Here there is neither the opportunity for differentiation nor economies of scale examples are textiles and shipbuilding. Examples are volume cars and consumer electronics.

This is the classic situation in which organizations strive for economies of scale by becoming the volume, and hence, cost leader. In this case there are considerable economies of scale, but few opportunities for differentiation. In essence, the former category covers the approach described in the more popular growth-share matrix, while the latter represents the approach (described by Michael Porter) of differentiating products so that they do not compete head-on with their competitors. However, this matrix takes as its axes the two contrasting alternatives, economies of scale (described by them as 'potential size of advantage') against differentiation (shown as 'number of approaches to achieving advantage'). These are volume, stalemated, specialized and fragmented businesses.

Similar to the growth-share matrix, the Advantage Matrix groups businesses into four categories. The matrix was published in a 1981 Perspective titled 'Strategy in the 1980s' by Richard Lochridge. ( November 2018) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message)Īfter its well-known growth-share matrix, the Boston Consulting Group developed another, much less widely reported, matrix which approached the economies of scale decision rather more directly. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Bcg competitive advantage matrix