I SENT THE CASE STUDY I SELECTED FILE
Overview
This assignment introduces you to the strategy development process, which sets the stage for a strategic plan. The purpose is to apply management principles to create management plans that include strategy formulation, business analyses and industry trends, and organizational characterization. This type of planning puts management theory into practice.
Purpose
Using the case study you selected in Week 2, research the company and its industry (that is, companies in the same line of business). Rely upon course readings about 21st-century management practices, as well as additional research in the Strayer Library and on the Internet. The MGT599 Library Guide provides information about using resources for your research.
Instructions
Write a 3-5 page paper in which you:
- Examine the company's current business strategy and development supported by examples from research.
- Business strategies may include what differentiates the company, its position around technology, its organizational characteristics, and so on.
- Your examination of the company's strategy includes how it approaches the problem or issue addressed in the case study.
- Your discussion must reflect a correct understanding of the concept of strategy (distinct from tactics).
- Evaluate the effectiveness of strategies used by industry competitors to address business problems or issues. Base your response on the following:
- Research competitors in the industry and describe their competitive strategies.
- Explain whether these strategies are successful. Provide specific examples.
- Address whether your chosen company could follow these strategies.
- Formulate strategies for your chosen company supported by your findings about industry trends and your company's organizational characteristics.
- Explain how your recommendation can be implemented and how its success can be measured.
- Explain the specific steps to apply your recommendation.
- Suggest a follow-up method for measuring the success of your recommendation.
- Use at least three quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other similar websites do not qualify as academic resources.
For help with research, writing, and citation, access the library or review library guides.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The library is your home for SWS assistance, including citations and formatting. Please refer to the Library site for all support. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:
- Conduct an industry analysis to inform strategy development for a given company.
View RubricWeek 3 Assignment – Strategy DevelopmentWeek 3 Assignment – Strategy DevelopmentCriteriaRatingsPtsExamine the company’s current business strategy and development supported by examples from research.28 to >25.2 ptsExemplaryExamined the company’s current business strategy and development supported by examples from research.25.2 to >22.4 ptsCompetentExamined the company’s current business strategy and development supported by examples from research, but the examination was incomplete.22.4 to >19.6 ptsNeeds ImprovementExamined the company’s current business strategy and development supported by examples from research, but the examination was incorrect or was not supported by examples from research.19.6 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not examine the company’s current business strategy and development supported by examples from research./ 28 ptsEvaluate the effectiveness of strategies used by industry competitors to address business problems or issues.28 to >25.2 ptsExemplaryEvaluated the effectiveness of strategies used by industry competitors to address business problems or issues.25.2 to >22.4 ptsCompetentEvaluated the effectiveness of strategies used by industry competitors to address business problems or issues, but the evaluation was incomplete.22.4 to >19.6 ptsNeeds ImprovementEvaluated the effectiveness of strategies used by industry competitors to address business problems or issues, but the evaluation was incorrect.19.6 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not evaluate the effectiveness of strategies used by industry competitors to address business problems or issues./ 28 ptsFormulate strategies for your chosen company supported by your findings about industry trends and your company’s organizational characteristics.35 to >31.5 ptsExemplaryFormulated strategies for your chosen company supported by your findings about industry trends and your company’s organizational characteristics.31.5 to >28 ptsCompetentFormulated strategies for your chosen company supported by your findings about industry trends or your company’s organizational characteristics, but not both.28 to >24.5 ptsNeeds ImprovementFormulated strategies for your chosen company, but they were not supported by findings about industry trends nor your company’s organizational characteristics.24.5 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not formulate strategies for your chosen company supported by your findings about industry trends and your company’s organizational characteristics./ 35 ptsExplain how your recommendation can be implemented and how its success can be measured.35 to >31.5 ptsExemplaryExplained how your recommendation can be implemented and how its success can be measured.31.5 to >28 ptsCompetentExplained how your recommendation can be implemented and how its success can be measured, but the explanation was incomplete.28 to >24.5 ptsNeeds ImprovementExplained how your recommendation can be implemented and how its success can be measured, but the explanation was incorrect.24.5 to >0 ptsUnacceptableDid not explain how your recommendation can be implemented and how its success can be measured./ 35 ptsProvide at least three quality references.7 to >6.3 ptsExemplaryProvided quality resources that are credible, relevant, and appropriate.6.3 to >5.6 ptsCompetentProvided quality resources that are credible, relevant, or appropriate, but not all three.5.6 to >4.9 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvided references, but they are not credible, relevant, or appropriate.4.9 to >0 ptsUnacceptableNo references provided./ 7 ptsClarity, writing mechanics, and SWS formatting requirements.7 to >6.3 ptsExemplaryWriting has very few spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors; few fragments, comma splices, and run-ons. 0–2 errors present.6.3 to >5.6 ptsCompetentWriting has spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors that are distracting in a few places; few fragments, comma splices, and run-ons. 3–4 errors present.5.6 to >4.9 ptsNeeds ImprovementWriting has spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors that are distracting in some places. 5–6 errors present.4.9 to >0 ptsUnacceptableWriting has spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors, including fragments, comma splices, and run-ons, that distract from the message. More than 6 errors present./ 7 pts
5
Business Finance
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name
Professor’s Name
Strategic Analysis: Google's Evolution and Corporate Strategy Through the Alphabet Transformation
Introduction
This paper analyzes the strategic evolution of Google into Alphabet Inc., examining the complex transition from a focused search engine company to a diversified technology conglomerate. The analysis will explore how this restructuring reflects broader changes in Google's corporate strategy, market positioning, and organizational capabilities.
Main Points
The paper will address several key strategic dimensions:
1. The evolution from Google's initial focus on search engine technology to its expansion into diverse technological domains
2. The rationale behind the Alphabet restructuring and its implications for corporate governance
3. The tension between maintaining core business profitability and investing in ambitious technological ventures
4. The effectiveness of Alphabet's corporate strategy in managing its portfolio of businesses
Paper Structure
What: Case Overview
Google's transformation into Alphabet represents a watershed moment in corporate strategy. In August 2015, Google announced its reorganization into Alphabet Inc., a holding company structure where Google would become the largest subsidiary among several independent companies (Wirtz, 1). This restructuring aimed to separate Google's core internet businesses from its various technological ventures, ranging from life sciences to self-driving cars (Srinivasan, 2).
How: Problem Analysis
The challenge faced by Google was multifaceted. Despite generating over 80% of its revenue from advertising, the company had ventured far beyond its original mission of organizing the world's information. This diversification created tensions in resource allocation, management focus, and investor communication (Srinivasan, 2). The company struggled to balance its profitable core business with investments in ambitious "moonshot" projects, leading to questions about strategic coherence and financial discipline.
Where and When: Environmental Context
The restructuring occurred during a period of significant technological and competitive change. By 2015, the technology landscape had evolved dramatically from Google's early days (Lee, 3):
i. Mobile technology had become dominant, threatening traditional desktop-based search advertising
ii. Competition intensified from focused rivals like Facebook in advertising and Amazon in cloud services
iii. Regulatory scrutiny increased globally regarding tech company market power
iv. Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, and biotechnology presented new opportunities
v. Corporate culture had evolved from a search-focused startup to a complex organization pursuing multiple technological frontiers
Conclusion
The analysis will demonstrate how Alphabet's restructuring represents a novel approach to managing a technology conglomerate. The paper will evaluate whether this organizational innovation successfully addresses the challenges of maintaining entrepreneurial dynamism while providing transparency and accountability to stakeholders. Ultimately, this analysis will shed light on the effectiveness of Alphabet's strategy in pursuing multiple ambitious technological initiatives while maintaining its dominant position in digital advertising.
Sources
1. Bernd W. Wirtz. 2019. Digital business models: Concepts, models, and the alphabet case study. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5wKQDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Google+is+now+Alphabet%E2%80%94But+what%27s+the+corporate+strategy%3F+In+Contemporary+Strategy+Analysis:+Cases&ots=_qHR-I7XCw&sig=JbDm2bcC0jxmacp1-_1dYQpwz7w&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Google%20is%20now%20Alphabet%E2%80%94But%20what's%20the%20corporate%20strategy%3F%20In%20Contemporary%20Strategy%20Analysis%3A%20Cases&f=false
2. Dinah Srinivasan . 2020. "Why Google dominates advertising markets." Stanford Technology Law Review, 24, p. 55. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stantlr24&div=4&id=&page=
3. Molly Lee. 2019. Alphabet: The Becoming of Google. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429242939