Introduction The Boston Consulting Group drew up the Growth/Share matrix in the 1970s, as a means for portfolio planning. The growth/share matrix was designed to utilise two dimensions, Market Growth (high/low), and Relative Market Share (high/low) in respect of the largest competitor for mapping business units into four types; Question Marks (high growth, low share), Stars (high growth, high share), Cash Cows (low growth, high share), and Dogs (low growth, low share). The growth/share matrix is based on two assumptions as described by NetMBA (2006). The first assumption is that an increase in relative market share means an increase in revenue as a result of the effect of the experience curve. Anon (2002) argues that as an organisation does a thing such as a production process repeatedly, it learns how to make the process more efficient with a result that over the product lifecycle productivity increases in conjunction with a reduction in unit costs. Following from this one can say that a better cost base in respect of competitors means a greater market share, and consequently increased revenue. The second assumption is that a business unit requires the investment of cash in order to increase capture market share. As NetMBA concludes, “Thus, the position of a business on the growth-share matrix provides an indication of its cash generation and cash consumption”. Is the growth/share matrix that simple? Can the portfolio of an organisation be managed just by determining the positioning of SBUs in relation to market growth and share? In the answer to this task we shall critically examine the BCG growth/share matrix of Bank A, a large organisation in the Maltese financial services sector. The growth/share matrix presents some benefits that make it useful, but invariably also a number of limitations to its practical application. We shall see to what extent Bank A could be affected by the perceived benefits and limitations of the growth/share matrix.
The BCG Growth/Share Matrix 
|
