570 likes | 720 Vues
This consulting case outlines strategies for developing Area A of the Rotterdam Port to attract new companies and activities while ensuring financial sustainability within a "Business Ecosystem" framework. Key analyses include PESTLE for external factors, SWOT for internal capabilities, and Porter’s Five Forces to evaluate competitive dynamics. The goal is to foster seamless collaboration between businesses, government, and educational institutions, emphasizing the port's mission to become the most efficient and sustainable globally. Various alternatives and implementations are proposed to achieve robust ecosystem value and revenue.
E N D
.XYZ Consulting .Name of case/firm
The Challenge How to develop a new area of the Rotterdam Port (Area A) to • Attract new activities/companies • collect sufficient revenue within the “Business Ecosystem” framework
PESTLE ... PESTLE ... (iSince tech & environment not important to this case) • Most important in red • .Less important in black • .allows to emphasize – and perhaps not go through every one Keep a running placeholder on ALL slides, to let them know where you are ... See next slide
SWOT Analysis – (They had moving placeholder, shading the current SWOT topic)
Value Chain Emphasize step that you will exploit or shore up p. 159 Pearce book Margin • Strength • brick-and-mortar • Weakness • virtual presence Internal Analysis
Current Marketing Mix – 4-Ps Internal Analysis
. .
Porter’s Five Forces ... (p. 94 Pearce ... P. 79 Thompson) Supplier Power • Moderate • Moderate imput on price • High differentation of inputs • High presence of substitute inputs • Moderate supplier concentration Threat of Substitution Buyer Power Competitive Rivalry • High • Many Alternatives • Lowcosts of substitutes • Moderate feasibility based on geographical location • High • High price sensitivity • High level of company alternatives • Low switching costs • High buyer volume • High impact on quality • High • High level of Competitors • High concentration of competitors • High globalization of industry Threat of New Entry • Low • High cost barrier • High cost barrier • High brand identity • High Government policy External Analysis
Key Success Factors (106 – Thompson ... 106 Pearce) • Improve Ecosystem • Value (niche creation) • Critical mass (robustness) • Continous Performance Improvement (productivity) • Co-evolution or joint learning and optimization effects • Keystone Strategy • Create value within ecosystem • Share the value with other participants in the ecosystem • Mission Statement/Core Values • To become the most efficient, safe and sustainable port in the world • Passion, collaboration, continuous improvement, reliable • Attracting New Companies/Worldwide expansion • Strengthen the relationships between businesses, governments, and educational institutions • Invest in high quality technological knowledge • Sufficient Revenue Analyis
. .
. .
SWOT Strategies (p. 155 Pearce book) Opportunities Weaknesses Strengths Threats . Internal / External Analysis
. .
Strategic Group Mapping (p. 100 Thompson) X .. X X X ..
. .
. .
. .
x Product life cycle (p. 326 marketing book) x x x Early Growth Growth Late Growth Maturity Saturation Decline Introduction
. . . Internal Positive ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● .
BCG – Matrix (Pearce – 264) High Market Growth Rate Low Low High Cash Generation (Market Share)
Alternatives (– different # boxes) Alternative #1 Construction site for offshore wind turbines Alternative #2 Storage facility Alternative #3 New energy plant Alternative #5 Research & testing facility Alternative #4 Lease to outside client Alternatives
. . . . . . . . . .
Alternative #1 Construction site for offshore wind turbines Alternatives
. . .
. .
. . .
Overview of Alternatives 1-4 Alternatives
***WeightedCompetetive Strength Analysis . Ranking Scale 1: The alternative does not effectively address this criterion 2: The alternative may contribute to addressing this criterion 3: The alternative provides an average solution to this criterion 4: The alternative provides an above-average solution to this criterion 5: The alternative effectively addresses this criterion Alternatives
Recommendation • Alternative #5 • Exit Strategy Recommendation
. • . • . • . • . • . • . • . .
Implementation Plan Implementation
. . . . . . . .
Implementation Timeline (enough for short-medium-long term) Milestone reviews... P. 395 - Pearce Milestone Review Implementation
. . .
. . .
. .
. .
Mitigations/Contingency Implementation