INB 356 SME Management
Post-seminar reflection – week 3
In week three we were introduced to different models/theories of companies’ growth and the different factors that separate the fast growing SMEs from the rest. In addition, we completed the 1st part of this assignment (applying two models to the case-study; growing pains). Following this is our reflection on the knowledge we gained during the discussion on Friday’s session.
Although we have analysed many important and accurate aspects of the case study, we have realised that there are some issues that need some revision. In the following part we will look into some additional point of views on the case-study. We will revise our views on both Churchill and Mintzberg, look more into the accuracy of each one, as well as clarify some assumptions mentioned in our pre-seminar analysis.
- During the in-class discussion of Churchill we realized that there are a couple of arguments which should have been taken into account during our pre-seminar report, as there seemed to be a general disagreement of what exact phase Softhouse is positioned within at the time the case-study was written. To be able to find Softhouse’s key problems and thereby make recommendations, we find it vital to decide on what phase they are positioned within, as this model recommends different solutions and advice for each phase.
Based on the information from the case-study it seems clear to us that Softhouse’s key problems occurs within phase three of Churchill’s model. Phase three is concerned with the issues that arise when SMEs enter the phase of stabilization and profitability. Softhouse is the market leader within this sector, and maintains their position due to their competitive advantage – being innovative, efficient and flexible.