Not Dead Yet: The Rise, Fall and Persistence of The BCG Matrix

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/317767606
Not dead yet: The rise, fall and persistence of the BCG Matrix
Article in Problems and Perspectives in Management · April 2017

DOI: 10.21511/ppm.15(1).2017.02
CITATIONS READS
7 1,788
1 author:
Dag Øivind Madsen

University of South-Eastern Norway
52 PUBLICATIONS 257 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Diffusion and Translation of Concepts on Managing in the Nordic Countries View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dag Øivind Madsen on 02 August 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 15, Issue 1, 2017
Dag Øivind Madsen (Norway)
Not dead yet: the rise, fall and persistence of the BCG Matrix
Abstract
The BCG Matrix was introduced almost 50 years ago, and is today considered one of the most iconic strategic planning tech-
niques. Using management fashion theory as a theoretical lens, this paper examines the historical rise, fall and persistence of
the BCG Matrix. The analysis highlights the role played by fashion-setting actors (e.g., consultants, business schools and
business media) in the rise of the BCG Matrix. However, over time, portfolio planning models such as the BCG Matrix were
attacked and discredited by a host of different actors, and gradually fell out of favor. Even though the BCG Matrix has fallen
from grace, it is still alive and has left an imprint on management education and practice. Despite being largely discredited in
academic circles, many practitioners still view it as an important corporate portfolio planning technique.
Keywords: BCG Matrix, Boston Consulting Group, portfolio planning, strategic planning, management technique, rise, fall,
persistence, emergence, evolution, institutionalization, management fashion.
JEL Classification: M00, M10.
Introduction management gurus offering newer techniques and so-
lutions, the BCG Matrix has showed remarkable stay-
The BCG Matrix. The Boston Consulting Group’s ing power and longevity. Although it is evident that
Growth-Share Matrix (BCG Matrix) is a strategic the popularity of the BCG Matrix has declined since
planning technique that helps diversified corporations its heydays during the 1970s, it is still widely used as a
to allocate resources. Using the framework and sim- corporate portfolio planning technique by practitioners
plicity of a 2x2 matrix, the BCG Matrix identifies so- (Pidun, Rubner, Krühler, Untiedt & Nippa, 2011).
called stars, question marks, cash cows and dogs. The
BCG Matrix is a highly prescriptive management Purpose and contribution. Against the background
technique, offering clear and memorable recommenda- outlined above, the purpose of the current paper is to
tions (e.g., milk the cows, invest in the stars, divest the provide an examination of the historical evolution of
dogs and solve the question marks). the BCG Matrix. Although this paper is not the first to
The BCG Matrix has been around for a long time. It provide a historical examination of the BCG Matrix
was introduced by Boston Consulting Group with (Morrison & Wensley, 1991), earlier contributions are
much fanfare almost half a century ago, and has left by now quite dated. It is the author’s view that this
a long-lasting imprint on the fields of marketing and warrants a re-examination taking into account devel-
strategy. The BCG Matrix has been referred to as opments in the BCG Matrix’s evolution pattern over
“one of the most iconic strategy frameworks of all the last 25 years.
time” (Whitehead, 2015), and an “archetypical This study also utilizes a different theoretical lens;
grand panacea” (Nicholls, 1995; Russell-Walling, the management fashion perspective (e.g.,
2008, p. 20). In 2011, it was selected by Harvard Abrahamson, 1996; Kieser, 1997). This perspective
Business Review as one of the five charts that has, to the best of the author’s knowledge, not been
“changed the world” (Ovans, 2011). The influential applied in previous studies of the BCG Matrix.
role of portfolio planning frameworks has also been While Morrison and Wensley (1991) suggested that
noted elsewhere. For example, portfolio matrices are fashion, consulting firms and communication net-
considered one of the “ten big ideas” in strategic works could have played a role in the popularization
thinking (Allio, 2006), and the BCG Matrix is con- of the BCG Matrix, their examination did not draw
sidered one of the “50 management ideas you really explicitly on management fashion theory. Morrison
need to know” (Russell-Walling, 2008). and Wensley (1991, p. 124) called the BCG Matrix
New management techniques tend to have relatively “a case history in successful innovation and diffu-
short life cycles, and are often quickly overtaken and sion of a particular analytical framework”. In light
replaced by new fashionable techniques (Abrahamson, of this quote, re-analyzing the emergence and evolu-
1996; Carson, Lanier, Carson & Guidry, 2000). Being tion of the BCG Matrix from a management fashion
nearly 50 years old, the BCG Matrix can be considered perspective may provide new insights.
somewhat of a dinosaur in management research and Research approach. The research approach followed
practice. Despite receiving heavy incoming heavy fire in this paper is explorative and theoretical. Based on a
from skeptical researchers, as well as consultants and close reading of both practitioner-oriented and
scholarly literatures on the BCG matrix, this paper
 Dag Øivind Madsen, 2017. synthesizes different accounts on the historical
Dag Øivind Madsen, Associate Professor, Ph.D., University College of
Southeast Norway, Norway.
emergence and evolution of the BCG Matrix. The
author has followed a similar research approach in
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative studies of other popular management concepts and
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license, which
permits re-use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the materials aren’t
ideas (see, e.g., Madsen, 2016a; Madsen & Johanson,
used for commercial purposes and the original work is properly cited. 2016; Madsen & Stenheim, 2016).
19
The aim of the paper is to uncover an “overall pic- argue that it dates back to 1970 (Pidun et al., 2011;
ture” of the way the BCG Matrix has evolved as a Reeves, Moose & Venema, 2014) when Bruce Hen-
management technique over time. In a prior histori- derson’s article “The Product Portfolio” was published
cal examination of the BCG Matrix, Morrison and in BCG Perspectives (Henderson, 1970). Others, how-
Wensley (1991, p. 116) argued in favor of a similar ever, including Harvard Business Review, point to
approach: “the factors described do “fit” together to 1968 (Ovans, 2011; Russell-Walling, 2008, p. 21), or
form a mosaic picture of the period, which provides even the mid-1960s (Allio, 2006, p. 6).
a plausible narrative understanding of the success of
The name “BCG Matrix” reveals that BCG played the
the BCG ideas”.
key role in the creation and development of this man-
The remainder of the paper follows the following agement technique. Management history scholars have
structure. Section 1 provides a brief history and over- shown that BCG was a major player in the strategy
view of the BCG Matrix. In section 2 the BCG Ma- consulting business during the 1960s (McKenna,
trix is examined as a fashionable management tech- 2012; Payne, 1986). Bruce Henderson, who founded
nique. This includes an analysis of its key characteris- BCG in 1963, is commonly credited as the creator of
tics that are important to understand its subsequent the BCG Matrix. However, Henderson was not alone
evolution. In section 3 and 4 the supply and demand in these efforts; rather, it was a group effort. For ex-
sides of the BCG Matrix are analyzed. In section 5, ample, Seymour Tilles1, another founding partner of
themes related to the BCG Matrix’s emergence and BCG, wrote an article about portfolio planning in Har-
evolution are discussed in the context of the man- vard Business Review in 1966 (Tilles, 1966). Accord-
agement fashion literature. Finally, the last section ing to Tilles, the firm should be seen as a portfolio of
highlights the study’s contributions, and discusses businesses, a line of thinking that is a cornerstone of
limitations, as well as presents some ideas for future the BCG Matrix.
research on the BCG Matrix.
According to Morrison and Wensley (1991), the early
1. A brief history of the BCG Matrix development of the BCG matrix was not based on the-
ory, but largely based on practical experiences picked
This section examines the historical emergence of the
up in actual consulting work. The role of interaction
BCG matrix. The section is divided into three parts.
with practitioners in the early development of the BCG
The first part sketches the basics of the BCG Matrix, Matrix has also been by noted by other authors. For
while the second provides a brief history of the BCG
example, Cummings and Daellenbach (2009, p. 258)
Matrix. The last part sketches important historical
pointed out that: “We should not forget that some of
Zeitgeists in the management discipline and commu- the most popular and long lasting strategy frameworks
nity that have shaped the evolution pattern of the
mentioned at the outset of this article were first
BCG Matrix.
thought out by such seasoned senior executives inter-
1.1. The basics of the BCG Matrix. The BCG Matrix acting with consultants and academics. The Growth-
is a strategic planning technique that can be used for Share Matrix, for example, emerged when BCG con-
portfolio planning in diversified firms. Visually the sultants brainstormed and doodled with think-tankers
BCG Matrix is presented as a two-by-two matrix and managers from the Mead Paper Corporation”.
(Table 1), where the two dimensions are market share
Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 110) point out that
(high share, low share) and market growth rate (high
growth, low growth). The matrix can be used to sort the BCG Matrix was revised during the 1970s. For
example, Henderson wrote a series of books and arti-
and categorize different businesses into so-called
cles where the BCG Matrix was developed further
stars, cows, dogs and question marks. The BCG offers,
(Henderson, 1970, 1973, 1979, 1984). The BCG Ma-
as Allio (2006) calls them, “notorious resource
allocation prescriptions” for managers, i.e., milk the trix has also been featured in more recent BCG publi-
cations on strategy (Stern & Deimler, 2012; Stern &
cows, divest the dogs, invest in the stars, and analyze
Stalk, 1998).
the question marks.
Table 1. The BCG Matrix 1.3. A brief sketch of the historical Zeitgeists
shaping the emergence and evolution of the BCG
High market share Low market share Matrix. This part sketches the historical Zeitgeists (i.e.
High market growth Star Question mark dominant set of ideas and beliefs) that have shaped the
Low market growth Cash cow Dog evolution pattern of the BCG Matrix. Describing the
1.2. The historical emergence of the BCG Matrix. In successive Zeitgeists since the BCG Matrix’s
the introduction of this paper, the BCG Matrix was introduction is important, as Kieser (1997) points out
referred to as somewhat of a dinosaur in the manage- that timing and Zeitgeist plays important role in
ment discipline. The BCG Matrix was introduced by determining whether new management concepts
the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) about 50 years become popular and fashionable. Furthermore,
ago. The exact birthdate of the BCG Matrix can be 1
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/21/business/seymour-tilles-74-mana-
somewhat difficult to establish. Most, including BCG, gement-consultant.html
20
changes in Zeitgeists may shape the evolution pattern 1.3.3. 1990s and beyond. By the 1990s, there was less
of management concepts. For example, popular demand for traditional strategy consulting, and in-
concepts could fall out of favor if they no longer fit stead the focus shifted to new buzzwords such as
well with the dominant set of ideals and beliefs in the “strategy implementation” and “strategy execution”
management community. (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994). As a result, strategy con-
sultants “readjusted their wares to cope with the new
1.3.1. 1960s and 1970s: the rise of strategic planning
client demand” (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994, p. 5).
and corporate portfolio management. The 1960s and
Leading strategy consulting firms such as McKinsey
1970s were fertile soil for the introduction and popu-
and BCG readjusted their traditional consulting reper-
larization of the BCG Matrix. During the 1960s and
toire to focus more on implementation and efficiency
1970, there was a strong focus on corporate diversifi-
(Prahalad & Hamel, 1994, p. 5).
cation and conglomeration (Ramanujam &
Varadarajan, 1989). In diversified companies and con- During the 1990s there was much “academic disillu-
glomerates, a key issue was how to allocate funds to sionment” with prevailing schools of thought within
different businesses in the conglomerate. This meant the field of strategy (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994, p. 5).
that it became important to develop tools and tech- For example, the strategic planning school had until
niques that could help with portfolio planning and cor- the 1990s enjoyed a dominant position within the field
porate portfolio management. of strategy. The strategic planning school was heavily
criticized by leading strategy scholars, in particular
The BCG Matrix was presented as a solution to these
Henry Mintzberg who presented a more fluid and dy-
issues. BCG extensively promoted the conglomerate
namic view of the strategic planning process
form during the 1960s and 1970s, and the BCG Matrix
(Mintzberg, 1994a, b). Hence, the 1990s and 2000s did
was positioned as a particularly useful tool for manag-
not provide a friendly environment for the BCG Ma-
ing corporate portfolios (McKenna, 2012). The BCG
trix. The shift from viewing the firm as portfolio to
Matrix was promoted as a planning technique that
viewing the firm as a network (Davis et al., 1994)
could help managers to make better portfolio planning
meant that the BCG Matrix was largely out of step
decisions and more effectively allocate resources be-
with the zeitgeist in the business community.
tween different businesses.
2. The BCG Matrix viewed from a management
In large part due to its natural fit with the Zeitgeist in
the business community, the BCG Matrix attracted a fashion perspective
large share of public management discourse during So far, the focus has been on the historical emergence
this period. As noted by Untiedt, Nippa and Pidun of the BCG Matrix and the Zeitgeists that have shaped
(2012), the BCG Matrix took center stage as a man- its evolution pattern. In this section, the focus shifts to
agement technique from 1960s to mid-1980s. viewing the BCG Matrix from a management fashion
1.3.2. 1980s: conglomerates and portfolio planning perspective. After a short introduction to the man-
models no longer in vogue. Although the BCG Ma- agement fashion perspective, the characteristics of the
trix was going strong during the 1970s, there were BCG Matrix are analyzed. These characteristics have
some signs that the honeymoon period was over. influenced the popularity and evolution of the BCG
Ghemawat (2002) notes that in the late 1970s port- Matrix. The characteristics of the BCG Matrix have,
folio planning tools came under attack. Due to the however, left it vulnerable to attacks. The last part re-
financial problems of the 1970s, there was a general views different types of criticism that have been lev-
criticism of managerial practice (Hayes & eled at the BCG Matrix.
Abernathy, 1980). This led to critical examinations 2.1. The management fashion perspective. The
of contemporary management practices and a search management fashion perspective focuses on studying
for other and better managerial techniques. upswings and downswings in the popularity of
Hence, it can be argued that the BCG Matrix started management techniques (Abrahamson, 1991, 1996;
to face some headwinds already during the late Kieser, 1997; Newell, Robertson & Swan, 2001). A
1970s. During the 1980s, things got worse for the key focus of management fashion research is on
BCG Matrix. As shown by Davis, Diekmann and explaining why some management techniques become
Tinsley (1994), the conglomerate model was dele- widely and rapidly diffused, while others do not (for a
gitimized and deinstitutionalized by different actors. review, see, e.g., Madsen & Stenheim, 2013).
This led to associated portfolio planning techniques There are several definitions of the term “management
such as the BCG matrix to go out of fashion. Critics fashion”. In the most widely cited article on manage-
hammered away at the pitfalls in portfolio planning ment fashion, Abrahamson (1996, p. 257) defines
(Coate, 1983). As Gluck (1985) puts it, American management fashion as “a relatively transitory collec-
managers’ love affair with strategic planning (and tive belief, disseminated by management fashion set-
strategic planning techniques such as the BCG Ma- ters, that a management technique leads rational man-
trix) was fading. agement progress”.
21
According to management fashion theory, the diffu- Table 2. Variations of the BCG Matrix label
sion and popularization of new management tech- Variation References
niques is viewed as taking place within a management “BCG Box” McKenna (2012); Morrison and Wensley (1991)
fashion market, and the evolution of management “Boston Box” Godfrey (2015)
techniques are shaped by both supply side and demand “Boston Matrix” Russell-Walling (2008)
side forces. “Growth-share Hindle (2008)
matrix”
On the supply side of management actors, there is a
“Share/Growth Morrison and Wensley (1991)
“fashion-setting community” (Abrahamson, 1996) matrix”
or “management fashion arena” (Jung & Kieser, “BCG zoo” Karlöf and Helin Lövingsson (2005)
2012) comprised of actors promoting and propagat- “BCG Grid” Lowy and Hood (2011)
ing management techniques. These actors include
consulting firms, management gurus, software In the following, the focus is on the label “BCG Ma-
firms, business media, conference organizers, and trix”. Several researchers have noted that this label is
professional organizations (Clark, 2004b). The de- easy to remember (Armstrong & Brodie, 1994) and
mand side of management fashions is made up of “memorable” (Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015). Related
organizations and managers considering adopting to this point, Spee and Jarzabkowski (2009) write that
new management techniques. “clearly designed tools such as the BCG matrix are
easier to remember”. In addition, as Lowy and Hood
Although the management fashion perspective
(2011, p. 169) have pointed out, most people, at least
stresses the role played by supply side actors (e.g.,
those with business and management backgrounds,
consultants) in influencing the popularity of new
will think of the BCG matrix when hearing the term
management techniques, by creating a “fashion
“2x2 matrix”.
wave” and bandwagon effects (Benders, 1999;
Kieser, 1997), researchers have also pointed out that Researchers have pointed out that the BCG Matrix is
some management ideas are more “potent” and con- one of the most iconic and memorable labels in the
tagious than others (Benders & Van Veen, 2001; fields of strategy and marketing. For example, the
Røvik, 2002), i.e., they have a higher popularity and BCG matrix has become part of the “language of busi-
fashion potential. In the subsequent sections, the ness strategy” (Seeger, 1984) and according to “stand-
popularity potential of the BCG Matrix is analyzed. ard popular terms and a convenient shorthand in stra-
tegic discussions” (Lowy & Hood, 2011, p. 169).
2.2. Analysis of the characteristics of the BCG
Matrix. In the following, the focus shifts to an 2.2.2. Performance improvements. Another key char-
analysis of the key characteristics of the BCG acteristics of management fashions is that proponents
Matrix. This discussion elaborates on four of new management innovations tend to promise sub-
characteristics that are typically emphasized in the stantial performance improvements in case of adop-
literature on fashionable management concepts and tion (Benders & Van Veen, 2001; Røvik, 1998). Af-
ideas (Kieser, 1997; Røvik, 1998, 2002): (1) catchy ter all, potential adopters are unlikely to adopt unless
label, (2) performance enhancements, (3) they perceive potential benefits (Benders, 1999). The
interpretive space, and (4) universality. These BCG Matrix is accompanied by promises of potential
characteristics have influenced the popularity of the performance improvements. Morrison and Wensley
BCG Matrix, and have implications for how the (1991, p. 110) point out that Bruce Henderson of
BCG Matrix has evolved over time as a BCG made a “very grand and provocative claim for
management technique. his matrix”. Henderson (1973, p. 6) argued that “such
as a single chart, with a projected position for five
2.2.1. Catchy label. In the literature on management
years out, is sufficient alone to tell a company’s prof-
concepts and ideas, it is pointed out that fashionable
itability, debt capacity, growth potential and competi-
management techniques are typically labeled in a
tive strength”.
distinctive way, often using a fancy and catchy label
(Røvik, 1998). In many cases, a two or three letter BCG positioned the BCG Matrix as a prescriptive
acronym are used (Grint, 1997; Røvik, 1998). This model that would be highly useful (i.e., performance
is certainly the case for the BCG Matrix, where the enhancing) in conglomerate-type organizations, an
three-letter acronym BCG is an abbreviation of the organizational form that was in vogue during the
name of the consulting firm Boston Consulting 1970s. The BCG matrix allowed managers to view the
Group. However, as Table 2 shows, the BCG Matrix firm as a portfolio. The matrix showed which busi-
is known by several different names. In particular, nesses were dogs, cash cows, stars, etc. In other words,
the label “growth-share matrix” is frequently used in the Matrix helped to sort a conglomerate’s different
both academia and practice. Other less common la- businesses into useful categories (Armstrong &
bels include the “BCG zoo” (Karlöf & Helin Brodie, 1994) and gave managers clear recommenda-
Lövingsson, 2005) and the “BCG Grid” (Lowy & tions and prescriptions, e.g., sell dogs, harvest cows,
Hood, 2011). and invest in stars.
22
The BCG Matrix could also potentially increase per- 1977) that could explain its popularity in practice. This
formance in other ways. For example, there is an im- simplicity makes the BCG Matrix appealing to busy
plicit assumption that the BCG Matrix will help man- managers. Others have pointed out the powerful im-
agers to stay in control and manage their businesses agery and visual impact of the BCG Matrix (Morrison
more effectively. For example, Ernst and Kieser (2000, & Wensley, 1991). The BCG Matrix is simple and
p. 8) argue that tools like the BCG matrix “create the powerful, in much the same way as other strategic
impression that processes that hitherto appeared diffi- tools and frameworks such as SWOT analysis and Por-
cult to manage are kept under control”. ter’s Five Forces framework.
However, over time, researchers have pointed out 2.3. Critical perspectives. In this section, the focus
that that the performance enhancing effects of the shifts to critical perspectives on the BCG Matrix.
BCG may be overstated, and that in some situations, Although several of the characteristics mentioned
adoption of the BCG Matrix could actually reduce above helped to propel the BCG Matrix to the center
performance. For example, Armstrong and Brodie stage in the business community in the early 1970s,
(1994) found that the BSC matrix was ineffective. they became vulnerabilities, as the BCG Matrix came
The case for portfolio planning techniques such as the under attack in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. It is
BCG Matrix has also been weakened by findings in particularly academic researchers who have led the
the organizational literature that suggest that market attack on the BCG Matrix. As Table 3 shows, several
diversification is superior to corporate diversification lines of criticism can be identified.
(Untiedt et al., 2012).
First of all, the BCG Matrix has been criticized for
2.2.3. Interpretive space. Another typical character- being reductionist (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel,
istic of management fashions is that they are vague 2005, pp. 96-97). Critics point that the BCG Matrix
and can be interpreted differently by different actors builds on the so-called “design school model” that
(Benders & Van Veen, 2001; Clark, 2004a; Giroux, emphasizes the firm’s external environment and in-
2006). Although the BCG Matrix is a rather clearly ternal capabilities. However, it has been noted that
designed management technique, it is interpreted the BCG Matrix only utilizes only one key dimension
and has different meanings for different actors oper- for each of these two categories, and the 2x2 matrix,
ating in different contexts (Spee & Jarzabkowski, therefore, results in only four generic strategies and
2009). In the words of Lowy and Hood (2011, p. prescriptions.
169), “what has made the framework so powerful Related to this reductionism critique, researchers have
and enduring is its amazing breadth; not only is it a also pointed out that the BCG Matrix may be too sim-
method for structuring strategic priority-setting dis- ple. Brindle and Stearns (2001, p. 119) referred to the
cussions, it also represents a business typology, BCG Matrix as “a simple tool for a pretty tall order”.
making it possible for planners to think about a In the same vein, Hambrick and MacMillan (1982,
portfolio of holdings from an investment p. 84) wrote that “the simplicity of the matrix and its
perspective”. In other words, the BCG Matrix can edicts is alluring, but some argue that it all seems too
be interpreted and used in different ways, as actors simple”. Seeger (1984) argues that this may lead to
apply it in relation to their own organization- “oversimplified prescriptions for action which students
specific issues and problems. and managers may attach to the images: we should
2.2.4. Universality. Finally, a fourth characteristics of kick the dogs, cloister the cows, and throw our money
management fashions is that they are typically pre- at the stars”.
sented as universal in nature (Røvik, 1998; Strang & The BCG Matrix has also been criticized for being
Meyer, 1993). Presenting a management technique as mechanistic (Wilson, 1994). Some argue that using
universally applicable obviously increases the size of a single management technique such as the BCG
the potential adopter market (Fincham & Evans, 1999; Matrix may not be sufficient in increasingly “dy-
Røvik, 2007). McKenna (2012) points out that BCG namic” and turbulent business environments (cf.
followed an universalistic approach when developing Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Kaarbøe, Gooderham &
techniques such as the BCG Matrix. BCG consultants Nørreklit, 2013).
claimed that their theories “were universally applicable
across all industries in part because the BCG consult- Other critics have pointed out that the BCG Matrix
ants had to overcome the potential liability that they is presented in a seductive way. Managers may be
were not trained as industry specialists” (McKenna, seduced by the BCG Matrix, because it presents the
2012, p. 154). world using dichotomies, and decisions are por-
trayed as choices between mutually exclusive alter-
The universality of the BCG Matrix also has implica- natives (ten Bos, 2000, p. 35). Related to this, is the
tions for its use by actors on the demand side (i.e., observation that portfolio matrices have become
managers). For example, the BCG Matrix is so simple somewhat of an “article of faith” in the marketing
and intuitive that no particular expertise is required in community (Ardley, 2008) and the observation that
applying it. The matrix has an intuitive appeal (Day, the BCG Matrix is “folklore” (Armstrong, 1996).
23
The BCG Matrix is also arguably too generic. This 3. The supply side of the BCG Matrix
line of criticism is the related to the notion of uni-
In this section, the focus shifts to the supply side of the
versality discussed in subsection 2.3.4. In the words
BCG Matrix. The supply side consists of those actors
of Wright, Paroutis and Blettner (2013, p. 110), the
involved in the promotion and propagation of the BCG
BCG Matrix is “too generic/cannot help users to
focus on the problem, do not provide a clear picture Matrix. This section begins by with a broad descrip-
tion of the different supply side actors involved in the
of different areas, do not guide users to form good
“fashion-setting community” or “fashion arena”
thinking path, do not help users to think about the
around the BCG Matrix, before the role and activities
company’s value, and are considered too broad”.
of each actor type are analyzed in more detail.
Despite the simplicity and generic nature of the
BCG Matrix, practitioners have a modest under- 3.1. The field of actors around the BCG Matrix.
This section provides a broad overview of the most
standing of it. For example, Grønhaug (2002, p.
367) noted that the understanding of the assump- influential actors who have been involved in diffusing
and popularizing the BCG Matrix around the world
tions and applicability of the BCG Matrix among
(Table 4). As can be seen, in particular consulting
potential users such as business students is “often
firms have played a leading role in the diffusion and
modest.”
popularization of the BCG Matrix. Business schools
Finally, the BCG Matrix is frequently misapplied in have also played a key role in the diffusion and
practice (Knott, 2006). As Johnson, Scholes and legitimization of the BCG Matrix. Prestigious user
Whittington (2008) point out, it can be hard to de- organizations have had some influence as model firms
termine what constitutes high or low market share or and well-known users of portfolio matrices.
high or low market growth. This makes it difficult to
place businesses/products in the four quadrants. Other actors types have been of lesser importance.
Critics have also pointed out use of the BCG Matrix For example, the conference/scene and the manage-
can lead managers to make worse decisions ment gurus that speak at such events have been of
(Armstrong & Brodie, 1994). One commentator has relatively low importance. Software firms and social
referred to it as “the Marlon Brando of management media have also been of little relevance in the case of
tools – brilliant, fệted, poorly deployed and then the BCG Matrix. Even in later years, software firms
discredited” (Russell-Walling, 2008, p. 20). have not really been involved. This may be due to the
relatively simple nature of the BCG Matrix, which
Table 3. Criticism of the BCG Matrix does not create much of a need for software solutions.
Criticism References In addition, the BCG Matrix is not getting much at-
Reductionist Mintzberg et al. (2005, p. 96-97) tention on social media compared to other contempo-
Oversimplification Brindle and Stearns (2001, p. 119); Hambrick rary management ideas (Madsen & Slåtten, 2015b).
and MacMillan (1982, p. 84) One explanation for the lack of attention on social
Mechanistic Wilson (1994) media is that the BCG Matrix is perceived as old
Seductive Ardley (2008); ten Bos (2000, p. 35) news in the management community. After all, the
Generic Wright et al. (2013, p. 110) historical review in this article has shown that “port-
Modest understanding Grønhaug (2002, p. 367) folio matrix wave” took place years prior to the ad-
Misapplication Johnson et al. (2008); Knott (2006) vent of the Internet and social media.
2.4. Summary. In this section, the characteristics of Table 4. The most important actors involved in diffus-
the BCG Matrix have been analyzed. The analysis ing the BCG Matrix
has shown that the BCG Matrix exhibits several of
Actor type Examples of activities
the characteristics that give management techniques
“the ability to flow” (Røvik, 2002) and become Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey, Arthur D.
Consulting firms
Little
fashionable. These inherent characteristics, in Business school curriculum, textbooks, re-
particular a very high degree of universality and Business schools
search topic
perceived performance improvements, are important Business media Media articles
in explaining the BCG Matrix’s rise in popularity in High-profile users of portfolio matrices (GE,
Influential user organizations
the business community. Mead Paper, American Standard)
However, the analysis has also presented various criti- 3.2. Consulting firms. In the literature on popular
cal perspectives on the BCG Matrix. Several of the management concepts and ideas, researchers have
characteristics that served the BCG Matrix well in the found that consulting firms typically play a very
upswing phase, e.g., its simplicity and universality, central role in the diffusion, popularization and
became vulnerabilities when the BCG Matrix came institutionalization of new management techniques
under fire by actors seeking to undermine and discredit (Heusinkveld, 2013; Heusinkveld & Benders, 2012;
the BCG Matrix during the late 1970s and 1980s. Jung & Kieser, 2012).

24
In his seminal article on management fashion, 3.2.2. McKinsey. The conglomerate General Electric
Abrahamson (1996, p. 266) even used BCG as an ex- (GE) hired McKinsey to help with planning and
ample, and pointed out that BCG consultants played a management of their portfolio of business units
key role as fashion-setters in the creation and launch of (Russell-Walling, 2008, p. 22). As a result of this
the BCG Matrix. collaboration, the BCG Matrix was developed and
refined into a new matrix. This new matrix became
However, BCG has not been the only consulting
known as the GE McKinsey Matrix. The GE
firm involved in diffusing and popularizing variants
McKinsey Matrix was a nine-cell matrix and an ex-
of the BCG Matrix. Due to rapidly growing interest
tension of the BCG Matrix (Sood, 2010) and the
in the BCG Matrix during the 1970s, it did not take
“what is probably the best known alternative”
long for BCG’s competitors to sense a lucrative
(Morrison & Wensley, 1991, p. 112). Proctor (2014,
market opportunity, and to start fighting for a slice
p. 29) traces it back to a Business Horizons article in
of this market. Other consulting firms such as Ar-
1975.
thur D. Little and McKinsey jumped on the portfolio
matrix trend during the 1970s, and developed and In other contributions, it has been referred to as
launched their own competing matrices. As Hindle the directional policy matrix (Johnson et al., 2008,
(2008, p. 96) notes, “The growth share matrix start- p. 280) or the GE Business Screen (Griffin, 2016,
ed a fashion for matrices among management con- p. 82). Instead of using market growth and market
sultants. For a while, no self-respecting report or share as the two dimensions, McKinsey used in-
theory was complete without one.” dustry attractiveness and business strength
It has also been pointed out that actors promoting the (Ghemawat, 2002). The GE Matrix is arguably
BCG Matrix may have been motivated by self-interest. more detailed and sophisticated than the BCG
To this point, Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 116) Matrix (Russell-Walling, 2008), and it has been
note that “BCG and other consultancies made great called an “improvement” on the BCG Matrix
efforts to introduce portfolio planning because of self (Proctor & Hassard, 1990).
interest”. In the management fashion literature, it is 3.2.3. ADL and other actors. The consulting firm
pointed out that actors in large part are motivated by Arthur D. Little developed yet another alternative to
self-interest (Kieser, 1997; Klincewicz, 2006). the BCG Matrix. It was called the ADL multifactor
Hence, a number of consulting firms started offering portfolio model (Patel & Younger, 1978). As noted
portfolio planning tools (Coate, 1983; Ghemawat, by Karlöf and Helin Lövingsson (2005), both Arthur
2002; Karlöf & Helin Lövingsson, 2005; McKenna, D. Little and McKinsey made 3x3 matrices. Allio
2012; Proctor & Kitchen, 1990; Wensley, 1981). By (2006, p. 6) notes that Arthur D. Little presented a
the early 1980s, there were several competing portfolio 4x5 matrix with industry maturity and competitive
matrices in use (Wind & Mahajan, 1981). Table 5 pro- positions as the variables. Proctor (2014, p. 33)
vides an overview of several of these competing matri- notes that it can be considered a hybrid of the BCG
ces. In other words, the “firm-as-portfolio” model was matrix and a multifactor matrix.
promoted by most management consulting firms
There are also some lesser known alternatives intro-
(Davis et al., 1994, p. 553).
duced by other actors. For example, the Shell Chem-
In the following, the portfolio matrices offered by icals Directional Policy matrix was introduced by
three of the leading strategy consulting firms in this Robinson, Hichens and Wade (1978). Proctor (2014,
period (Boston Consulting Group (BCG), McKin- p. 31) points out that this matrix is very similar to
sey, and Arthur D. Little) will be described in great- the GE/McKinsey matrix. Finally, the MCC deci-
er detail. sion matrix was another “modern” alternative to the
3.2.1. Boston Consulting Group (BCG). Since this ar- BCG Matrix using mission and core competencies
ticle focuses primarily on the BCG Matrix, it is natural as the axes of the matrix (Nicholls, 1995).
to start with BCG’s role in the market for portfolio Table 5. Portfolio matrices offering by leading con-
matrices. BCG’s work with portfolio matrices started sulting firms
in the last half the 1960s. As mentioned, BCG started
Consulting
the portfolio matrix “craze” with the introduction of firm
Version Description References
the BCG Matrix in the late 1960s and naturally named BCG Matrix
its new technique after itself (O’Shea & Madigan, 2x2 matrix Morrison and
BCG (growth-share
(Four-cell matrix) Wensley (1991)
1997). The BCG Matrix’s rapid rise in popularity matrix)
helped establish BCG’s standing as a leading strategy 3x3 matrix (Nine-cell matrix)
GE McKinsey Johnson et al.
McKinsey An extension of the BCG
consulting firm (Lowy & Hood, 2011). BCG has con- Matrix
Matrix
(2008)
tinued to reference the BCG Matrix in their more re- Patel and
cent publications on strategy (Stern & Deimler, 2012; Arthur D. ADL multifactor 3x3 matrix or Younger (1978);
Stern & Stalk, 1998) and refers to it as a “BCG Clas- Little portfolio model 4x5 matrix Proctor (2014,
p. 33)
sic” (Reeves et al., 2014).
25
Table 5 (cont.). Portfolio matrices offering by lead- 3.4.2. Textbooks. Although the BCG Matrix has been
ing consulting firms overtaken in popularity by newer strategy tools, it is
Consulting
still commonly referred to in marketing and strategy
Version Description References textbooks, as well as in MBA education. It is featured
firm
Shell Chemi- 3x3 matrix in most strategy and marketing textbooks (Griffin,
Robinson et al.
cals Directional Similar to the GE/McKinsey
(1978) 2016, pp. 79-81; Johnson et al., 2008, pp. 278-280).
Policy matrix matrix
Furthermore, the BCG matrix is described in the nu-
2x2 matrix
Other
Modern alternative
merous handbooks on management and strategy tools
MCC decision (Bensoussan & Fleisher, 2012; Birkinshaw & Mark,
Mission (M) and Core Nicholls (1995)
matrix
Competencies (CC) as the 2015; Hindle, 2008; Karlof, 1989; Karlöf & Helin
two axes
Lövingsson, 2005; Van den Berg & Pietersma, 2015).
3.2.4. Recent developments. Over time, portfolio ma- However, the coverage of the BCG Matrix in text-
trices have gradually slipped into the background, and books has not been all positive. For example, the nega-
are typically not marketed as strongly by the leading tive aspects of the BCG Matrix have been laid out in
strategy consulting firms. Portfolio matrices are sel- influential textbooks (Johnson et al., 2008). Today, the
dom among the concepts and ideas that are presented BCG Matrix no longer occupies a central place in most
on public display on consultancy websites etc. textbooks, and instead has been relegated to a relegat-
However, BCG is still proudly referring to the BCG ed a historical curiosity or footnote. In the words of
Matrix as a “BCG Classic” in their online magazine Phelan (2005, p. 2), “References to the BCG matrix
BCG Perspectives (Reeves et al., 2014). BCG argues have disappeared from graduate textbooks and aca-
that the BCG Matrix continues to be relevant and pro- demic journals, and are slowly being phased out of
poses the “BCG Matrix 2.0 in Practice” taking into undergraduate and marketing text except, perhaps, as
account aspects of the modern business environment historical footnotes”.
(Reeves et al., 2014). 3.4.3. Research topic. The BCG Matrix’s popularity as
3.3. Business schools. Business schools play an a subject of academic research has also changed over
important role in the diffusion and time. In the aftermath of the rise in popularity of the
institutionalization of management knowledge BCG Matrix during the 1970s, many academics wrote
(Abrahamson, 1996; Hedmo, Sahlin-Andersson & articles about the BCG Matrix. Phelan (2005) notes
Wedlin, 2005; Sahlin-Andersson & Engwall, 2002). that in 1982, six major academic journal articles about
Academics publish articles about new concepts and the BCG Matrix were published.
ideas, and teach new concepts and ideas in business Academics tend to take a critical stance towards new
schools, in particular at the MBA and executive management trends, especially those propagated by
education level. Business schools may, therefore, consulting firms and gurus. This skeptical attitude has
play an important role in creating awareness about also been seen in the case of the BCG Matrix, and the
and legitimizing new management techniques, by academic criticism surfaced relatively early. Morrison
given them a stamp of approval. and Wensley (1991, p. 116) wrote that “whilst the US
The role of business schools has been noted in prior business community was revelling in their “new” dis-
research on the BCG Matrix. Morrison and Wensley covery, the academic community was busy dissecting
(1991, p. 113) noted the role of the Harvard network in the BGG and other matrices, and evaluating their fail-
the early popularization of the BCG Matrix: “It is pos- ings and shortcomings”. At the same time, Morrison
sible that, at its inception, the BCG Matrix was and Wensley (1991) point out that this early criticism
“launched” through Henderson’s lines of communica- did not necessarily have a negative effect on its popu-
tion with the Harvard Business School and the corpo- larity among organizations and managers, noting that
rations connected in various ways to that institution, as “perhaps for BGG, all publicity was good publicity”.
well as by direct consultancy work”. Over time, the BCG Matrix has been widely criticized
3.4.1. MBA and management education. The BCG in the fields of marketing and strategy, and the review
Matrix has been covered extensively in US busi- of criticism leveled at the BCG Matrix reveals a cer-
ness administration education (Armstrong & tain level of scholarly disdain. Untiedt et al. (2012)
Brodie, 1994). The BCG Matrix is commonly note that portfolio matrices in spite of being relevant
taught in strategy courses (Wright et al., 2013), and widely used by practitioners have disappeared
e.g., at the MBA level. This means that the BCG from the research agendas of academics.
Matrix will be part of the toolbox of aspiring man- 3.4. Business media. Business media organizations
agers and consultants, alongside other strategy influence the diffusion and institutionalization of new
tools such as Porter’s Five Forces and SWOT management techniques (Abrahamson, 1996;
Analysis. Mintzberg (2004) argues that the BCG Scarbrough, Robertson & Swan, 2005). Different
brand name over time has become “imprinted” in types of business media (e.g., books, journals,
management education. magazines, newspapers) transmit information about
26
new management concepts and ideas (Alvarez, 1998; and relatively simple management techniques such as
Alvarez, Mazza & Pedersen, 2005; Mazza & Alvarez, the BCG Matrix or SWOT Analysis.
2000; Sahlin-Andersson & Engwall, 2002).
3.7. Management gurus. Management gurus are
Over the course of the last decades, the BCG Matrix important in the creation and diffusion of management
has received much attention in the business media. fashions (Huczynski, 1993; Jackson, 2001). In the case
Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 115) noted the atten- of the BCG Matrix, management gurus have not
tion given to the BCG Matrix in business media as an played a key role.
important factor in explaining its rise: “the publicity
Bruce Henderson could arguably be called a “BCG
generated by BCG, and by the lively debate in the
Matrix guru”, since he played the key role in the
business and academic press, no doubt had a further
early development and writings about the BCG Ma-
significant effect on adoption”.
trix (Henderson, 1970, 1973, 1979). However, Hen-
Hence, it can be argued that the business media acted derson did not operate on his own, as is often seen
as an important cheerleader in the early phase. How- in the case of gurus in relation to new management
ever, business media also played an influential role in fashions; instead, he was associated with BCG
the fall of the BCG Matrix. During the 1980s con- throughout his career.
glomerates, and by implication, portfolio matrices,
3.8. Summary. This section has examined the field of
were heavily criticized in the business press. As point-
actors involved in the market built around the BCG
ed out by Davis et al. (1994, p. 564), “the business
Matrix. Viewed as a whole, consulting firms have
press denounced the conglomerate merger movement
clearly played the most important role in the diffusion
as a bout of collective madness on the part of Ameri-
and popularization of the BCG Matrix. However,
can businesses and announced the coming of a firm-
business schools have assumed an active role, and
as-network model to replace the now-discredited firm-
bestowed a stamp of legitimacy on the BCG Matrix in
as-portfolio model.”
the early phase by incorporating the technique in
3.5. Prestigious user organizations. Prestigious user textbooks and educational programs. Business media
organizations sometimes play important roles in the also created a lot of attention in the early phase. Other
diffusion and popularization of new management actor groups such as conference/seminar organizers
techniques by putting themselves on public display as and management gurus have played a relatively
general models (Meyer, 1996). In part, organizations limited role in the case of the BCG Matrix.
put themselves on display as models to enhance their
Over time, the roles of the various actors have shifted.
own legitimacy and status. Prestigious users and
As the BCG Matrix fell out of favor, academic re-
experienced early adopters may participate in the
searchers and business media became the leading crit-
fashion arena by writing articles in the business media
ics and de-legitimizers. As the Zeitgeist shifted, busi-
or giving interviews. In addition, adopters and users of
ness media organizations published negative pieces on
the concepts participate in conferences and seminars
the conglomerate model. Scholars also stepped up their
by giving speeches and presentations. Hence,
criticism of the BCG Matrix. Consultants have also
experienced adopters may assume the role of experts
become less active over time, and have shifted their
on a particular technique.
focus and efforts to newer and more timely manage-
In the case of the BCG Matrix, Morrison and Wensley ment concepts and ideas.
(1991) point out the role of companies such as Mead
4. The demand side of the BCG Matrix
Paper and American Standard. With respect to Mead
Paper, Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 114) noted that This section examines the demand side of the BCG
the director of that company also served as chairman Matrix. The demand side consists of organizations
of BCG’s parent company. and managers that are potential consumers of portfo-
In addition, the famous American conglomerate Gen- lio matrices such as the BCG Matrix. The first part of
eral Electric was involved in the development of the the section examines trends in the interest in and
GE/McKinsey Matrix. In that case, the GE brand name awareness of the BCG Matrix, followed by trends in
became closely associated with the name of the matrix. the adoption and diffusion of the BCG Matrix in dif-
ferent sectors and countries. The final part examines
3.6. Conference/seminar organizers. The role of the how the BCG Matrix has been implemented and
conference/seminar scene is highlighted in translated in practice.
management fashion research (Ax & Bjørnenak, 2005;
Jung & Kieser, 2012; Kieser, 1997). 4.1. Interest and awareness. Google Trends (Choi &
Conference/seminar organizers have played a limited Varian, 2012) is an analytic tool that contains Google
role in the case of the BCG Matrix. Although there search data dating back to 2004. Google Trends can be
may have been a market in the early phase in during used to take the temperature on the interest in the BCG
the 1970s, in general, it can be difficult to make a Matrix among potential consumers on the demand side
living selling conference/seminar seats for well-known (Madsen, 2016b).
27
The limited data availability is a weakness in the case though the search interest appears to be on a down-
of the BCG Matrix since this management technique ward trajectory, it has not collapsed completely. Fur-
dates back nearly half a century. However, the data thermore, the Google data indicate that “growth-share
from 2004 and onwards give a partial picture of the matrix” is a more commonly searched for term than
interest in BCG Matrix. Figure 1 indicates that even “BCG Matrix”.
Data source: https://www.google.com/trends/, accessed 15 July 2016.

Fig. 1. Search interest for terms related to the BCG Matrix
4.2. Adoption and diffusion. This section examines Over the course of the 1990s, the BCG continued to
trends in the adoption and use of the BCG Matrix over decline in popularity. In a contribution from the late
time. The historical review in section 1 showed that 1990s, Glaister and Falshaw (1999, p. 112) pointed out
the BCG Matrix was introduced in 1970, but it did not that “little use is made of portfolio matrices”. Howev-
take long before it became widely adopted by er, the evidence about usage is mixed, as other re-
organizations and managers. As discussed in section 3, searchers note that although traditional planning mod-
General Electric was an early proponent of portfolio els have gone out of fashion, American companies
matrices (McKenna, 2012). As early as in 1972, more were reluctant to discard these classic planning tools
than 100 major companies in the US used the BCG (McCabe & Narayanan, 1991).
Matrix (Day, 1977).
Research papers published after the year 2000 show
Portfolio analysis gained in popularity among com- that BCG Matrix is still relatively widely used and that
panies after the oil crisis in 1973 (Ghemawat, 2002). the awareness is high. Jarzabkowski and Giulietti
In the mid to late 1970s, Day (1977) noted that port- (2007) find that portfolio matrices are currently used
folio planning models such as the BCG matrix had by 29% of organizations, while 20% have used them
“gained wide acceptance among managers of diver- previously but not anymore. They also find that the
sified companies”. In a similar vein, Lorange (1975) awareness is high. 40% have heard of portfolio matri-
pointed out that analysis similar to the BCG Matrix ces but are not using them, while only 13% have not
was widely used and universally practiced in corpo- heard of such matrices at all.
rate planning. In a study conducted in Jordan, Aldehayyat and
By the end of the 1970s, the BCG Matrix had spread Anchor (2008) find that portfolio analysis techniques
widely in the US. Around that time it was used in (e.g., BCG Matrix) rank 10 and 3 in terms of use and
many different sectors (Haspeslagh, 1982). awareness, respectively. Tassabehji and Isherwood
(2014) document a usage rate of 26.4 percent in a
Ghemawat (2002) cites a study that shows that by
sample biased towards UK/USA firms.
1979, portfolio planning techniques were used, at
least to a certain extent, by 45% of Fortune 500 In a recent study, Jarzabkowski and Kaplan (2015, p.
companies. Phelan (2005) cites studies (Bettis & 546) find that the use of the BCG Matrix persists at a
Hall, 1981; Haspeslagh, 1982) that demonstrate that moderate level. Pidun et al. (2011) argues that corpo-
the BCG Matrix was used by almost half of Fortune rate portfolio planning techniques such as the BCG
500 firms during the period from 1972 to 1982. Matrix are still popular among practitioners.
Table 6 sums up the overall trends in the adoption
During the 1980s, the BCG Matrix was the most popu-
and use of the BCG Matrix over time. The studies
lar portfolio matrix (Morrison & Wensley, 1991) and reviewed in this section generally show that the BCG
widely used in strategic planning (Hax & Majluf, has been on a downward trajectory in terms of usage
1983). However, there were industry differences in since the heydays in the 1970s. However, at the same
how the BCG was applied and used (Morrison & time, practitioners seem hesitant to discard these
Wensley, 1991). techniques.
28
Table 6. Trends in the adoption and teresting given that the Harvard Business School net-
use of the BCG Matrix over time work has later been shown to have been important in
Period Adoption and use
creating and mobilizing support for other well-known
Portfolio matrices are widely used and universally
management fashions such as the Balanced Scorecard
1970s and Activity Based Costing (Cooper, Ezzamel, & Qu,
practiced
Several competing matrices, but BCG Matrix is still most 2016; Jones & Dugdale, 2002).
1980s
popular portfolio matrix
Portfolio matrices no longer seen as fashionable, but
5.2. Evolution and life cycle. Next, the evolution and
1990s organizations are for the most part hesistant to discard life cycle of the BCG Matrix is discussed in light of
them management fashion theory. The traditional and
2000s and onwards Moderate level of use of portfolio matrices general view among management fashion theorists is
4.3. Implementation and translation. In the analysis that fashions have a relatively short life-span and do
of the BCG Matrix’s characteristics, it was noted that not stick around for very long (Abrahamson, 1996;
the BCG Matrix allows for different interpretations. Carson et al., 2000; Gill & Whittle, 1993).
The BCG Matrix is also universal in nature, meaning In the case of the BCG Matrix, the analysis has shown
that it can be adapted to different contexts the life cycle so far has spanned nearly half a century.
(Haspeslagh, 1982). Although research has shown that the “the firm-as-
Researchers have noted that BCG Matrix can be ap- portfolio model” was deinstitutionalized during the
plied and translated in different ways in practice. Spee 1980s (Davis et al., 1994), the BCG Matrix has man-
and Jarzabkowski (2009) notes that “the same strategy aged to persist as a management technique, even in the
tool (e.g. BCG matrix) can have different meanings face of headwinds and unfavorable shifts in Zeitgeist.
when applied for different purposes, by different indi- That said, it can reasonably be argued that the BCG
viduals or in different contexts”. The use of the BCG Matrix is currently relatively late in the life cycle as a
Matrix also shapes how managers perceive different management concept. As pointed out by Phelan (2005,
strategic activities (Armstrong & Brodie, 1994). p. 2), “in the first decade of the 21st century, the BCG
The interpretive space also means that the BCG Matrix matrix is certainly in the decline phase of its product
is often combined with other management concepts in life cycle; perhaps qualifying for ‘dog’ status in its
practice. For example, researchers have found that it is own terminology”.
combined with other strategy tools such as SWOT However, predicting the future evolution and trajec-
(Tao & Shi, 2016). In recent years, the portfolio think- tory of the BCG Matrix is difficult. Will it fall into
ing has also been translated to customer portfolio man- oblivion, or will it stabilize at this lower level of
agement (Thakur & Workman, 2016), where the BCG popularity (steady state)? McCabe and Narayanan
Matrix is applied to customers instead of businesses. (1991) lend some support to the view that the BCG
Matrix will continue to stick around, as they find
5. Discussion that companies are reluctant to get rid of the old
In this section, the findings are discussed in the context planning tools such as the BCG matrix. This seems
of the management fashion perspective. The discus- still to be the case, as recent research shows that the
sion focuses on three themes relevant to the rise, fall BCG Matrix is still used and popular among practi-
and persistence of the BCG Matrix: (1) historical tioners (Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015; Pidun et al.,
emergence, (2) evolution and life cycle, and (3) institu- 2011) despite being viewed as being mostly of his-
tionalization and deinstitutionalization. torical interest by scholars and textbooks writers in
the fields of marketing and strategy.
5.1. Historical emergence. The historical analysis in
5.3. Institutionalization and deinstitutionalization.
this paper has shown that the BCG Matrix emerged in
Finally, the rise and fall of the BCG Matrix will be
the late 1960s, mostly as a result of practice-based
discussed in light of institutionalization and
development. Researchers have found that the BCG
deinstitutionalization, two key concepts in
Matrix was developed based on experiences from institutional theory (Scott, 2001), and more recently
consulting work (Morrison & Wensley, 1991) and in also in discussions of management fashions
close interaction with actors in business practice (Madsen & Slåtten, 2015a; Perkmann & Spicer,
(Cummings & Daellenbach, 2009). 2008; Røvik, 2011).
Hence, the emergence of the BCG Matrix was not Among management fashion theorists, the traditional
driven primarily by academia and theory. However, view has been that management fashions are transito-
this does not mean that academics and business ry and fleeting phenomena, whose lifecycles resem-
schools did not play a role in the rise of the BCG Ma- ble a bell-shaped curve (Abrahamson, 1996;
trix. Business schools, in particular the network around Abrahamson & Fairchild, 1999; Gill & Whittle,
Harvard Business School, contributed to the early le- 1993). After a rapid rise in interest and popularity,
gitimization and popularization of the BCG Matrix new fashions become “old” and ultimately fall out of
(Morrison & Wensley, 1991). This observation is in- favor and decline into obscurity.
29
However, it is increasingly recognized that manage- perspective has not been fully considered and utilized.
ment fashions can be institutionalized via the institu- As shown in this paper, the management fashion
tional work of supply side actors who anchor these perspective casts a new light on the role of the actors
fashionable techniques as more permanent and resili- and institutions involved in shaping the evolution
ent frameworks and practices (Perkmann & Spicer, pattern of the BCG Matrix.
2008). The enduring nature of some management fash-
Although the main focus of the paper has been to pro-
ions has, for instance, been shown in the case of
vide a new theoretical perspective on the historical
Knowledge Management (Grant, 2011; Hislop, 2010;
evolution of the BCG Matrix, the paper also has some
Jemielniak & Kociatkiewicz, 2009).
practical implications. Despite its fall from grace, the
The case of the BCG Matrix is interesting to discuss in BCG Matrix has left an imprint on business school
relation to institutionalization and deinstitutionaliza- education, consulting, as well as managerial practice.
tion processes. On the one hand, it is clear that the Portfolio matrices such as the BCG Matrix are, despite
BCG Matrix was on the rise in terms of popularity, their shortcomings, are viewed as practically relevant
and for a while enjoyed a very high standing in the and still used in practice (Untiedt et al., 2012). The
business community (signs of institutionalization). On historical examination in this paper could potentially
the other hand, the BCG Matrix’s fall from grace was be useful for practitioners seeking to understand the
triggered by different factors, including a shift in zeit- origins and evolution of the BCG Matrix, and how it
geist and the “deinstitutional work” of key actors in the relates to other approaches in the field of management.
business community. In particular, business media and
Limitations and future research directions. Like all
scholars criticized and discredited the conglomerate
research studies, this study is certainly not immune to
form and the “firm-as-portfolio model” (Davis et al.,
limitations and weaknesses. Therefore, future research
1994) represented by the BCG Matrix.
papers could elaborate on the present study in a several
Despite having risen and fallen in popularity, the BCG different ways.
Matrix has not completely gone away. The research
For example, the current study has only presented an
cited in this paper shows that it still enjoys at least
overall macro picture of the rise, fall and persistence of
some level of popularity among practitioners, even
the BCG Matrix. The approach bears similarities with
though it is widely discredited in academic circles.
Morrison and Wensley (1991) who assembled a “mo-
However, it can be argued that the BCG Matrix has
saic” of the factors explaining the rise in the popularity
left an imprint on management education and practice.
of the BCG Matrix. Since the present study has cov-
Although consultants these days find it more difficult ered a period stretching nearly 50 years, it has not been
to make a living selling 2x2 matrices, the BCG Matrix possible to focus in depth on a particular sub-period.
is still closely associated with its creator BCG. Today, Future studies can focus specifically on the evolution
BCG enjoys a position as one of the elite strategy con- of the BCG Matrix within specific time periods, and in
sulting firms (Kiechel, 2010). This in and of itself greater detail trace the activities of the various actors
could explain some of the BCG Matrix enduring na- supporting or opposing the BCG Matrix.
ture, as management techniques that are associated
Another limitation is related to the choice of manage-
with the elite consultancies may be perceived more
ment fashion as a theoretical lens. The author recog-
positively by business managers.
nizes that this could have led to bias, as it may lead to
Although BCG consultants are not promoting the ma- an “over-socialized” view of the rise and fall of the
trix to the extent that they did in the early 1970s, it BCG Matrix. There are certainly many other factors
may be in the self-interest of BCG to protect its intel- that could explain the evolution pattern of the BCG
lectual legacy and brand name. Therefore, it is not sur- Matrix. Future studies on the BCG Matrix could draw
prising that the BCG Matrix is still featured in the on a wider spectrum of theoretical perspectives about
book “The Boston Consulting Group on Strategy” the adoption, diffusion and evolution of management
(Stern & Deimler, 2012). In 2014, leading BCG con- practices (see, e.g., Sturdy, 2004).
sultants still refer to their matrix as a “BCG Classic”
Generally, there is a need for more research on tools
(Reeves et al., 2014), and they argue that “BCG Matrix
and techniques for corporate portfolio analysis. Practi-
2.0” still continues to be relevant even in today’s tur-
tioners would also benefit from a better understanding
bulent and dynamic business environment.
the origins and evolution of management techniques.
Conclusion A better understanding of shortcomings could enable
practitioners to better adapt and “translate” classic
Contributions. The present paper has examined the
techniques such as the BCG Matrix to the modern
rise, fall and persistence of the BCG Matrix using business environment (cf. Reeves et al., 2014).
management fashion theory as a theoretical backdrop.
Although previous contributions alluded to fashion as Finally, there is a need for more research on the man-
being a possible factor involved in the rise of the BCG agement techniques launched and propagated by elite
Matrix (Morrison & Wensley, 1991), this theoretical consulting firms such as BCG and McKinsey. These
30
elite consulting firms are powerful actors who greatly case study presented in this paper shows, these firms
influence the diffusion and popularization of manage- play a key role in the rise and fall in popularity of par-
ment knowledge (O’Mahoney & Sturdy, 2016). As the ticular management techniques.
References
1. Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations, Academy of
Management Review, 16, pp. 586-612.
2. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management Fashions, Academy of Management Review, 21, pp. 254-285.
3. Abrahamson, E. & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management fashion: lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 708-740.
4. Aldehayyat, J.S. & Anchor, J.R. (2008). Strategic planning tools and techniques in Jordan: awareness and use, Strategic
Change, 17 (7-8), pp. 281-293.
5. Allio, R.J. (2006). Strategic thinking: the ten big ideas, Strategy & Leadership, 34 (4), pp. 4-13.
6. Alvarez, J.L. (1998). The diffusion and consumption of business knowledge: St. Martin’s Press.
7. Alvarez, J.L., Mazza, C. & Pedersen, J.S. (2005). The Role of the Mass Media in the Consumption of Management
Knowledge, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21 (2), pp. 133-233.
8. Ardley, B. (2008). Articles of faith and mystic matrices: Marketing textbooks and the misrepresentation of reality,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 11 (4), pp. 372-385.
9. Armstrong, J.S. (1996). The ombudsman: management folklore and management science – on portfolio planning,
escalation bias, and such, Interfaces, 26 (4), pp. 25-55.
10. Armstrong, J.S. & Brodie, R.J. (1994). Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making: Experimental results,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11 (1), pp. 73-84.
11. Ax, C. & Bjørnenak, T. (2005). Bundling and diffusion of management accounting innovations – the case of the
balanced scorecard in Sweden, Management Accounting Research, 16, pp. 1-20.
12. Benders, J. (1999). Tricks and Trucks? A Case Study of Organization Concepts at Work, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 10 (4), pp. 624-637.
13. Benders, J. & Van Veen, K. (2001). What’s in a fashion? Interpretive viability and management fashions, Organization,
8 (1), pp. 33-53.
14. Bensoussan, B.E. & Fleisher, C.S. (2012). Analysis without paralysis: 12 tools to make better strategic decisions: FT
Press.
15. Bettis, R.A. & Hall, W.K. (1981). Strategic portfolio management in the multibusiness firm, California Management
Review, 24 (1), pp. 23-38.
16. Birkinshaw, J. & Mark, K. (2015). Key MBA models: The 60+ models every manager and business student needs to
know. Pearson Higher Ed.
17. Brindle, M. & Stearns, P.N. (2001). Facing up to management faddism: A new look at an old force. Greenwood
Publishing Group.
18. Carson, P., Lanier, P., Carson, K. & Guidry, B. (2000). Clearing a path through the management fashion jungle,
Academy of Management Journal, 43 (6), pp. 1143-1158.
19. Choi, H, & Varian, H. (2012). Predicting the present with google trends, Economic Record, 88 (s1), pp. 2-9.
20. Clark, T. (2004a). The fashion of management fashion: A surge too far? Organization, 11 (2), pp. 297-306.
21. Clark, T. (2004b). Strategy viewed from a management fashion perspective, European Management Review, 1 (1),
pp. 105-111.
22. Coate, M.B. (1983). Pitfalls in portfolio planning, Long Range Planning, 16 (3), pp. 47-56.
23. Cooper, D.J., Ezzamel, M. & Qu, S. (2016). Popularizing a management accounting idea: The case of the balanced
scorecard. Available at SSRN.
24. Cummings, S. & Daellenbach, U. (2009). A guide to the future of strategy?: The history of long range planning, Long
Range Planning, 42 (2), pp. 234-263.
25. Davis, G.F., Diekmann, K.A. & Tinsley, C.H. (1994). The decline and fall of the conglomerate firm in the 1980s: The
deinstitutionalization of an organizational form, American Sociological Review, pp. 547-570.
26. Day, G.S. (1977). Diagnosing the product portfolio, The Journal of Marketing, pp. 29-38.
27. Ernst, B. & Kieser, A. (2000). How consultants outcompete management scientists on the market of management
knowledge. Paper presented at the Workshop of the Kommission für Organisation, Zurich.
28. Fincham, R. & Evans, M. (1999). The consultants’ offensive: reengineering – from fad to technique, New Technology,
Work and Employment, 14 (1), pp. 32-44.
29. Ghemawat, P. (2002). Competition and business strategy in historical perspective, Business History Review, 76 (01),
pp. 37-74.
30. Gill, J. & Whittle, S. (1993). Management by panacea: Accounting for transcience, Journal of Management Studies, 30
(2), pp. 281-296.
31. Giroux, H. (2006). ‘It was such a handy term’: Management fashions and pragmatic ambiguity, Journal of Management
Studies, 43 (6), pp. 1227-1260.
32. Glaister, K.W. & Falshaw, J.R. (1999). Strategic planning: still going strong? Long Range Planning, 32 (1), pp. 107-116.
33. Gluck, F.W. (1985). A fresh look at strategic management, Journal of Business Strategy, 6 (2), pp. 4-19.
34. Godfrey, R.D. (2015). Strategic Management: A Critical Introduction. Routledge.
35. Grant, K. (2011). Knowledge Management, An Enduring but Confusing Fashion, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9 (2), pp. 1117-1131.
31
36. Griffin, R.W. (2016). Fundamentals of management. 8th ed. Cengage Learning.
37. Grint, K. (1997). TQM, BPR, JIT, BSCs and TLAs: Managerial waves or drownings? Management Decision, 35,
pp. 731-738.
38. Grønhaug, K. (2002). Is marketing knowledge useful? European Journal of Marketing, 36 (3), pp. 364-372.
39. Hambrick, D.C. & MacMillan, I.C. (1982). The product portfolio and man’s best friend, California Management
Review, 25 (000001), p. 84.
40. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
41. Haspeslagh, P. (1982). Portfolio planning-uses and limits, Harvard Business Review, 60 (1), pp. 58-73.
42. Hax, A.C. & Majluf, N.S. (1983). The use of the growth-share matrix in strategic planning, Interfaces, 13 (1), pp. 46-60.
43. Hayes, R.H. & Abernathy, W.J. (1980). Managing our way to economic decline, Harvard Business Review, 58 (4),
pp. 138-149.
44. Hedmo, T., Sahlin-Andersson, K. & Wedlin, L. (2005). Fields of imitation: The global expansion of management
education. In B. Czarniawska, & G. Sevon (Eds.), Global Ideas: How ideas, objects and practices travel in the global
economy, pp. 190-212. Lund: Liber & CBS Press.
45. Henderson, B. (1970). The product portfolio, BCG Perspectives.
46. Henderson, B. (1973). The experience curve reviewed: IV the growth share matrix or product portfolio, BCG
Perspectives, p. 135.
47. Henderson, B. (1979). The product portfolio: growth share matrix of the Boston Consulting Group.
In H. Mintzberg, & J.B. Quinn (Eds.), The Strategy Process: Concepts, contexts, cases, 2nd ed., pp. 678-680.
48. Henderson, B. (1984). The Logic of Business Strategy. Ballinger Pub Co.
49. Heusinkveld, S. (2013). The Management Idea Factory: Innovation and Commodification in Management Consulting.
New York, NY: Routledge.
50. Heusinkveld, S. & Benders, J. (2012). Consultants and organization concepts. In M. Kipping, & T. Clark (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting, pp. 267-284. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
51. Hindle, T. (2008). Guide to management ideas and gurus. London, UK: The Economist in assocation with Profile Books
Ltd.
52. Hislop, D. (2010). Knowledge management as an ephemeral management fashion? Journal of Knowledge Management,
14 (6), pp. 779-790.
53. Huczynski, A. (1993). Management gurus: What makes them and how to become one. London: Routledge.
54. Jackson, B. (2001). Management Gurus and Management Fashions. London: Routledge.
55. Jarzabkowski, P. & Giulietti, M. (2007). Strategic management as an applied science, but not as we (academics) know it,
Paper presented at The Third Organization Studies Summer Workshop. Crete.
56. Jarzabkowski, P. & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools in use: A framework for understanding “technologies of
rationality” in practice, Strategic Management Journal, 36 (4), pp. 537-558.
57. Jemielniak, D. & Kociatkiewicz, J. (2009). Knowledge Management: Fad or Enduring Organizational Concept?,
Handbook of Research on Knowledge-Intensive Organizations, pp. 552-561: IGI Global.
58. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy: Text and cases. Pearson Education.
59. Jones, T.C. & Dugdale, D. (2002). The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of modernity, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 27, pp. 121-163.
60. Jung, N. & Kieser, A. (2012). Consultants in the Management Fashion Arena. In M. Kipping, & T. Clark (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting, pp. 327-346. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
61. Kaarbøe, K., Gooderham, P.N. & Nørreklit, H. (2013). Managing in Dynamic Business Environments: Between Control
and Autonomy, Edward Elgar Publishing.
62. Karlof, B. (1989). Business strategy: a guide to concepts and models, Springer.
63. Karlöf, B. & Helin Lövingsson, F. (2005). A to Z of Management Concepts and Models. London, GBR: Thorogood
Publishing.
64. Kiechel, W. (2010). The lords of strategy: The secret intellectual history of the new corporate world. Harvard Business
Press.
65. Kieser, A. (1997). Rhetoric and myth in management fashion, Organization, 4 (1), pp. 49-74.
66. Klincewicz, K. (2006). Management fashions: Turning best-selling ideas into objects and institutions. Piscataway, New
Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishers.
67. Knott, P. (2006). A typology of strategy tool applications, Management Decision, 44 (8), pp. 1090-1105.
68. Lorange, P. (1975). Divisional planning: setting effective direction, Sloan Management Review, 17 (1), pp. 77-91.
69. Lowy, A. & Hood, P. (2011). The power of the 2 x 2 matrix: Using 2 x 2 thinking to solve business problems and make
better decisions. John Wiley & Sons.
70. Madsen, D.Ø. (2016a). SWOT Analysis: A Management Fashion Perspective, International Journal of Business
Research, 16 (1), pp. 39-56.
71. Madsen, D.Ø. (2016b). Using Google Trends in management fashion research: A short note, European Journal of
Management, 16 (1), pp. 111-122.
72. Madsen, D.Ø. & Johanson, D. (2016). Examining customer relationship management from a management fashion
perspective, Cogent Business & Management, 3 (1), pp. 1161285.
73. Madsen, D.Ø. & Slåtten, K. (2015a). The Balanced Scorecard: Fashion or Virus? Administrative Sciences, 5 (2),
pp. 90-124.
74. Madsen, D.Ø. & Slåtten, K. (2015b). Social media and management fashions, Cogent Business & Management, 2 (1),
p. 1122256.
32
75. Madsen, D.Ø.,& Stenheim, T. (2013). Doing research on ‘management fashions’: methodological challenges and
opportunities, Problems and Perspectives in Management, 11 (4), pp. 68-76.
76. Madsen, D.Ø. & Stenheim, T. (2016). Big Data viewed through the lens of management fashion theory, Cogent
Business & Management, 3 (1), p. 1165072.
77. Mazza, C. & Alvarez, J.L. (2000). Haute couture and prêt-à-porter: The popular press and the diffusion of management
practices, Organization Studies, 21, pp. 567-588.
78. McCabe, D.L. & Narayanan, V. (1991). The life cycle of the PIMS and BCG models, Industrial Marketing
Management, 20 (4), pp. 347-352.
79. McKenna, C. (2012). Strategy Followed Structure: Management Consulting and the Creation of a Market for “Strategy,”
1950-2000. In B. Silverman (Ed.), History and Strategy (Advances in Strategic Management, Volume 29), pp. 153-186:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
80. Meyer, J.W. (1996). Otherhood. The promulgation and transmission of ideas in the modern organizational environment.
In B. Czarniawska, & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating Organizational Change, pp. 241-252. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
81. Mintzberg, H. (1994a). The fall and rise of strategic planning, Harvard Business Review, 72 (1), pp. 107-114.
82. Mintzberg, H. (1994b). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.
83. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management
development. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
84. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. (2005). Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds of Strategic
Management. Simon and Schuster.
85. Morrison, A. & Wensley, R. (1991). Boxing up or boxed in?: A short history of the Boston Consulting Group
share/growth matri,. Journal of Marketing Management, 7 (2), pp. 105-129.
86. Newell, S., Robertson, M. & Swan, J. (2001). Management fads and fashions, Organization, 8, pp. 5-15.
87. Nicholls, J. (1995). The MCC decision matrix: a tool for applying strategic logic to everyday activity, Management
decision, 33 (6), pp. 4-10.
88. Nijholt, J.J. & Benders, J. (2007). Coevolution in management fashions, Group & Organization Management, 32 (6),
pp. 628-652.
89. O’Shea, J.E, & Madigan, C. (1997). Dangerous company: The consulting powerhouses and the businesses they save and
ruin. Times Books.
90. O’Mahoney, J. & Sturdy, A. (2016). Power and the diffusion of management ideas: The case of McKinsey & Co.,
Management Learning, 47 (3), pp. 247-265.
91. Ovans, A. (2011). The Charts That Changed the World, Harvard Business Review, (December), pp. 34-35.
92. Patel, P. & Younger, M. (1978). A frame of reference for strategy development, Long Range Planning, 11 (2), pp. 6-12.
93. Payne, A.F. (1986). New trends in the strategy consulting industry, Journal of Business Strategy, 7 (1), pp. 43-55.
94. Perkmann, M. & Spicer, A. (2008). How are Management Fashions Institutionalized? The Role of Institutional Work,
Human Relations, 61 (6), pp. 811-844.
95. Phelan, S. (2005). The BCG Matrix Revisited: A Computational Appraoch, Academy of Management Meeting.
96. Pidun, U., Rubner, H., Krühler, M., Untiedt, R.,& Nippa, M. (2011). Corporate portfolio management: Theory and
practice, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 23 (1), pp. 63-76.
97. Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic
Management Journal, 15 (S2), pp. 5-16.
98. Proctor, R. & Hassard, J. (1990). Towards a new model for product portfolio analysis, Management Decision, 28 (3).
99. Proctor, R. & Kitchen, P. (1990). Strategic planning: An overview of product portfolio models, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 8 (7), pp. 4-10.
100. Proctor, T. (2014). Strategic marketing: an introduction. Routledge.
101. Ramanujam, V. & Varadarajan, P. (1989). Research on corporate diversification: A synthesis, Strategic Management
Journal, 10 (6), pp. 523-551.
102. Reeves, M., Moose, S. & Venema, T. (2014). BCG Classics Revisited: The Growth Share Matrix, BCG Perspectives.
Boston Consulting Group.
103. Robinson, S., Hichens, R. & Wade, D. (1978). The directional policy matrix – tool for strategic planning, Long Range
Planning, 11 (3), pp. 8-15.
104. Russell-Walling, E. (2008). 50 management ideas you really need to know. Quercus Publishing.
105. Røvik, K.A. (1998). Moderne organisasjoner. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.
106. Røvik, K.A. (2002). The secrets of the winners: Management ideas that flow. In K. Sahlin-Andersson &
L. Engwall (Eds.), The Expansion of Management Knowledge: Carriers, Ideas and Sources, pp. 113-144. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
107. Røvik, K.A. (2007). Trender og translasjoner – ideer som former det 21. århundrets organisasjon. Oslo, Norway:
Universitetsforlaget.
108. Røvik, K.A. (2011). From Fashion to Virus: An Alternative Theory of Organizations’ Handling of Management Ideas,
Organization Studies, 32 (5), pp. 631-653.
109. Sahlin-Andersson, K. & Engwall, L. (2002). The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows and sources.
Palo Alto, California, USA: Stanford University Press.
110. Scarbrough, H., Robertson, M. & Swan, J. (2005). Professional media and management fashion: The case of knowledge
management, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21 (2), pp. 197-208.
111. Scott, R.W. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. 2nd ed.. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
33
112. Seeger, J.A. (1984). Research note and communication. Reversing the images of BCG’s growth/share matrix, Strategic
Management Journal, 5 (1), pp. 93-97.
113. Sood, A. (2010). GE/McKinsey Matrix. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing.
114. Spee, A.P. & Jarzabkowski, P.A. (2009). Strategy tools as boundary objects, Strategic Organization, 7 (2), pp. 223-232.
115. Stern, C.W. & Deimler, M.S. (2012). The Boston consulting group on strategy: Classic concepts and new perspectives.
John Wiley & Sons.
116. Stern, C.W. & Stalk, G. (1998). Perspectives on Strategy from the Boston Consulting Group. J. Wiley.
117. Strang, D. & Meyer, J.W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion, Theory and Society, 22 (4), pp. 487-511.
118. Sturdy, A. (2004). The adoption of management ideas and practices. Theoretical perspectives and possibilities,
Management Learning, 35, pp. 155-179.
119. Tao, Z. & Shi, A. (2016). Application of Boston matrix combined with SWOT analysis on operational development and
evaluations of hospital development, European review for medical and pharmacological sciences, 20 (10), pp. 2131-
2139.
120. Tassabehji, R. & Isherwood, A. (2014). Management use of strategic tools for innovating during turbulent times,
Strategic Change, 23(1-2), pp. 63-80.
121. ten Bos, R. (2000). Fashion and utopia in management thinking. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
122. Thakur, R. & Workman, L. (2016). Customer portfolio management (CPM) for improved customer relationship
management (CRM): Are your customers platinum, gold, silver, or bronze? Journal of Business Research.
123. Tilles, S. (1966). Strategies for allocating funds, Harvard Business Review, 44 (1), pp. 72-80.
124. Untiedt, R., Nippa, M. & Pidun, U. (2012). Corporate Portfolio Analysis Tools Revisited: Assessing Causes that May
Explain Their Scholarly Disdain, International Journal of Management Reviews, 14 (3), pp. 263-279.
125. Van den Berg, G. & Pietersma, P. (2015). Key Management Models: The 75+ Models Every Manager Needs to Know:
Pearson Higher Ed.
126. Wensley, R. (1981). Strategic marketing: Betas, boxes, or basics, The Journal of Marketing, pp. 173-182.
127. Whitehead, J. (2015). BCG (Growth Share) Matrix, Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
128. Wilson, I. (1994). Strategic planning isn’t dead – it changed, Long Range Planning, 27 (4), pp. 12-24.
129. Wind, Y. & Mahajan, V. (1981). Designing product and business portfolios, Harvard Business Review, 59 (1), pp. 155-
165.
130. Wright, R.P., Paroutis, S.E. & Blettner, D.P. (2013). How useful are the strategic tools we teach in Business Schools?
Journal of Management Studies, 50 (1), pp. 92-125.
34
View publication stats

Not Dead Yet: The Rise, Fall and Persistence of The BCG Matrix

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Not Dead Yet: The Rise, Fall and Persistence of The BCG Matrix

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Problems and Perspectives in Management · April 2017

Dag Øivind Madsen

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dag Øivind Madsen (Norway)

Data source: https://www.google.com/trends/, accessed 15 July 2016.

View publication stats

You might also like