MHS Business Portfolio and Dynamic Capability Development - MBA501

This presentation provides a comprehensive analysis of Millennium Health Sciences' (MHS) business portfolio and dynamic capabilities. It begins by evaluating MHS's four business units (Nutrino, Dermatech, LOOKS, and Energino) using BCG, GE-McKinsey, and Synergy matrices, leading to strategic recommendations for each unit. The analysis suggests focusing resources on Dermatech and Neutrino, reconsidering investments in LOOKS, and potentially divesting Energino. Furthermore, the presentation assesses MHS's dynamic capabilities, highlighting opportunities in Asian markets and niche product segments. It recommends leveraging the strengths of different SBUs through cross-functional teams and improved information sharing to enhance overall strategic agility and resource allocation. The conclusion emphasizes the need for MHS to foster synergy among its business units and reconfigure resource allocation to capitalize on emerging opportunities and maintain a competitive edge.

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

Introduction
 MHS Business Portfolio
 4 Business units operating in various verticals
 Competition among different SBU for parent company’s
resources
 Business of 4 SBUs
 Nutrino – health supplements
 Dermatech – Cosmeceuticals
 LOOKS – cosmetic products
 Energino – Energy drinks

BCG Matrix
?
Relative Market Share
Market Growth Rate

BCG Matrix of MHS
Energino – Dog – low market share, low industry growth
Dermatech – star, - High revenue, high market share, high
industry growth rate
LOOKS – Question mark - Market share is low but growth
rate of industry is high
Neutrino – Cash cow – Medium competitive strength, low
market growth rate and high revenue generation

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
1
2
3
4
1 Energino
2 Neutrino
3 Dermatech
4 LOOKS

GE Nine cell matrix
GE matrix helps in allocation of resources among different
business units by assessing internal and external factors
alike (Amatulli, Caputo, & Guido 2011)
.
While Dermatech appears to be most important business
unit as per the matrix, Energino performs worst.
Investments should increase in Dermatech and Energion
and LOOKS should not receive any further investments
(Mokaya, Wakhungu, & Gikunda 2012).

Synergy Matrix
Threshold of
acceptance
Misfits
Incoming:
Benefits from belonging
to portfolio
+-
Fits
+
-
Outgoing:
Benefit to portfolio
Altruists
Givers
Parasites
Takers
1
2
3
4
1 Energino
2 Neutrino
3 LOOKS
4 Dermatec
h

Business categorisation
BCG
Matrix
GE-McKinsey
Matrix
Synergy
Matrix
LOOKS Question mark Harvest Taker
Neutrino Cash cow Selective Giver
Dermatech Star Growth Fit
Energino Dog Harvest Misfit

LOOKS
 Analysis
 Has established brand image and employs most of the
workforce
 Huge potential in niche products
 Question mark in BCG matrix and taker in synergy matrix
indicating need for radical changes in strategy
 Stable revenue but might decline due to competition
 Recommendations
 Streamline product portfolio and include high demand products
like organic and herbal products
 Invest in R&D
 Explore foreign markets

Neutrino
 Analysis
 Major R&D hub
 Developed a new revolutionary drug
 Operating in mature Australian market among high competition
 Cash cow and giver for other businesses
 Strong research team
 Recommendations
 Explore Asian markets to increase profitability
 Maintain market leadership by continuous R&D

Dermatech
 Analysis
 High growth market, and high market share with steady revenue
inflows
 Lack of understanding of exports
 Regulatory hassles
 Oldest and most profitable business unit
 Recommendations
 Set up a competent export team to expand foreign business
 Work towards protection of IPR
 Cash upon the demand of Australian products by market expansion

Energino
 Analysis
 Worst performing product in terms of growth, revenue and
industry attractiveness
 No synergy with other business units
 R&D has not given any successful results in the past
 Only product which was inorganically acquired
 Recommendations
 Product line should be sold or closed down
 Focus the resources and manpower to other potential research
areas and SBUs