MBA501: Dynamic Strategy - Facebook Stakeholder & Portfolio Analysis

This presentation provides a comprehensive analysis of Facebook's stakeholder strategy and D&H Food Group's portfolio. The Facebook section identifies and prioritizes stakeholders (users, advertisers, employees, CEO), proposes strategic options for each group (e.g., transparency, better pay), and recommends implementation strategies using resource allocation, commitment, interaction, and evaluation frameworks. The portfolio analysis of D&H Food Group utilizes BCG, GE-McKinsey, and Synergy matrices to assess the performance of its subsidiaries (Munchy Biscuits, Pure Juice, Funville, Burgers R Us, and Home Fresh), offering strategic recommendations for each based on their market position and competitive strength, including investment in successful units and divestment from underperforming ones. References to relevant literature are also provided.

STAKEHOLDER STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Facebook
[Student Name] – [Student Number]

Introduction
 The stakeholders form an integral part of the
organization and it is in relation to this, the firm must
undertake considerable initiatives to meet the needs of
these stakeholders.
 The presentation will discuss the overall importance of
the stakeholders in an organization and discuss the
manner in which these stakeholder needs can be met
with (Bonsón, Royo & Ratkai, 2017).
 Additionally, the strategic implementation plan to meet
the needs of each of the stakeholder groups will also be
provided.

Stakeholder Analysis (summary)
 The organization has a large number of stakeholders.
 These stakeholders can be understood to be as follows:
Users Advertisers Shareholder
s Employees Governmen
t
Communitie
s

Stakeholder Analysis (summary)
 However, priority matters in an organization
 The various stakeholders have bee prioritized in the
following manner :
• Offensiv
e
• Hold
• Defensi
ve
• Swing
Facebook
Users
Advertiser
s
EmployeesCEO

Swing Stakeholder: strategic
options
 The Swing stakeholders have been identified as the
Facebook users.
 The various strategic options which are available for the
Facebook users can be stated to be as follows:
 Increasing transparency in the operations
 Improving the web layout (Facebook.com ,2019)
 Increasing customized options

Swing Stakeholder:
recommendations
 After analysing the different strategic options which are
available for the different users, it can be recommended
that the following strategy would be appropriate for the
different firms to carryout can be stated to be as follows:
 Improving the web layout
 When the firm will be able to improve the web layout,
then it will be able to attract the different users to access
the websites in a better manner.

Defensive Stakeholder: strategic options
 The defensive stakeholders have been chosen as the
Advertisers. The Advertisers form a crucial part of the
organization and hence, the various strategic options
which are available with respect to the stakeholders are
as follows:
 Providing better rate options
 Engaging in crucial transparency (Facebook.com, 2019)
 Helping them to be more visible.

Defensive Stakeholder: recommendations
 From the various strategic options which are available
for the firm, the different strategic recommendations
which can be soundly adopted by the organization can
be understood to be as follows:
 Assisting the advertisers to be visible in the better
manner
 Using this strategy, Facebook would be able to assist the
various stakeholders in ensuring that they are
successfully able to be better placed in the website and
be displayed in a better manner (Haigh & Wigley, 2015).

Offensive Stakeholder: strategic
options
 The offensive stakeholders have been chosen as the
employees. The various strategic options which are
available for the employees can be taken to be as
follows:
 Better pay options
 Better performance appraisal systems
 Better involvement in the firm.

Offensive Stakeholder: recommendations
 Out of the different recommended options, it can be
stated that the strategic recommendation which can be
undertaken by the firm can be stated to be as follows:
 Better performance management systems
 In line of this, it can be rightfully mentioned that the firm
would benefit in a better manner, it the performance
management systems of the firm can be improved
considerably (StatCounter Global Stats., 2019).

Hold Stakeholder: strategic options
 The Hold stakeholder has been taken as the CEO.
 The CEO is the owner of the organization and with
respect to this, it is integral that the firm is able to serve
the stakeholder in the right manner.
 The various strategic options which are available for the
firm can be stated to be as follows:
 Engage in better CEO management
 Increase their incentives
 Assist them in engaging in active participation (Cho, Furey &
Mohr, 2017).

Hold Stakeholder: recommendations
 Out of the recommended options, the best strategy
which can be adopted by the firm can be understood to
be as follows:
 Providing better incentives for the CEO
 If better incentives will be provided for the CEO, then
they will be inclined towards working in a better manner
for the organization and additionally they will be required
to see to it that, the CEO is supported in every step
(Ruehl and Ingenhoff, 2015).

Strategy implementation
 Hence, having identified the various strategies which are
available for the firm, these strategies would be required
to be well implemented s well. The framework for the
implementation has been chosen as follows:
Resource Allocation
Commitment
Interaction
Evaluation

Swing stakeholder; strategy
implementation
 The swing stakeholder implementation strategy is as
follows:
Facebook Users
Resource Allocation In order to provide a better web layout,
a better interface would be required.
Commitment The commitment and shared value of
the participants would be essentially
required.
Interaction Public communication can be
understood to be a way in which the
firm can communicate with them.
Evaluation The increase in users will be assessed.

Offensive stakeholder; strategy
implementation
 The offensive stakeholder implementation strategy is as
follows:
Employees
Resource Allocation The Human resource department would be
required to undertake considerable initiatives to
ensure success in the long run.
Commitment The participation and shared value of the different
participants would be required to ensure long term
success.
Interaction Implicit and explicit communication would be
required (Peruta, & Shields, 2017)
Evaluation The evaluation needs to be undertaken in the
right manner.

Defensive stakeholder; strategy
implementation
 The defensive stakeholder implementation strategy is as
follows:
Advertisers
Resource Allocation A new task force would be formed in order to see
to it that, the advertisers and their related
strategies can be applied accordingly.
Commitment The long term commitment of the different
members of the firm would be required in this
case.
Interaction Public relations of the firm needs to be such that it
is successfully able to communicate this to the
different respondents.
Evaluation Long term evaluation plans have to be undertaken
in order to see to it that the firm benefits in the
long run.

Hold stakeholder; strategy
implementation
 The hold stakeholder implementation strategy is as
follows:
CEO
Resource Allocation No additional resources would be required to be
allocated for the particular segment.
Commitment Shared values and participation would be
required.
Interaction The communication with the CEO can take place
through implicit communication means.
Evaluation The evaluation needs to be undertaken with
respect to long term and short term monitoring
programs (StatCounter Global Stats., 2019).

Conclusion
 Therefore, it can be rightfully understood that, the
stakeholders form an essential part of the organization.
 In regard to this, it has to be rightfully understood that,
these stakeholders are required to be looked after in a
comprehensive manner.
 The presentation highlighted the different stakeholders
of the business and additionally outlined how strategies
can be used to improve the overall performance of he
group.

PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS
D&H Food Group

Introduction
 D&H Business Portfolio
 The D & H can be taken to be a portfolio in the Food and
Beverage industry.
 All of these firms have been performing differently and
in line of this, it becomes integral for the firm to ensure
that it is able to analyse the overall performance of
each of these units and rightfully define the manner in
which the stakeholders can be catered to effectively.

BCG Matrix
?
Relative Market Share
Market Growth Rate

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

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
Munchy Biscuits Question Mark Growth Fit
Pure Juice Question Mark Selective Misfit
Funville Dog Harvest Parasites
Burgers R Us Cow Selective Takers
Home Fresh Star Growth Misfit

Munchy Biscuits
 Analysis
From the analysis, it can be rightfully mentioned that
Munchy Biscuits has been performing well and this can
be backed by the different strategic tools which have
been applied.
 Recommendations
It is recommended that D and H Group continues to invest
in the particular segment so as to ensure long term
success.

Pure Juice
 Analysis
From the analysis, it could be rightfully understood that, the Pure
Juice has not been performing well and that, although the
industry is growing, the unit itself has been performing poorly.
 Recommendations
It is recommended that, the firm engages in related research and
development before re-investing in the firm again.

Funville
 Analysis
From the analysis, it can be rightfully understood that the
Funville chocolates has been performing poorly and with
respect to this, all the strategic management tools indicate
that the unit has been performing very poorly (Meyer, Neck
&Meeks, 2017).
 Recommendations
It is recommended that the firm undertakes initiatives to
ensure that it disinvests in the unit and instead engages in
investments with other units.

Burgers R Us
 Analysis
The Burgers R Us can be understood to be performing
poorly in a good sector and the strategic tools reflect that,
it is a loss to the firm.
 Recommendations
For Burgers R Us, it can be recommended that, the
organization invests in considerable researchers to
determine the overall success of the unit and then invest
in it (Lasserre, 2017).

Home Fresh
 Analysis
The Home Fresh can be stated to be performing very well
within the industry. All the strategic tools indicated the
positive performance of the unit (Ansoff et al., 2018).
 Recommendations
Therefore, the organization needs to undertake initiatives
to ensure that it is being able to invest soundly in the firm
and thereby take advantage of its growth opportunities.

Conclusion
 D&H Business Portfolio
 Therefore, it can be rightfully concluded that, the D and H
Business Portfolio can be taken to be a varied portfolio.
 The presentation highlighted the manner in which each of the
portfolios have been performing in the industry
 Recommendations for each of the portfolios have also been
provided.

References
 Bonsón, E., Royo, S. & Ratkai, M., 2017. Facebook practices in Western European municipalities: An empirical
analysis of activity and citizens’ engagement. Administration & Society, 49(3), pp.320-347.
 Cho, M., Furey, L.D. & Mohr, T., 2017. Communicating corporate social responsibility on social media:
Strategies, stakeholders, and public engagement on corporate Facebook. Business and Professional
Communication Quarterly, 80(1), pp.52-69.
 Facebook.com 2019. Facebook. [online] Facebook.com. Available at:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/facebook/about/ [Accessed 10 Aug. 2019]
 Haigh, M.M. and Wigley, S., 2015. Examining the impact of negative, user-generated content on
stakeholders. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(1), pp.63-75.
 Peruta, A. and Shields, A.B., 2017. Social media in higher education: understanding how colleges and
universities use Facebook. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(1), pp.131-143.
 Ruehl, C.H. and Ingenhoff, D., 2015. Communication management on social networking sites: Stakeholder
motives and usage types of corporate Facebook, Twitter and YouTube pages. Journal of Communication
Management, 19(3), pp.288-302.
 StatCounter Global Stats., 2019. Social Media Stats Worldwide | StatCounter Global Stats. [online] StatCounter
Global Stats. Available at: https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats [Accessed 10 Aug. 2019]
 Valentini, C., 2015. Is using social media “good” for the public relations profession? A critical reflection. Public
Relations Review, 41(2), pp.170-177.