使用和验证战略基准模型

Using and validating the strategic alignment model David Avison a,*,Jill Jones b ,Philip Powell c ,David Wilson d

a

ESSEC Business School,Paris,France

b State Street Corporation,Sydney,Australia

c University of Bath,Bath,UK

d University of Technology,Sydney,Australia Received 26February 2002;accepted 15August 2004

Available online 2October 2004

Abstract

The literature suggests that ?rms cannot be competitive if their business and information technology strategies are not aligned.Yet achieving strategic alignment continues to be a major concern for business executives.A number of alignment models have been offered in the literature,primary among them the strategic alignment model (SAM).However,there is little published research that attempts to validate SAM or describe its use in practice.This paper reports on the use of SAM in a ?nancial services ?rm.Data from completed projects are applied to the model to determine whether SAM is useful as a management tool to create,assess and sustain strategic alignment between information technology and the business.The paper demonstrates that SAM has conceptual and practical value.The paper also proposes a practical framework that allows management,particularly technology management,to determine current alignment levels and to monitor and change future alignment as required.Through the use of this framework,alignment is more likely to be achieved in practice.

q 2004Elsevier B.V.All rights reserved.

Keywords:Strategic alignment;Strategic alignment model;Alignment framework;Alignment in practice

1.Introduction

The literature suggests that ?rms cannot be competitive or successful if their business and information technology (IT)/information systems (IS)strategies are not aligned.0963-8687/$-see front matter q 2004Elsevier B.V.All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2004.08.002

*Corresponding author.Address:Department of SID,ESSEC Business School,Avenue Bernard Hirsch-BP 105,95021,Cergy-Pontoise cedex,France.Tel.:C 33-1-344-33195.

E-mail address:avison@essec.fr (D.Avison).

Strategic alignment positively in?uences IT effectiveness (Porter,1987;Galliers,1991;Ciborra,1997),leading to greater business pro?tability (Luftman et al.,1996).Conversely,it is argued that failure to leverage IT may seriously hamper a ?rm’s performance and viability (Weill and Broadbent,1998;Venkatraman,2000).

The importance of strategic alignment has been stated frequently (Earl,1996;Labovitz and Rosansky,1997;Corrall,2000),indeed,Galliers and Newell (2003)call it a central tenet of much of the theory and practice of IS strategy.It is a key concern for business executives (Luftman et al.,1996)and is ranked among the most important issues faced by IT executives (Papp,2001;Tallon and Kraemer,2003;Trainor,2003).This importance is reinforced by numerous industry surveys that reveal executives’perceptions of alignment (Fitzharris,1999;Head,2000;Kennedy,2000;Leigh,2000;Weil,2001).In Luftman et al.’s (1996)survey of 500US executives from 300organisations,about half believed their organisations to be aligned.

However,despite the widespread acceptance that business and IT strategies should be aligned,the nature of alignment is inadequately clari?ed in the literature:

The concept of linkage has been historically invoked as a metaphor to argue for the integration of business and information technology strategies without adequate articulation or clari?cation of its characteristics (Henderson and Venkatraman,1989).

Although Luftman (1996),Yetton (1997),Hsaio and Ormerod (1998)and Burn (1997)provide some examples of enablers and inhibitors of alignment,the literature provides little guidance on how to achieve alignment between business and IT strategies;the impacts misalignment might have on a ?rm;and what management can do to diagnose,achieve and maintain alignment (Luftman et al.,1996;Papp and Motiwalla,1996).

This paper ?rst reviews the debate on alignment in Section 2and argues for using the SAM model of strategic alignment.We discuss SAM,along with its extensions in Section 3and then investigate its use in a ?nancial services ?rm in Section 4.Here,data from a set of completed projects are applied to the model and this research suggests that the model has value as a management tool to assess,create and sustain strategic alignment between IT/IS and the business.The paper concludes by proposing a practical model that allows technology management to determine current alignment and to help monitor and alter future alignment as required.

2.Strategic alignment—the debate

In contrast to some other areas of IS research,there is debate in the literature about what alignment actually is,why it is needed,how ?rms may go about the task of becoming aligned,and how it should best be researched.While there is little agreement on conceptualising alignment and its research basis,the literature does regularly lament the paucity of studies that assess how organisations carry out alignment in practice,an issue that is addressed later in this paper.This section reviews existing research and places our contribution within the dimensions of that research.

Strategic alignment has many pseudonyms.It is also termed ?t (Porter,1996),integration (Weill and Broadbent,1998),bridge (Ciborra,1997),harmony (Luftman et al.,

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

224

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems13(2004)223–246225 1996),fusion(Smaczny,2001)and linkage(Henderson and Venkatraman,1989). However,in all cases,it concerns the integration of strategies relating to the business and its IT/IS.

There are those who argue that IS alignment is not an issue in its own right.Some researchers,for example,Smaczny(2001),assert that as IS is pervasive in business,it should not be regarded as separable from business strategy,and therefore the need for alignment does not arise.Smaczny uses the term fusion to describe this integration. Yet,strategy in its broadest sense is all about alignment or matching organisational resources(including IS)with environmental threats and opportunities(Andrews,1980). Indeed,IT management can be conceptualised as a problem of aligning the relationships between the business and IT infrastructure domain(Reich and Benbasat, 1996)in order to take advantage of IT opportunities and capabilities(Sambarmarthy and Zmud,1992).

Alignment is seen to assist a?rm in three ways:by maximising return on IT investment, by helping to achieve competitive advantage through IS,and by providing direction and ?exibility to react to new opportunities.However,the apparent gap between the decision to invest in IT and the realisation of bene?ts(Weill and Broadbent,1998)highlights the risk of using IT to initiate new strategies and transform business.Co-operation between the business and the IT department to maximise investment in technology is vital,and with this in mind,IT investments and business objectives have to be considered together.Yet, few senior management career paths include responsibility for IT(Weill and Broadbent, 1998)and technology is typically treated as a cost centre or viewed as an expense rather than an enabler of business value(Venkatraman,1997;Avison et al.,1999a;Papp,2001).

Although Jarvenpaa and Ives(1994)argue that too tight a?t between IS and business strategy may reduce strategic?exibility,alignment is usually viewed as bene?cial as the following shows.Lederer and Mendelow(1989),for example,suggest that alignment increases the likelihood of developing systems more critical to the organisation and of obtaining top management support for IS.As IT’s role in corporate strategy development increases,the application and analysis of alignment will facilitate a more competitive and pro?table organisation(Galliers,1991;Porter,1987).Economic performance may be enhanced by alignment,by?nding the right?t between external positioning and internal arrangements(Ciborra,1997).By concentrating on the alignment of strategy and infrastructure,?rms may not only achieve synergy and facilitate the development of business plans,but also increase pro?tability and ef?ciency.These tangible bene?ts allow management to focus on the application of IT as a means to leverage their core competencies,skills and technology scope,resulting in improved ef?ciency(Papp,2001; Luftman et al.,1996).

Having argued that alignment is desirable,a second issue relates to how?rms may become aligned.This is discussed next.The?rst concern regarding the practice of alignment is whether strategy or strategising is an appropriate way for?rms to attain alignment.Weill and Broadbent(1998)support this view by arguing that by understanding and leveraging the business–IT partnership,an organisation can concentrate on the application of IT to enable the business strategy.

Critics of strategic planning and alignment maintain that the implicit dominance of a structured strategy process is questionable in an era where uncertainty and?exibility

predominate and the articulation of the strategic intent is dif?cult (Ciborra,1997).Real life and real strategising is ‘messy’and human thinking and actions rarely follow strict modular concepts (McKay and Marshall,1999;Avison et al.,1999a,b ).Strategic alignment also presumes that management is in full control and that information infrastructure can deliberately be aligned with emerging management insights (Maes,1999;Ciborra,1997;Galliers and Newell,2003).Hence some argue that strategic alignment is illusory,even inexpedient (Maes,1999).

The application of concepts such as strategic ?t between resources and opportunities;generic strategies of low cost versus differentiation versus focus;and the strategic hierarchy of goals,strategies and tactics may make the strategic process rigid.This has a negative rather than a positive impact on an organisation when followed speci?cally and pedantically (Hamel and Prahalad,1990).Strategic planning can distort creative thinking and misguide organisations that embrace it unreservedly (Mintzburg,1987).

Reich and Benbasat (1996)see IS planning as but one mechanism to achieve linkage.The intellectual dimensions of linkage require that business and IT plans are internally consistent with mission,and that they are externally valid,https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b66912291.html,prehensive and balanced to external business and IT environments.They discuss the conceptualisation of linkages and how they might be measured by understanding current objectives,congruence in IT vision and self-reporting.

A further debate concerns the measurement of alignment.Ciborra (1997)argues that management,through knowledge and understanding of alignment,can classify their strategy in terms of boxes and linear relationships,but back in the real world,they have dif?culty in measuring those relationships or formulating processes to apply the alignment maps in practice.Measures that align everyone within the organisation,with the intentions of the business and with the key goals of their respective departments,are needed to achieve strategic alignment,but there are no indicators as to what these measures might be (Labovitz and Rosansky,1997;Galliers,1991).

There is also disagreement as to whether strategic alignment should be viewed as an outcome or as a dynamic process.The former view was dominant (Weill and Broadbent,1998;Porter and Millar,1985;Earl,1989)and consequently the need to maintain alignment dynamically was rarely acknowledged.However more recent research argues for dynamic alignment (Labovitz and Rosansky,1997;Venkatraman,2000;Ciborra,1997).

Smaczny (2001)claims that no studies focus on how organisations actually achieve alignment (though clearly there are some organisations that attempt this)nor,indeed,whether alignment is the right way of looking at the issue.Most models of alignment assume that organisations are built on mechanistic principles and that management uses structured,planning-oriented approaches to business objectives.In such ?rms alignment may work,but not in others.

The early work on strategic processes essentially viewed ?rms as homogeneous.More recent research,especially with the increasing interest in competencies and capabilities,recognises that ?rms have different resources and are differently able to marshal these.Tallon et al.(2000)suggest that as strategic alignment is one of the most important issues facing business and IS executives,focussed ?rms will achieve more alignment and that differently focussed ?rms will use different techniques for their IT evaluation.The authors examine executives’perceptions of the business value of IT.They identify a number of

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

226

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems13(2004)223–246227?rm types.In unfocussed?rms there are no clear goals for IT and executives are indifferent to it.IT is viewed as an expense,so management delays IT purchases and then mismanages or under-manages the IT investments they do make.In operations-focussed ?rms,the goals concern the operational effectiveness of IT.These goals involve reducing operating costs and increasing ef?ciency.In market-focussed?rms,IT is used to enhance strategic positioning by creating or improving value propositions for customers.Finally, dual-focussed?rms improve operational effectiveness and strategic positioning simul-taneously by market reach and new market creation.Empirically,the authors assess strategic alignment using a single item—extent to which IT strategy supports business strategy.The results suggest that executives in dual-focussed?rms perceived the highest level of IT business value,followed by those in market-focussed?rms,those in operations-focussed?rms,and?nally by unfocussed?rm executives.Executives with more focussed goals for IT perceive higher levels of alignment,and higher levels of strategic alignment are associated with higher perceived levels of IT business value.

Using the Miles and Snow?rm typology rather than?rm-focus,Sabherwal and Chan (2001)show that alignment improves business performance and business success. Prospectors should develop and use market IS and strategic decision support systems. Systems imitation is less useful,unless strategies are similar and the signi?cance of association between alignment and business success depends on business strategy.There is signi?cant correlation between alignment and performance for prospectors and analysers but not for defenders.This suggests that senior managers in defenders should not argue strongly for alignment.However,Sabherwal and Chan(2001,p.27)conclude that ‘The processes by which alignment is accomplished(i.e.practically and effectively worked out)in organisations need to be better understood’.

Concurrently,Hirschheim and Sabherwal(2001)assess whether?rms that follow the Miles and Snow typology suffer differentially from problems in achieving alignment. They identify three problematic trajectories in seeking alignment:paradoxical decisions, excessive transformations and uncertain turnarounds.Defenders are thought to have a ‘utility’pro?le for IS use,achieved through low cost delivery,often outsourced.Analysers will seek alliances,perhaps by strategic https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b66912291.html,stly,prospectors have an infusion pro?le involving alignment through business leadership.Here IS is insourced and decentralised.Problematic alignment trajectories are explained by organisational inertia often due to sequential attention to goals,knowledge gaps,split executive responsibilities and underestimation of the extent of problems.The authors suggest that knowledge and process integration,planning processes involving multiple perspectives and transitional ?gures or powerful external forces may be employed to aid strategic IS alignment efforts.

Understanding processes lead to consideration of what may enable or inhibit alignment (Luftman et al.,1996).The enablers include executive support for IT,starting development in tandem,leadership from the IT department that the IT department prioritises workload well and that the?rms’resources are shared.In contrast,the inhibitors are that the IT department prioritises workload poorly,there is no close relationship between the IT department and the business,the IT department does not know its customers and it does not meet its commitments,resulting in little executive support for IT.

Papp(1999)concurs that alignment is the key to achieving improved pro?tability from IT.For him,alignment considers strategic?t between strategy and infrastructure,and

fundamental integration between business and IT.He identi?es 12perspectives on alignment in the literature,of which fusion is common.This is one of the few papers to offer managers a method by which they may assess or achieve alignment.This involves assessing the ?rm’s perspectives using the alignment model,learning to recognise and leverage IT to maximum ef?ciency,incorporating ?nancial measurements suitable for the particular industry,giving everyone a role to facilitate synergy between IT and the business,and ?nally,continuous review of alignment and assessment.However,while these may be sensible steps to take,this is somewhat general in nature and there is insuf?ciency here for a manager to use in practice.

In analysing alignment in small ?rms,Hussain et al.(2002)concur that alignment is used to mean a variety of things.Different researchers have focussed on different parts of the Henderson and Venkatraman (1989)model,either the process or the content.These include linking mechanisms to achieve alignment with a social element (who is involved)and an intellectual element (methods and techniques).Reviewing various attempts to measure ?t (Atkins,1994;Lefebvre et al.,1992;Chan et al.,1997;Luftman et al.,1999;Reich and Benbasat,2000),the authors suggest that there is little consensus on the factors involved.Their results show that aligned ?rms have greater IT maturity,CEO knowledge of software is greater in aligned ?rms and that there is no support for a relationship between external IT expertise and IT alignment.Hussain et al.conclude that there remains a ‘need for research into processes associated with alignment’(p.119).In a companion paper,Cragg et al.(2002)suggest that many small manufacturers had achieved a high degree of alignment between business strategy and IT,‘but we don’t know how this was achieved’(p.122).The highly aligned ?rms perceive greater impacts from IT.

Luftman (1996),Luftman (1997)and Papp (2001)do provide some practical application of strategic alignment (for example,where to start and how to continue the alignment process),yet fail to test the theories and methods in a practical manner in real life situations and organisations (Avison et al.,1999a,b ).Most ?rms of any size have had strategic plans for many years and their increasing linkage with business strategy should have resulted in some form of alignment.However,this is not clearly the case,and this suggests that a problem still exists.Perhaps,there is a need for a clearer framework,despite models being available (Henderson and Venkatraman,1989;Ciborra,1997).

This section has demonstrated that there is a lack of agreement in the literature as to how ?rms do and should align.Part of this lack concerns a focus on theoretical rather than empirical studies,but other aspects point to disagreement as to how alignment is best researched.We now investigate this aspect.

Although alignment is a top management concern,no comprehensive model of the construct is commonly used.Reich and Benbasat (2000)contend that strategic alignment may be approached from a process or outcome perspective.Process research involves investigating planning activities,while outcome research involves realised strategies.Research of these two types would either examine strategies,structures and planning methods,or would focus on actors,values,communication and understanding.They suggest that there are two dimensions to strategy creation;an intellectual dimension that investigates the content of plans and planning approaches,and a social one looking at the people involved in the creation of alignment.As alignment is the degree to which the IT mission,objectives and plans support and are supported by the business mission,

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

228

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems13(2004)223–246229 objectives and plans,it is a state or outcome and its determinants are processes.Reich and Benbasat claim that the social dimension is less researched and which research treats strategy as a rational process.In any planning process,the involvement of top management is important as it improves the quality of IT,the progressive use of IT,rational innovation and IT effectiveness.

Regarding process,Das et al.(1991)identify?ve dimensions.Formality is about structure in the planning process,while scope assesses its comprehensiveness. Participation requires the involvement of managers,and in?uences are about the power of stakeholders.Finally,co-ordination investigates planning process corrections.In contrast,outcome research focuses on realised rather than planned or intended strategies.

Reich and Benbasat(2000)show that?ve elements contribute to short-term alignment. These are shared domain knowledge between the IT department and the business domain, IT implementation success,communications,planning connections between IT and the business,and business direction.In the longer term,there is little support for their model, only shared domain knowledge unambiguously distinguishes high from low achievers, though long-term business direction is also important.

There is an issue regarding the unit of analysis in alignment research.This concerns whether projects,?rms or processes are the appropriate item to study.For example,Tallon and Kraemer(2003)examine alignment at a process rather than the?rm level,employing, as a surrogate for alignment,cross-referencing in plans.They comment that some studies use executive perceptions of IT payoffs to try to understand the link between strategic alignment and IT business value.This approach has some support from Venkatramen and Ramanjam(1987)who?nd correlations between executives’perceptions and reality. Tallon and Kraemer introduce the notion of IT shortfall(where IT fails to support the business strategy)and IT under-utilisation(where business strategy fails to use IT).Their results show that alignment is highest in production,operations and customer relations, and lowest in sales and marketing.They further suggest that strategic alignment may lead to greater payoffs from IT,but that the relationship is only valid up to a certain critical level of alignment.However,Reich and Benbasat(1996)dismiss the use of written reports in alignment research,as they claim that reports are not used and can easily become out of date.

Finally,most alignment research treats alignment as a static end state rather than a moving target.Sabherwal et al.(2001)investigate how alignment evolves over time using a punctuated equilibrium model,i.e.long periods of stability followed by short periods of revolutionary change.If this sort of model applies,then static contingent models are unlikely to be appropriate.A punctuated equilibrium model suggests that even after alignment is achieved,environmental changes can reduce alignment due to over-emphasis,complacency and inertia,engendering a need for revolutionary change.Their results demonstrate that some?rms had low alignment or misalignment even during evolutionary periods.Additionally,all the revolutions required some combination of?ve strong triggers—environmental shifts,sustained low performance,in?uential outsiders, strong leadership and perceptual transformation.The conclusions are that resolution by redesign is used but does not often work,although revolutions sometimes go too far.To address this,the IS strategic management pro?le should include business and IS strategy and structure.

This discussion has shown that there is a clear need for further research into alignment,especially the practicalities of its achievement.Having provided an overview of alignment,drawing attention to gaps in the research,this paper now discusses the chosen model of alignment and how it was researched in one organisation.This will enable us to demonstrate a practical framework to determine current alignment levels in ?rms and to monitor and change future alignment as required.Through the use of this framework,alignment is more likely to be achieved in practice.

3.Strategic alignment model (SAM)and extensions

3.1.Strategic alignment model

A number of models of strategic alignment have been proposed.The two key ones that have attracted most attention from researchers are the MIT90s model (Scott Morton,1991)and the SAM (Henderson and Venkatraman,1989).The latter is employed here as:

In comparison to the elements of the MIT90s framework,SAM draws a distinction between the external perspective of IT (IT strategy)and the internal focus of IT (IT infrastructure and process).This recognises the potential of IT to both support and shape business policy.It also elevates IT strategy from the traditional role of IT as solely an internal support mechanism (Henderson and Venkatraman,1989).

This distinction implies two levels of integration:strategic integration between IT and the business strategy,which establishes the capability of IT at a strategic level,and operational integration,the link between IT infrastructure and process and organisational internal infrastructure and processes.

The SAM has been the basis for much of the strategic IT research.In our research,the model is used to discuss components of strategy and structure in an organisation and the factors to consider in assessing alignment.

The model (Fig.1)is de?ned in terms of four domains of strategic choice:business strategy,IT strategy,organisation infrastructure and processes,and IT infrastructure and processes.Each has its constituent components:scope,competencies and governance at the external level;and infrastructure,skills and process at the internal level.The model is conceptualised in terms of two fundamental characteristics of strategic management:strategic ?t (the interrelationships between external and internal domains)and functional integration (integration between business and technology domains).

Henderson and Venkatraman (1989)incorporate cross-domain perspectives,arguing that neither strategic nor functional integration alone is suf?cient to align an organisation effectively.The multi-variate co-alignment (alignment perspective)addresses functional and strategic integration.The linkage between strategy and infrastructure and processes is examined in terms of process,structure and people,rather than at an abstract level of attempting to relate internal architectures to strategic goals.Multi-variate cross-domain perspectives work on the premise that strategic alignment at an organisational level can only occur when three of the four corporate domains are in alignment.The underlying

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

230

premise is that change cannot happen in one domain without impacting on at least two of the remaining three domains in some way.

An organisation’s alignment perspective can be derived by drawing a line through the three dominant domain types,anchor domain,pivot domain and impacted domain:

Anchor domain :this is the strongest domain.It may have the strongest representation at executive level or be the core business area.It will generally be the initiator of change and provide the majority of requests for IT resources.

Pivot domain :this domain indicates which functional or strategic domain will ultimately be affected by the change initiated within the anchor domain.Luftman et al.(1996)identify this as the weakest domain.

Impacted domain :this domain is impacted the greatest by the change initiated in the anchor domain.Luftman et al.(1995)and Henderson and Venkatraman (1989)contradict each other in the interpretation of perspectives,and confuse the identi?cation of the impacted domain.Henderson and Venkatraman (1989)identify the horizontal direction of the perspective as the impacted domain and the vertical direction of the perspective

as Fig.1.Strategic alignment (adapted from Henderson and Venkatraman,1989).

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246231

having implications for that domain,independent of which comes ?rst,second or third.Luftman et al.(1995)identify the second domain as the weakest domain and the third domain as the impacted domain,in all cases.In Luftman et al.,the strongest domain and the weakest domain are always adjacent to each other but this cannot hold true if the two domains are in opposite quadrants.

Henderson and Venkatraman provide a de?nition of each alignment perspective and an example for each that can be applied within a ?rm.Although the examples given are somewhat dated,they still enable understanding of the meaning of each perspective.The direction of the perspective runs from the anchor domain to the impacted domain,via the pivot domain.Perspectives are either ‘top down’strategy driven or ‘bottom up’process driven.

3.2.Extensions to the strategic alignment model

Two key strains of research have emerged that follow on from the initial model.First,Luftman et al.(1996)de?ne and review the original model in a more practical way though they do not enhance the model itself.Focusing on the concept of alignment perspectives,they expand the research to identify enablers and inhibitors to alignment within organisations.Their research con?rms that the major enablers and/or inhibitors to alignment relate to communication and support between business and technology management.They also con?rm the importance of including IT management in the strategic planning process.Second,Maes (1999)and Maes et al.(2000)enhance the SAM,producing the uni?ed framework that incorporates additional functional and strategic layers into the model to re?ect the current need for information and communication.

The uni?ed framework is a generic framework for investigating and interrelating the different components of information management,and deals with the interrelationships of business,information,communication and technology at the strategic,structural and operations levels.This framework is the ?rst real attempt to re?ne SAM to re?ect the fact that IT and business strategies are moving closer together as technology evolves and becomes more integrated.

The initial framework adds a third vertical and horizontal domain to the SAM to re?ect the separation of information/communication from technology,stressing the growing importance of information and information delivery (Fig.2).Their main premise is that the use and sharing of information,and not the provision of information,are the real source of competitive https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b66912291.html,rmation sharing acts as a buffer between business and technology,making the bene?ts of information more apparent to the business.

The horizontal dimension splits the internal domain into structural and operational levels.The new middle row represents the more long-term architectural components,competencies and infrastructures of the organisation,combining all functional areas.The vertical dimension represents the internal and external information/communication aspects,the interpreting processes of information and communication and knowledge sharing.The vertical column is the translator,the ?nder of a common language between technology and business.At its core,where (infra)structure meets

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

232

information/communication,the authors introduce information resource management,and the bene?ts of a learning enterprise through knowledge https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b66912291.html,rmation sharing and communication are anchors for all other boxes within the model.

Goedvolk et al.(2000)develop a similar framework that focuses on the technical or architectural side of SAM.The architecture framework (IAF)aims to integrate the architectural design of business and IT and enhances Maes’work in two ways.First,it expands Maes’ideas on internal information requirements through adding an additional column,separating the information providers from the systems that provide the information.The new information domain represents the knowledge,communi-cation and co-ordination of information.Second,it adds a third dimension to the model,which contains speci?c sub-architecture areas.These prescribe the design of organisational aspects that are the consequence of the introduction of an information system.

The generic framework and the IAF can be combined to form a uni?ed framework (Maes et al.,2000)(Fig.3).This is an attempt to transform the concept of alignment into a practical method,incorporating both management and design

components.

Fig.2.A generic framework for information management (Maes,1999).

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246233

3.3.Assessment of the strategic alignment model

It is important that the SAM and its extensions are of practical use,and that the model provides practical bene?t.A manager can put any amount of information into prede?ned boxes,but when it comes to putting a measure to it in the real world,they ?nd it dif?cult to translate (Ciborra,1997).Unfortunately there is little in the literature at present that explains what a manager should do with these frameworks other than understand them conceptually.

The literature does,however,provide a reasonable explanation of what activities or systems should be placed in each domain of the original model.Both a generic explanation and an example,although now dated,are provided to add clarity to the framework (Henderson and Venkatraman,1989).Further details are provided for the internal components of each domain,but only for the four original domains in the SAM (Henderson and Venkatraman,1989;Papp and Luftman,1995;Luftman,1997).There is little in the way of examples of the newly introduced functional domains of information/communication and IS other than a name to the underlying components of each domain (Maes,1999).Similarly,the split of operations infrastructure and processes into two levels,(infra)structural and procedural,has insuf?cient explanation to enable a thorough population of information into the structural domains.

Although the model is a little in?exible,it has a hardware bias and,with the advent of the internet,virtual networks and real-time information requirements,appears technically dated,the underlying theories are conceptually sound,even in today’s environment.For any model to continue to exist and be practically relevant,not just conceptually relevant (McKay and Marshall,1999),it should be implemented as a dynamic process and planning should be ?exible enough to allow an organisation to take advantage of opportunistic developments,without having to improvise and disregard all planning.However,there

is

Fig.3.Alignment through a uni?ed framework (Maes et al.,2000).

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

234

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems13(2004)223–246235 currently little evidence of the practical application of the model.Even though Cap Gemini Ernst and Young,Netherlands(http://www.cs.vu.nl)have used this model,at least in part,practical examples are limited.There is,therefore,a need for further real world validation of SAM.We therefore now turn to our own empirical research.

4.Empirical research

4.1.Background

The company where the research re?ected in this paper was carried out is in the custody sector of the?nance industry in Australia.It is part of a global?rm,with a US-based head of?ce.Globally,there are more than18,000employees.However,in Australia,the?rm is a medium-sized enterprise with400employees.IT staff are at a ratio of1:10to business staff and the IT manager(CIO)sits on the executive committee.The global custody business is known for its low pro?t margins and limited customer base,hence technology is heavily leveraged to realise internal cost ef?ciencies and provide competitive advantage through products and services that add value.It is also an area where short turnaround times of accurate information,to anywhere in the world,is a standard requirement.The industry is moving towards a T C1(2day)settlement period for all market securities.This triggered frenzied IT development globally.

The executive committee is committed to maintaining a strategic advantage in IT and, prompted by the CIO,reviewed formal approaches to ensuring alignment between the ?rm’s business and IT plans.The SAM was intuitively attractive but the executive had reservations about its‘academic’nature and agreed to support our research project to assess whether SAM could be used in practice.The study uses data from completed projects which were analysed against the SAM.The aim is to focus on existing processes, systems and procedures that directly impact or in?uence the strategic planning process and includes completed IT projects prioritised by the?rm during the12months from January 2000to December2000.A cross-sectional analysis of data was performed and data were gathered and collated as a one-off event.The research consists of two phases:a descriptive phase,focusing on describing information management in terms of the domains and components of the SAM and an explanatory phase,using a matrix of real world data to depict the historical decision-making process concerning information management.

The focus of the research is limited to one area of investigation within one organisation. One of the authors participated in some of the projects as a systems analyst during the year in question,and subsequently remained as such in the?rm whilst gathering the data. Although the outcomes may be interpreted for general use,the research is speci?c to this individual situation.

The organisational material gathered during this research comprises:

?Completed projects the projects were gathered from the yearly statistics on completed projects provided by the IT department.They involved all projects in which IT was required to some degree.A cross-sectional analysis of the project portfolio was performed.

?IT and business strategy documents these included the business strategy,IT strategy,and IT department goals.This information was gained through document gathering and informal interviews with IT and business management.

?Project prioritisation process information regarding this was gained through documentation,examining procedures and through informal interviews.

The objective of the analysis is to provide a starting point in the determination of the degree of alignment between business and IT strategies within the ?rm.The original concept of matching projects to their associated domains to depict an organisation’s strategic intent and alignment was inspired by research conducted by Truijens and Maes (2000).Using this approach,we assessed the actual strategic direction of the completed projects and compared this with the planned strategic direction derived from the business strategy set at the beginning of 2000by the executive committee.

4.2.Strategy determination and implementation

The setting of strategy and the prioritisation of projects is determined jointly by business and IT management.The company views the integration of these two processes as integral to achieving and maintaining strategic alignment.The CIO has been a member of the executive committee since 1997.The integration of IT and business initiatives into company strategy is indicated by the fact that,in 2000,three of the ?ve corporate goals were IT-focused and three speci?c IT strategies were mentioned.

Company goals are grouped into main themes,for example new business ,internal ef?ciencies and people .The management team reviews each goal and discusses possible strategies to achieve them.Sub-groups are then formed within the management team to focus on the achievement of one (or more)of the goals.An executive heads each sub-group.This ensures that the strategies and implementation of those strategies obtain equal weighting and representation within the executive committee.The sub-groups are accountable for the formulation and implementation of strategies to achieve their allocated goal(s).However,every manager is responsible for the achievement of all the goals,not just those that lie within their sub-group allocation.Performance and progress in achieving the objectives are communicated to the management team on a monthly basis.The strategic plan is also available for all staff members to review on-line through the https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b66912291.html,rmation dissemination is viewed as an important part of this process.

The output from this process is a set of projects.Alignment is also maintained at the project level.A project prioritisation committee ensures only those projects aligned to the organisational goals are allocated IT resources.The intention is for this committee to drive the planning process and ensure business leadership and accountability across the company on all projects.Each project is assessed on its potential to achieve a speci?c company goal and a speci?c process is followed to achieve this end.Although research was con?ned to speci?c data during 2000,information on prior years was obtained through informal interviews with various managers at differing levels.It became apparent that this process had been evolving for several years but the process outlined below had only been in place for two successive years previously.

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

236

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems13(2004)223–246237

4.2.1.Stage1

All managers who require IT resources to achieve an end result complete project request forms.The project request template includes a section to be completed on the expected bene?ts resulting from the development in monetary terms.An IT department representative then collates all project requests.

4.2.2.Stage2

A comprehensive list of all projects is submitted to the project prioritisation committee. Projects are considered within four major categories:competitive advantage,regulatory, infrastructure upgrades and internal ef?ciencies.The committee ensures there is no bias in one category at the expense of another.Projects are discussed on their merit and given a rating of high,medium or low.

4.2.3.Stage3

High level‘scopes’are compiled by the IT department on all projects rated high and medium.Scopes include anticipated effort involved in both human and technical resources and monetary cost for the project.Any hardware components required are also included.

4.2.4.Stage4

The project prioritisation committee is reconvened.The re?ned list,with costs and bene?ts now included,is presented and discussed at length.The committee decides which projects are to be allocated IT resources and assigns a sponsor to each project.

Company executives believe that this combination of strategic planning and project prioritisation ensures strategic alignment.By applying the data gathered from the completed prioritised projects to the SAM and the uni?ed framework,this research attempts to assess the actual degree of alignment within the?rm.

4.3.Results

In this organisation,55projects were completed and deployed by the IT department in 2000.Each project had been approved by the project prioritisation committee prior to development.As part of this prioritisation process,the projects for2000were allocated into four major categories:operating ef?ciency(OE),client demand,infrastructure upgrade and regulatory.In2000,the allocation was:

OE3258%

Operating

ef?ciency

Client demand CD713%

IU713% Infrastructure

upgrade

Regulatory R916%

Projects within these categories were also classi?ed by the area impacted and/or the nature of the project:competitive advantage(CA),health(ongoing maintenance)(H),and repositioning(R).

The completed projects were analysed and mapped by category/classi?cation to the domains of the SAM and the uni?ed framework.The results of the mapping exercise are shown in the domain matrix (Table 1).

Reviewing the spread of projects over the domain matrix,patterns began to emerge for different combinations of classi?cations;for example,between those projects classi?ed as OE/CA.By connecting similar combinations,the beginnings of an alignment perspective began to emerge (Fig.4).

The emergence of these patterns was encouraging,but we became frustrated as the patterns are,in themselves,not conclusive.We decided that this was largely because the starting point of the perspective,the anchor domain ,had not been established.Establishing the anchor domain (and therefore the direction of the impact)determines the alignment perspective being followed in completing these project categories/classi-?cations.Again,we became frustrated because establishing the anchor domain proved to be a dif?cult and somewhat subjective process.However,further contemplation suggested that the guidelines provided by Henderson and Venkatraman (1989)and Papp and Luftman (1995)might enable the perspectives to be determined.The anchor domains so determined are shown with different line patterns in Fig.5.

Table 1

Mapping completed projects to the strategic alignment model

Business strategy

Information/communi-cation strategy Information systems strategy Technology strategy Categories:OE/R,R/R,

CD/CA,OE/CA

Categories:OE/CA Categories:OE/CA,OE/H Categories:R/R,IU/H,CD/R,CD/CA Projects:Repositioning,

Globalisation,New Pro-

duct Development,

Internet

Projects:Global implementation,Intra-net/Internet Projects:Work-?ow Projects:Risk,Tax Reform,Security,Stab-ility Business infrastructure

Information/communi-cation infrastructure Information systems infrastructure Technology infrastruc-ture Categories:OE/R

Categories:Categories:OE/CA,OE/H,R/R Categories:IU/H Projects:Repositioning,

Deployment Projects:None identi?ed Projects:Work?ow,Intranet/Internet,

Sybase,Web logic

upgrades

Projects:Communi-cations,Spectrum disas-ter recovery Business processes Information/communi-cation processes Information systems

processes

Technology processes Categories:OE/CA,OE/R Categories:Categories:OE/CA,OE/

H

Categories:Projects:Global implementation,Reposi-tioning Projects:None identi?ed Projects:Systems

migration,data source

changes,procedural

updates Projects:None identi?ed

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

238

The alignment perspectives identi?ed by Henderson and Venkatraman (1989)and Papp and Luftman (1995)(see Fig.6)could now be traced in the patterns shown in Fig.5.

4.3.1.Technology leverage (technology potential)

Regulatory/repositioning (R/R)category/classi?cation of 31projects,predominantly new product development,client initiatives and strategic repositioning initiatives,

which

Fig.4.Alignment perspective patterns without anchor

domain.

Fig.5.Alignment perspective patterns with anchor domain.

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246239

exhibit the cross-domain perspective shown in Fig.6(the following pattern in Fig.5

).

We were now enthused as genuine alignment patterns as described by the SAM were beginning to emerge in the projects being reviewed.

4.4.Assessment of strategic alignment

Three perspectives are identi?ed by the project mapping process:two dominant,technology leverage and organisational requirements ,and one less dominant,technology implementation .The most dominant alignment perspective is the technology leverage perspective,otherwise known as technology potential (Luftman and Papp,1995).This

is

Fig.6.Alignment perspectives (modi?ed from Henderson and Venkatraman,1989;Luftman and Papp,1995).D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

240

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems13(2004)223–246241 in keeping with the vision to be a technology?rm that delivers?nancial solutions,rather than a?nancial?rm that provides technology solutions.It is notable that as business and data volumes continue to increase,staff levels have not increased for several years,further suggesting the dependence on IT solutions.

Several inter-linking management practices are identi?ed as instrumental to the process of alignment,these being the process of setting strategy and prioritising projects.By analysing the prioritised projects it is evident that the business strategy has incorporated IT initiatives into the strategic direction and corporate goals,and that the business is driving those initiatives.By their inclusion in the business strategy,the executive committee indicates that these initiatives are viewed as integral to maintaining external competitive advantage or internal operating ef?ciencies.The IT strategy remains separated and supports the business strategy,aligning all its initiatives to business strategy down to the lowest levels.The components of IT strategy will always remain separate,as do other functional areas(e.g.human relations,?nance)to drive speci?c technical initiatives.This move towards integrated strategies is partly due to the representation and participation of IT management on the executive committee in recent years.This suggests a progression from previous practice(Avison et al.,1999a,b).

5.Proposed framework

One purpose of this research is to identify or develop a practical framework for managers in general,though it is likely to be used by technology managers,to help them to identify the current level of alignment with the business and also to control future alignment.On completion of the domain analysis,management should be able to determine their understanding of the?rm and its alignment,i.e.they should have the following:

A completed document that details the position across the?rm,in terms of business, information,IS and technology,from a strategic,structural and operational perspective. This indicates a good understanding of the?rm,and its interrelationships and interdependencies.

OR

An incomplete document with gaps in some of the domains,indicating a poor knowledge and/or understanding of the?rm,and its interrelationships and interdependencies.

If a complete analysis has been performed,management will have suf?cient information to allow a graphical interpretation of the?rm’s position from a strategic, structural and operational perspective.This,in turn,will identify the type and degree of alignment.

This research identi?es a process that enables a manager,or management team,to determine the alignment perspective taken by their?rm and enable them to change the perspective to ensure the IT strategic direction is aligned with the business strategic direction,through the re-allocation of project resources.

This is a four-step process:

5.1.Step 1

Complete an organisational pro?le as it currently stands,by performing an analysis on the individual domains and components,for example technology strategy —governance/scope/competencies.

5.2.Step 2

To this pro?le apply the proposed projects for the coming year.This assists the analysis if the projects have been classi?ed in a manner representative of the ?rm’s business.Every project should be able to be applied across at least one domain.If this is not the case,either the analysis requires further de?nition or the project is not in line with the ?rm’s business (management should therefore consider removing the project or changing its scope).Once all the projects have been mapped across the domains of the model,a graphical representation of the positioning of project groupings should be possible.This will provide an indication of,but not the direction of,the ?rm’s alignment perspective (Table 1and Fig.

4).

5.3.Step 3

To determine the direction,compare the groupings in step 2to the individual alignment perspectives outlined in the model.Management should choose the perspective(s)that best matches each project or project grouping.This will identify the intention of the project (anchor)and highlight what management anticipates the project to accomplish (pivot)on delivery.This will determine the actual alignment perspective that will be achieved on the completion of the group of projects being analysed.

5.4.Step 4

This alignment perspective is compared to the ?rm’s objectives and goals for the future.Management can now determine if these goals are in line with the perspective that will be achieved by completing the allocated projects and determine if successful completion of all the projects will move the ?rm towards its goals.If the alignment perspective favoured by the business strategy does not match the alignment perspective that will be achieved upon the projects’completion,the ?rm can re-allocate its resources to projects that affect the speci?c domains required to achieve the desired perspective,thus ensuring alignment.For example,if the organisation discussed in the paper wanted to move from technology leverage to technology exploitation (IT choices enabling business strategy)they should dedicate more resources to projects that focus on competitive advantage and repositioning through client demand,rather than operating ef?ciencies.

Initially this model is used to determine a ?rm’s existing level of alignment.Management should ?rst determine which perspective best ?ts the ?rm’s strategy.By comparing this preferred perspective to the actual perspective followed,management are

D.Avison et al./Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(2004)223–246

242

SPIN安装及模型验证实验报告

实验报告 实验题目：基于SPIN的LTL模型检测课程名：形式化方法 姓名：王燕霞 学号：201428013229141

一、SPIN概述 SPIN是由贝尔实验室形式化方法与验证小组用ANSI C开发，可以在所有UNIX操作系统版本使用，也可以在安装了Linux、Windows95以上版本等操作系统中使用，适合于分布式并发系统，尤其是协议一致性的辅助分析检测工具。SPIN模型检验工具的基本思想是求两种自动机所接受语言的交集，若交集为空集，则安全特性得到验证，否则输出不满足安全特性的行为迹。 SPIN可以用于以下三种基础模型中： 1）作为一个模拟器，允许快速对建立的系统模型进行随意的、引导性的或交互的仿真。 2）可以作为一个详尽的分析器，严格的证明用户提出的正确性要求是否满足（使用偏序简约进行最优化检索）。 3）用于大型系统近似性证明，用SPIN可以对大型的协议系统进行有效的正确性分析，即使这个系统覆盖了最大限度的状态空间。 二、SPIN的安装 2.1安装Cygwin Cygwin是一个在windows平台上运行的类UNIX模拟环境，我们可以通过这个软件在windows 系统上模拟简单的unix环境。 （1）首先从官网https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b66912291.html,/，下载Cygwin安装包，选择64位windows系统（2）打开软件安装包setup-x86_64.exe，界面如下：

（3）选择install from Internet，下一步 （4）选择安装路径 （5）选择模拟的Unix环境在系统中的路径

（6）选择Use Internet Explorer Proxy Setting，根据自己的网络链接状态选择 （7）选择镜像，最好是选国内的，以.cn结尾或者含有.cn的，国外镜像下载速度只有几K，所以可以不用尝试。在这里我选择的是中科大的一个镜像https://www.sodocs.net/doc/b66912291.html, (8)选择要安装的包，Cygwin默认安装的东西很少，像gcc、make、X11、tcl/TK这些都没有，需要自己勾选，可以在Search中直接输入关键字进行查找。如果一次安装没有全都装上也不要紧，可以再次运行setup.exe，然后继续安装其他的包。

企业战略管理工具——五力分析模型

五力分析模型 定义 五力分析模型作为由外而内的管理工具，从五个方面分析企业结构的吸引度，即竞争力，这五个方面分别是，行业现有的竞争状况、供应商的议价能力、客户的议价能力、替代产品或服务的威胁、新进入者的威胁。 起源 五力模型是由麦克尔·波特（Michael Porter）于80年代初提出，对公司战略制定产生全球性的深远影响。五力模型应用于竞争战略的分析，可以有效的分析客户的竞争环境。演变 1996年，在麦克尔·波特的五力分析模型基础上，Intel 前总裁Andrew S. Grove提出了六力分析的概念，重新探讨并定义产业竞争的六种影响力。他认为影响产业竞争态势的因素分別是:1.現存竞争者的影响力、活力、能力；2.供应商的影响力、活力、能力；3.客戶的影响力、活力、能力；4.潛在竞争者的影响力、活力、能力；5.产品或服务的替代方式(substitution)；6.“协力业者”（政府）的力量。 应用 五力模型中的五种力量确定了竞争的五种主要来源，一种可行战略的提出首先应该包括确认并评价这五种力量，不同力量的特性和重要性因行业和公司的不同而变化。 1.行业现有竞争状况 参考因素：竞争结构、产业结构成本、战略目标、退出障碍、产品差异化程度； 2．购买者的议价能力 参考因素：购买者的集中程度、产品的标准化程度、购买者的转换成本、替代品的替代程度、大批量购买的普遍性、购买者的利润率；（购买者对行业盈利性的影响表现在，购买者能够强行压低价格，或要求更高的质量或更多的服务，为达到这一点，他们可能使生产者互相竞争，或者不从任何单个生产者那里购买商品） 3．供应商的议价能力 参考因素：供应商所在行业的集中程度、供应商的品牌、供应商的利润率、供应商的转换成本、供应商前向一体化的战略意图等；（供应商影响行业竞争者的主要方式是提高价格或降低所提供产品或服务的质量） 4．替代品的威胁 参考因素：替代品的质量、替代品的价格、购买者选择替代品的转换成本；（替代品是指那些与客户产品具有相同功能的或类似功能的产品，行业中的每一个企业或多或少都必须应付替代品构成的威胁） 5、新进入者的威胁 参考因素：经销渠道的可进入性、技术支持的可能性、进入壁垒的难易程度、品牌忠实

战略咨询工具模型(1)

战略咨询工具模型 图4-14描述了战略咨询项目的总体思路。一般而言，企业战略需涉及从愿景设计到管理实施的七个阶段，将战略分解为公司战略、业务战略、职能战略三大层次。 图4-15给出了战略咨询项目的框架结构。一个标准的战略咨询项目需要从内外部环境的分析入手，在战略方案制定的过程中，将其分解成业务组合与发展、资本运营、资源整合、IT、品牌和人力资源等局部战略。

图4-16描述了战略咨询项目的详细步骤。总体来说，战略咨询分为内部能力分析、外部环境分析、战略目标制定和战略方案制定四大步骤。 图4-17展示了一个系统化的战略管理体系。在这里，战略从制定到实施的每一个环节均得以完整地体现。值得注意的是，一个科学、合理的战略管理体系必须具备完善的沟通、反馈机制，以保证战略目标准确到位的贯彻与执行。

图4-18描绘了企业进行战略决策的三个层面：既定方针、重点需做出的决策和可推迟的决策。位于这三个层面中的企业战略决策构成了一个决策阶梯。通过阶梯的形式，读者可以清晰地看到不同战略对企业而言的重要性与紧迫性程度。

图4-19给出了一张根据决策阶梯制定的战略决策表。从决策表中可以看出，企业的真实战略往往就是市场决策的有机组合。 图4-20说明，一个企业的最终战略，极有可能是各种草案的综合体。通过最大化地吸收各种方案的优势，尽可能地规避其各自的风险，保证最终实施方案的完备性与可操作性。

图4-21展现了战略从制定到实施的整体流程。从中可见，一个科学的战略需要评估者、实施者和制定者三方共同的努力，也只有从这三方角度出发而出台的战略方案，在执行的过程中，才能保证将推行的阻力降到最低，方案的成功几率也就相对较高。 图4-22说明，一个战略实施的基本思路就是要形成从实施到结果反馈的循环。 图4-23描述了战略实施的四个基本步骤。这是一个从诠释战略和规划、反馈调整、建立各级规划到交流和挂钩的过程。同样也是一个循环的过程。

十种战略模型

10个常用管理中的经典分析模型（完整版） 1、波特五种竞争力分析模型 波特的五种竞争力分析模型被广泛应用于很多行业的战略制定。波特认为在任何行业中，无论是国内还是国际，无论是提供产品还是提供服务，竞争的规则都包括在五种竞争力量内。这五种竞争力就是企业间的竞争、潜在新竞争者的进入、潜在替代品的开发、供应商的议价能力、购买者的议价能力。这五种竞争力量决定了企业的盈利能力和水平。 ?竞争对手 企业间的竞争是五种力量中最主要的一种。只有那些比竞争对手的战略更具优势的战略才可能获得成功。为此，公司必须在市场、价格、质量、产量、功能、服务、研发等方面建立自己的核心竞争优势。 影响行业内企业竞争的因素有：产业增加、固定（存储）成本/附加价值周期性生产过剩、产品差异、商标专有、转换成本、集中与平衡、信息复杂性、竞争者的多样性、公司的风险、退出壁垒等。 ?新进入者 企业必须对新的市场进入者保持足够的警惕，他们的存在将使企业做出相应的反应，而这样又不可避免地需要公司投入相应的资源。 影响潜在新竞争者进入的因素有：经济规模、专卖产品的差别、商标专有、资本需求、分销渠道、绝对成本优势、政府政策、行业内企业的预期反击等。 ?购买者 当用户分布集中、规模较大或大批量购货时，他们的议价能力将成为影响产业竞争强度的一个主要因素。 决定购买者力量的因素又：买方的集中程度相对于企业的集中程度、买方的数量、买方转换成本相对企业转换成本、买方信息、后向整合能力、替代品、克服危机的能力、价格/购买总量、产品差异、品牌专有、质量/性能影响、买方利润、决策者的激励。 ?替代产品 在很多产业，企业会与其他产业生产替代品的公司开展直接或间接的斗争。替代品的存在为产品的价格设置了上限，当产品价格超过这一上限时，用户将转向其他替代产品。 决定替代威胁的因素有：替代品的相对价格表现、转换成本、客户对替代品的使用倾向。

企业战略及对标管理的SWOT分析模型案例分析

SWOT分析模型及案例分析 SWOT分析法（也称道斯矩阵）即态势分析法，20世纪80年代初由美国旧金山大学的管理学教授韦里克提出，经常被用于企业战略制定、竞争对手分析 等场合。 SWOT分析模型简介 在现在的战略规划报告里，SWOT分析应该算是一个众所周知的工具。来 自于麦肯锡咨询公司的SWOT分析，包括分析企业的优势（Strength）、劣势（Weakness）、机会（Opportunity）和威胁（Threats）。因此，SWOT分析实际上是将对企业内外部条件各方面内容进行综合和概括，进而分析组织的优劣势、面临的机会和威胁的一种方法。 通过SWOT分析，可以帮助企业把资源和行动聚集在自己的强项和有最多 机会的地方。 SWOT模型含义介绍 优劣势分析主要是着眼于企业自身的实力及其与竞争对手的比较，而机会和威胁分析将注意力放在外部环境的变化及对企业的可能影响上。在分析时，应把所有的内部因素（即优劣势）集中在一起，然后用外部的力量来对这些因素进行评估。 1、机会与威胁分析（OT） 随着经济、社会、科技等诸多方面的迅速发展，特别是世界经济全球化、一 体化过程的加快，全球信息网络的建立和消费需求的多样化，企业所处的环境更 为开放和动荡。这种变化几乎对所有企业都产生了深刻的影响。正因为如此，环 境分析成为一种日益重要的企业职能。 环境发展趋势分为两大类：一类表示环境威胁，另一类表示环境机会。环境 威胁指的是环境中一种不利的发展趋势所形成的挑战，如果不采取果断的战略行为，这种不利趋势将导致公司的竞争地位受到削弱。环境机会就是对公司行为富 有吸引力的领域，在这一领域中，该公司将拥有竞争优势。 对环境的分析也可以有不同的角度。比如，一种简明扼要的方法就是PEST 分析，另外一种比较常见的方法就是波特的五力分析。 2、优势与劣势分析（SW） 识别环境中有吸引力的机会是一回事，拥有在机会中成功所必需的竞争能力是另一回事。每个企业都要定期检查自己的优势与劣势，这可通过“企业经营管

企业战略及对标管理的SWOT分析模型

SWOT分析模型 SWOT分析模型（SWOT Analysis） SWOT分析法（也称TOWS分析法、道斯矩阵）即态势分析法，20世纪80年代初由美国旧金山大学的管理学教授韦里克提出，经常被用于企业战略制定、竞争对手分析等场合。 目录 [隐藏] ? 1 SWOT分析模型简介 ? 2 SWOT模型含义介绍 ? 3 SWOT分析模型的方法[1] ? 4 SWOT分析步骤 ? 5 成功应用SWOT分析法的简单规则 ? 6 SWOT模型的局限性 ?7 SWOT分析法案例分析 o7.1 案例一：中国电信的SWOT分析 o7.2 案例二：某炼油厂SWOT分析 o7.3 案例三：沃尔玛(Wal-Mart)SWOT分析 o7.4 案例四：星巴克(Starbucks)SWOT分析o7.5 案例五：耐克(Nike)SWOT分析

[编辑] SWOT分析模型简介 在现在的战略规划报告里，SWOT分析应该算是一个众所周知的工具。来自于麦肯锡咨询公司的SWOT分析，包括分析企业的优势（Strength）、劣势（Weakness）、机会（Opportunity）和威胁（Threats）。因此，SWOT分析实际上是将对企业内外部条件各方面内容进行综合和概括，进而分析组织的优劣势、面临的机会和威胁的一种方法。 通过SWOT分析，可以帮助企业把资源和行动聚集在自己的强项和有最多机会的地方。 [编辑] SWOT模型含义介绍 优劣势分析主要是着眼于企业自身的实力及其与竞争对手的比较，而机会和威胁分析将注意力放在外部环境的变化及对企业的可能

影响上。在分析时，应把所有的内部因素（即优劣势）集中在一起，然后用外部的力量来对这些因素进行评估。 1、机会与威胁分析（OT） 随着经济、社会、科技等诸多方面的迅速发展，特别是世界经济全球化、一体化过程的加快，全球信息网络的建立和消费需求的多样化，企业所处的环境更为开放和动荡。这种变化几乎对所有企业都产生了深刻的影响。正因为如此，环境分析成为一种日益重要的企业职能。 环境发展趋势分为两大类：一类表示环境威胁，另一类表示环境机会。环境威胁指的是环境中一种不利的发展趋势所形成的挑战，如果不采取果断的战略行为，这种不利趋势将导致公司的竞争地位受到削弱。环境机会就是对公司行为富有吸引力的领域，在这一领域中，该公司将拥有竞争优势。 对环境的分析也可以有不同的角度。比如，一种简明扼要的方法就是PEST分析，另外一种比较常见的方法就是波特的五力分析。 2、优势与劣势分析（SW） 识别环境中有吸引力的机会是一回事，拥有在机会中成功所必需的竞争能力是另一回事。每个企业都要定期检查自己的优势与劣势，这可通过“企业经营管理检核表”的方式进行。企业或企业外的咨询机

水力火箭数学模型建立和实验验证

《工程热力学》三级项目 《水力火箭》 项 目 总 结 报 告 汕头大学工学院机械电子工程系 2014年12月 一、项目目的

1、利用工程热力学所学的知识理论分析水火箭发射的理论高度。与实际的 高度进行对比 2、用本课程的知识为最优灌水比提供理论依据，分析当灌水量低于或者高 于最优值时发射高度下降的原因。 3、在正负10%和正负25%的范围内修改阻力系数和空瓶质量，并计算在相 应发射最优化设计下火箭能达到的高度，用一张清楚简明的表格展示估 算结果。 4、分析不同次试射实验结果存在变化的可能原因。分析须以简明、观点清 晰的段落化分析的形式，而非仅仅原因的罗列；分析试射结果与数据表 估算结果之间差异的可能原因。哪些数学模型的假设和局限性是造成这 些差异最直接的原因。同样，观点清晰、段落化的分析为佳。 二、项目要求 1、完成一张与同伴共同设计和试射的水力火箭的图纸。要求对图进行正确 地标注，并提供足够的细节内容以便别人能够模仿复制相同的设计。不 能剪切瓶子，但可以使用多个不同大小的瓶子，或其它减小阻力的用具 等列出一张所有重要设计特征的列表并说明支持各相应设计的理由。利 用数据表估算火箭能够达到的最大高度。 2、确定发射最优化设计（即达到最大高度时的灌水比例）。 3、需要水火箭能垂直发射（一定范围内的偏离可以允许）。 三、实施条件 1、材料：1.25L的可乐瓶×1，KT板×1，卡纸×1，双面胶、电胶布；工 具：剪刀×1，直尺×1，秒表×1 2、场地：足球场 3、发射工具：脚踏式打气筒，可控制发射架 4、合作人：吴已帆 四、原理、数据处理及分析 1、发射原理： 盖上阀门，形成一个密闭的空间，把气体打入到火箭机身里,使得机身内空气的气压增大，压强够大时，箭内水向后喷出，水火箭由于反作用力射 出。水火箭和现实中火箭最大的不同是在发射水火箭前我们会在机身内注入空气使其达到一定压力，由于高压会自然向低压流去，故在喷嘴被打开时，空气自然向喷嘴流去，但由于水挡在前方，故水会被空气推出火箭，而火箭也借此获得向前的动力。发射原理简单言之是利用瓶内压强与大气压的差喷出水，水与地面冲击，从而使瓶子获得一个向上的力，该力大于重力时，使瓶子获得一个向上的加速度，得以上升。 2、估算水力火箭发射高度 1)

企业战略-企业战略管理模型.doc

★★★文档资源★★★ 摘要：21世纪以来，市场竞争出现了与以往不同的高速度、高强度的动态竞争。为了更好地参与全球化竞争，企业战略管理要立足于培育企业对企业竞争环境的持久适应力,而持久适应力则来自于企业的核心能力。因此，企业必须正确处理好企业战略管理问题。本文通过对企业战略管理理论演变的研究，力图从新的角度，系统地、创新性地提出了企业战略管理模型，即从企业组织、企业文化、企业家能力、核心能力四个角度去认识一个企业的战略管理。 关键词：战略管理；模型；企业组织；企业文化；企业家能力；核心能力 一、企业战略管理理论的演变 首开企业战略问题研究之先河的是20世纪60年代初美国著名管理学家钱德勒，在此基础上,形成了两个相近的学派:“设计学派”和“计划学派”。这一时期学者们的研究方法和具体主张不尽相同,但从根本上说,其核心思想是一致的,企业战略的出发点是适应环境。经典的企业战略实质是一个组织对其环境的适应过程以及由此带来的组织内部结构变化的过程。 20世纪80年代初,以哈佛大学商学院的迈克尔·波特为代表的竞争战略理论取得了战略管理理论的主流地位。概括起来,波特的竞争战略理论的基本逻辑是：产业结构是决定企业盈利能力的关键因素，企业可以通过选择和执行一种基本战略影响产业中的五种作用力量(即产业结构),以改善和加强企业的相对竞争地位,获取市场竞争优势(低成本或差异化)；价值链活动是竞争优势的来源,企业可以通过价值链活动和价值链关系(包括一条价值链内的活动之间及两条或多条价值链之间的关系)的调整来实施其基本战略。 进入20世纪90年代，普拉哈拉德和哈默又在《哈佛商业评论》发表了《企业核心能力》，提出了企业核心能力理论。该理论强调的是企业内部条件对于保持竞争优势以及获取超额利润的决定性作用。90年代中期，企业战略管理研究出现了新焦点：通过创新和创造来超越竞争。企业战略的竞争空间在扩展；企业的战略具有高度的弹性；不过多考虑战略目标是否与企业所拥有的资源相匹配,而是较多地追求建立扩展性的目标；由企业或企业联盟组成的商业生态系统成为参与竞争的主要形式；战略的主体趋于多元化。 从企业战略管理理论演进得出如下的规律: 从战略管理的范式来看,战略管理的均衡与可预测范式开始被非均衡与不确定性所取代；从战略理论的内容上看,存在这样一个发展轨迹,即关注企业内部(强调战略是一个计划、分析的过程)——关注企业外部(强调产业结构的分析)——关注企业内部(强调核心能力的构建、维护与产业环境分析相结合)——关注企业外部(强调企业间的合作,创建优势互补的企业有机群体)；从竞争的性质看,竞争的程度遵循着由弱到强,直至对抗,然后再到合作乃至共生的发展脉络。 二、企业战略管理模型 在企业战略管理理论的发展过程中,一些学者曾提出过多种企业战略管理模型。从已有的模型来看,基本上都是根据狭义的战略管理概念而提出的,也就是围绕如何进行战略规划、战略实施、战略控制和战略修正而展开的,各种模型之间只是部分细节上的不同。这样的模型当然具有其一定的指导意义,但是从广义的战略管理概念来看,就不再是一种合适的模型。根据广义的战略管理概念,对一个企业实施战略管理,需要以整个企业为管理对象,是对一个企业全过程和全方位的管理。在这一管理过程中,我们认为,从企业组织、企业文化、企业家能力、企业核心能力四个方面去认识一个企业的战略。为直观起见,可以构建如图1所示的模型。

战略分析模型

战略分析模型(only for 栖息谷) Yangx 整理yangxu8163. 如何能够培养有效的战略思维方式，能够对问题进行高度结构化的概括，并在此基础上完成对关键信息的分析，进而找出问题和对问题的解决方案。这也许是很多家人在学习战略管理的时候经常自问的问题。这就是学习战略分析模型的必要。 先概念性地简单介绍一些经典的战略分析模型（部分参考了“专业人力资源工作者的132项工具”一帖的讨论和其他文章的总结），这些战略分析模型其实大部分教科书上都有，只是需要总结和应用。希望各位有兴趣的家人能跟帖就相关的熟悉模型跟帖介绍和讨论，先谢谢大家的支持。 1、战略框架：公司层战略框架包括总战略框架和公司业务组合矩阵。总战略包括稳定性战略、增长性战略、收缩战略和组合战略；公司业务组合就是的BCG矩阵了。 2、基准化分析法(Benchmarking)：将自身的状况与同领域内最好的状况相比较，找出差距，分析原因，模仿行为。要找出或制定评价指标，并对指标进行量化或打分。 3、SWOT分析法：S：strength，W：weakness，O：opportunity，T：threats。具体操作是划一个大十字，分别在四个区间写上自身优势、自身劣势、外部机会、外部威胁。进行各种因素的组合，找出应对方案。 4、波士顿（BCG）矩阵法：波士顿咨询集团在1970年创立，分两个维度评价现有业务（产品）――市场份额和成长性。把现有业务分为：现金牛型（高市场份额，低成长性）、瘦狗型（双低）、明星型（双高）、问题型（高成长，低市场分额），进而安排业务组合。 5、GE矩阵法（又称九盒矩阵法）：按市场吸引力和业务自身实力两个维度评估现有业务（或事业单位），每个维度分三级，分成九个格以表示两个维度上不同级别的组合。两个维度上可以根据不同情况确定评价指标。 6、价值能力导向模型：对九盒矩阵法的深化，在两个维度上进行细分。这样，这个矩阵就可以不仅仅用来评价投资的业务了，还可用他来评价管理能力发展的优先次序等。 7、成本曲线法：BCG公司60年代发现，用于预测企业成本、价值等的发展趋势，横轴是时间，纵轴是成本，根据数据划出线，然后研究它的性质。 8、收益曲线法：类似成本曲线，用于财务分析、技术投资等领域，还可用于发现外界因素对投资的影响。 9、股东价值分析：从股东价值出发来考虑企业的业务重新组合。研究两个维度的关系：总资产、净现金流/资产所占百分比，从而决定卖掉、整顿、关闭、发展和培育的业务。 10、外部环境因素分析PEST：即政治法律环境、社会文化环境、经济环境、技术环境。

企业战略及对标管理的SWOT分析模型

分析模型 分析模型（） 分析法（也称分析法、道斯矩阵）即态势分析法，20世纪80年代初由美国旧金山大学的管理学教授韦里克提出，经常被用于企业战略制定、竞争对手分析等场合。

[编辑] 分析模型简介 在现在的战略规划报告里，分析应该算是一个众所周知的工具。来自于麦肯锡咨询公司的分析，包括分析企业的优势（）、劣势（）、机会（）和威胁（）。因此，分析实际上是将对企业内外部条件各方面内容进行综合和概括，进而分析组织的优劣势、面临的机会和威胁的一种方法。 通过分析，可以帮助企业把资源和行动聚集在自己的强项和有最多机会的地方。 [编辑] 模型含义介绍 优劣势分析主要是着眼于企业自身的实力及其与竞争对手的比较，而机会和威胁分析将注意力放在外部环境的变化及对企业的可能影响上。在分析时，应把所有的内部因素（即优劣势）集中在一起，然后用外部的力量来对这些因素进行评估。

1、机会与威胁分析（） 随着经济、社会、科技等诸多方面的迅速发展，特别是世界经济全球化、一体化过程的加快，全球信息网络的建立和消费需求的多样化，企业所处的环境更为开放和动荡。这种变化几乎对所有企业都产生了深刻的影响。正因为如此，环境分析成为一种日益重要的企业职能。 环境发展趋势分为两大类：一类表示环境威胁，另一类表示环境机会。环境威胁指的是环境中一种不利的发展趋势所形成的挑战，如果不采取果断的战略行为，这种不利趋势将导致公司的竞争地位受到削弱。环境机会就是对公司行为富有吸引力的领域，在这一领域中，该公司将拥有竞争优势。 对环境的分析也可以有不同的角度。比如，一种简明扼要的方法就是分析，另外一种比较常见的方法就是波特的五力分析。 2、优势与劣势分析（） 识别环境中有吸引力的机会是一回事，拥有在机会中成功所必需的竞争能力是另一回事。每个企业都要定期检查自己的优势与劣势，这可通过“企业经营管理检核表”的方式进行。企业或企业外的咨询机构都可利用这一格式检查企业的营销、财务、制造和组织能力。每一要素都要按照特强、稍强、中等、稍弱或特弱划分等级。

小米公司企业经营战略分析.doc

小米公司企业经营战略分析 课程名称：管理学基础 班级：13级连锁经营管理专业（1）班 名字：张家燚 学号：02130011040123

目录 一、公司简介及产品简介 二、竞争环境分析 三、宏观环境分析 四、波特的五力模型 五、SWOT分析 六、小米公司战略制定 七、总结

一、公司简介及其产品简介： （一）、公司简介：小米公司正式成立于2010年4月，是一家专注于智能产品自主研发的移动互联网公司。小米手机、MIUI、米聊是小米公司旗下三大核心业务。“为发烧而生”是小米的产品理念。小米公司首创了用互联网模式开发手机操作系统、发烧友参与开发改进的模式。 小米手机是小米公司（全称北京小米科技有限责任公司）专为发烧友级手机控打造的一款高品质智能手机。雷军是小米的董事长兼CEO。手机ID 设计全部由小米团队完成，该团队包括来自原谷歌中国工程研究院副院长林斌、原摩托罗拉北京研发中心高级总监周光平、原北京科技大学工业设计系主任刘德、原金山词霸总经理黎万强、原微软中国工程院开发总监黄江吉和原谷歌中国高级产品经理洪锋。手机生产由英华达代工，手机操作系统采用小米自主研发的MIUI操作系统。手机于2011年11月份正式上市。小米公司创始人雷军在谈及为何做小米手机时说，就目前发展趋势看，未来中国是移动互联网的世界。智能手机和应用会承载用户大部分需求，虽然过去的很多年，花了很多钱买手机。从诺基亚，摩托罗拉，三星，到现在的iPhone，但在使用过程中都有很多诸如信号不好，大白天断线等不满意的地方。作为一个资深的手机发烧友，深知只有软硬件的高度结合才能出好的效果，才有能力提升移动互联网的用户体验，基于有这个想法和理想，又有一帮有激情有梦想的创业伙伴，促成了做小米手机的原动力。 (二)、产品简介: 小米手机、MIUI、米聊是小米公司旗下三大核心业务。（1）米聊：国内最先推出的IM软件，不过目前市场占有率已被腾讯旗下的微信超越，而且其他互联网公司的加入，使得米聊的盈利模式处于未知状态 （2）MIUI：IUI是一个基于CyanogenMod而深度Android流动操作系统，而且高频率的发布新版本颠覆了整个手机工业认为操作系统基本不换的做法 （3）小米手机自正式发售以来，其火爆程度令人瞠目，多次售罄，其售货速度超越很多国内传统厂商。

营销战略分析模型的五种战略形式

营销战略分析模型的五种战略形式 品牌的心智地位以及兵力，决定了所采用的竞争战略形势，缺乏竞争战略思考的营销战略或者品牌战略，注定要受到实际竞争环境的挑战。 在营销的战场上有五种战略形式：防御战、进攻战、侧翼战、游击战、抢先战。各个品牌可以视自己所处的位置及资源配置状况，从中找到适合自己的最佳战略。 1、防御战 第一条防御战原则：只有市场领先者才能考虑防御战。 这个原则看起来似乎很简单，但常常被理解错。这里所说的领导者的地位是由消费者的心智决定的，而不仅仅是市场地位，经常有的情况是：某一个品牌在市场上获得了短暂的优势，就把自己当作领导者，就认为自己应该展开防御。 第二条防御战原则：最好的防御就是进攻自我。 竞争此消彼长，领先者展开防御战最好的方式，就是不断挑战自我，产品升级，引领竞争、寻求进化，促进行业发展。 第三条防御战原则：时刻准备阻止竞争对手强大的营销攻势。

领先者要想保持领先地位，除了不断挑战自己，促进整个品类发展，还必须要时刻阻止进攻者强大的营销攻势，在进攻者确立地位之前，进行有效打击。 链接：吉列刀片的防御战 吉列刀片一直是手动剃须刀市场的全球领导者，在该市场占据绝对的优势，市场上每出现一个机会，吉列都不会放过，包括可调节双层刀片剃须刀、减震剃须刀、三层刀片剃须刀，此后BIC公司推出革命性一次性剃须刀，放在吉列面前的选择是：如果切入一次性刀片市场，将拉低竞争层次，如果不切入，将产生了潜在的竞争对手。最后吉列，狙击一次性剃须刀推出双刀片一次性剃须刀，从而获得62%的市场，将BIC公司的市场分额压至19%，今天，一次性刀片已经成为市场主流，如果吉列不加入这场防御战，将失掉今天的地位。 2、进攻战 并不是所有的品牌都适合展开进攻战，只有处于市场二三位的品牌，并且拥有足够的兵力配备，才有机会针对领先者发动进攻战。 第一条进攻战原则：首先要研究领先者在市场中的强势。 面对市场竞争，企业的第一反应通常就是研究自己，研究自己的强势和弱势，这种观念下做出的决策通常有巨大的缺陷。处于二三位的品牌，其主要的市场是在领导者那

企业战略-企业战略管理模型

★★★文档资源★★★摘要：21世纪以来，市场竞争出现了与以往不同的高速度、高强度的动态竞争。为了更好地参与全球化竞争，企业战略管理要立足于培育企业对企业竞争环境的持久适应力,而持久适应力则来自于企业的核心能力。因此，企业必须正确处理好企业战略管理问题。本文通过对企业战略管理理论演变的研究，力图从新的角度，系统地、创新性地提出了企业战略管理模型，即从企业组织、企业文化、企业家能力、核心能力四个角度去认识一个企业的战略管理。 关键词：战略管理；模型；企业组织；企业文化；企业家能力；核心能力 一、企业战略管理理论的演变 首开企业战略问题研究之先河的是20世纪60年代初美国着名管理学家钱德勒，在此基础上,形成了两个相近的学派:“设计学派”和“计划学派”。这一时期学者们的研究方法和具体主张不尽相同,但从根本上说,其核心思想是一致的,企业战略的出发点是适应环境。经典的企业战略实质是一个组织对其环境的适应过程以及由此带来的组织内部结构变化的过程。 20世纪80年代初,以哈佛大学商学院的迈克尔·波特为代表的竞争战略理论取得了战略管理理论的主流地位。概括起来,波特的竞争战略理论的基本逻辑是：产业结构是决定企业盈利能力的关键因素，企业可以通过选择和执行一种基本战略影响产业中的五种作用力量(即产业结构),以改善和加强企业的相对竞争地位,获取市场竞争优势(低成本或差异化)；价值链活动是竞争优势的来源,企业可以通过价值链活动和价值链关系(包括一条价值链

内的活动之间及两条或多条价值链之间的关系)的调整来实施其基本战略。 进入20世纪90年代，普拉哈拉德和哈默又在《哈佛商业评论》发表了《企业核心能力》，提出了企业核心能力理论。该理论强调的是企业内部条件对于保持竞争优势以及获取超额利润的决定性作用。90年代中期，企业战略管理研究出现了新焦点：通过创新和创造来超越竞争。企业战略的竞争空间在扩展；企业的战略具有高度的弹性；不过多考虑战略目标是否与企业所拥有的资源相匹配,而是较多地追求建立扩展性的目标；由企业或企业联盟组成的商业生态系统成为参与竞争的主要形式；战略的主体趋于多元化。 从企业战略管理理论演进得出如下的规律: 从战略管理的范式来看,战略管理的均衡与可预测范式开始被非均衡与不确定性所取代；从战略理论的内容上看,存在这样一个发展轨迹,即关注企业内部(强调战略是一个计划、分析的过程)——关注企业外部(强调产业结构的分析)——关注企业内部(强调核心能力的构建、维护与产业环境分析相结合)——关注企业外部(强调企业间的合作,创建优势互补的企业有机群体)；从竞争的性质看,竞争的程度遵循着由弱到强,直至对抗,然后再到合作乃至共生的发展脉络。 二、企业战略管理模型 在企业战略管理理论的发展过程中,一些学者曾提出过多种企业战略管理模型。从已有的模型来看,基本上都是根据狭义的战略管理概念而提出的,也就是围绕如何进行战略规划、战略实施、战略控制和战略修正而展开的,各种模型之间只是部分细节上的不同。这样的模型当然具有其一定的指导意义,但是从广义的战略管理概念来看,就不再是一种合适的模型。根据广义的战略管理概念,对一个企业实施战略管理,需要以整个企业为管理对象,是对

电信运营商战略规划模型及应用完整版

电信运营商战略规划模 型及应用 HUA system office room 【HUA16H-TTMS2A-HUAS8Q8-HUAH1688】

电信运营商战略规划模型及应用 随着我国电信业的改革和开放，运营商的外部环境和内部结构比以往任何时候都更为复杂：一方面我国电信市场的竞争越来越激烈，竞争行为常常是互相依赖、互相激发，不讲究战略的运营商将会败得一塌糊涂；另一方面，我国主要的运营商都在国内外上市，上市后将面临各种考核要求及经营机制转变的要求，进行战略规划已成为企业内部管理的基本需要之一。 一、当前运营商战略规划编制框架及不足 目前各大运营商战略规划的编制模式基本遵循图1所示的规划编制思路和步骤。 图１电信运营商战略规划一般框架模式

从图1可以看出，目前我国各大运营商编制战略规划的一般思路和流程分为以下六步。 第一步，首先了解并梳理企业的使命、愿景及核心价值，并把它们作为战略制定的指导原则；第二步，分析企业将来的外部环境变化，包括政策、客户、竞争态势等，同时对企业的内部资源和能力进行分析和评估，揭示企业的核心竞争力，从而评估其能力是否足以应付不断增强的竞争压力；第三步，在战略分析的基础上确立企业未来的战略目标及定位；第四步，在战略目标的指导下制定实现战略目标的战略方案和关键举措；第五步，为了确保战略的落地，将战略举措细化为一系列的工作项目或行动计划；第六步，对战略的实施进行评估和监控以确保战略的顺利实施，并最终形成战略规划及管理循环。 应该说上述战略规划框架和模式基本上符合战略规划理论和企业的战略管理需要，具有较强的实用价值。但是，上述战略规划模式在实施过程中还存在一些不足，需要在今后的战略规划编制工作中加以完善。 上述规划模式主要基于一般战略管理理论，具有较强的普遍性。但是具体到电信运营商来说，在其运营组织管理、业务和服务、资源等诸多方面具有特殊性，如何将电信运营商及其所处行业的特殊性与战略规划相结合，从而使得电信运营商的战略规划更能体现行业特性值得考虑。二、电信企业战略规划模型及在企业战略规划中的应用为了解决上述问题，我们开发了一套电信企

协整检验及误差修正模型实验指导

协整检验及误差修正模型实验指导 一、实验目的 理解经济时间序列之间的理论关系，并学会用统计方法验证他们之间的关系。学会验证时间序列存在的不平稳性，掌握ADF检验平稳性的方法。认识不平稳的序列容易导致虚假回归问题，掌握为解决虚假回归问题引出的协整检验，协整的概念和具体的协整检验过程。协整描述了变量之间的长期关系，为了进一步研究变量之间的短期均衡是否存在，掌握误差纠正模型方法。 二、实验内容及要求 1、实验内容 y和中国居用Eviews来分析1982年到2002年中国居民实际消费支出的对数序列{ln} t x}之间的关系。内容包括： 民实际可支配收入的对数序列{ln t （1）对两个对数序列分别进行ADF平稳性检验； （2）进行二者之间的协整关系检验； （3）若存在协整关系，建立误差修正模型ECM。 2、实验要求 （1）在认真理解本章内容的基础上，通过实验掌握ADF检验平稳性的方法； （2）掌握具体的协整检验过程，以及误差修正模型的建立方法； （3）能对宏观经济变量间的长期均衡关系进行分析。 三、实验指导 1、对两个数据序列分别进行平稳性检验： （1）做时序图看二者的平稳性 在workfile中按住ctrl选择要检验的二变量，击右键，选择open—as group，此时他们可以作为一个数据组被打开。点击“View”―“graph”—“line”，得到两个序列的时序图。 给出两个序列的时序图。 从上图可以看出两个序列都呈上升趋势，显然不平稳，但二者有大致相同的增长和变化趋势，说明二者可能存在协整关系。但若要证实二者有协整关系，必须先看二者的单整阶数，如果都是一阶单整，则可能存在协整关系，若单整地阶数不相同，则需采取差分的方式，

战略钟分析模型及应用方法

战略钟分析模型及应用方法 一，战略性模型 战略钟模型（Strategic Clock Model）是由克利夫·鲍曼（Cliff Bowman）提出的，"战略钟"是分析企业竞争战略选择的一种工具，这种模型为企业的管理人员和咨询顾问提供了思考竞争战略和取得竞争优势的方法。 二，战略性模型内容及分类 战略钟模型将产品/服务价格和产品/服务附加值综合在一起考虑，企业实际上沿着以下8种途径中的一种来完成企业经营行为。其中一些的路线可能是成功的路线，而另外一些则可能导致企业的失败。 1，低价低值战略：采用途径1的企业关注的是对价格非常敏感的细分市场的情况。企业采用这种战略是在降低产品或服务的附加值的同时降低产品或服务的价格。 2，低价战略：采用途径2的企业是建立企业竞争优势的典型途径，即在降低产品或服务的价格的同时，包装产品或服务的质量。但是这种竞争策略容易被竞争对手模仿，也降低价格。在这种情况下，如果一个企业不能将价格降低到竞争对手的价格以下，或者顾客由于低价格难以对产品或服务的质量水平做出准确的判断，那么采用低价策略可能是得不偿失的。要想通过这一途径获得成功，企业必须取得成本领先地位。因此，这个途径实质上是成本领先战略。 3，差别化战略：采用途径3的企业以相同和略高于竞争对手的价格向顾客提供可感受的附加值，其目的是通过提供更好的产品和服务来获得更多的市场份额，或者通过稍高的价格提高收入。企业可以通过采取有形差异化战略，如产品在外观、质量、功能等方面的独特性;也可以采取无形差异化战略，如服务质量、客户服务、品牌文化等来获得竞争优势。 4，混合战略：采用途径4的企业在为顾客提供可感知的附加值同时保持低价格。而这种高品质低价格的策略能否成功，既取决于企业理解和满足客户需求的能力，又取决于是否有保持低价格策略的成本基础，并且难以被模仿。 5，集中差别化战略：采用途径5的企业可以采用高品质高价格策略在行业中竞争，即以特别高的价格为用户提供更高的产品和服务的附加值。但是采用这样的竞争策略意味着企业只能在特定的细分市场中参与经营和竞争。 6，高价撇脂战略：采用途径6、7、8的企业一般都是处在垄断经营地位，完全不考虑产品的成本和产品或服务队附加值。企业采用这种经营战略的前提是市场中没有竞争对手提供类似的产品和服务。否则，竞争对手很容易夺得市场份额，并很快削弱采用这一策略的企业的地位。 三，战略钟模型选择的依存度 1，行业依存度：绝对市场规模、成长率、价格敏感性、进入壁垒、替代品、市场竞争、供应商 2，环境依存度：政府法规、经济气候、通货风险、社会趋势、技术、就业、利率等。 3，客户依存度。对于业务单位的实力或竞争地位，需要考虑的因素主要有：1）目前优势：市场份额、市场份额变化趋势、盈利能力、现金流、差别化、相对价格地位等。 2）持久性：成本、后勤、营销、服务、客户形象、技术等。

企业分析常用的几个模型和方法

企业分析常用的几个模型和方法 模型 PEST分析法是一个常用的分析工具，它通过四个方面的因素分析从总体上把握宏观环境，并评价这些因素对企业营销策略目标和策略制定的影响。 P即Politics，政治要素，是指对组织经营活动具有实际与潜在影响的政治力量和有关的法律、法规等因素。当政治制度与体制、政府对组织所经营业务的态度发生变化时，当政府发布了对企业经营具有约束力的法律、法规时，企业的营销策略必须随之做出调整。 E即Economic，经济要素，是指一个国家的经济制度、经济结构、产业布局、资源状况、经济发展水平以及未来的经济走势等。构成经济环境的关键要素包括GDP的变化发展趋势、利率水平、通货膨胀程度及趋势、失业率、居民可支配收入水平、汇率水平等等。 S即Society，社会要素，是指组织所在社会中成员的民族特征、文化传统、价值观念、宗教信仰、教育水平以及风俗习惯等因素。构成社会环境的要素包括人口规模、年龄结构、种族结构、收入分布、消费结构和水平、人口流动性等。其中人口规模直接影响着一个国家或地区市场的容量，年龄结构则决定消费品的种类及推广方式。 T即Technology，技术要素。技术要素不仅仅包括那些引起革命性变化的发明，还包括与企业生产有关的新技术、新工艺、新材料的出现和发展趋势以及应用前景。在过去的半个世纪里，最迅速的变化就发生在技术领域，像微软、惠普、通用电气等高技术公司的崛起改变着世界和人类的生活方式。同样，技术领先的医院、大学等非盈利性组织，也比没有采用先进技术的同类组织具有更强的竞争力。 2.波特五力模型 五力模型是由波特（Porter）提出的，它认为行业中存在着决定竞争规模和程度的五种力量，这五种力量综合起来影响着产业的吸引力。它是用来分析企业所在行业竞争特征的一种有效的工具。在该模型中涉及的五种力量包括：新的竞争对手入侵，替代品的威胁，买方议价能力，卖方议价能力以及现存竞争者之间的竞争。决定企业

案例分析的模型与工具

群面/ 案例分析工具 1. 解决产业分析问题的模型【波特的五因素（Porter’s 5 Forces）】波特的五因素模型在战略分析模型工具中可能是最著名、运用最广泛的。其主要是运用在分析公司行业竞争能力和行业地位。这五个因素分别是：现在竞争者的竞 争潜在进入者的威胁供应商能力消费者能力替代品威胁行业中竞争越弱,行业 的整体利润就越高。同样的，在一个公司在整个行业中有很强的战略和市场地位，能够很好地 抵御以上五个因素的风险，该公司可以获得的利润就能够超过行业的平均水平。波特五因素 模型主要运用于：当你需要了解一个新的行业或者市场结构化/系统化你现有行业知识 定义一个行业，并明确你的研究对象在这个行业中的地位现在我们来看一下这个模型的具 体内容：使用波特模型有一个限制条件：此模型是静态分析，很少考虑行业内的一些变化，例 如行业内的政策等政治因素的变化等等。因此该模型一般只是辅助你开始对行业进行战略分析。可以适当结合其他的工具进行更为全面的分析。行业内竞争对手的策略和市场战新进入者 威胁潜在市场进入者和略，重点在于行业增长率，产品新进入者对市场可和品牌差异程度，退出行业竞争能造成的冲击的障碍供应商讨价还价的能力购买者讨价还价的能力 现有行业竞争者替代品生产的威胁消费者/购买者偏好的改变和讨供应商的讨价还价能 力以价还价的能力的改变主要因素及对企业会产生的压力。有购买数量大小，产品差异性， 主要考虑：更换供应商难信息掌握程度易程度，替代产品可能性和规模经济产品和科技是 否会替代现有产品或对现有产品造成竞争压力。取代的可能型多大。主要考虑替代成本。 2. 解决利润下降、企业经营发生变化的模型【根源分析模型】想了解某个企业的经营现象的变化是如何产生的，仅仅问几个问题是不够的，根源分析是一种组织性很强的且逻辑缜密的方法，通过“相互独立，完全穷尽”的方式进行分析使得你的分析结果更有说服力。根源分析可以十分广泛地应用于解决很多的问题，最典型的就是“利润下降”问题。我们来看一个以下的示例。利润下降了成本上升了？收入减少了？固定成本增多了？可变成本增多了？产品价格下降了？产品销量下降了？新投入设备了？原材料？竞争对手变强了？市场萎缩了？事实上，根源分析法可以解决的问题还远不止于此，例如：为什么我们的客户盈利率几乎是同行业平均水平的两部？为什么分销商不到我们这里进行采购？以后面这个例子为例而言针对“为什么分销商不到

小米企业战略分析

小米手机战略分析报告 目录： 1.小米公司背景 2.小米企业PEST分析 3.小米手机波特五力模型分析 4.小米手机CPM矩阵分析 5.小米手机IFE矩阵分析 6.小米手机EFE矩阵分析 7.小米手机BCG矩阵分析 8.小米手机SWOT矩阵分析 9.小米手机QSPM矩阵分析 班级：12级英语（国际工商管理）1班 一：小米公司的背景 小米成立于2010年4月，是一家专注于高端智能手机自主研发的移动互联网公司，由前Google、微软、金山等公司的顶尖高手组建。小米公司由雷军创办，

创始人共计七名，分别为创始人、董事长兼CEO雷军，联合创始人总裁林斌，联合创始及副总裁黎万强、周光平、黄江吉、刘德、洪锋。小米公司目前已获得来自Morningside、启明、IDG和小米团队4100万美元投资，其中小米团队56人投资110万美元，公司估值2.5亿美元。2010年底推出手机实名社区米聊，在推出半年内注册用户突破300万。此外，小米公司还推出手机操作系统MIUI，2011年6月底MIUI社区活跃用户达30万。2011年8月16日，小米公司通过媒体沟通会正式发布小米手机。米聊、MIUI、小米手机是小米科技的三大核心产品。小米拼音是mi，首先是Mobile Internet，小米要做移动互联网公司；其次是mission impossible，小米要完成不能完成的任务，用小米和步枪来征服世界。另外，小米的LOGO倒过来是一个心字，少一个点，意味着让用户省一点心。小米手机是小米公司专为发烧友级手机控打造的一款高品质智能手机。手机ID设计全部由小米团队完成，手机生产由英华达代工，手机操作系统采用小米自主研发的MIUI操作系统。手机2011年11月份正式上市，主要针对人群为手机发烧友，采用线上销售模式。小米公司创始人雷军在谈及为何做小米手机时说：“就目前发展趋势看，未来中国是移动互联网的世界。”智能手机和应用会承载用户大部分需求，虽然过去的很多年，花了很多钱买手机。从诺基亚，摩托罗拉，三星，到现在的IPhone，但在使用过程中都有很多诸如信号不好，大白天断线等不满意的地方。作为一个资深的手机发烧友，深知只有软硬件的高度结合才能出好的效果，才有能力提升移动互联网的用户体验，基于有这个想法和理想，又有一帮有激情有梦想的创业伙伴，促成了做小米手机的原动力。小米手机的推出近期来，我国移动通讯业发展迅速，手机已渐渐普及。截至2011年8月底，中国手机用户总数已达9.2726亿户，中国成为全球最大