Stakeholder Strategy Development and Implementation

Stakeholder Strategy Development
and Implementation
Facebook
[Student Name] – [Student Number]

Introduction
Facebook is an American online social
networking site which is founded by Mark
Zuckerberg on 4, 2004.
The headquarter of this organization is
established in Menlo park in California.

Stakeholder Analysis (summary)
Facebook has four kinds of stakeholder as it is
discussed as below:
◦Swing,
◦Defensive
◦Offensive
◦Hold

Stakeholder Analysis (summary)
There are four kinds of stakeholder named as Swing,
Defensive, Offensive, and Hold.
◦Swing stakeholder: this kinds of stakeholders have
highercompetitive threat and higher cooperative potential.
◦Defensive stakeholder: This stakeholder has lower
cooperative while higher threat of competition.
◦Offensive stakeholder: These stakeholders has lower
competitive threats while the higher competitive potential.
◦Hold stakeholder: This kind of stakeholder had lower
potential and lower competitive benefits (The Death of
Facebook, 2019).

Swing Stakeholder: strategic options
On the basis of data , It is addressed that
Facebook facilitates to make connection
between users of family and friends.
It could also facilitates to have news and
trading data (Reif ,2019).

Swing Stakeholder:
recommendations
It could also make the page and start a
collective petition for raising their issue.
It can support to comprehend the positive
and negative aspect of any issues
(Chen ,2019).

Defensive Stakeholder: strategic options
The authority of the government could
informed individual by Facebook.
It could be supportive for the people to
eliminate the probability of danger from any
situation (Ansoff, et. al., 2019).

Defensive Stakeholder: recommendations
The government could tried to address the
privacy issue of Facebook.
It could also supported to operate the
business in one direction (Ferlie and Ongaro,
2015).

Offensive Stakeholder: strategic options
The workforces are stakeholders that have
higher cooperative potential as well as less
competitive threat.
It is also addressed that employee supported
their employees at the higher level for
increasing the growth of firm (Frow, et. al.,
2016).

Offensive Stakeholder: recommendations
The organization should use the training
and development method that supported to
the employee for making an innovative
culture and support to get higher
competitive benefits (Geisler and
Wickramasinghe, 2015).

Hold Stakeholder: strategic options
This kinds of stakeholder is capable to make
higher competitive benefits. This kinds of
leader could also having the less cooperative
potentials as well as lower competitive threat
(Ginter, et. al., 2018).

Hold Stakeholder:
recommendations
Facebook could support to ads organization
for reaching at the huge number of
consumers.
It could lead to finds the ways by which
organization will address different methods
which could support to get higher competitive
advantages (Karuppan, et. al., 2016).

Strategy implementation
For evaluating the behaviour of stakeholders
the organization has considered their all
stakeholders named as Swing, Defensive,
offensive, and Hold (Langabeer and Helton,
2015).

Swing stakeholder; strategy implementation
Facebook always use the visual ads for
increasing the updates on the sites and
influence huge number of people. It is also
stated that if the customer could get negative
comment on the sites then it could negatively
reflect to the performance of the consumers
(Chen ,2019).

Offensive stakeholder; strategy
implementation
It is also examined that there are certain
people who are considered for strategic
implementation named as advertisers, and
employee or trade union (Ansoff, et. al.,
2019).

Defensive stakeholder; strategy
implementation
The intentions of regulators is to meet desires
of regulatory body, enhancement in privacy
enhanced channels, active contribution of
Facebook into CSR practices, and
enhancement of privacy enhanced channels
(Ferlie and Ongaro, 2015).

Hold stakeholder; strategy implementation
The threats related to advertiser stakeholder
could be mitigated by Facebook.
It can provide advertisement to other social
media channel such as Twitter (Geisler and
Wickramasinghe, 2015).

Conclusion
To assess behaviour, potential, threat, and
motives of stakeholder engaged in Facebook.
Stakeholders could be categorised into four
parts such as Swing, Defensive, offensive,
and Hold.

Portfolio Analysis
D&H Food Group

Introduction
 D&H Business Portfolio
The delicious food group that has started the operation 50
years ago, transformed its name related to delicious and
healthy foods (D&H).
It is a holding firm that has five subsidiaries which operates
within the food and beverage sectors (Karuppan, et. al., 2016).
Munchy Biscuits
Pure Juice
Funville Chocolates
Burgers R Us
Home Fresh

BCG Matrix
?
Relative Market Share
Market Growth Rate
Home Fresh
Munchy
Biscuits
Funville Pure
Juice
Burgers R Us

GE-McKinsey Matrix
Growt
h
Competitive strength of
business unit
High Med Low
Industry
attractiveness
High
Med
Low
Growt
h
Harves
t
Selective Harves
t
Harves
t
Selective
SelectiveGrowt
h
Burgers
R Us
Pure
Juice
Funville
Munch
y
Biscuit
s
Home
Fresh

Synergy Matrix
Pure
Juice
Home Fresh
Burgers R Us
Munchy
Biscuits
Funville
Threshold of
acceptance
Misfits
Incoming:
Benefits from belonging
to portfolio
+-
Fits
+
-
Outgoing:
Benefit to portfolio
Altruists
Givers
Parasites
Takers

Business categorisation
BCG
Matrix
GE-McKinsey
Matrix Synergy Matrix
Munchy Biscuits Star High Growth Fit
Pure Juice Cow Medium harvest Givers
Funville Dog Low harvest Misfits
Burgers R Us
Question mark Medium Growth Takers
Home Fresh Question mark Low selective Takers

Munchy Biscuits
 Analysis
◦With respect to BCG matrix, it falls under star
category.
◦In the context of GE McKinsey Matrix, it comes
under high growth group
 Recommendations
◦It should make huge investment in innovative
skilled employees, research and development as
well as, creates the distinctiveness (Langabeer and
Helton, 2015).

Pure Juice
Analysis
It falls under medium selective in the context of GE
McKinsey Matrix
It falls in category of Giver with respect to Synergy
matrix.
Recommendations
Management could identify new strategies for
dealing the business as well as, addressing more
clients (Ferlie and Ongaro, 2015).

Funville
Analysis
In the context of BCG matrix, it falls under Dog
category
Under GE McKinsey Matrix, company falls under
low harvest.
Recommendations
It should transfer as well as, merge the knowledge
as well as, could recruit skilled workforces with
another unit of business (Frow, et. al., 2016).

Burgers R Us
Analysis
Under BCG matrix, it falls under question
marks category.
It has low attractiveness as well as, low
competitive strengths.
It also falls under Synergy matrix.
Recommendations
There is requirement for managing the
performance via managers as well as,
making investment for sustaining the
position of Star (Karuppan, et. al., 2016).

Home Fresh
Analysis
Under BCG matrix, it falls under question marks
category.
It has low competitive strength and low
attractiveness.
Recommendations
There is requirement to manage work via
managers and developing the investment for
sustaining in the category of Star (Ansoff, et.
al., 2019).

Conclusion
D&H Business Portfolio
• D&H Business Portfolio can maintain the
dynamic capabilities to develop the base
of resources through transforming the
knowledge, proficient workforces as well
as, advanced technology within an
organization.

References
Investors Relations.
https://investor.fb.com/home/default.aspx
Smithson N,2019.Facebook Inc.’s Mission Statement &
Vision Statement (An Analysis).
http://panmore.com/facebook-inc-vision-statement-missio
n-statement
The Death of Facebook | How Social Media Ripped Apart a
Generation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=m6JTaRNTN0c&t=72s
Reif N,2019.Top Companies Owned By Facebook.https://
www.investopedia.com
/articles/personal-finance/051815/top-11-companies-owne
d-facebook.asp
Chen J,2019.Stakeholder.https://www.investopedia.com

Continued…
Ansoff, H.I., Kipley, D., Lewis, A.O., Helm-Stevens, R. and Ansoff, R., 2019.
Implanting strategic management. USA: Springer.
Ferlie, E. and Ongaro, E., 2015. Strategic management in public services
organizations: Concepts, schools, and contemporary issues. UK: Routledge.
Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Payne, A., 2016. Co-creation practices: Their
role in shaping a health care ecosystem. Industrial Marketing Management, 56,
pp.24-39.
Geisler, E. and Wickramasinghe, N., 2015. Principles of Knowledge Management:
Theory, Practice, and Cases: Theory, Practice, and Cases. UK: Routledge.
Ginter, P.M., Duncan, W.J. and Swayne, L.E., 2018. The strategic management of
health care organizations. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Karuppan, C.M., Waldrum, M.R. and Dunlap, N.E., 2016. Operations Management
in Healthcare: Strategy and Practice. USA: Springer Publishing Company.
Langabeer, J.R., and Helton, J., 2015. Health care operations management. USA:
Jones & Bartlett Publishers.