It's a war game between Oxford and Cambridge MBAs | The Financial
24 April, 2012
The FINANCIAL -- On 30 April 2012 MBA students from Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge and Saïd Business School, University of Oxford will be battling against each other in a strategic ‘War Game’ in the battle for ‘Designer Foods’ – Who will win, big pharma or consumer goods?
Rivalry between pharmaceutical and food companies and their nutritional products has created a ‘nutraceutical’ market which is defying the current global economic downturn. Some analysts argue that is because consumers are turning to these super foods with medicinal properties as a means of improving their health, potentially reducing society’s overall healthcare costs.
According to Saïd Business School, over the next decade, Nestlé plans to invest over half a billion dollars towards creating a stand-alone health science business and similarly, over the last 10 years, Danone has its portfolio on nutrition giving it a decisive stronghold in the areas of health and nutrition. GSK has successfully launched several of its nutritional beverage products in China and India, adding significant revenue growth to its consumer business and Abbott is also likely to expand its consumer products portfolio.
Representing these four well-known global food and pharmaceutical companies; Abbott Nutrition, Danone, GSK Consumer Healthcare and Nestlé Health Science, two sets of MBA students from each School will take part in ‘The Battle for Designer Foods’.
Set to take place at Saïd Business School, the strategy event has been organised and sponsored by research and consulting firm, Fuld & Company, who runs war games for FTSE 100 and Fortune 1000 companies around the globe, and who will facilitate the game.
The aim is to help the students understand a company’s competitive situation, anticipate competitor actions, predict likely marketplace reactions, evaluate strategy, make successful decisions and avoid costly mis-steps. Each team will develop a competitive strategy for the company they are representing to present to the other three teams, who will have the opportunity to provide crucial analysis and critique. The teams, who are allowed to talk to each other and negotiate deals, will return to the forum to present and critique each other’s final strategies.
FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://finchannel.com/Main_News/B_Schools/107922_It's_a_war_game_between_Oxford_and_Cambridge_MBAs_/
For more articles and blog posts about the upcoming UK war game:
Battle of the Blues | The Times of India
April 19, 2012
MBA students from Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge and Said Business School, University of Oxford will battle each other in a strategic war game, 'Designer Foods - Who will win, big pharma or consumer goods?' on April 30.
Rivalry between pharmaceutical and food companies and their nutritional products has created a 'nutraceutical' market which is defying the current global economic downturn. Some analysts argue that is because consumers are turning to these super foods with medicinal properties as a means of improving their health, potentially reducing society's overall healthcare costs. Representing the four well-known global food and pharmaceutical companies - Abbott Nutrition, Danone, GSK Consumer Healthcare and Nestle Health Science, two sets of MBA students from each School will take part in 'The Battle for Designer Foods'.
The aim is to help the students understand a company's competitive situation, anticipate competitor actions, predict likely marketplace reactions, evaluate strategy, make successful decisions and avoid costly mis-steps. Each team will develop a competitive strategy for the company they are representing to present to the other three teams, who will have the opportunity to provide crucial analysis and critique. The teams, who are allowed to talk to each other and negotiate deals, will return to the forum to present and critique each other's final strategies.
Full Article Here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/Battle-of-the-Blues/articleshow/12727523.cms
For more Fuld & Company blog posts on war games, click here:
Oxford and Cambridge battle it out in the boardroom | Financial TimesApril 13, 2012 | By Della Bradshaw
At the end of this month four MBA teams, two from Oxford’s Saïd business school and two from the Judge at Cambridge, will pit their wits in a business strategy competition around designer foods. The “war game”, as it is dubbed, is a role-playing exercise in which two teams will each create a strategy for two different food companies and two more will do the same for pharmaceutical companies. The aim is to discover which type of company will win the battle for the increasingly fashionable sector of ‘nutraceuticals’.
The four companies involved in the competition will be Abbott Nutrition, Danone, GSK Consumer Healthcare and Nestlé Health Science, and senior representatives from the four companies will be there to help evaluate the strategies developed for their companies by the student teams.
The student teams, each with up to 10 participants, will be allocated their company randomly on the day, says Leonard Fuld, president of consultancy Fuld and Company, which organises these War Games for corporations and business schools. In recent years teams from US business schools such as Harvard, MIT, Wharton and Kellogg (see photo) have participated in these challenges.FULL ARTICLE
: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/364f1a8c-854d-11e1-a394-00144feab49a.htmlMORE WAR GAME BLOG POSTS:
“The Battle for Designer Foods”
“Nestlé aims to become the leader in health science nutrition in 10 years, extending its dominance beyond coffee, powdered milk and baby food. The Swiss maker of KitKat chocolate bars says Nestlé Health Science’s products will help treat or prevent conditions such as high blood pressure and obesity” Bloomberg Business, December 20, 2010
On April 30 2012 MBA students at Oxford and Cambridge will go head to head in Oxford in a ‘war game’ to try to predict which side will win in the battle for designer foods – big pharma or consumer goods?
One of the judges, Andrew Lake, managing director of Solaris Health, a medical communications agency says ‘‘When food manufacturers go head-to-head with the pharmaceutical industry, the outcome is far from a foregone conclusion. One business sector is exceptionally talented at communicating directly with consumers, the other has unrivalled skills in the generation of robust evidence and communication to the healthcare profession.
“The battle ground will be (in my opinion) one of consumer branding versus healthcare recommendation and health branding. “
Leonard Fuld, founder of Fuld & Company who devised this war game and will be facilitating it describes the scene as follows: The nutraceuticals market continues to be hot despite the global economic downturn. The market, which includes nutritionally-enhanced foods and beverages as well as supplements, is expected to exceed 200 billion euro by 2015, driven by consumer demand, and demographic and health trends around the world. Nutritional products are targeting heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, obesity, and other conditions which are all increasing in the developed world.
This global opportunity is naturally receiving considerable attention from multinational food companies and the drug industry. In October 2010, Swiss food giant Nestlé announced its plans to invest over half a billion dollars in the next decade towards creating a stand-alone health science business to “pioneer a new industry between food and Pharma.” Nestlé is looking to leverage its existing multi-billion dollar nutrition business which includes brands such as Gerber, PowerBar, and Jenny Craig.
Similarly, over the last decade Danone has refocused its portfolio on nutrition, including its 13 billion euro purchase of Royal Numico, a leader in infant and clinical nutrition products. This deal, along with its blockbuster Activia probiotic yogurt, gives Danone a decisive stronghold in the areas of health and nutrition.
But can the food companies compete against the pharmaceutical companies, some of which are moving back into the over-the-counter medicines market, including the nutraceutical business? Pharma companies, looking for growth opportunities as drug patents expire, may be better-equipped to endure the costly and time-consuming clinical trials for products. GSK Consumer Healthcare, a leader in vitamins and other nutritional supplements, has successfully launched several of its nutritional beverage products, including Lucozade and Horlicks, in China and India, adding significant revenue growth to GSK’s consumer business. Other major Pharma players, such as Abbott Nutrition, with has leading nutrition brands
including Similac, Ensure, Pedialyte, and ZonePerfect, are also likely to expand their consumer products portfolio. So which industry – food or pharmaceuticals – and which companies are best-positioned to win “The Battle for Designer Foods?” The Oxford and Cambridge student teams from the country’s leading business schools will take on the identities of executives from Abbott, Danone, GSK, and Nestlé – several of the behemoths vying for this market.
Kraft Foods’ Senior Vice President, Research and Nutrition, Dr Todd Abraham, says ‘Having served previously as a judge for Fuld and Company’s war games, I have seen the value a war game brings to the companies involved. It forces companies to strategize about alternative scenarios and be better prepared for the future as the dynamic competitive environment continues to change.
‘In the growing nutrition and consumer wellbeing space, the overlap between foods and supplements or even drugs continue to get blurred. This allows companies firmly planted in the food industry to anticipate competitive threats from sources not usually considered. Competitive intelligence – anticipating what others may do based on publicly available information – is critical to preparing for the future and identifying areas where advanced scientific and business exploration should target.’
War Games - The Rules of Engagement
A strategy or war game is an enlightening and engaging analytical exercise that can lead to truly creative strategies. Here is how it will work:
Two sets of student teams from Oxford (Said) and Cambridge (Judge) will represent Abbott, Danone, GSK, and Nestlé. Each team will create a picture of the company it represents and develop strategic options it expects to pursue. They will then present its company’s marketing strategy. The teams will have an opportunity to analyse and critique each other’s strategies. In the process, each team will see that its strategy could be tweaked to overcome shortcomings revealed in the discussion.
Based on what each team learns about its own strategy and the likely strategies of its competitors, the teams will go back into breakout sessions, refine their strategies, and come back for a second round of presentations and critiques.
The facilitators will then offer up a fictional but plausible surprise event for the teams to consider. The teams will repeat the process of developing their responses to the event. Now, though, the teams can talk to each other, if they wish, and negotiate deals. The teams will return again to the forum to present and critique each other’s strategies.
Following each presentation, judges will rate team performance. Judges will add a final presentation score to the points already accumulated in previous rounds to award the winning team its prize of £3,000, to be distributed among its members.
The War Game Challenge “The Battle for Designer Foods”
Copyright © 2012 | Fuld & Company | Boston | London | Manila | www.fuld.com
As the industry experiences a myriad of new pressures, many of its tried-and-true business practices are shifting to meet new challenges, and the world of competitive intelligence (CI) is no exception. Some in the industry are predicting that not only will CI soon be defined differently, but its role and influence are also evolving. The pervasiveness of online data and new tools that help collect information may open up many opportunities for competitive intelligence, but make no mistake, our experts say, these factors also complicate matters. The constant evaluation of the vast amount of competitive market information requires new, complex methods and planning, or companies may put themselves at risk of making poor decisions. Our experts say to meet these changes, it is important to understand the difference between competitive intelligence and competitive strategy, to recognize the changes that need to be made, and to meet the new challenges.
Below our experts in the field of CI discuss these points.
CI and CS Defined
1. CI is information; CS is what you do with the data
2. The lines are blurring between CI and CS
3. Both CI and CS are crucial for effective planning
LEONARD FULD. FULD & COMPANY. Competitive intelligence and competitive strategy have evolved and are merging, becoming a complementary set, rather than a Darwinian story of one concept surviving over the other. Competitive strategy today cannot succeed without good intelligence and good intelligence holds little meaning without strategic context. When CI began it was mostly about finding a good source of information in a timely manner. Today, fresh, unique information is still critical, and that need will never go away — just ask folks working the trading desks on Wall Street. Top strategy consulting houses all include CI in their portfolio of services. And often, consultants and the practitioners within large corporations facilitate war games and other strategy events to allow the executives to thoroughly argue through critical decisions. These events blend strategy with competitive intelligence. They become one and the same: a way to inform management and move the strategic question ahead. DAO VO. PHARMAVOXX. While it depends on the organization, most CI groups are likely providing something in between competitive intelligence and competitive strategy. CI answers the question of what is happening in the market. It’s the gathering and synthesis of data to answer specific key intelligence questions. Good CI groups go further by answering the question of so what. They gather the data, consider the sources, report the intelligence, and draw conclusions and implications from the intelligence that might identify threats, opportunities, or topics needing further monitoring. Competitive strategy takes this one step further by offering actionable recommendations. For example, if the identified threat is that a competitor will be launching a new messaging campaign highlighting a specific differentiating efficacy message, the recommendation would include a specific action plan to blunt the effect of that new positioning. Competitive strategy is an extension of competitive intelligence rather than different functions.
Full Article: http://www.pharmavoice.com/content/digitaledition.html?pg=10