted on 11/12/2013 at 3:07 PM Accepted
    To be really helpful to you, we would have to understand the three constructs in some detail, and I suspect most of us don't. We are mostly hands-on marketers, not so much academics who specialize in strategy.

    If there's an easy way for you to distill the questions/issues down to their essence we may be able to help. Otherwise I'd be surprised if we can. There are a few academics in the group who might be able to shed some light on this. Let's see if they weigh in.
  • Posted by ap49 on 11/12/2013 at 3:34 PM Author
    Thanks. I was aware it may not be that applicable to many, but after reading a couple of posts on related issues - I thought I would try.

    Essentially, I am looking for just a singular reason why one of these models would be more suitable than the others for a specific industry application, or the firm size/type of strategy suiting it more better for example.
  • Posted by Gary Bloomer on 11/12/2013 at 7:02 PM Accepted
    Each of the applications you've mentioned has, I'm sure, some value ... somewhere ... in the mists of time. The thing is that applying these models to today's marketing issues may be a flawed proposition ... you've also offered little detail as to what you want to accomplish by applying these models?

    What will the strategy you choose (or that you devise) be applied to? What do you want to measure? How is any result weighed against real world variables and influences?

    How can you be sure that ANY of the models you outline above (that date from the 1960s, the 1970S, and the 1980s) are STILL relevant today?

    Earlier today I looked at the online profiles and résumés of 14 professors or assistant professors of marketing at a university that I won't mention. Although each has a Ph. D and a laundry list of papers they've authored or co-authored, LITTLE about the subjects they teach appeared (at least, not from my review) to be in anyway connected to real world examples, OR to real world, hands on, in the trenches experience on their parts actually DOING marketing.

    As I trawled for information, I found what to me at least are alarming patterns:

    Average number of connections on LinkedIn per academic: 112.
    Visibility on major social media platforms per academic: almost zero (I found just 1 person with an active twitter account, NO evidence of activity on Facebook, and, in two cases, nothing on LinkedIn).

    Average ranking from their students on a popular professor ranking website: 2.2 (out of 5.0). Evidence on page 1 of Google that any of them are in any way relevant to today's marketing landscape: scant ... and these people ARE TEACHING!

    Christ knows WHAT they're passing off as relevant, prudent, applicable marketing knowledge!
    One of them is still using (and teaching) the same material he was lecturing on 20 YEARS AGO!

    So, whatever it is you want to categorize or organize ... consider doing so against a relevant and up to date frame of reference.

  • Posted by saul.dobney on 11/13/2013 at 3:47 AM Accepted
    MBA essay/dissertation? Rather than see the theories as models, it might be more useful to see them as lenses - each giving a different view of an organisation. You can then take an individual business and see how it looks through each lens. This will highlight issues with the organisation according to each theory and illustrate differences and contradictions within the theories.
  • Posted by ap49 on 11/13/2013 at 5:31 AM Author
    Hi Saul,

    Thanks for your post. This is not an "MBA essay" at all and would not post homework without stating as such! I do hope to do an MBA in a couple years so glad to see I will be covering such material again in an academic environment.


    With regard to what you state, it's a very interesting idea you propose. But are all organisations applicable to be viewed through these 3 lenses? Because VSM is completely different, whilst Porter is a traditional view, and I can envisage Mintzberg being very useful due to the basis of emergent strategy.
BACK TO TOP

Post a Comment

Related Discussions

Community Info

Top 25 Experts
(Strategy)