0.

11

2F

0.22

0.44

Critical
Strengths
- SExternal
Weakness
Internal
Strategic
H
DEL
CANO
S
Key Ext
t esuccess
rnal
l f ftStrategic
act
Wei
i
ght
Rati
t
ng
i
Ex
rna
ac ors
We
gh
Ra
Contents

W
E factor
I
nt
ro
d
u
ct
io
n
0.33
0.08
3ght
0.24
4i
Position
position
sntternal
it ng Rating
+
Key
I
I
l
f
f
t
act
o
r
s
P
Wei
i
L
Rati
N
na
ac
We
gh
Ra
Rating
Rating

Introduction
&
Aggr
essi
r
Financial
Environmental
Agg
ess
1.
Brand
F6 Conser
t
t
v
a
ti
ve
MARKET
Conse
weig
Wei
ght
We
gh
Key
Internal
Factors
r
s
i
name
Strengths
(FS)
Stability
(ES)
history

Vision
&
Opportu
ve
2.
Low
debt
0.12
4t ght
EReturn on Key External
HORIZONTA
DEVELOPEMN
MARKET
+5 Technological
changesLack
of in-house
ht
Factors 0.322
High
Medium
e
d
t0.16
Wei
We
gh
nity
IFE
Total
Weighted
TOW
mission
management
consulting
3.
Wide
rangeScore
Lof
T
HORIZONTAL
Innovati
DEVELOMEN
Streng
Score
qExpansion
Bill Hewlett
&
Dave
Packard
graduated
in
electrical
id.50
TInvestment
1.Score
3 +3 Weight
Rate
of
Inflation
Low
1.0
Score
of
retailed
stores
for
customer
convenience
0.11
3
X-axis
=CA
+
Streng
Strengths
TAS
AS
e
division
+5
ti
+
INTEGRATIO
INTEGRATIO
Score
3.02
S
T

SWOT
0.482
0.243
0.36
ths
products
on
Intellectual
MATRI
engineering
from
STANFORD
in
1935.
According
toinnovative
the
space
matrix
score
HP 0.0
2
+4
Priceuniversity
range
of
Competing
products
Rapid
market
Oleverage
Opportunities
AS
TAS
AS
0.33
AS
TAS
N
IS
N
Score
0.20
3
Brand
name
0.14
4
ths
capital
is
4
Participation
in
joint
Managem
4.
Developing
of
own
hardware
Hig
Brand
0.14
0.42
4
Average
2.0
Strong
3.0
name
Brand

Vision
statement
X

Formulation
= Weak 1.0

Introduction of Hewlett
INTERPRETA
Interpreta
Table
Strategic
VISION
for
SW
HP
BCG
ANALYSI
BCG
&Matrix
Matrix
HP
Packard
Corporation

TION
tion
division
Management
MISSION
OT
S

Critical
Strategic
v

Strategy
HP fallsmanagement
inSTARS
first regionisof
IE
matrix
Question

According
HP
has
rapid
to
the
market
total
attractive
growth
and
BCG
EFE
IFE
and
there
main
focus
will
be
on
Region:
allFormulation
about vFormulation
CPM
IE
Mark
QSPM
score
strong
of
competitive
QSPM
SPACE
HP
should
position
go
so
for
it
falls
STAGE
#
3
GROW
AND
BUILD
and
they
will
STAGE
#
(EXTERNAL
(INTERNAL
(BOSTON
FACTOR
FACTOR
STAGE
#
1
I
STAGE
#
4
II
D
H
v(COMPETITIVE
Implementation
TOWS
in
first
quadrant
and
the
most
PROFILE
mainly
focus
on
strategies
which&
(INTERNAL-EXTERNAL
(STRATEGIC
POSITION
GRAND
STRATEGY
(QUANTITATIVE
2
INPUT
MATCHING
CONSULTANTING
EVALUATION
MATRIX)
GROUP
INTRODUCT
Pare:
Managerial
suitable
strategies
for
HP
DECISION
vMATRIX)
&
evaluation
of
are:
MATRIX
ACTION
EVALUATION
MATRIX)
HORIZONTAL
STRATEGIC
STAGE
MATRIX
Decision:
MATRIX)
STAGE
v
Strateg Implementat
ION
CASHSTAGE
COWS
strategies
So
our
project
will
revolve on

Mission
Statement
INTEGRATION
MATRIX)
ion
y
PLANNING
evaluati
vStrateg
these
critical
parameters.

on
y
DOGS
MATRIX)

TAS
qfalls
The
company
originated
inquadrant
nearby
Palo
Working
Capital
3 in garage 0.56
+4
growth
underestimated
TLiquidit
W
and
4.
in
the
AGGRESSIVE
3.0
2.0
0.60
0.09
2 .
0.13
4
0.10
0.40
3
0.30
venture
3
0.56
4.0
Expansion
of
retailed
store
for
customer
3
0.33
4 2investment
name
h
5.REVENU
Web
technology
used for % GROWTH
No aggressive
weight
C
yent
Low
ID
PROFIT
-2.6+(4.20)
(stage
#1)
v
Input
Quadrant
II
Alto,California,USA
during
a
fellowship
in
1939
with
Price
earning
ratio
+4
Barriers
to
entry
into
market

Low
Make
easyview
to use
product
for 2.99
+5
Competitive
pressure
3
0
A convenience
e
1.990.39
product
0.44
in
R
&
D
Lowdebt
debt
0.13
2
To
change
in
market
as
an
opportunity
CASE
STUDY
(HP)
STRATEGIC
0.52
=
Technolo
Weaknes
2.
+2
0.18
0.12
4
+
software
5
debt in
E Demand
%
Their
strategies
should
be
of
retirees
upcoming
EFE
initial
capital
investment
of
us
$538
-4
variability
-2
joint
venture
43 4one
0.80
2 4the
Intellectual

3
0.26
Wide
range
ofcell
range
ofinnovative
innovative
Wide
ST
i
ii
iii
L Participation
a
0.20
0.09
0.27
c%
No
good
people
retention
1.60
Computer
and
phone
software
&
gy
to
grow,
to
use
our
profit
and
our
ability
to
0
3.
2
ANALYSIS
OF
MARKET
RATE
awareness
&
sale
0.48
0.13
4
Wide
range
of innovative
products I
0.13
0.52
3
capital is ses
SEGMENTS
0.40
Quadrant
Hig
products

IFE
policy
. referred
products
q
Hewlett
Packard
company
commonly
as
HP
+
Financial
A
19
2
11
hardware
W0.11
k
following:
o
Developing
of
own

Make
easy to
use of
product
for
upcoming
retirees
3
0.27
2
4 underestimated
0.39
Developing
own hardware
and

0.52
0.20
develop
&
produce
SHRE
%
h
0.11
4
Input
/action
stage
0.362
0.18
0.10
4

CPM

Developing
of own
hardware
0.11
0.44
and multinational
software
aggressive
investment
A and software
3.0
hardware
HP
1SO Position
WO 3in
q
American
0.18
Opportunities
software
EIIn
c
No
Lack
ofinformation
in-house
m
HEWLETT
PACKARD
CORPORATION
17
0.8
20
8
0.44
Total
Total
innovative
products
,
services
and
4
0.33
CComputer
IMarket
Web
technology
used
for
product
awareness
&
sale
0.10
3
and
cell
phone
software
and
hardware
3
0.36
2
strategies
v
v
OMatchi
management
consulting
4.
corporation
headquartered
in
R & D No
good
people
1.
Expansion
oftechnology
retailed
Vertical
Web
technology
and
used
for
horizontal

Gd0.09
o
p
Web
technology
used
for
product
awareness
sale
0.20
3
strategies
v (and
S1,
0.24

Matching
0.403
0.302
0.20
0.30
Average
19satisfy
Average
(W1,W5,O2)
ESS
B+21
1.4
0.1
5
14
division
Ashare
stores
for
customer
solutions
that
emerging
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
ng

SWOT
product
awareness
&
sale
0
0.10
0.30 etS
Palo
Alto
,
California
,
USA
Nearly
in
each
country
+1
+2
+3
+5
S3,O1,)
B
i
v
v
retention
policy
Hu0.12
m
Thre
Medium
convenience+4.2 Market
Customer
(develop new HR policy
in
-3.17
integration
Growth
Potential
2 stores
Weakne
1
2.Thre
Participation
in
joint
IE
MATRIX
customers
need
3.
(must
open
new
retail
29.
0.6
30
8
ats
+6
Mediu
Competitive
Industry
order0.44
to retain human
capital
q
hp
product
lines
0 technology

Market
Quadrant
III 2the world
Quadrant
T st
p
iti
0.11
0.22
4
3
stage

loyalty
venture
sses
Competitors
and
pricing
0.14
4
0.56
3
Market
throughout
to
take
v
i

SPACE
-1
Y-axis
=
FS
+
3.m
Make
easy
to
use
by
taking
advantage
or
other
at
0
penetration
Advantage
(CA) vadvantage
Strength
(IS) 3 -10
Weakne
Brand
Lack
of
in-house
management
0.10
2 42Thre
0.20
Competitors
technology
&(S4, 2 -of financial
0.14
4
HPS
IV
Share
EMarket
2.0
include
et
01)personal
0.42 0.8
v
ry
Opportuni
product
for
upcoming
firm
management
)

Market
MATRIX
BCG
O3)
ES
Potential
Low
compatibility
with non-HP
0.13
34Profit0.39
23
(develop
easy
pc+5
and
cell
consulting
division
0.30
strength)
sses
0.33
0.11
0.44
development

retirees
development
pricing
name
Decision
ats
2
Product
Quality
2.9
-2
=
4.2+(0.56
0.13
3
Dgr
iti
Lack
of
in-house
management
0.10
1
e
computing
devices

Market
ties
4.
and cell
C
32
0.7
0.08
Competitors
technology
& -MATRIX
phone
for old generation)
lowComputer
compatibility
with
nonHP
product
0.26
Intellectual
capital
is
--St-Pricin
F

Expansion
phone
softwareof&retailed
Customer
Loyalty
9
of
0.10
4
0.40
3
3.17)
pricing
vi
vii
i
S3oAvailability
v
p
0.39
0.10
4
0.10
0.082
development

GRAND
underestimated
02)enterprise
servers
Horizontal
consulting
division
Intellectual
capital
is
low
compatibility
with
nonHP
To
provide
product,
services

and
solution
hardware
0.332
0.22
0.09
4
g
ro
Horizontal
stores
for
customer
development
2.
-3
2
-14
product
Availability
of
substitute
stage
Financial
No
aggressive
investment in
0.11
3
0.33 WT 2 Stability
substitutes
0.30
Technological
know-how
- +5
2.0
Lo
MATRIX
Threats
ST
C2w
e
o
0.40
0.16
0.112
Product
03)related
storage
Less
global
coverage
than
0.11
3
0.33
2
i
i
x
E
&
Dconvenience
0.22
2
0.2
of
highest
quality
and
product
deliver
Availability
more
of
substitute
value
n
strategies
HPHS

w
-1.R
T
strategies
Participation
in
joint

v
(W1,T1)
underestimated
2
Control
over
suppliers
and
distributors
Integration
SOFTWARE
D
v(S4,
Horizontal

Product
Less
global
coverage
than
Competitors
v
Decision
1.0

No
good
people
retention
0.10
3
0.30
2
Oth
p
competitors
0.22
si
0.183
0.272
0.18
Quality
integration
0.11
20.22 to management
=1.03
devices
venture
T1)
gcost
(give
attention
to
our
customers
that
technology
&
pricing
Less
global
coverage
than
(developed
low
price
and
4Total
1.0
policy
0.20 Labor0.22
1.9
+4
Make
easy
to investment
use

Compatibil
competitor
QSPM
4
No
good
people
retention
IPG
aggressive
in
R
&
D
Rra
o
ti to
consulting
division
development
Slow
innovative
pcmarket
& cellcompetitor
phone
0.10products
2
Total
weight
9
product
for
upcoming
integration
04)diverse
range
of
printers
&
imaging
2.
low
compatibility
with
weight
0
have more focus
0.10
2such
3 loyalty
0.30
4 ti
ity policy
(developed
hardware
earn
than
their
competitors
respect
)0.20
and
si
Implementation
E te
v(S5,T2
oon
0.20
growth
nonHP product
Competiti
1.0
retirees
Compe
E
PSG
Total
Attractive
6.24
5
technology
and
software
computer &
Hp
markets
its
tofor
household,
small
Promoti
Diversification
)
Total to medium
Computer
and
cellproducts
phone

Technological
know-how
F
+3
1.00
f
Score
(stage
#
2)
3.Total
ti
Def
ensi
v
e
improvements)
n
De
ens
Low
Relative
market
cell
phone
which
are
ve
ti
3.
Availability
of
software
& hardware
0.40
0.08
3
0.24
2
size
consumers
and
enterprise
directly
as
well
as
via
on
Average
Total
1.00
5.02
other
substitute
4.
Less
global
6Total
+21
Evaluation
stage compatible- with
113
o
E
- 20
share
Tot
1.00
Average
online
distribution
companies
software
and
3.16
coverage than
al in
62.6
(stage # 3)
S +4
3.02
accessories)
competitor
0.164
0.32+4.2

III

IV