AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis
Leadership & Managing People
Strategy / MBA Resources
Case Study SWOT Analysis Solution
Case Study Description of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy
This case examines a hard fought litigation over a patent that originated at Bell Labs. It illustrates the challenges that technology companies face today innovating in a complex intellectual property environment in fields where there is a high amount of cumulativeness. The case highlights the leverage that good strategic thinking can bring to influencing the outcome.
Swot Analysis of "AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy" written by Willy Shih includes – strengths weakness that are internal strategic factors of the organization, and opportunities and threats that Litigation Cumulativeness facing as an external strategic factors. Some of the topics covered in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study are - Strategic Management Strategies, Government, Intellectual property and Leadership & Managing People.
Some of the macro environment factors that can be used to understand the AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy casestudy better are - – increasing household debt because of falling income levels, there is increasing trade war between United States & China, geopolitical disruptions, increasing inequality as vast percentage of new income is going to the top 1%, increasing commodity prices, wage bills are increasing, central banks are concerned over increasing inflation,
cloud computing is disrupting traditional business models, there is backlash against globalization, etc
Introduction to SWOT Analysis of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy
SWOT stands for an organization’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats . At Oak Spring University , we believe that protagonist in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study can use SWOT analysis as a strategic management tool to assess the current internal strengths and weaknesses of the Litigation Cumulativeness, and to figure out the opportunities and threats in the macro environment – technological, environmental, political, economic, social, demographic, etc in which Litigation Cumulativeness operates in.
According to Harvard Business Review, 75% of the managers use SWOT analysis for various purposes such as – evaluating current scenario, strategic planning, new venture feasibility, personal growth goals, new market entry, Go To market strategies, portfolio management and strategic trade-off assessment, organizational restructuring, etc.
SWOT Objectives / Importance of SWOT Analysis and SWOT Matrix
SWOT analysis of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy can be done for the following purposes –
1. Strategic planning using facts provided in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study
2. Improving business portfolio management of Litigation Cumulativeness
3. Assessing feasibility of the new initiative in Leadership & Managing People field.
4. Making a Leadership & Managing People topic specific business decision
5. Set goals for the organization
6. Organizational restructuring of Litigation Cumulativeness
Strengths AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy | Internal Strategic Factors
What are Strengths in SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis
The strengths of Litigation Cumulativeness in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Harvard Business Review case study are -
Training and development
– Litigation Cumulativeness has one of the best training and development program in the industry. The effectiveness of the training programs can be measured in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Harvard Business Review case study by analyzing – employees retention, in-house promotion, loyalty, new venture initiation, lack of conflict, and high level of both employees and customer engagement.
Learning organization
- Litigation Cumulativeness is a learning organization. It has inculcated three key characters of learning organization in its processes and operations – exploration, creativity, and expansiveness. The work place at Litigation Cumulativeness is open place that encourages instructiveness, ideation, open minded discussions, and creativity. Employees and leaders in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Harvard Business Review case study emphasize – knowledge, initiative, and innovation.
Sustainable margins compare to other players in Leadership & Managing People industry
– AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy firm has clearly differentiated products in the market place. This has enabled Litigation Cumulativeness to fetch slight price premium compare to the competitors in the Leadership & Managing People industry. The sustainable margins have also helped Litigation Cumulativeness to invest into research and development (R&D) and innovation.
Analytics focus
– Litigation Cumulativeness is putting a lot of focus on utilizing the power of analytics in business decision making. This has put it among the leading players in the industry. The technology infrastructure suggested by Willy Shih can also help it to harness the power of analytics for – marketing optimization, demand forecasting, customer relationship management, inventory management, information sharing across the value chain etc.
Organizational Resilience of Litigation Cumulativeness
– The covid-19 pandemic has put organizational resilience at the centre of everthing that Litigation Cumulativeness does. Organizational resilience comprises - Financial Resilience, Operational Resilience, Technological Resilience, Organizational Resilience, Business Model Resilience, and Reputation Resilience.
Innovation driven organization
– Litigation Cumulativeness is one of the most innovative firm in sector. Manager in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Harvard Business Review case study can use Clayton Christensen Disruptive Innovation strategies to further increase the scale of innovtions in the organization.
High switching costs
– The high switching costs that Litigation Cumulativeness has built up over years in its products and services combo offer has resulted in high retention of customers, lower marketing costs, and greater ability of the firm to focus on its customers.
Ability to recruit top talent
– Litigation Cumulativeness is one of the leading recruiters in the industry. Managers in the AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy are in a position to attract the best talent available. The firm has a robust talent identification program that helps in identifying the brightest.
Digital Transformation in Leadership & Managing People segment
- digital transformation varies from industry to industry. For Litigation Cumulativeness digital transformation journey comprises differing goals based on market maturity, customer technology acceptance, and organizational culture. Litigation Cumulativeness has successfully integrated the four key components of digital transformation – digital integration in processes, digital integration in marketing and customer relationship management, digital integration into the value chain, and using technology to explore new products and market opportunities.
Strong track record of project management
– Litigation Cumulativeness is known for sticking to its project targets. This enables the firm to manage – time, project costs, and have sustainable margins on the projects.
Successful track record of launching new products
– Litigation Cumulativeness has launched numerous new products in last few years, keeping in mind evolving customer preferences and competitive pressures. Litigation Cumulativeness has effective processes in place that helps in exploring new product needs, doing quick pilot testing, and then launching the products quickly using its extensive distribution network.
Low bargaining power of suppliers
– Suppliers of Litigation Cumulativeness in the sector have low bargaining power. AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy has further diversified its suppliers portfolio by building a robust supply chain across various countries. This helps Litigation Cumulativeness to manage not only supply disruptions but also source products at highly competitive prices.
Weaknesses AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy | Internal Strategic Factors
What are Weaknesses in SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis
The weaknesses of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy are -
Lack of clear differentiation of Litigation Cumulativeness products
– To increase the profitability and margins on the products, Litigation Cumulativeness needs to provide more differentiated products than what it is currently offering in the marketplace.
Workers concerns about automation
– As automation is fast increasing in the segment, Litigation Cumulativeness needs to come up with a strategy to reduce the workers concern regarding automation. Without a clear strategy, it could lead to disruption and uncertainty within the organization.
Slow to strategic competitive environment developments
– As AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy HBR case study mentions - Litigation Cumulativeness takes time to assess the upcoming competitions. This has led to missing out on atleast 2-3 big opportunities in the industry in last five years.
Products dominated business model
– Even though Litigation Cumulativeness has some of the most successful products in the industry, this business model has made each new product launch extremely critical for continuous financial growth of the organization. firm in the HBR case study - AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy should strive to include more intangible value offerings along with its core products and services.
Capital Spending Reduction
– Even during the low interest decade, Litigation Cumulativeness has not been able to do capital spending to the tune of the competition. This has resulted into fewer innovations and company facing stiff competition from both existing competitors and new entrants who are disrupting the industry using digital technology.
Aligning sales with marketing
– It come across in the case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy that the firm needs to have more collaboration between its sales team and marketing team. Sales professionals in the industry have deep experience in developing customer relationships. Marketing department in the case AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy can leverage the sales team experience to cultivate customer relationships as Litigation Cumulativeness is planning to shift buying processes online.
Low market penetration in new markets
– Outside its home market of Litigation Cumulativeness, firm in the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy needs to spend more promotional, marketing, and advertising efforts to penetrate international markets.
Slow decision making process
– As mentioned earlier in the report, Litigation Cumulativeness has a very deliberative decision making approach. This approach has resulted in prudent decisions, but it has also resulted in missing opportunities in the industry over the last five years. Litigation Cumulativeness even though has strong showing on digital transformation primary two stages, it has struggled to capitalize the power of digital transformation in marketing efforts and new venture efforts.
Increasing silos among functional specialists
– The organizational structure of Litigation Cumulativeness is dominated by functional specialists. It is not different from other players in the Leadership & Managing People segment. Litigation Cumulativeness needs to de-silo the office environment to harness the true potential of its workforce. Secondly the de-silo will also help Litigation Cumulativeness to focus more on services rather than just following the product oriented approach.
Employees’ incomplete understanding of strategy
– From the instances in the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy, it seems that the employees of Litigation Cumulativeness don’t have comprehensive understanding of the firm’s strategy. This is reflected in number of promotional campaigns over the last few years that had mixed messaging and competing priorities. Some of the strategic activities and services promoted in the promotional campaigns were not consistent with the organization’s strategy.
Compensation and incentives
– The revenue per employee as mentioned in the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy, is just above the industry average. Litigation Cumulativeness needs to redesign the compensation structure and incentives to increase the revenue per employees. Some of the steps that it can take are – hiring more specialists on project basis, etc.
Opportunities AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy | External Strategic Factors
What are Opportunities in the SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis
The opportunities highlighted in the Harvard Business Review case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy are -
Low interest rates
– Even though inflation is raising its head in most developed economies, Litigation Cumulativeness can still utilize the low interest rates to borrow money for capital investment. Secondly it can also use the increase of government spending in infrastructure projects to get new business.
Using analytics as competitive advantage
– Litigation Cumulativeness has spent a significant amount of money and effort to integrate analytics and machine learning into its operations in the sector. This continuous investment in analytics has enabled, as illustrated in the Harvard case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy - to build a competitive advantage using analytics. The analytics driven competitive advantage can help Litigation Cumulativeness to build faster Go To Market strategies, better consumer insights, developing relevant product features, and building a highly efficient supply chain.
Developing new processes and practices
– Litigation Cumulativeness can develop new processes and procedures in Leadership & Managing People industry using technology such as automation using artificial intelligence, real time transportation and products tracking, 3D modeling for concept development and new products pilot testing etc.
Loyalty marketing
– Litigation Cumulativeness has focused on building a highly responsive customer relationship management platform. This platform is built on in-house data and driven by analytics and artificial intelligence. The customer analytics can help the organization to fine tune its loyalty marketing efforts, increase the wallet share of the organization, reduce wastage on mainstream advertising spending, build better pricing strategies using personalization, etc.
Buying journey improvements
– Litigation Cumulativeness can improve the customer journey of consumers in the industry by using analytics and artificial intelligence. AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy suggest that firm can provide automated chats to help consumers solve their own problems, provide online suggestions to get maximum out of the products and services, and help consumers to build a community where they can interact with each other to develop new features and uses.
Creating value in data economy
– The success of analytics program of Litigation Cumulativeness has opened avenues for new revenue streams for the organization in the industry. This can help Litigation Cumulativeness to build a more holistic ecosystem as suggested in the AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study. Litigation Cumulativeness can build new products and services such as - data insight services, data privacy related products, data based consulting services, etc.
Leveraging digital technologies
– Litigation Cumulativeness can leverage digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to automate the production process, customer analytics to get better insights into consumer behavior, realtime digital dashboards to get better sales tracking, logistics and transportation, product tracking, etc.
Building a culture of innovation
– managers at Litigation Cumulativeness can make experimentation a productive activity and build a culture of innovation using approaches such as – mining transaction data, A/B testing of websites and selling platforms, engaging potential customers over various needs, and building on small ideas in the Leadership & Managing People segment.
Learning at scale
– Online learning technologies has now opened space for Litigation Cumulativeness to conduct training and development for its employees across the world. This will result in not only reducing the cost of training but also help employees in different part of the world to integrate with the headquarter work culture, ethos, and standards.
Increase in government spending
– As the United States and other governments are increasing social spending and infrastructure spending to build economies post Covid-19, Litigation Cumulativeness can use these opportunities to build new business models that can help the communities that Litigation Cumulativeness operates in. Secondly it can use opportunities from government spending in Leadership & Managing People sector.
Identify volunteer opportunities
– Covid-19 has impacted working population in two ways – it has led to people soul searching about their professional choices, resulting in mass resignation. Secondly it has encouraged people to do things that they are passionate about. This has opened opportunities for businesses to build volunteer oriented socially driven projects. Litigation Cumulativeness can explore opportunities that can attract volunteers and are consistent with its mission and vision.
Better consumer reach
– The expansion of the 5G network will help Litigation Cumulativeness to increase its market reach. Litigation Cumulativeness will be able to reach out to new customers. Secondly 5G will also provide technology framework to build new tools and products that can help more immersive consumer experience and faster consumer journey.
Redefining models of collaboration and team work
– As explained in the weaknesses section, Litigation Cumulativeness is facing challenges because of the dominance of functional experts in the organization. AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study suggests that firm can utilize new technology to build more coordinated teams and streamline operations and communications using tools such as CAD, Zoom, etc.
Threats AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy External Strategic Factors
What are Threats in the SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix / Weighted SWOT Analysis
The threats mentioned in the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy are -
Technology disruption because of hacks, piracy etc
– The colonial pipeline illustrated, how vulnerable modern organization are to international hackers, miscreants, and disruptors. The cyber security interruption, data leaks, etc can seriously jeopardize the future growth of the organization.
Instability in the European markets
– European Union markets are facing three big challenges post Covid – expanded balance sheets, Brexit related business disruption, and aggressive Russia looking to distract the existing security mechanism. Litigation Cumulativeness will face different problems in different parts of Europe. For example it will face inflationary pressures in UK, France, and Germany, balance sheet expansion and demand challenges in Southern European countries, and geopolitical instability in the Eastern Europe.
Aging population
– As the populations of most advanced economies are aging, it will lead to high social security costs, higher savings among population, and lower demand for goods and services in the economy. The household savings in US, France, UK, Germany, and Japan are growing faster than predicted because of uncertainty caused by pandemic.
Technology acceleration in Forth Industrial Revolution
– Litigation Cumulativeness has witnessed rapid integration of technology during Covid-19 in the Leadership & Managing People industry. As one of the leading players in the industry, Litigation Cumulativeness needs to keep up with the evolution of technology in the Leadership & Managing People sector. According to Mckinsey study top managers believe that the adoption of technology in operations, communications is 20-25 times faster than what they planned in the beginning of 2019.
Backlash against dominant players
– US Congress and other legislative arms of the government are getting tough on big business especially technology companies. The digital arm of Litigation Cumulativeness business can come under increasing regulations regarding data privacy, data security, etc.
Consumer confidence and its impact on Litigation Cumulativeness demand
– There is a high probability of declining consumer confidence, given – high inflammation rate, rise of gig economy, lower job stability, increasing cost of living, higher interest rates, and aging demography. All the factors contribute to people saving higher rate of their income, resulting in lower consumer demand in the industry and other sectors.
Increasing wage structure of Litigation Cumulativeness
– Post Covid-19 there is a sharp increase in the wages especially in the jobs that require interaction with people. The increasing wages can put downward pressure on the margins of Litigation Cumulativeness.
Easy access to finance
– Easy access to finance in Leadership & Managing People field will also reduce the barriers to entry in the industry, thus putting downward pressure on the prices because of increasing competition. Litigation Cumulativeness can utilize it by borrowing at lower rates and invest it into research and development, capital expenditure to fortify its core competitive advantage.
Environmental challenges
– Litigation Cumulativeness needs to have a robust strategy against the disruptions arising from climate change and energy requirements. EU has identified it as key priority area and spending 30% of its 880 billion Euros European post Covid-19 recovery funds on green technology. Litigation Cumulativeness can take advantage of this fund but it will also bring new competitors in the Leadership & Managing People industry.
Increasing international competition and downward pressure on margins
– Apart from technology driven competitive advantage dilution, Litigation Cumulativeness can face downward pressure on margins from increasing competition from international players. The international players have stable revenue in their home market and can use those resources to penetrate prominent markets illustrated in HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy .
Learning curve for new practices
– As the technology based on artificial intelligence and machine learning platform is getting complex, as highlighted in case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy, Litigation Cumulativeness may face longer learning curve for training and development of existing employees. This can open space for more nimble competitors in the field of Leadership & Managing People .
High dependence on third party suppliers
– Litigation Cumulativeness high dependence on third party suppliers can disrupt its processes and delivery mechanism. For example -the current troubles of car makers because of chip shortage is because the chip companies started producing chips for electronic companies rather than car manufacturers.
New competition
– After the dotcom bust of 2001, financial crisis of 2008-09, the business formation in US economy had declined. But in 2020 alone, there are more than 1.5 million new business applications in United States. This can lead to greater competition for Litigation Cumulativeness in the Leadership & Managing People sector and impact the bottomline of the organization.
Weighted SWOT Analysis of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy Template, Example
Not all factors mentioned under the Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats quadrants in the SWOT Analysis are equal. Managers in the HBR case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy needs to zero down on the relative importance of each factor mentioned in the Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats quadrants.
We can provide the relative importance to each factor by assigning relative weights. Weighted SWOT analysis process is a three stage process –
First stage for doing weighted SWOT analysis of the case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy is to rank the strengths and weaknesses of the organization. This will help you to assess the most important strengths and weaknesses of the firm and which one of the strengths and weaknesses mentioned in the initial lists are marginal and can be left out.
Second stage for conducting weighted SWOT analysis of the Harvard case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy is to give probabilities to the external strategic factors thus better understanding the opportunities and threats arising out of macro environment changes and developments.
Third stage of constructing weighted SWOT analysis of AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy is to provide strategic recommendations includes – joining likelihood of external strategic factors such as opportunities and threats to the internal strategic factors – strengths and weaknesses. You should start with external factors as they will provide the direction of the overall industry. Secondly by joining probabilities with internal strategic factors can help the company not only strategic fit but also the most probably strategic trade-off that Litigation Cumulativeness needs to make to build a sustainable competitive advantage.
