organizational-structure

Organizational Structure: The Complete Guide To Organizational Structures

An organizational structure allows companies to shape their business model according to several criteria (like products, segments, geography, and so on) that would enable information to flow through the organizational layers for better decision-making, cultural development, and goal alignment across employees, managers, and executives.

Contents

Introduction to organizational design

product-business-model-culture-framework

Understanding the organizational structure of a company allows an understanding of how decisions are made. It is also a powerful tool for executives to shape their organization toward desired goals and long-term objectives.

For that sake, designing a proper organizational structure also allows the execution of a company’s business model. Based on the organizational structure the company will also have a different shape.

For instance, some organizations are typically hierarchic, which implies a top-down approach of information flow and definition of roles.

Theoretically, the organizational structure is critical for several reasons. Some of them might be:

  • Definition of roles within the organization, so that each employee knows its place and where she belongs.
  • Goals alignment that makes groups of people work in coordination to achieve common business objectives.
  • Culture development based on the shape of the organization.
  • Productivity via a system meant to use the people part of the organization in the best possible way.
  • Efficiency in the use and allocation of resources within the organization.
  • Better decision-making process by allowing the flow of information within and across several departments.

Lacking an organizational structure might make it difficult for the organization to grow efficiently.

It might make it difficult for employees to understand their place in the organization. It might make it difficult for managers and executives to have a big picture of the company.

It might make it difficult for owners and shareholders to understand who’s accountable for what.

Traditionally, one of the critical differentiators of an organizational structure is centralized vs. decentralized. Wherein a centralized organization the information flows from the top to the bottom of the organization linearly.

In a decentralized organization, companies try to remain more agile and flexible via nonlinear information flows, where multiple touchpoints allow information to travel across several parts of the organization.

Typically organizational structure can be categorized based on several parameters and priorities.

Based on the parameters and preferences the organization will take into account, it will also get shaped by these. More specifically an organizational structure can be organized in:

Functional organizational structure

functional-organizational-structure

It is a type of organization where people are grouped according to their area of professional competence and specialization. Typically this kind of organization is very bureaucratic and has a top-down approach.

This implies that each department will have his manager or director. This kind of organization allows employees to specialize at best in specific functions. However, it will also limit their flexibility.

While most traditional companies run this kind of organizational structure, many startups that need to make sure its small teams remain flexible and adaptable might opt for a different structure, where people are incentivized to form cross-functional teams.

Divisional organizational structure

divisional-organizational-structure

It is a type of organization where groups are organized according to the projects, or products the company focuses on.

This structure is more flexible to the hierarchical organization, as each division will run almost as an independent business, that has independent control over resources and money spent.  Each division working as an independent organization can be grouped by product line but also geography.

Matrix organizational structure

matrix-organizational-structure

It is a type of organization that blends elements of a functional and divisional structure. While it sounds appealing in theory, it might be hard to implement.

As it might make people report to several bosses within the same organization and the communication flow might become too challenging as this might also generate confusion in the executive and management.

Read Also: Matrix Organizational Structure In A Nutshell.

Flatarchy organizational structure

flatarchy-organizational-structure

It is a type of organization born from the startup way of acknowledging more independence and autonomy to employees, where they are closer to the chain of command, and the decision-making process.

This type of organization still benefits from hierarchies, but it flattens them by generating an adaptable model for organizations. While this kind of approach might work well with small and medium-size organizations, it might be difficult to implement for quite large organizations.

Read Also: Flat Organizational Structure In A Nutshell.

Other types of organizational structures

Other types of organizational structure might also be based on several factors. For instance, in between the hierarchical and flatarchy, there might be several levels of organizations based on how loose are those hierarchies.

Also how far employees are from top management and how freely the information flows. Besides whether employees are involved in the decision-making process.

Choosing the kind of structure of your organization is very important, as based on that your company will be able to achieve a long-term objective, create a culture that fits those goals and it makes employees happy and efficient.

Holacracy

holacracy
A holacracy is a management strategy and an organizational structure where the power to make important decisions is distributed throughout an organization. It differs from conventional management hierarchies where power is in the hands of a select few. The core principle of a holacracy is self-organization where employees organize into several teams and then work in a self-directed fashion toward a common goal.

Flat Organization

flat-organizational-structure
In a flat organizational structure, there is little to no middle management between employees and executives. Therefore it reduces the space between employees and executives to enable an effective communication flow within the organization, thus being faster and leaner.

U vs. M Organization Structure

u-vs-m-form-organizational-structure
A U-form (unitary form) organizational structure describes a company managed as a single unit along functional lines such as marketing and finance. Conversely, an M-form (multidivisional) structure describes a company divided into multiple semi-autonomous units. Financial targets from a central authority control each unit.

Circular Organization

circular-organizational-structure
A circular organizational structure is a form of hierarchical structure where senior-level employees occupy the inner rings of a circle and lower-level employees the outer rings. Unlike a traditional hierarchical structure where directives are sent down a linear chain of command, leaders in a circular structure are not considered to sit at the top of the organization.

Decentralized Organization

decentralized-organizational-structure

Decentralized Autonomous Organization

decentralized-autonomous-organization
A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) operates autonomously on blockchain protocol under rules governed by smart contracts. DAO is among the most important innovations that Blockchain has brought to the business world, which can create “super entities” or large entities that do not have a central authority but are instead managed in a decentralized manner.

Mechanistic Organizational Structure

mechanistic-organizational-structure
Organizations with a mechanistic structure are best characterized by rigid departmentalization, numerous layers of management (particularly middle management), and a relatively high degree of job specialization.

Mintzberg Organizational Structure

mintzberg-organizational-structure
In his 1978 book entitled The Structuring of Organizations, author and management expert Harry Mintzberg explained that the “structure of an organization can be defined simply as the sum total of the ways in which it divides its labor into distinct tasks and then achieves coordination among them.”

When does organizational structure really matter?

Aligning organization and business model

business-model
A business model is a framework for finding a systematic way to unlock long-term value for an organization while delivering value to customers and capturing value through monetization strategies. A business model is a holistic framework to understand, design, and test your business assumptions in the marketplace.

Where the organizational structure and design are critical to building a culture congenial to the company’s long-term vision and mission.

A business model is a machine, the engine that will propel that organization toward its goal.

Indeed, any company which has a great organizational structure, but lacks the viability of its business model, won’t go far.

Where culture matters to create valuable companies able to scale (remember, culture might work as the glue that keeps a large number of people working together), a business model is an enabler for that.

It is important to highlight that the more a company grows, the more culture and organizational design might matter compared to business model innovation.

In fact, a large organization has to keep its operations as efficient as possible to keep its operations make sense.

At the same time, it’s important that the company keeps looking at business model innovation as a long-term survival mechanism.

Organizational structure case studies

Google Organizational Structure

google-organizational-structure
Google (Alphabet) has a cross-functional (team-based) organizational structure known as a matrix structure with some degree of flatness. Over the years, as the company scaled and it became a tech giant, its organizational structure is morphing more into a centralized organization.

Starbucks Organizational Structure

starbucks-organizational-structure
Starbucks follows a matrix organizational structure with a combination of vertical and horizontal structures. It is characterized by multiple, overlapping chains of command and divisions.

Apple Organizational Structure

apple-organizational-structure
Apple has a traditional hierarchical structure with product-based grouping and some collaboration between divisions.

Amazon Organizational Structure

amazon-organizational-structure
The Amazon organizational structure is predominantly hierarchical with elements of function-based structure and geographic divisions. While Amazon started as a lean, flat organization in its early years, it transitioned into a hierarchical organization with its jobs and functions clearly defined as it scaled.

Microsoft Organizational Structure

microsoft-organizational-structure
Microsoft has a product-type divisional organizational structure based on functions and engineering groups. As the company scaled over time it also became more hierarchical, however still keeping its hybrid approach between functions, engineering groups, and management.

Nestlé Organizational Structure

nestle-organizational-structure
Nestlé has a geographical divisional structure with operations segmented into five key regions. For many years, Swiss multinational food and drink company Nestlé had a complex and decentralized matrix organizational structure where its numerous brands and subsidiaries were free to operate autonomously.

Nike Organizational Structure

nike-organizational-structure
Nike has a matrix organizational structure incorporating geographic divisions. Nike’s matrix structure is also present at the regional and sub-regional levels. Managerial responsibility is segmented according to business unit (apparel, footwear, and equipment) and function (human resources, finance, marketing, sales, and operations).

Tesla Organizational Structure

tesla-organizational-structure
Tesla is characterized by a functional organizational structure with aspects of a hierarchical structure. Tesla does employ functional centers that cover all business activities, including finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, design, and the offices of the CEO and chairperson. Tesla’s headquarters in Austin, Texas, decide the strategic direction of the company, with international operations given little autonomy.

Spotify Organizational Structure

spotify-organizational-structure
Spotify has an N-form organizational structure with an emphasis on knowledge sharing and integration across business activities. Spotify’s N-form organizational structure emphasizes knowledge sharing and integration.

Walmart Organizational Structure

walmart-organizational-structure
Walmart has a hybrid hierarchical-functional organizational structure, otherwise referred to as a matrix structure that combines multiple approaches. On the one hand, Walmart follows a hierarchical structure, where the current CEO Doug McMillon is the only employee without a direct superior, and directives are sent from top-level management. On the other hand, the function-based structure of Walmart is used to categorize employees according to their particular skills and experience.

Toyota Organizational Structure

toyota-organizational-structure
Toyota has a divisional organizational structure where business operations are centered around the market, product, and geographic groups. Therefore, Toyota organizes its corporate structure around global hierarchies (most strategic decisions come from Japan’s headquarter), product-based divisions (where the organization is broken down, based on each product line), and geographical divisions (according to the geographical areas under management).

McDonald’s Organizational Structure

mcdonald-organizational-structure
McDonald’s has a divisional organizational structure where each division – based on geographical location – is assigned operational responsibilities and strategic objectives. The main geographical divisions are the US, internationally operated markets, and international developmental licensed markets. And on the other hand, the hierarchical leadership structure is organized around regional and functional divisions.

Samsung Organizational Structure

samsung-organizational-structure (1)
Samsung has a product-type divisional organizational structure where products determine how resources and business operations are categorized. The main resources around which Samsung’s corporate structure is organized are consumer electronics, IT, and device solutions. In addition, Samsung leadership functions are organized around a few career levels grades, based on experience (assistant, professional, senior professional, and principal professional).

Facebook Organizational Structure

facebook-organizational-structure
Facebook is characterized by a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions. The flat organization structure is organized around the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, and the key executives around him. On the other hand, the function-based teams are based on the main corporate functions (like HR, product management, investor relations, and so on).

Dell Organizational Structure

dell-organizational-structure
Dell has a functional organizational structure with some degree of decentralization. This means functional departments share information, contribute ideas to the success of the organization and have some degree of decision-making power.

eBay Organizational Structure

ebay-organizational-structure
eBay was until recently a multi-divisional (M-form) organization with semi-autonomous units grouped according to the services they provided. Today, eBay has a single division called Marketplace, which includes eBay and its international iterations.

Goldman Sachs’ Organizational Structure

goldman-sacks-organizational-structures
Goldman Sachs has a hierarchical structure with a clear chain of command and defined career advancement process. The structure is also underpinned by business-type divisions and function-based groups.

IBM Organizational Structure

ibm-organizational-structure
IBM has an organizational structure characterized by product-based divisions, enabling its strategy to develop innovative and competitive products in multiple markets. IBM is also characterized by function-based segments that support product development and innovation for each product-based division, which include Global Markets, Integrated Supply Chain, Research, Development, and Intellectual Property.

McKinsey Organizational Structure

mckinsey-organizational-structure
McKinsey & Company has a decentralized organizational structure with mostly self-managing offices, committees, and employees. There are also functional groups and geographic divisions with proprietary names.

Sony Organizational Structure

sony-organizational-structure
Sony has a matrix organizational structure primarily based on function-based groups and product/business divisions. The structure also incorporates geographical divisions. In 2021, Sony announced the overhauling of its organizational structure, changing its name from Sony Corporation to Sony Group Corporation to better identify itself as the headquarters of the Sony group of companies skewing the company toward product divisions.

Create business innovation units not necessarily aligned with the core organization

Business model innovation is not an easy game.

Indeed, in many cases, innovation spurs from the most unexpected places, and an organization that is not ready to capture it might be well disrupted in the future.

But how do you structure a large company for business model innovation? Where a small company can adapt more quickly to changing times. Large corporations might not survive and adapt fast enough.

In part, that’s because large corporations are extremely well aligned with their key customers.

And as highlighted in the book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, managers in those companies make sound decisions in not pursuing certain opportunities.

That’s because often, opportunities that don’t make sense in terms of the bottom line and key customers might also be those that in the long run will turn out to succeed.

That is why it’s important to have within any organization “innovation units” or small teams of people that operate independently and that are not necessarily aligned with the overall organization’s goal and vision.

That bit of “messiness” might be well repaid when those small innovation units stumble upon a new business line, which will become the core business in the years to come.

For instance, large tech companies like Google have innovation units comprised of bets that seem completely unrelated to the company’s current business model

google-bets
Of Google’s (Alphabet) over $257 billion revenues for 2021, Google also generated $753 million from a group of startup bets, which Google considers potential moonshots (companies that might open up new industries). Those Google’s bets also generated a loss for the company of over $5.2 billion. In short, Google is using the money generated by search and betting it on other innovative industries.

Google calls them moonshots.

moonshot-thinking
Moonshot thinking is an approach to innovation, and it can be applied to business or any other discipline where you target at least 10X goals. That shifts the mindset, and it empowers a team of people to look for unconventional solutions, thus starting from first principles, by leveraging on fast-paced experimentation.

Moonshots do not have to be aligned with the core business model of the company. 

Quite the opposite, those are ventures with a high rate of failure, yet high potential, which, if they turn out to work, might end up as whole new industries, opening up the way to build a whole new company on top. 

To create moonshots, you want to have a team organized around a few core principles: 

Intrapreneurship

intrapreneur
The intrapreneur is an employee which is usually assigned to innovative projects that can impact the company’s future success. As such, the intrapreneur is an employee that acts as an entrepreneur within the organization. While the intrapreneur has access to the resources of the organization she does not bear the risks connected to it.

In some cases, organizations design their company to empower employees to take action as they are entrepreneurs.

While this sounds interesting in theory, for larger organizations – where most of the activities are focused on keeping and maintaining existing processes  – intrapreneurship might not be viable if applied to the whole organization.

Instead, the company will have a dedicated group of people that will be more independent or assigned to specific projects that are highly innovative.

Or the company, still in a scale-up stage, can assign part of the time of its employees to run projects they like.

For instance, Google’s 20% Project used to give its employees the freedom to pursue the products and projects they loved the most.

Centralization vs. Decentralization

The debate over centralization vs. decentralization is still open. Classic examples of extremely centralized organizations are represented by Government and bureaucracies in general.

Companies, especially at a large scale, use a hybrid approach, where one part of the business is highly centralized, and other parts are, instead, highly decentralized.

For instance, Coca-Cola uses what I defined as a franchained business model where its corporate structure is centralized.

However, at the level of the bottler, once operations are established, Coca-Cola leaves them independent to run the business.

coca-cola-business-strategy
Coca-Cola follows a business strategy (implemented since 2006) where through its operating arm – the Bottling Investment Group – it invests initially in bottling partners operations. As they take off, Coca-Cola divests its equity stakes, and it establishes a franchising model, as long-term growth and distribution strategy.

Another example is Amazon.

In general, a centralized company is mostly run in hierarchies.

To run some parts of its business, it uses a different approach.

In last-mile delivery, Amazon relies on an army of “independent drivers” or partners that are not directly tied to Amazon’s hierarchy but are kept, independent.

last-mile-delivery
Last-mile delivery consists of the set of activities in a supply chain that will bring the service and product to the final customer. The name “last mile” derives from the fact that indeed this usually refers to the final part of the supply chain journey, and yet this is extremely important, as it’s the most exposed, consumer-facing part.

Flattening organizational structures

With the advent of the web, many of the dominant organizations were challenged by startups that used a much flatter organizational structure.

Those startups managed to build products much faster, with much less politicized, an iterative approach to growth, thus disrupting the incumbents.

Yet while flatter organizational structure proved quite effective in scaling things up. 

As things scale, many of those former startups, now become tech giants (Apple, Google, Amazon), turned into much more hierarchical organizations!

In short, after a certain threshold of the scale of a product into a company, which starts to hire thousand of employees, it seems there is no going back from hierarchy to flatarchy. 

We learned this in these three decades of development for the Internet, where we were lean startups taking over large and established players.

And yet, over time, while with a tweaked organizational structure, they also turned into more hierarchical organizations! 

What are the 4 types of organizational structures?

The four main types of organizational structures can be divided into functional, divisional, matrix, and flatarchy. Organizational structures can move from vertical and pyramidal structures, with a rigid structure, to more horizontal, flat systems, which are way more fluid, and with much less space between employees and management.

What is organizational structure example?

In the Internet era, organizations have been more horizontal and flat, thus reducing the space between employees and management. An example is Google’s early days, a flat organization with functional teams organized around projects. The startup culture has introduced flatter organization patterns. Yet, as some of these startups have scaled to a much bigger size, they have become more centralized and hierarchical.

Why is organizational structure important?

Organizational design is a critical puzzle for making a company successful. Indeed, suppose we identify a corporation or startup as comprised of three main layers (product, business model, and organizational design). In that case, how these companies structure their organization will also determine their ability to execute their mission. Thus, in a sense, the organizational structure is critical for executing the overall business strategy.

What is the impact of organizational structure?

Organizational structure, product, and business model are critical to enabling a company to scale up. Indeed, when a company has established a viable business model, scaling up the employee base through organizational structure might enable the organization to operate at a much broader scale. Take the case of Google, which transformed from a startup to a massive organization with over a hundred thousand employees as Google established its operations worldwide.

How does Organisational structure lead to success?

The organizational structure becomes critical when trying to achieve a broader scale. Indeed, as startups become established organizations, they might need to become way more structured as they have to tackle much broader engineering, administrative, legal, marketing, and sales problems. From that perspective, organizational structure helps address a broader scaling level for companies.

What are other types of organizational structure?

What is the best organizational structure?

The organizational structure will highly depend on the strategy of the company and the scale needed to achieve that. Traditional organizations opt for a hierarchical structure, where people are organized in a pyramid-shaped structure, with top executives in charge of the strategic decision-making process. Startups, on the contrary, opt more for a flatter organizational structure. When startups scale, they also tend to opt for a more hierarchical structure, as it becomes harder to keep a flat organizational structure at a large scale.

Types of Organizational Structures

organizational-structure-types
Organizational Structures

Siloed Organizational Structures

Functional

functional-organizational-structure
In a functional organizational structure, groups and teams are organized based on function. Therefore, this organization follows a top-down structure, where most decision flows from top management to bottom. Thus, the bottom of the organization mostly follows the strategy detailed by the top of the organization.

Divisional

divisional-organizational-structure

Open Organizational Structures

Matrix

matrix-organizational-structure

Flat

flat-organizational-structure
In a flat organizational structure, there is little to no middle management between employees and executives. Therefore it reduces the space between employees and executives to enable an effective communication flow within the organization, thus being faster and leaner.

Other resources for your business:

Connected Business Frameworks

Management Functions

management-functions
Management functions within startups are critical to scale up the team and enable the company to find a business model/market fit at wider and wider scales through planning, management, and leading the organizations toward those goals.

Market Orientation

market-orientation
Market orientation is an approach to business where the company focuses more on the behaviors, wants, and needs of customers in its market. A company will first target a niche market to prove a commercial use case. And from there, it will create options to scale.

Portfolio Management

project-portfolio-matrix
Project portfolio management (PPM) is a systematic approach to selecting and managing a collection of projects aligned with organizational objectives. That is a business process of managing multiple projects which can be identified, prioritized, and managed within the organization. PPM helps organizations optimize their investments by allocating resources efficiently across all initiatives.

Project Management

project-management-vs-program-management
Critical differences between project management and program management comprise: 1. Scope: as project managers focus on specific projects, program managers coordinate a portfolio of projects. 2. Objectives: where project managers focus on delivering a project timeline, the program manager optimizes for the achievement of multiple projects at a time. 3: stakeholders: project manager work with specific stakeholders to deliver the project. While program managers might work with multiple stakeholders. 4 Timeframe: project managers might be focused on short-term goals, whereas program managers might be more aligned on long-term objectives as they have to ensure success on multiple projects.

Product Management

product-management
Product management has become a key role within most organizations and startups as it combines product development with experimentation to create a successful product in the market. Product management requires a combination of strategic thinking, problem-solving skills, and a relentless focus on customer needs and delivering the right product at the right time. Top product managers use a customer obsession approach to build and launch successful products.

Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model

kotters-8-step-change-model
Harvard Business School professor Dr. John Kotter has been a thought-leader on organizational change, and he developed Kotter’s 8-step change model, which helps business managers deal with organizational change. Kotter created the 8-step model to drive organizational transformation.

Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model

nadler-tushman-congruence-model
The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model was created by David Nadler and Michael Tushman at Columbia University. The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model is a diagnostic tool that identifies problem areas within a company. In the context of business, congruence occurs when the goals of different people or interest groups coincide.

McKinsey’s Seven Degrees of Freedom

mckinseys-seven-degrees
McKinsey’s Seven Degrees of Freedom for Growth is a strategy tool. Developed by partners at McKinsey and Company, the tool helps businesses understand which opportunities will contribute to expansion, and therefore it helps to prioritize those initiatives.

Mintzberg’s 5Ps

5ps-of-strategy
Mintzberg’s 5Ps of Strategy is a strategy development model that examines five different perspectives (plan, ploy, pattern, position, perspective) to develop a successful business strategy. A sixth perspective has been developed over the years, called Practice, which was created to help businesses execute their strategies.

COSO Framework

coso-framework
The COSO framework is a means of designing, implementing, and evaluating control within an organization. The COSO framework’s five components are control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring activities. As a fraud risk management tool, businesses can design, implement, and evaluate internal control procedures.

TOWS Matrix

tows-matrix
The TOWS Matrix is an acronym for Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Strengths. The matrix is a variation on the SWOT Analysis, and it seeks to address criticisms of the SWOT Analysis regarding its inability to show relationships between the various categories.

Lewin’s Change Management

lewins-change-management-model
Lewin’s change management model helps businesses manage the uncertainty and resistance associated with change. Kurt Lewin, one of the first academics to focus his research on group dynamics, developed a three-stage model. He proposed that the behavior of individuals happened as a function of group behavior.

Porter’s Five Forces

porter-five-forces
Porter’s Five Forces is a model that helps organizations to gain a better understanding of their industries and competition. Published for the first time by Professor Michael Porter in his book “Competitive Strategy” in the 1980s. The model breaks down industries and markets by analyzing them through five forces

Ansoff Matrix

ansoff-matrix
You can use the Ansoff Matrix as a strategic framework to understand what growth strategy is more suited based on the market context. Developed by mathematician and business manager Igor Ansoff, it assumes a growth strategy can be derived by whether the market is new or existing, and the product is new or existing.

Blitzscaling Canvas

blitzscaling-business-model-innovation-canvas
The Blitzscaling business model canvas is a model based on the concept of Blitzscaling, which is a particular process of massive growth under uncertainty, and that prioritizes speed over efficiency and focuses on market domination to create a first-scaler advantage in a scenario of uncertainty.

Business Analysis Framework

business-analysis
Business analysis is a research discipline that helps drive change within an organization by identifying the key elements and processes that drive value. Business analysis can also be used in Identifying new business opportunities or how to take advantage of existing business opportunities to grow your business in the marketplace.

Gap Analysis

gap-analysis
A gap analysis helps an organization assess its alignment with strategic objectives to determine whether the current execution is in line with the company’s mission and long-term vision. Gap analyses then help reach a target performance by assisting organizations to use their resources better. A good gap analysis is a powerful tool to improve execution.

Business Model Canvas

business-model-canvas
The business model canvas is a framework proposed by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur in Busines Model Generation enabling the design of business models through nine building blocks comprising: key partners, key activities, value propositions, customer relationships, customer segments, critical resources, channels, cost structure, and revenue streams.

Lean Startup Canvas

lean-startup-canvas
The lean startup canvas is an adaptation by Ash Maurya of the business model canvas by Alexander Osterwalder, which adds a layer that focuses on problems, solutions, key metrics, unfair advantage based, and a unique value proposition. Thus, starting from mastering the problem rather than the solution.

Digital Marketing Circle

digital-marketing-channels
A digital channel is a marketing channel, part of a distribution strategy, helping an organization reach its potential customers via electronic means. There are several digital marketing channels, usually divided into organic and paid channels. Some organic channels are SEO, SMO, and email marketing. And some paid channels comprise SEM, SMM, and display advertising.

Blue Ocean Strategy

blue-ocean-strategy
A blue ocean is a strategy where the boundaries of existing markets are redefined, and new uncontested markets are created. At its core, there is value innovation, for which uncontested markets are created, where competition is made irrelevant. And the cost-value trade-off is broken. Thus, companies following a blue ocean strategy offer much more value at a lower cost for the end customers.

About The Author

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top
FourWeekMBA