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 government debt because of Covid-19 spendings, there is increasing trade war between United States & China, banking and financial system is disrupted by Bitcoin and other crypto currencies, there is backlash against globalization, technology disruption, talent flight as more people leaving formal jobs, increasing transportation and logistics costs,
wage bills are increasing, challanges to central banks by blockchain based private currencies, 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 -
High brand equity
– Litigation Cumulativeness has strong brand awareness and brand recognition among both - the exiting customers and potential new customers. Strong brand equity has enabled Litigation Cumulativeness to keep acquiring new customers and building profitable relationship with both the new and loyal customers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Effective Research and Development (R&D)
– Litigation Cumulativeness has innovation driven culture where significant part of the revenues are spent on the research and development activities. This has resulted in, as mentioned in case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy - staying ahead in the industry in terms of – new product launches, superior customer experience, highly competitive pricing strategies, and great returns to the shareholders.
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.
Cross disciplinary teams
– Horizontal connected teams at the Litigation Cumulativeness are driving operational speed, building greater agility, and keeping the organization nimble to compete with new competitors. It helps are organization to ideate new ideas, and execute them swiftly in the marketplace.
Highly skilled collaborators
– Litigation Cumulativeness has highly efficient outsourcing and offshoring strategy. It has resulted in greater operational flexibility and bringing down the costs in highly price sensitive segment. Secondly the value chain collaborators of the firm in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy HBR case study have helped the firm to develop new products and bring them quickly to the marketplace.
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.
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.
Diverse revenue streams
– Litigation Cumulativeness is present in almost all the verticals within the industry. This has provided firm in AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy case study a diverse revenue stream that has helped it to survive disruptions such as global pandemic in Covid-19, financial disruption of 2008, and supply chain disruption of 2021.
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 -
Skills based hiring
– The stress on hiring functional specialists at Litigation Cumulativeness has created an environment where the organization is dominated by functional specialists rather than management generalist. This has resulted into product oriented approach rather than marketing oriented approach or consumers oriented approach.
High dependence on existing supply chain
– The disruption in the global supply chains because of the Covid-19 pandemic and blockage of the Suez Canal illustrated the fragile nature of Litigation Cumulativeness supply chain. Even after few cautionary changes mentioned in the HBR case study - AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy, it is still heavily dependent upon the existing supply chain. The existing supply chain though brings in cost efficiencies but it has left Litigation Cumulativeness vulnerable to further global disruptions in South East Asia.
High bargaining power of channel partners
– Because of the regulatory requirements, Willy Shih suggests that, Litigation Cumulativeness is facing high bargaining power of the channel partners. So far it has not able to streamline the operations to reduce the bargaining power of the value chain partners in the industry.
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.
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.
Slow to harness new channels of communication
– Even though competitors are using new communication channels such as Instagram, Tiktok, and Snap, Litigation Cumulativeness is slow explore the new channels of communication. These new channels of communication mentioned in marketing section of case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy can help to provide better information regarding products and services. It can also build an online community to further reach out to potential customers.
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.
High cash cycle compare to competitors
Litigation Cumulativeness has a high cash cycle compare to other players in the industry. It needs to shorten the cash cycle by 12% to be more competitive in the marketplace, reduce inventory costs, and be more profitable.
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.
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.
Ability to respond to the competition
– As the decision making is very deliberative, highlighted in the case study AT&T v. Microsoft (A): IP Litigation Strategy, in the dynamic environment Litigation Cumulativeness has struggled to respond to the nimble upstart competition. Litigation Cumulativeness has reasonably good record with similar level competitors but it has struggled with new entrants taking away niches of its business.
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 -
Reconfiguring business model
– The expansion of digital payment system, the bringing down of international transactions costs using Bitcoin and other blockchain based currencies, etc can help Litigation Cumulativeness to reconfigure its entire business model. For example it can used blockchain based technologies to reduce piracy of its products in the big markets such as China. Secondly it can use the popularity of e-commerce in various developing markets to build a Direct to Customer business model rather than the current Channel Heavy distribution network.
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.
Remote work and new talent hiring opportunities
– The widespread usage of remote working technologies during Covid-19 has opened opportunities for Litigation Cumulativeness to expand its talent hiring zone. According to McKinsey Global Institute, 20% of the high end workforce in fields such as finance, information technology, can continously work from remote local post Covid-19. This presents a really great opportunity for Litigation Cumulativeness to hire the very best people irrespective of their geographical location.
Finding new ways to collaborate
– Covid-19 has not only transformed business models of companies in Leadership & Managing People industry, but it has also influenced the consumer preferences. Litigation Cumulativeness can tie-up with other value chain partners to explore new opportunities regarding meeting customer demands and building a rewarding and engaging relationship.
Reforming the budgeting process
- By establishing new metrics that will be used to evaluate both existing and potential projects Litigation Cumulativeness can not only reduce the costs of the project but also help it in integrating the projects with other processes within the organization.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lowering marketing communication costs
– 5G expansion will open new opportunities for Litigation Cumulativeness in the field of marketing communication. It will bring down the cost of doing business, provide technology platform to build new products in the Leadership & Managing People segment, and it will provide faster access to the consumers.
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.
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 -
Barriers of entry lowering
– As technology is more democratized, the barriers to entry in the industry are lowering. It can presents Litigation Cumulativeness with greater competitive threats in the near to medium future. Secondly it will also put downward pressure on pricing throughout the sector.
Stagnating economy with rate increase
– Litigation Cumulativeness can face lack of demand in the market place because of Fed actions to reduce inflation. This can lead to sluggish growth in the economy, lower demands, lower investments, higher borrowing costs, and consolidation in the field.
High level of anxiety and lack of motivation
– the Great Resignation in United States is the sign of broader dissatisfaction among the workforce in United States. Litigation Cumulativeness needs to understand the core reasons impacting the Leadership & Managing People industry. This will help it in building a better workplace.
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 .
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.
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.
Capital market disruption
– During the Covid-19, Dow Jones has touched record high. The valuations of a number of companies are way beyond their existing business model potential. This can lead to capital market correction which can put a number of suppliers, collaborators, value chain partners in great financial difficulty. It will directly impact the business of Litigation Cumulativeness.
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.
Trade war between China and United States
– The trade war between two of the biggest economies can hugely impact the opportunities for Litigation Cumulativeness in the Leadership & Managing People industry. The Leadership & Managing People industry is already at various protected from local competition in China, with the rise of trade war the protection levels may go up. This presents a clear threat of current business model in Chinese market.
Shortening product life cycle
– it is one of the major threat that Litigation Cumulativeness is facing in Leadership & Managing People sector. It can lead to higher research and development costs, higher marketing expenses, lower customer loyalty, etc.
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.
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.
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.