DYB and GYB Strategies

DYB and GYB strategies are competitive dynamic models that strive to provide a business with the potential for profitability while competing with competitors. DYB and GYB initiatives provide a corporate long-term competitive advantage by increasing the business’s sustainability. Yet, GYB and DYB differ in terms of the fundamental variables. As a result, it is critical to evaluate and contrast the two tactics interns if their capacity to sustain a firm over time. Along with the social marketing strategy, both tactics have the potential to strengthen the competitive edge between strategic advantage and information systems. These models improve the competitive authority over the competition that assists a business in redefining itself so as to continue evolving through the evolution of e-commerce that continues to change.

To start with, DYB is an efficient tool, for greater management that assesses the weaknesses that can be exploited before a competitor (Connelly, Tihanyi, Ketchen & Ferrier, 2016). DYB strategy model was initially implemented and created by Jack Welch at Wide-ranging Electric. He was sure that after identifying the weaknesses of DYB, the competitors would finally implement the model. The approach can be utilized in driving the business model innovation and evolution. By realizing some weak points, it is necessary to making some changes so as to prevent competition from being exploited. One can achieve significant margins of competitive benefit in the market. DYB is similar to GYB through their revelations that apply in the growth of business GYBB strategy that assists in finding new ways of reaching to a new customer so as to serve the existing ones in an improved way.

GYB business plans are different from DYB strategy because they both intend to maintain some long-term competitive advantage over the market. This occurs in the process when one capitalizes the weakness finding and the evolving business models. The other model only focuses on the growth of the customer base and later capitalizes on the prevailing one. DYB essentially focuses on weakness while GYB concentrates on the strengths. The GYB strategy requires a business to collaborate with major stakeholders so as to build combined business growth plans (Vos, Scheffler, Schiele & Horn, 2016). Various organizations fear to embrace DYB because of they believe that the previous success is only an assurance of the future success. Currently, a different group has come to realize that the DYB strategy only succeeded in the past and that they are not a guarantee of the future success. Dominant businesses also fear to embrace DYB because of the fear of cannibalization. The fear results to the execution of disruptive strategies that may lead to the cannibalization of individual brands. GYB requires improved revenue for one to expand a business. Most organizations that have an established name spend much of their time and resources on retention of customers. They should rather focus on efforts that assist in revenue increase and the use of funds for innovation of products and in service expansion.

Cannibalization Strategy

Cannibalization Strategy discusses the situation where new products eat up the demand and sales of an existing product. This reduces the overall sales even when the auctions on the new product tend to increase. The process can affect the volume of the sales and the market shares negatively especially for the existing products. Cannibalization plan is therefore not a improved strategy related to DYB strategy for growth, attractiveness and market management (Markman, Gianiodis & Panagopoulos, 2016).

Cannibalization strategy continues to lose the market share of new products due to the introduction of new goods by the same manufacturer. Cannibalization is however needed because it acts as an engine of growth. When a new delivery channel develops, people are likely to realize it. One can easily grow the total sum of business through the use of new channels that are available (Vos, Scheffler, Schiele & Horn, 2016). Instead of one appealing some new segments of the market or improving the market share, then a new product will help in pleasing to the innovative part of the marketplace by improving the market segment. The innovative product, therefore, demands to the present market of the company hence consequential to the reduction of sales and shares of the market for the present products.

Cannibalization Strategy is an evil of development making it be a worse strategy as compared to DYB strategy. Most of the large organization like the national chains end up cannibalizing the private store auctions through the placement of several locations in similar markets. This appears to be negative for analysts in the business market (Connelly, Tihanyi, Ketchen & Ferrier, 2016). One should accept the idea that change is continuous. It is a constant process that results in growth in the changing environment. The only method to do this is through the cannibalization of individual products.

How organization use social IT in alignment with firm strategy and IS strategy

A company and IS strategy is designed to assist a business in achieving significant goals. A business plan explains the long-term direction that a company needs so as to achieve its business goals. An association can custom IT strategy in configuration with the society strategy and IS plan so as to improve the performance of the team (Vos, Scheffler, Schiele & Horn, 2016). Aligning a corporate and IT strategies can result in lengthy processes that help in the development of better services and products together with a competent supply management chain. For one to achieve a strategic arrangement, the IT plan should be improved at the same time with the business strategy and later joined into it.

Aligning the IT strategy with business strategy creates some positive impression on firms. It is, therefore, necessary to maintain the strategic alignment as the top significance for the eldest managers. The senior executives should use IT as a meeting way of business goals and offer values (Connelly, Tihanyi, Ketchen & Ferrier, 2016). The alignment of IS strategy with the organization strategy supports the IT strategy of the business goals of a company. If one aligns an organization business strategy with its IT strategy, the action can prove some evaluability in various ways. A business that is IT and IS business strategy enabled should meet primary objectives and goals of the firm. The organization should, therefore, contain the business strategy of the organization. This can include the goals, vision and the mission of the organization together with the value configuration and marketing strategy of the company.

An IS strategy enabled society, on the other hand, should contain the IT strategy of the enterprise. The IS and IT plan consist of information on IT submissions and the future competence of human resources. An IT evaluation is a comprehensive review of the technology system and its environment. It is the responsibility of the assessment to reveal how technology assists or hinders a business and how to recommend the use of technology so as to meet the goals of business. Most organizations today struggle to uphold a proper relationship between the functions of IT, IS and the business. The creation of an IT business strategy is necessary because it integrates the IT strategies and the business so that the organization can perform better and increase its profitability. Aligning the business and the Is and IT strategies assist a company in achieving its returns best through the IT investment.

References

Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Ketchen, D. J., Carnes, C. M., & Ferrier, W. J. (2016). Competitive repertoire complexity: Governance antecedents and performance outcomes. Strategic Management Journal.

Markman, G., Gianiodis, P., & Panagopoulos, A. (2016). Factor Market Rivalry and Inter-Industry Competitive Dynamics (No. 1611).

Vos, F. G., Scheffler, P., Schiele, H., & Horn, P. (2016). Does global sourcing pay-off? A competitive dynamics perspective. Journal of purchasing and supply management, 22(4), 338-350.