# data[].attributes.body
I had previously never thought of diversification as potentially being a negative thing. I often viewed it as being profitable to venture into different markets and developing new things however it is important for managers to first identify their existing core competencies and understand the firm’s current market situation before deciding to diversify.

# data[].attributes.body
1 takeaway is that individual firms may not always need to own all of the resources, skills, and knowledge necessary to undertake key strategic growth initiatives. Another takeaway is that when deciding to merge with their competitors, firms should only go ahead if the target firm is more valuable inside the acquiring firm than as a continued standalone company.

# data[].attributes.body
Looking at the Build-Buy-Borrow framework, I can help firms decide whether to pursue internal development, enter a contractual agreement or strategic alliance, or acquire new resources, capabilities and competencies. The first step is to identify a strategic resource gap and a motivation, explore internally before externally, and M&A should be the last resort. 3 conditions must be met before considering M&A which is low relevancy, low tradability and a high need for closeness.

# data[].attributes.body
I learnt that although diversification through M&A is important to acquire resources/capabilities that we are lacking, we should not overlook organic growth. This is because we may deviate from our own core competencies, as well as face complexity with alliance management (such as lack of trust and poor governance structure). We should note that M&A should be our last resort if we can fulfil the resource gap internally, or form temporary alliance.

# data[].attributes.body
I did not know that too little / too much of diversification can drastically affect performance of firms negatively. Therefore, firms should strive for moderate level of diversification for maximum value creation by leveraging onto their existing core competencies to expand into new markets.

# data[].attributes.body
One key takeaway for me is the importance of corporate strategy, particularly vertical integration and diversification, in helping companies gain a competitive advantage. The way firms decide when to expand their boundaries or rely on external markets is critical to their long-term success.

Another takeaway is how mergers and acquisitions (M&A) don’t always create value, and sometimes they even destroy shareholder value, which was surprising because M&A often gets portrayed as a quick way to grow.

# data[].attributes.body
I think I can apply this knowledge by analyzing business decisions more critically, especially when considering the risks of growth strategies like M&A. This could help me better evaluate the long-term sustainability of a company’s strategy, both in my coursework and future career.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to explore more about the decision-making process behind whether a company should build, borrow, or buy (the Build-Borrow-Buy framework). Understanding when to pursue internal development versus strategic alliances or acquisitions seems like a key skill in strategic management.

# data[].attributes.body
I’m curious about how smaller companies like Lyft have successfully leveraged strategic alliances to compete against larger firms like Uber. It’s fascinating to see how alliances can level the playing field, even for smaller companies.

# data[].attributes.body
As I also learnt that vertical integration of value chain may pose some risk e.g. a petroleum company acquired by airline has increasing operational cost and regulation scrutiny, I can suggest these firms to adopt taper integration to enjoy both the benefits of vertical integration as well as flexibility. Therefore, when the market is bad, firms have the flexibility to outsource from suppliers to reduce cost and increase profitability.

# data[].attributes.body
I was surprised by how high the failure rate for M&A is, despite how often it is used by companies. I used to think acquiring another firm was a straightforward way to grow, but now I see it’s more complex and risky than I initially imagined.

# data[].attributes.body
I learned that while diversification through M&A can be valuable for acquiring essential resources and capabilities, it’s important not to overlook the potential of organic growth. Relying too heavily on M&A can lead us away from our core competencies and introduce complexities in alliance management, such as trust issues and governance challenges. M&A should ideally be a last resort if we are unable to bridge resource gaps internally or through temporary alliances.

# data[].attributes.body
Before learning about M&A challenges in class, I hadn’t considered that engaging in too many acquisitions could create significant problems for an organisation. I used to think that more M&A simply meant more resources, capabilities, and market opportunities. However, I was surprised to discover that over reliance on M&A can lead a company away from its core competencies, creating operational challenges and making integration difficult.

# data[].attributes.body
With an understanding of Build-Buy-Borrow framework, I can now consider other strategies apart from acquisitions such as internal development or forming alliances. It also gives me a more in-depth understanding that M&A should be the last resort when the three specific conditions are met.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to learn more about the strategies employed by big tech companies in acquiring smaller, emerging tech firms and the broader implications of these acquisitions on market dynamics and innovation. Also, the challenges that come with these acquisitions and from the perspective of these smaller firms, when should they sell or what factors should they consider?

# data[].attributes.body
One key takeaway from today's class is how the different types of integration and diversification strategies can lead to various types of value created and costs incurred for the company. Companies can analyse what type of value they prioritise most and choose to dive deeper into those strategies that help to create those values.

# data[].attributes.body
It was surprising to know that M&A does not realise anticipated synergies because theoretically, M&As happen to create synergies. I would think that before any merger or acquisition takes place, both parties must have done enough research on whether merging or acquiring this particular company will benefit their firm. However, it seems like no matter how much planning and thought is placed before making any M&A decision, it still doesn't realise the anticipated synergies.

# data[].attributes.body
After learning about the market matrix, I can now identify which box firms fall under when they make any diversification strategy. I can also use the matrix to analyse which is a better diversification strategy for businesses!

# data[].attributes.body
I want to learn more about cases like UBS taking over Credit Suisse, where a firm merges together with another firm that's on the verge of bankruptcy and manages to earn more than its estimated profit because M&A is said to not realise anticipated synergies but it seems like this merger was a great decision as UBS manage to swing back to profits one year after its merger with Credit Suisse!

# data[].attributes.body
A key takeaway from the class is that companies have to consider the boundaries of the firm (vertical integration, horizontal diversification and geographic scope) when deciding on what kind of expansion strategies to implement.

# data[].attributes.body
Something surprising for me is that M&A should be the last choice for the firm when considering the build-borrow-buy framework, considering the number of M&As we see in the different markets.

# data[].attributes.body
I can evaluate the expansion strategies of firms more critically, instead of just considering that the firm is expanding into a profitable market, i can also think about the risks involved and subsequent integration challenges

# data[].attributes.body
i would like to know how the build-borrow-buy framework differs from the make-buy continuum as they seem to introduce similar concepts?

# data[].attributes.body
1 + 2) I digested and perceived that a firm's ability to identify their value gap is the first step to success (within the context of today's class). The subsequent steps taken by the management after the identification of this value gap will then determine whether or not the firm reaches heightened levels of success. Also, I believe this ties in neatly with the first-mover advantage if the firm identifies and explores a value gap that is untapped.

# data[].attributes.body
Definitely didn't know that M&A is typically seen as the last resort by firms. I was of the idea that mergers are acted on if synergies are great, valuation post-acquisition for acquirer and target benefits. This realization hinges from the concept of the Build, buy and borrow framework.

# data[].attributes.body
A very relevant actionable now would be to apply the BBB framework into my project :)

# data[].attributes.body
Personally would like to develop a more profound understanding of M&A through the lens of MGMT102. Because the modules that I'm taking this semester are also touching on M&A, I think this would give me a more cohesive understanding of M&A - both quantitative and qualitative.

# data[].attributes.body
One key takeaway that I had from this weeks lesson is that when firms integrate vertically, they will face a trade off between control and flexibility. Through vertical integration, a firm is able to control their production and sale processes, allowing them to save costs and also decide how much cost savings they would like to pass on to the end consumer. At the same time, they have less flexibility as they are now exposed to more risks (eg: risks from other industries that are related to their vertical integration process).

# data[].attributes.body
1 takeaway that i have is when a firm decides to go into a different industry that is different from its area of expertise, it would perhaps enter into partnerships or go into strategic alliance to reduce its risks.

# data[].attributes.body
What differed from ideas i had before class was that i used to think that the firm would actually use its own resources to enter areas it wants to enter but they actually source for partnerships or strategic alliances.

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps when a firm announces a strategic partnership or alliance, perhaps we can try to predict what area or industry the firm is trying to go into?

# data[].attributes.body
I want to learn about the different real life cases of mergers and acquisitions and strategic partnerships. What were the motivations behind the alliance/ parternship? why was it an acquisition instead of a partnership etc

# data[].attributes.body
Initially, i thought that vertical integration would always have more benefits than cons. However, I realise that this might not always be the case, especially if the markets along the industry chains are too risky.

# data[].attributes.body
I see how vertical integration can be a double-edged sword—while it offers competitive advantages, it requires strategic alignment and careful execution. I plan to apply this understanding by analysing how companies leverage (or avoid) vertical integration and whether it enhances their market position.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to understand more about how companies can balance the trade off between having more control but less flexibility when integrating vertically. I would like to study how they are able balance the increased control with the risks of higher costs, inefficiencies, and potential regulatory hurdles.

# data[].attributes.body
Vertical integration definitely comes with its share of trade-offs. On one hand, taking control of more stages in the supply chain, whether it's managing suppliers through backward integration or getting closer to customers with forward integration, can really help a company cut costs, secure key supplies, and keep a close eye on quality. However, the tradeoffs are that the more a company tries to do in-house, the higher the costs can get, and it can also become harder to stay flexible when things shift in the market. Companies need to weigh the pros and cons to see if it is actually worth it for them.

# data[].attributes.body
What really stood out to me was taper integration and the idea that companies don’t have to go all-in or all-out with vertical integration. It’s like finding a balance between doing everything in-house and outsourcing—picking which parts make sense to own and which are better left to partners. Before class, I never thought about integration as something you could do halfway, so it definitely shifted my perspective on how companies can smartly manage their supply chains without taking on too much risk.

# data[].attributes.body
The build-buy-borrow framework helps me look at growth strategies in a more practical way, like deciding if a company should grow its own resources, partner with others, or acquire capabilities. It helps me understand why a company might choose one approach over another and what factors they should consider, like the cost of integration or how closely they need to work with partners.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to dive deeper into how companies choose between building, borrowing, or buying, and what factors influence those decisions. It’d be interesting to understand the decision-making process and what drives companies to pick one option over the others. I also want to learn more about how firms decide which companies to acquire and the strategic thinking behind those choices.

# data[].attributes.body
My key takeaway from today's session is learning more about the NTUC Income deal and the complications surrounding its partnership with Allianz. Overall, this discussion deepened my understanding of the complexities involved in corporate alliances and the critical factors that contribute to their success or failure. This serves as a reminder that companies must remain attuned to the social context in which they operate in, as external factors can shape their strategic decisions and outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
Before this lesson, I had a more straightforward view of business deals as i though they were primarily driven by financial metrics. I never expected that a lot could also happen after two companies come together. The aftermath of a merger or partnership can be complex and multifaceted, involving cultural integration, operational changes, and even shifts in market dynamics. This understanding significantly impacted my view on mergers and aquisition.

# data[].attributes.body
With my newfound insights about the complexities of corporate partnerships, it can really prepare me for the working world. In a case where the company that I am working at gets acquired, I will be able to better prepare myself for the upcoming changes ahead.

# data[].attributes.body
I found it very interesting when we delve into the various case studies on acquisitions. (EG: UBS & Credit Suisse) Thus, I will like to explore more case studies like this happening in different industries.

# data[].attributes.body
The key takeaway for this session is that horizontal diversification can provide a company competitive advantages by reducing costs and increasing value. However, it is important for companies to note that it may not always be the case. M&A don't always bring competitive advantages. Some companies force the M&A so hard that it destroyed their shareholder value. Besides M&A, companies should always look internal growth options as well and optimise a mix between both to gain sustained competitive advantage.

# data[].attributes.body
It was surprising to me that M&A might not always be the best solution. I always thought M&A is just a simpler way of strengthening a company's position just by buying over another company. I did not know that there can be so many risks relating to M&A such as dilution of shareholder value. This new understanding showed me that M&A is far from a simple fix but requires lots of planning and consideration

# data[].attributes.body
I can apply the build-buy-borrow framework learned in class to help me understand on how some companies tackle and make strategical decisions : would it be more effective to build on our core competency and capabilities or acquire an existing company or partner with companies. I think we can apply this to a lot of our projects in school, not just for strategy, but also to other important topics such as sustainability.

# data[].attributes.body
Honestly, i was not too sure about the core-competence framework because i was confusing it with the cost leadership and differentiation framework. Maybe it would be good if we were able to compare both frameworks with a real life example.

# data[].attributes.body
Firms that are able to learn how to select the right pathways to obtain new resources are more likely to gain and sustain a competitive advantage.

# data[].attributes.body
I was surprised that positioning own company along the value chain in areas of highest profit potential. Before class, I know there are large differences in profit potential in different stages of the value chain appeared in the smiley curve, but I did not think companies can execute different value chain stages integration. I thought it was difficult because if companies position at separated stages in value chain, connectivity between value chain in companies become complicated and maintenance of connectivity become costly.

# data[].attributes.body
I should determine the boundaries of the firm with considering what activities to do in-house or to obtain from external market by using transaction cost economies framework.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to learn more about the balance between the integration and separation. We can get profits of economies of scale and scope by integration, but internal transaction costs tend to increase with organizational size and complexity as written in slide note. I want to know how companies decide and measure those balance concretely because those decision are not be reversed easily. Hence, those decision are so important.

# data[].attributes.body
At strategy highlight 9.1, I thought although individual companies do not need to own all of the resources, skills, and knowledge necessary to undertake key strategic growth initiative, companies need to have attracting competencies to use alliances strategically to complement what oneself does not have.

# data[].attributes.body
One key takeaway was how firms can benefit from forming strategic alliances, such that they could reap economies of scope, especially when both companies have very similar core competencies. Alliances may also come with internal and external transaction costs as an acquisition will need people from various teams to incorporate such processes, such as the need to outsource consultants to relook at their competencies during an acquisition.

# data[].attributes.body
What surprised me was the concept of forward and backward integration to gain more control over their supply chain and to reduce costs. Before class I always thought vertical integration was something businesses look into when deciding to focus on their primary or support activities. It was interesting to me to see how you can determine profitability-whether it is low profit potential or high profit potential as it tied to whether they focus on raw materials and after sales support.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the build, borrow, buy framework, it will help me decide whether to pursue internal development, enter strategic alliance or focus on external growth through buying of a firm so that I can help the firm grow.

# data[].attributes.body
What are some examples of real options that companies might utilize in their investment strategies?

# data[].attributes.body
The most important thing I learned from today's lesson was the build-buy-borrow framework. I learnt that it was also more than just building, buying and borrowing, and that firms had a choice of varying levels of commitment to another firm that they can choose.

# data[].attributes.body
Something surprising I learned was that acquiring a firm was actually the last option to consider if a firm had a resource gap. I guess it really challenged what I knew since it is mergers and acquisitions that are most commonly published in the news (sensationalism) and not that firms are choosing different methods to satisfy their resource gap, such that they seemed more common than they actually are.

# data[].attributes.body
In future when I work, knowing the build-buy-borrow framework really helps me to consider the other options the firm has before it has to resort to acquisitions.

# data[].attributes.body
Something I'd like to learn more about more concretely is the challenges of integrating an acquired firm, and whether there are any frameworks in place to analyse these potential challenges.

# data[].attributes.body
1. A key takeaway for me is the strategic value of vertical integration in enhancing a firm's control over critical resources and driving competitive advantage. I learned that vertical integration is important for firms seeking to secure inputs, stabilize supply chains, and reduce dependency on third-party suppliers. This involves either backward integration where firms acquire or control suppliers, or forward integration which moves control closer to end customers. I also learned that vertical integration helps firms manage supply risks, reduce transaction costs, and achieve economies of scale such as in industries with high input volatility.
For example, we discussed in class about Delta Airlines' acquisition of an oil refinery as an example for backward integration. By controlling 80% of its fuel needs internally, Delta mitigated the risk of volatile oil prices which accounted for approximately 40% of its operational costs. This saved the airline an estimated USD 300 million annually, which shows the potential for cost efficiencies and risk mitigation through strategic vertical integration. As such, vertical integration in a firm's value chain can lead to substantial cost reductions and greater control over critical inputs, thus directly contributing to the firm's competitive positioning in the market.

2. Another key takeaway for me is the role of corporate diversification as a means to expand into new markets and mitigate business risks.
I learned that corporate diversification enables firms to spread their operations across different products, industries, or geographic markets, thereby reducing dependency on a single revenue stream. It helps companies achieve growth by exploring new market opportunities and spreading operational risks across multiple sectors. Additionally, diversification can also leverage existing core competencies to create value in new areas, thus increasing a firm's potential for long-term success.
For example, we discussed in class about Amazon Web Services. Starting as an online bookstore, Amazon leveraged its core competencies in e-commerce and logistics to enter diverse sectors, including cloud computing (AWS), groceries (Whole Foods), and media streaming (Amazon Prime Video). These ventures allowed Amazon to diversify its revenue streams and achieve a dominant market position across multiple industries, despite the risks in diversification into new and unrelated businesses. Amazon’s ability to apply its technological core competencies across different sectors highlights how corporate diversification can not only mitigate risks but also unlock new growth opportunities, thus helping companies achieve sustained competitive advantage.

3. Another key takeaway for me is the importance of strategic alliances in gaining access to complementary resources and fostering innovation.
I learned that strategic alliances are collaborative arrangements between firms that allow them to share knowledge, resources, and capabilities without fully merging their operations. These alliances can help firms overcome resource gaps, enter new markets, and achieve economies of scale or scope. Additionally, the alliances offer flexibility and allows firms to experiment with new ventures or technologies while sharing the risk. This is particularly useful in high-tech industries or fast-evolving sectors where innovation and access to cutting-edge technology are critical for maintaining competitiveness.
For example, Lyft’s strategic alliances with General Motors (GM) and Waymo exemplify the potential of such partnerships. GM’s $500 million investment provided Lyft with access to GM's manufacturing expertise, while its collaboration with Waymo advanced Lyft’s capabilities in autonomous vehicle technology. These partnerships allowed Lyft to strengthen its market position and compete with larger rivals like Uber by leveraging the complementary assets of its partners. Lyft’s alliances demonstrate that strategic collaborations can help firms enter new technological domains and improve their competitive stance without taking on the full financial and operational burden of in-house development.

# data[].attributes.body
1. A surprising learning point for me was the high failure rate associated with vertical integration when companies stray too far from their core competencies. Prior to the class, I thought that vertical integration was a universally beneficial strategy, especially for securing inputs or controlling distribution. However, I learned during class that when companies move too far away from their core competencies, the chances of failure increase significantly. This is because firms often face challenges in managing diverse operations outside their core expertise leading to increased costs, lower efficiency, and reduced flexibility. For example, HTC’s move into smartphone design and sales through backward integration initially appeared advantageous due to its existing competencies in manufacturing. However, companies that attempt to vertically integrate into areas that lie beyond their core capabilities often face significant challenges in maintaining efficiency and quality. HTC struggled to balance these new functions without compromising other areas of their business. This shifted my understanding of vertical integration from a one-size-fits-all strategy to one that requires careful consideration of the firm's core competencies and operational limits. Integrating beyond a firm’s strengths can dilute its competitive edge rather than enhance it.

2. Another surprising learning point for me was the role that corporate culture plays in mergers and acquisitions, particularly in ensuring post-merger success. Before this lesson, I viewed M&A success as primarily tied to financial and strategic alignment, but I learned that differences in corporate cultures can make or break an acquisition. Mergers can fail due to incompatibility between the merging firms’ values, management styles, or operational processes. These softer issues such as cultural integration and leadership alignment are frequently underestimated but crucial to realizing the intended synergies of M&A deals.
An example is the Kraft-Cadbury merger where Kraft’s focus on aggressive cost-cutting clashed with Cadbury’s more traditional, brand-focused culture. Despite the financial logic of the merger, the cultural misalignment contributed to Kraft’s eventual failure to generate the expected value from the acquisition. As such, I learned that corporate culture needs to be factored into M&A decisions as much as financial performance, as poor cultural integration can sabotage even the most well-planned mergers.

3. Another surprising learning point for me was the strategic value of taper integration as an alternative to full vertical integration. I previously thought that companies had to choose between full vertical integration or outsourcing, but I learned from this lesson the concept of taper integration where firms partially integrate while still relying on external partners for certain activities. This hybrid approach provides companies with greater flexibility allowing them to reap the benefits of integration (e.g., control and cost savings) without being fully tied to the operational risks of owning the entire value chain.
For example, Delta Airlines’ strategy of securing its fuel supply through backward integration while still sourcing some of its fuel from external suppliers is a form of taper integration. This approach enables Delta to maintain flexibility and mitigate risks such as supply disruptions or price fluctuations without overextending its internal capabilities. Hence, I learned that through taper integration, firms can balance control and flexibility, and tailor their integration strategies to their specific needs and the risks involved.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I can now better identify when and how to leverage vertical integration to control critical resources and improve efficiency in a firm’s value chain. I learned that vertical integration (whether backward or forward) can secure a firm’s access to key inputs or distribution channels which is especially useful in industries with high input volatility. By assessing a firm’s position in its value chain, I can now evaluate if vertical integration would lower costs or mitigate risks associated with third-party suppliers. For example, if a company in the automotive industry is facing supply chain disruptions for critical components like semiconductors, backward integration into manufacturing or partnering with a supplier could provide more control over the supply chain, thus reducing risks and costs. I now understand how to analyze when vertical integration could strategically improve a firm's competitive advantage by controlling essential resources.

2. I can apply what I have learned about strategic alliances to recommend partnerships that drive innovation and market expansion. I learned that strategic alliances offer firms a way to access complementary resources and knowledge without fully acquiring another firm. I can now assess when a partnership might be a better strategic option than acquisitions or internal development, particularly when the goal is to enter new markets or technologies. For example, if a startup is looking to enter the AI-driven autonomous vehicle space, forming alliances with established players such as technology providers or automotive manufacturers could provide access to expertise and infrastructure that would otherwise be difficult to develop in-house. By understanding the balance of risks and rewards in alliances will help me recommend strategies that foster growth while sharing operational risks.

3. I can now analyze the risks of diversification strategies and suggest when a firm should pursue related or unrelated diversification. I learned that diversification allows firms to reduce dependency on a single market, but the success of this strategy depends on the relationship between the firm’s existing core competencies and new business areas. By learning tools like the core competence–market matrix, I can assess whether a firm’s competencies are transferable to a new market. For example, Amazon’s expansion into cloud computing with AWS leveraged its core competency in digital infrastructure, whereas its diversification into groceries (Whole Foods) brought new operational challenges. I now better understand how to evaluate whether a diversification strategy aligns with the firm’s strengths and can suggest strategic actions that mitigate the risks of unrelated diversification.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I want to learn more about how companies effectively manage post-merger integration to maximize synergies and avoid cultural clashes.
I learned that post-merger integration is important for determining whether mergers and acquisitions deliver expected value. I hope to learn more about how companies navigate the complexities of aligning cultures, systems, and operations after the merger. For example, the merger of Kraft and Heinz highlighted the importance of maintaining operational efficiency while managing cultural differences. By understanding successful PMI strategies, I hope to better grasp how firms can mitigate integration risks and achieve smoother transitions which ultimately helps sustain competitive advantages.

2. I want to learn more about the Build-Borrow-Buy framework, specifically how firms assess resource gaps and make decisions regarding internal development versus acquisitions.
I learned that the Build-Borrow-Buy framework provides a structured approach for firms to decide whether to build capabilities internally, form strategic alliances, or acquire another company to bridge resource gaps. I want to learn more about the real-world application of this framework such as in industries where rapid technological change forces companies to constantly assess their competitive positions. For example, Meta has made several acquisitions such as Instagram and WhatsApp to enhance its capabilities and expand its ecosystem. By studying this framework more thoroughly, I hope to understand how firms determine the best strategic growth option based on their existing resources and competitive landscape.

3. I want to learn more about the concept of related and unrelated diversification strategies and how companies balance risk and reward in these approaches. I hope to learn more about how firms decide between related diversification (leveraging existing competencies in new markets) and unrelated diversification (entering entirely new industries). For example, Amazon's expansion from e-commerce into cloud computing (Amazon Web Services) shows the potential for related diversification to unlock significant value. Conversely, conglomerates like Berkshire Hathaway showcase how unrelated diversification can also be effective. As such, learning more about these strategies will allow me to understand how firms manage risk, allocate resources, and create synergies in diverse industries.

# data[].attributes.body
One key takeaway is the build-borrow-buy framework. I learnt that a firm has to make evaluation on its strength, weakness as well as the resource they are trying to acquire before it can make the best decision to integrate or buy over the resource.

# data[].attributes.body
Before class, I thought that vertical integration was a firm seeing through the entire end-to-end supply chain. I did not know that firms can choose to forward and backward integrate. It is interesting to find out that there are different profit potential on the different stages of supply chain and firms can position themselves accordingly to achieve highest profits.

# data[].attributes.body
With my new knowledge on the build-borrow-buy framework, I can better analyse if a firm should build the resources internally, join a strategic alliance or buy over the resources.

# data[].attributes.body
One takeaway is that vertical integration and horizontal diversification appear to aid the firm's growth and performance, however there are many risks and considerations associated which firms need to take into account before pursuing such ventures. Alternatives to vertical integration such as strategic outsourcing should be considered to balancing the risk of owning stages of the value chain removed from its core competency. Horizontal diversification similarly carries the appeal of expanding the business, however, the firm must examine the nature of the diversified business units and how closely related they are to its core competencies. Unrelated diversification tends to perform poorer compared to related diversification strategies. Thus, the firm needs to consider whether it can manage additional business units according to its strengths.

# data[].attributes.body
I used to perceive vertical integration as a good albeit difficult to execute strategy. However, it carries many risks, such as the potential for legal repercussions. The firm may end up spreading itself too thin as a result of attempting to acquire more ownership over the value chain. Taper integration helps balance the pursuit of vertical integration and outsourcing to external markets, to maximise the benefits of vertical integration while managing risk.

# data[].attributes.body
I learned that a simple decision like make or buy has a huge impact on businesses and it opportunities. A company would have to consider many factors before coming to a decision of whether they should invest in making a capability themself or acquiring such capabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
I can use the core competence market matrix to assess whether the firm's diversification strategy involves an existing/new core competency in an existing/new market. From there, I can analyse the risk and feasibility involved in its diversification.

# data[].attributes.body
Are there some materials in understanding how do we handle M&A's like what would companies look out for when they are approaching such deals? i.e when UBS & CS first merged what are some of the key things to manage?

# data[].attributes.body
I want to learn case studies of why companies might decide to build new core competencies in new markets, in spite of possible risks involved, and what they did to succeed in this new diversification venture.

# data[].attributes.body
I learnt that it is important for a firm to be able to identify resource gaps. I think after going through the frameworks such as Build-Borrow-Buy, this step affects the decisions made significantly.

# data[].attributes.body
I was surprised that M&As are the last resort for companies. I did not consider the complexities of the mergers such as culture, operations etc. Previously, I just thought mergers were a tool for firms to gain more power over their (potential) competitors.

# data[].attributes.body
When news of mergers pop up on the news, I can try to anticipate why this decision was made now that I know that it's the last resort.

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to learn more about thought process behind making the decisions for build-buy-borrow.

# data[].attributes.body
One major insight to learning about the core competence market mix is the importance of aligning this with market opportunities. the matrix emphasises that businesses should leverage their strengths to develop specific markets and allocate their resources more effectively. This alignment would help to enhance their competitive advantage.

Another takeaway from this lesson was the significance of horizontal integration through diversification to enhance the company's competitive position. By expanding its market reach and reducing reliance on a single product or service line, a business can create economies of scale, increase market share and leverage existing capabilities across a broader portfolio of offerings.

# data[].attributes.body
Understanding these frameworks helps me to analyse and identify core competencies and market strategies better. the core competency market matrix would help me better understand the goal of the company and which type of market and customer to target. Understanding diversification also helps me understand how a company can identify potential partnerships that align with their strategic goals to expand their capabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
It would be interesting to learn more about how a company goes about reaching out to their potential partners or acquisition targets for their growth and expansion to improve their businesses effectively and grow their organisation

# data[].attributes.body
I learnt about assessing the core competencies quadrant and how we can assess the business's strategy and the impact of it on whether it pertains more to strengthening their current market position or venturing into a new market.  I felt that the quadrants had many overlaps - a buisness strategy could be seen as adopting more than 1 quadrant, as per the class discussion where some of us felt that the Acquisition of belkin was improving the current market position due to it targeting the same product vs how some felt it was competing in a new market due to how it was more of in the retail space.

I also learnt about the value creation analysis and costs that come with vertical integration, related diversification and unrelated diversification.  This helped me to better understand why businesses made certain decision to vertically integrate etc.  The class discussion also taught me about how different risk appetites determine which strategies one would take - where one with higher risk appetite would consider an entrance for Foxconn into the EV market (new market) while one with lower risk appetite would consider Foxconn to continue leveraging and improving existing core competencies to protect current market position

# data[].attributes.body
I was surprised to learn about how m&a should be a company's last resort after trying to build and conduct internal development, conduct strategic alliance and partnerships via the build-borrow-buy framework.  I realised I have always overlooked the post-acquisition period - where the most painful part of m&a occurs not during but instead after, in getting companies to generate synergies and overcome integration failure, and being able to combine core competencies or ensure they work well with each other. That taught me that a successful m&a is not one that is able to happen, but rather one that is able to generate synergies and create valu ein the long run

# data[].attributes.body
I can use the build-buy-borrow as well as the BCG growth share mix to assess whether a company should further develop existing core competencies, or harvest them if they are not profitable, or redevelop/combine them to create new value proposition or enter a new market. I felt that this was a very useful framework in allowing one to view the long term profitability behind its core competency and thus reap sustainable competitive advantage

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to learn more about hostile takeovers and whether it is more difficult for companies to establish synergies due to the nature of the takeover and whether it differs from the analysis for m&as in general

# data[].attributes.body
A key takeaway from the session would be the need for firms to identify their boundaries, which can be predicted using transaction costs.

Another takeaway would be that recommendations for actions a firm should take depends on the risk appetite of the firm. For instance, for the Foxconn discussion, depending on their risk appetite, they can choose to diversify into EVs if they are high risk averse, but if they are low risk averse, they would choose to avoid diversifying into EV and stick with TVs and manufacturing other products, which they are familiar with.

# data[].attributes.body
I had always thought that successful businesses are those that can diversify as it shows that they have the capability to do so. Through this lesson, I learnt that a company's performance can be affected by diversification as well. For instance, if managers decided to go with single business and unrelated diversification, they can expect to have lower performance as compared to the other levels of diversification, such as dominant business and related diversification.

# data[].attributes.body
Now that I have learnt about the build-borrow-buy framework, I can now better consider what a firm should do to grow through their strategic resource gap's relevance, tradability, closeness and integration.

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to know more about the make-or-buy continuum as it seems to be slightly similar to the build-borrow-buy framework.

# data[].attributes.body
My first takeaway is the alternatives on the Make-or-Buy Continuum. I always knew that if the cost of producing is lower than the cost of purchasing, firms should produce inputs internally. However, I never thought much of partnering with other firms to make the transition easier

My second takeaway is the difference between corporate strategy and business strategy. While business strategy focuses on establishing competitive advantage over its rivals through cost/differentiation leadership, I feel like corporate strategy is more towards resource allocation in deciding whether to vertically integrate, horizontally diversify, and the geographic scope of the business

# data[].attributes.body
One thing that was surprising to me was firms can choose to vertically integrate in sectors that are not chronologically beside each other. For example, Apple chose to focus on positioning itself on the R&D and Marketing & Sales stages, while lowering presence in manufacturing. Previously, I had thought firms should only decide to vertically integrate forward or backward into stages that are chronologically beside where there are situated at

# data[].attributes.body
1 takeaway would be that M&A or acquiring a company should be a last step or resort as seen from the Build-Borrow-Buy framework and that majority of mergers and acquisitions fail.

# data[].attributes.body
these knowledge will be useful in entrepreneurship, where you can decide the scale, product range , and geographic location

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to know more about the thought process of deciding which type of strategic alliances do firms enter into

# data[].attributes.body
In this session, I gained a deeper understanding of the Build-Borrow-Buy framework—a strategic model that helps firms evaluate and choose among different growth paths. The framework guides firms in deciding whether to develop capabilities internally ("Build"), form partnerships or alliances ("Borrow"), or acquire another company ("Buy"). Selecting the optimal path involves assessing factors such as the relevance of existing resources, the ease of trading or accessing needed resources externally, and the degree of integration required for success.

# data[].attributes.body
I was surprised to learn about the high failure rate of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), as many do not create competitive advantage and often lead to losses in shareholder value. Even more intriguing was discovering that the post-M&A phase can be even more challenging than the acquisition process itself, as firms face significant stress in integrating cultures, systems, and strategies to realize the anticipated synergies.

# data[].attributes.body
It would be fascinating to dive deeper into the M&A world, especially given that so many of my friends view it as an intriguing exit opportunity after roles in banking or consulting. Exploring M&A in depth could shed light on the skills and strategies that make M&A professionals successful, as well as the nuances of post-merger integration, value creation, and navigating the complex challenges that often arise. This deeper understanding would be valuable not only for assessing career opportunities but also for gaining insights into the high-stakes decisions that drive corporate growth and transformation.

# data[].attributes.body
I will use the Build-Borrow-Buy framework as a lens to evaluate growth strategies, whether for your projects, teams, or future business endeavors. Additionally, I can practice analyzing the relevance of internal resources, potential partnership benefits, and when an acquisition might offer the strongest advantage with this framework.

# data[].attributes.body
It would be interesting to dive deeper into the “post-formation alliance management” phase, especially in understanding how to cultivate trust and align interests. This is essential, as effective management can transform alliances into long-term sources of competitive advantage - especially for our class example of UBS - Credit Suisse.

# data[].attributes.body
The key takeaway for me was the importance of identifying resource gaps in a firm and whether said gap should be addressed by the firm itself via in-house manufacturing of components as an example, or whether said components should be outsourced from an external supplier. Furthermore, I feel that the importance of making such a decision was itself another key takeaway, and managers should weigh the possibilities of each choice against each other carefully before such a decision is made, as making the wrong choice could potentially result in making strategic commitments into an inefficient choice which would be difficult to back out of.

# data[].attributes.body
I was rather surprised that there was a fairly wide spectrum of choices along the make-buy continuum, as I had presumed that it usually simply boiled down to 'make it yourself' or 'buy it from someone else'. In particular, I had never even heard of 'equity alliances' prior to this class.