According to De Wit & Meyer (2010), corporate level strategy is dealing with the issue of corporate configuration of firms. What are the two main components of corporate configuration?
Corporate composition and corporate management
Corporate scope and corporate distribution
Corporate mechanisms and corporate management
Corporate control and corporate coordination.
De Wit & Meyer (2010) discuss the issue of corporate composition. Which of the following definitions refers best to this issue?
The search to find a balanced corporate control style
The question how to organize multi-business firms and their SBUs
The decision where to allocate resources, build up activities and try to achieve market sales
The balancing of multi-business firms between horizontal integration and diversification.
Dealing with corporate level strategy, there are different types of portfolio matrices in use. De Wit & Meyer (2010) discuss the most well known: the Boston Consulting Group growth-share matrix, and the General Electric business screen. Which two factors are examined using the BCG matrix?
Corporate scope and corporate distribution
Industry attractiveness and competitive advantage
Relative competitive position and business growth rate
Competitive position and industry attractiveness.
Goold and Campbell (1987, in De Wit & Meyer, 2010) distinguish three general corporate control styles. Each of these styles emphasizes different levels of centralization, coordination and standardization. Which of the following do they NOT name?
Strategic control style
Financial control style
Strategic planning style
Financial planning style.
According to De Wit & Meyer (2010), the issue of corporate configuration could be ‘translated’ in the following paradox:
Multi-business vs. core business
Responsiveness vs. synergy
Portfolio organization vs. integrated organization
Markets vs. resources.
“When Cor Boonstra took over as CEO of Philips Electronics in 1996 […], one of his first remarks to the business press was that Philips reminded him of ‘a plate of spaghetti’…” According to De Wit & Meyer (2010: p. 308), this statement refers to the fact that Cor Boonstra thought that Philips Electronics was:
Too focused on standardization and not paying attention to coordination
Too focused on control and not paying attention to cooperation
Too focused on responsiveness and not able to reap all the advantages of synergy
Too focused on synergy and not able to reap all the advantages of responsiveness.
According to Porter (1987, in De Wit & Meyer, 2010), entering into another business can only result in increased shareholder value, if three essential tests are passed. Porters ‘five forces model’ can be best compared to:
The diversity test
The attractiveness test
The cost-of-entry test
The better-off test.
De Wit & Meyer (2010) present the question of what the sources for synergy are. Rumelt (1974, in De Wit & Meyer, 2010) states it has to do with:
Relatedness
Substitutes
Cooperation
Control.
De Wit & Meyer (2010) appoint three main areas of synergy potential. Which of the following is NOT mentioned?
Leveraging resources
Linking capabilities
Aligning positions
Integrating activities.
Much attention in the literature has been paid to ‘internalization’, or also called ‘vertical integration’. De Wit & Meyer (2010) mention some conditions that are important when companies want to initiate this process. Which of the following is NOT mentioned?
Learning curve advantages
Increased bargaining power
Strategy congruence
Avoidance of transaction costs.
“Danone had become a unique food company […]. Our business model is designed for growth” Analyzing this quote of CEO Franck Riboud, from the Danone short case (in De Wit & Meyer, 2010: p. 313, Exhibit 6.1), which following statement is best suitable?
Danone needed to focus more on responsiveness, in order to outdo its competitors
Danone needed to focus more on synergy, in order to outdo its competitors
Danone needed to focus more on cooperation, in order to survive with its competitors
Danone needed to focus more on amity, in order to survive with its competitors.
The Danone short is a good example that companies sometimes:
Focus too much on responsiveness
Focus too much on synergy
Are able to balance responsiveness and synergy
Are not even aware of the responsiveness-synergy paradox.
According to De Wit & Meyer (2010), “in the portfolio organization perspective, the main reason for a number of highly autonomous business units to be in one firm is to leverage…
…Financial resources”
…Operational resources”
…Financial activities”
…Operational activities”
According to De Wit & Meyer (2010), what is the most suitable way for company growth in the portfolio approach to corporate strategy?
Diversification through outsourcing
Networking
Diversification through internal growth
Diversification through acquisition.
According to De Wit & Meyer (2010), what is the main issue to be addressed by corporate strategy?
Which businesses the corporation should be in, and how those businesses should relate to one another
If the corporation should develop long-term collaborative relationships with other firms, or build the resources it needs internally
How the individual SBU can be successful, and if success is more than just profitability
Who should control and coordinate the functions of the SBUs as they interact with one another.