MBA501 Business Portfolio & Dynamic Capability Development: MHS

This presentation provides a comprehensive analysis of Millennium Health Sciences (MHS) business portfolio and dynamic capabilities. It begins with an introduction to MHS, highlighting its diverse businesses and the varying potential of its brands. The presentation utilizes BCG, GE-McKinsey, and Synergy matrices to categorize business units like LOOKS, Neutrino, Dermatech, and Energino, offering strategic recommendations for each, such as aggressive promotion for LOOKS, investment in Neutrino, growth strategies for Dermatech, and harvesting Energino. The presentation further assesses MHS's dynamic capabilities, focusing on identifying opportunities, mobilizing resources, and transforming/reconfiguring strategies, recommending a centralized R&D process focused on organic development and patent filings to enhance overall effectiveness and synergy across business units. The analysis concludes that MHS possesses favorable but underutilized capabilities, suggesting centralized supervision and a focus on common utility across units to improve research project outcomes.

Business Portfolio and Dynamic
Capability Development Report
Millennium Health Sciences
[Student Name] – [Student Number]

Introduction
• MHS was established in 1968 by two scientists.
• They are having diverse businesses ranging from energy drinks to
cosmetic products.
• Each of the brands are separate business units and reports to MHS
CEO.
• However, some of the brands are having more potentiality while
some are not (Ram et al. 2013).

BCG Matrix
?
Relative Market Share
Market Growth Rate

GE-McKinsey Matrix
Growth
Competitive strength of
business unit
High Med Low
Industry
attractivenessHigh
Med
Low
Growth
Harvest
Selective Harvest
HarvestSelective
SelectiveGrowth

Synergy Matrix
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
LOOKS Question mark Harvest Misfits
Neutrino Cash cow Harvest Fits
Dermatech Star Growth Fits
Energino Dog Harvest Misfits

LOOKS
• Analysis
• Looks are comparatively new with low market share and high
growth rate
• Looks are also misfit based on synergy matrix
• Recommendations
• It should initiate more aggressive promotional strategy
• Should cover more customer segments

Neutrino
• Analysis
• It is having higher market share with lower growth
• However, it is fit for further investments
• Recommendations
• Neutrino should be invest in new areas to increase their growth
level
• They should come up with new and diverse product offerings

Dermatech
• Analysis
• Dermatech is having good market share and growth
• They are fit for further investments
• Recommendations
• They should further increase their investments for tapping the
growth opportunities
• Should initiate market development strategy

Energino
• Analysis
• It is not fit for further investments and should be harvested
• Recommendations
• They should sell it off to third party vendors

Conclusion
• Each of the business units of MHS are having different sets of
opportunities
• Some of them are having higher market opportunities
• Some of them should be harvested
• Different tools are used to identify the opportunities for all these
brands.

Introduction
• Dynamic capability of MHS is favourable with having higher access
to financial resources
• Research and development is also extensive (Kindstrom,
Kowalkowski and Sandberg 2013)
• However, the entire process is not consolidated
• Chance of duplication is high

Identify and assess
opportunities
• Demand for organic medicines and nutrients is increasing in the
market.
• Patent will further help in maintaining the competitive advantages
• Centralized leadership can also help in having greater organizing
power.

Identify and assess
opportunities
• It is recommended that research and development process should
be focused on organic development
• Patent should be filed for innovations (Gibson, Rosen and Stucker
2015)
• Research and development process should be centralized

Mobilise resources
• MHS is having funding for research and development but
ineffective approaches is causing underutilization of resources
• Investments are being wasted for same processes by different
units (John 2017)

Mobilise resources
• It is recommended that funding should be made for different
research projects with different objectives
• They should also review each of the steps in the research process

Transform and reconfigure
• Board of directors initiated to change the separate process of
research and development
• Research processes will be done based on centralized manner
• All the members in the research process will now be hold
responsible (DeRue, Nahrgang and Ashford 2015)

Transform and reconfigure
• Research and development process should be supervised by the
CEO centrally
• Competition between the units should reduced and single entity
should be promoted
• Outcome of research projects should have common utility for the
units

Conclusion
• It can be concluded that MHS is having favourable capability,
which is underutilized
• Research projects are facing issues in meeting the different needs
of the units
• A few recommended steps are being discussed, which will help in
mitigating these issues

References
• DeRue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D. and Ashford, S.J., 2015. Interpersonal
perceptions and the emergence of leadership structures in groups:
A network perspective. Organization Science, 26(4), pp.1192-1209.
• Ram, M., Jones, T., Edwards, P., Kiselinchev, A., Muchenje, L. and
Woldesenbet, K., 2013. Engaging with super-diversity: New migrant
businesses and the research–policy nexus. International Small Business
Journal, 31(4), pp.337-356.
• Sohel, S.M., Rahman, A.M.A. and Uddin, M.A., 2014. Competitive profile
matrix (CPM) as a competitors’ analysis tool: A theoretical
perspective. International Journal of Human Potential Development, 3(1),
pp.40-47.

References
• Tsakalerou, M., 2015. GE/McKinsey matrices revisited: a mixed mode
tool for multi-criteria decision analysis. European Journal of
Contemporary Economics and Management, 2(1), pp.92-98.
• Momin, B., Neri, A., McCausland, K., Duke, J., Hansen, H., Kahende, J.,
Zhang, L. and Stewart, S.L., 2014. Traditional and innovative
promotional strategies of tobacco cessation services: a review of the
literature. Journal of community health, 39(4), pp.800-809.
• Kindström, D., Kowalkowski, C. and Sandberg, E., 2013. Enabling
service innovation: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of
business research, 66(8), pp.1063-1073.

References
• Gibson, I., Rosen, D. and Stucker, B., 2015. Business Opportunities and
Future Directions. In Additive Manufacturing Technologies (pp. 475-
486). Springer, New York, NY.
• John, D.M., 2017. Pro-life and pro-choice mobilization: Infrastructure
deficits and new technologies. In Social movements in an
organizational society (pp. 48-66). Routledge.