波士顿经典分析案例(英文)

合集下载

波士顿矩阵分析法

波士顿矩阵分析法各位读友大家好，此文档由网络收集而来，欢迎您下载，谢谢波士顿矩阵分析法波士顿矩阵分析法波士顿矩阵是由波士顿咨询集团(Boston Consulting Group, BCG)在上世纪70年代初开发的。

BCG矩阵将组织的每一个战略事业单位标在一种2维的矩阵图上，从而显示出哪个战略事业单位提供高额的潜在收益，以及哪个战略事业单位是组织资源的漏斗。

BCG矩阵的发明者、波士顿公司的创立者布鲁斯认为“公司若要取得成功，就必须拥有增长率和市场分额各不相同的产品组合。

组合的构成取决于现金流量的平衡。

”波士顿矩阵通过市场增长率和市场占有率两个维度对业务单位进行分析• 横坐标表示相对市场份额，表示各项业务或产品的市场占有率和该市场最大竞争者的市场占有率之比。

比值为1就表示此项业务是该市场的领先者。

• 纵坐标为市场成长率，表明各项业务的年销售增长率。

具体坐标值可以根据行业的整体增长而定；• 图中圆圈表示企业现有的各项不同的业务或产品，圆圈的大小表示它们销售额的大小，圆圈的位置表示它们的成长率和相对市场份额所处的地位。

通过分析不同的业务单位在矩阵中的不同位置可以将业务单位分解为出4种业务组合。

问题型业务处在这个位置中的是一些投机性产品，带有较大的风险。

这些产品可能利润率很高，但占有的市场份额很小。

这通常是一个公司的新业务，为发展问题业务，公司必须建立工厂，增加设备和人员，以便跟上迅速发展的市场，并超过竞争对手，这些意味着大量的资金投入。

“问题”非常贴切地描述了公司对待这类业务的态度，因为这时公司必须慎重回答“是否继续投资，发展该业务？”这个问题。

只有那些符合企业发展长远目标、企业具有资源优势、能够增强企业核心竞争力的业务才得到肯定的回答。

得到肯定回答的问题型业务适合于采用战略框架中提到的增长战略，目的是扩大SBUs的市场份额，甚至不惜放弃近期收入来达到这一目标，因为要问题型要发展成为明星型业务，其市场份额必须有较大的增长。

波士顿咨询BCG案例3

OverviewActively listen to the caseYour client is a U.S. defense contractor that manufactures the Mohawk Light Fighter Jet for the British Royal Air Force. The company has produced the $20 million fighter jet for the past 12 years. The British government has decided to put the contract out to bid, however, and to win the program, the client's purchasing agents have estimated, the company will need to cut its costs by 5 percent. It has asked BCG to help it reduce costs.ClarifyEstablish understanding of the caseLet me first clarify the question. The client manufactures a $20 million jet and, because of competitive forces, has to reduce its cost by 5 percent. Is BCG's role also to verify the purchasing department's estimate?No, you can assume that the purchasing estimate is correct. BCG's role is to find the cost savings to meet that estimate.Could I take a few minutes to think about the case?Sure, please do so.ApproachSet up the frameworkFirst, I would like to understand the cost structure of the jet to see what we should look at first. Next, I would like to look at major factors driving the costs we are targeting. Finally, I would like to explore potential ideas to reduce cost. That sounds like a very logical approach. Let's proceed.EvaluateEvaluate the case using the frameworkBecause the time for the interview is limited, I think we should try to identify those areas most responsible for the cost of the jet.Time is limited on real projects as well, so I think that would be a good idea! Yo u have the following cost information for the jet. How would you interpret it?The major cost driver for the jet appears to be purchased materials. Within manufacturing, direct labor is a fairly large component of cost, as are program management and corporate overhead within overhead. I think we would want to concentrate most on materials, however, since that's where most of the costs can be found.That sounds like a good place to start. Where would you look within materials?I see that materials are broken down into purchased subassemblies, components, and raw materials. I understand what raw materials would be, but what would be the difference between components and subassemblies?A subassembly functions on its own. An example is the pilot night vision system. A component is a smaller part, such as a part of the engine.I know that governmental agencies often have very strict guidelines about purchasing that could affect the cost of materials.For the sake of this case, you can assume that the British Ministry of Defense, MOD, allows "commercial off-the-shelf" purchases, which means that the client is free to purchase from whomever it wants, as long as it can ensure that the parts meet MOD quality guidelines.I see that purchased subassemblies comprise more than 70 percent of materials. How many suppliers are there for these subassemblies?There are seven suppliers of major subassemblies that go into the fighter jet.That seems like a relatively small number. Are there more suppliers that are qualified to do this type of work?The manufacture of these parts requires a substantial investment in R&D, engineering, and infrastructure. It would be very costly for new suppliers to make the required investment, particularly if the client is trying to reduce the price it pays to the subassembly manufacturers.Since there are only a few subassembly suppliers, and the investment hurdle would preclude bringing in competing manufacturers, it would be difficult to reduce the price paid. Perhaps we should look elsewhere for savings.But remember, if your client loses the contract, it will lose its customer unless it is teamed with the competing bidder. Even then, if the competitor is underbidding your client, there will be even less room for it to profit.Perhaps it would have an incentive to reduce its costs in order to maintain the contract. Are the majority of its costs in materials as well?How could you find that out?I would want to interview the purchasing and engineering personnel of the different subcontractors in order to understand their cost structures. If we had a better understanding of their economics, our client might be able to reduce cost across the board, allowing it to compete more effectively for the contract without killing everyone's margins.Let's say that purchased materials average approximately 70 percent of the price paid to most of the manufacturers.If the cost of subassemblies represents 40 percent of the jet cost and 70 percent of that is purchased materials, total purchased materials would be approximately 28 percent of the jet cost subassemblies. Purchases of raw materials and components represent another 15 percent, for a total of around 43 percent of the cost of the jet. If our client could reduce the cost of raw materials by 20 percent, it could reduce the cost of the jet by more than 8 percent, more than enough to offset the 5 percent reduction it would need to win the contract.That sounds reasonable, but 20 percent is a very lofty goal. How would you go about doing that?First, I would look at the number of suppliers. Are there a large number of suppliers to the subassembly manufacturers?The client estimates that there are approximately 125 suppliers of raw materials and components among the manufacturers of the subassemblies and itself.Well, that sounds like a large number of suppliers. Of course, they could be providing very specialized materials to the subassembly manufacturers. Are these suppliers providing customized or more commodity products?About 80 percent of these products are commodities, such as sheet metal and wire harnesses. Even some of the electronics, such as printed wire boards and circuitry, are fairly generic.That sounds promising, but I would need to know whether these commodities are interchangeable, so that our client could concentrate spending with fewer suppliers. Are there many commonalities among the parts used by the different subassembly manufacturers? We could talk to their engineers and look at the designs and bills of material to determine how much overlap there is.Let's say that you did this and discovered that approximately 30 percent of the cost of raw materials is from similar materials used across the subassembly manufacturers.It seems safe to assume that the client would need more commonality to be successful in concentrating its purchasing and reducing costs. Do the engineers believe that the percentage of overlap could be increased if the designs were modified?They believe they could increase that percentage substantially, particularly with basic materials such as screws and sheet metal, but also in other more customized areas.That's great news, but we would still need to know whether the subcontractors are using the same suppliers. We could analyze the number of suppliers for each of the areas of overlap.Good suggestion. Although there are some common suppliers, the analysis indicates that the subassembly manufacturers tend to use different suppliers. RecommendSummarize and make recommendationsOur client needs to reduce costs by 5 percent. The largest area of opportunity appears to be in purchased materials, the majority of which comprise subassemblies manufactured by seven subcontractors. By looking at its purchases in total, the client can target approximately 40 percent of costs. To achieve the 5 percent cost reduction, it would need to reduce costs by 15 to 20 percent. It could try to do that by increasing commonality in the design of the subassemblies and components and by shifting volume to a smaller number of suppliers.Considering that the majority of the raw materials and components are purchased commodities, do you think the 15-20 percent cost reduction is achievable?Well, I know that raw materials and components typically have lower margins than more customized products. I suspect it may be challenging to hit the client's savings target by focusing only on these purchases. But since raw materials and components represent about 40 percent of costs and there is an opportunity to concentrate purchasing, I think we should start here.Where else could you look for savings?If I look back at the cost data on the jet, direct labor is another large cost component. As a contingency, we could look into that area as well. I've read that other companies use outsourcing to lower their manufacturing costs, perhaps our client could do the same.For example, it might want to increase its use of purchased subassemblies and reduce the amount of direct manufacturing it does. Of course this would work only if it could drive direct labor costs below the offsetting cost of these subassemblies. The client will be working closely with the subassembly suppliers to implement its purchasing initiative. This may give it an opportunity to explore the suppliers' capabilities at the same time.That's an interesting suggestion. How would you recommend the company pursue both of the initiatives you have discussed?I would look first to combine purchases across the subassembly suppliers with our client's purchases. I suspect that the client and the subassembly suppliers will need to share a great deal of information, including engineering drawings and specifications, with potential suppliers of the raw materials and components.The Internet could prove to be a very effective medium for forming a single "virtual" purchasing department to consolidate both the flow of information and purchase orders across the companies. Our client might also want to use a bidding system for those materials that are true commodities.Next, I would turn to the engineering departments and form cross-company teams to look for areas to increase commonality of design. At the same time, those teams could explore opportunities to use more purchased subassemblies and decrease the client's direct labor costs.That sounds great, and is very similar to a project we did. I would caution you, however, to examine the upfront costs involved in your recommendations, both for the redesign and for the implementation of the purchasing system, before going ahead.。

(完整版)公园案例分析

纽约中央公园(Central Park)南起59街，北抵 110街，东西两侧被著名的第五大道和中央公园西大道所围合，中央公园名副其实地坐落在纽约曼哈顿岛的中央。340公顷的宏大面积使她与自由女神、帝国大厦等同为纽约乃至美国的象征。
BPRaErAkD APPaTnaDlEySsIiGsN
纽约中央公园（NewYork Central Park）
BPRaErAkD APPaTnaDlEySsIiGsN
纽约中央公园（NewYork Central Park）
中央公园四周有低矮围墙。大门在南端，全园四周有许多随意出入口，园外两侧交通十分便利。在当时为方便游人乘马车、骑马和步行来园，他们充分利用地形层次变化设计了车道、马道、和游步道系统，各自分流，在相互穿越时利用桥涵解决。瓦克斯设计的桥梁没有一个重复。为不防碍景观，涵洞多置在低洼处，用植物巧妙地加以隐蔽。公园内部道路网的组织考虑到能均匀地疏散游人，使游人一进园就能沿着各种道路很快达到自己理想的场所。直到现在，中央公园的交通网络基本上还保留了原来的框架。
拉斯科溜冰场 Lasker Rink
BPRaErAkD APPaTnaDlEySsIiGsN
纽约中央公园（NewYork Central Park）
北部草原 North Meadow
BPRaErAkD APPaTnaDlEySsIiGsN
纽约中央公园（NewYork Central Park）
网球场 Tennis Courts
眺望台城堡 Belvedere Castle
BPRaErAkD APPaTnaDlEySsIiGsN
纽约中央公园（NewYork Central Park）
这片保护水域 (Conservatory Water) 以“模型船池塘”闻名，春天至秋天的星期六早上10 点，这里会举行模型船比赛，比赛地点位于新文艺复兴风格的水坝前，这座水域北部有一座爱丽斯梦游仙境的雕像，这是出版家乔治 · 戴拉寇克 (George Delacorte) 为了纪念爱妻出资建立的，爱丽斯与疯帽人 (Mad Hatter) 坐在一个巨大的蘑菇上，还有猫与兔子，小孩子可以在这个区域游玩，湖的西面有丹麦小说家安徒生的塑像，还有一只丑小鸭蹲在他脚下，夏天的周末则有说故事的人在这里为小朋友们朗读故事书。

公司波士顿矩阵分析案例

Thank you
对这一象限内的大多数产品，市场占有率的下跌已成不可阻挡之势，因此可采用收获战略：即所投入资源以达到短期收益最大化为限。
①把设备投资和其它投资尽量压缩；
②采用榨油式方法，争取在短时间内获取更多利润，为其它产品提供资金。对于这一象限内的销售增长率仍有所增长的产品，应进一步进行市场细分，维持现存市场增长率或延缓其下降速度。对于现金牛产品，适合于用事业部制进行管理，其经营者最好是市场营销型人物。
采用的发展战略是：积极扩大经济规模和市场机会，以长远利益为目标，提高市场占有率，加强竞争地位。发展战略以投明星产品的管理与组织最好采用事业部形式，由对生产技术和销售两方面都很内行的经营者负责。
Cash cow （现金牛产品）
飘柔，海飞丝，潘婷——现金牛产品(cash cow)，又称厚利产品，处于低增长率、高市场占有率象限内的产品群，已进入成熟期。销售量大，产品利润率高、负债比率低，可以为企业提供资金，而且由于增长率低，也无需增大投资。因而成为企业回收资金，支持其它产品，尤其明星产品投资的后盾。
这类产品应采用撤退战略：
首先减少批量，逐渐撤退，对那些销售增长率和市场占有率均极低的产品应立即淘汰。
其次是将剩余资源向其它产品转移。
第三是整顿产品系列，最好将瘦狗产品与其它事业部合并，统一管理。
通过推出新品牌，新配方、开发新用途、以及增加新特性，使产品进入衰退期时
兼并伊卡璐 ————多品牌策略的终极目标
处于高增长率、低市场占有率象限内的产品群。前者说明市场机会大，前景好，而后者则说明在市场营销上存在问题。其财务特点是利润率较低，所需资金不足，负债比率高。例如在产品生命周期中处于引进期、因种种原因未能开拓市场局面的新产品即属此类问题的产品。

波士顿咨询BCG案例4

Your client is the largest discount retailer in Canada, with 500 stores spread throughout the country. Let's call it CanadaCo. For several years running, CanadaCo has surpassed the second-largest Canadian retailer (300 stores) in both relative market share and profitability. However, the largest discount retailer in the United States, USCo, has just bought out CanadaCo's competition and is planning to convert all 300 stores to USCo stores. The CEO of CanadaCo is quite perturbed by this turn of events, and asks you the following questions: Should I be worried? How should I react? How would you advise the CEO?ClarifyEstablish understanding of the caseSo, the client, CanadaCo, is facing competition in Canada from a United States competitor. Our task is to evaluate the extent of the threat and advise the client on a strategy. Before I can advise the CEO I need some more information about the situation. First of all, I'm not sure I understand what a discount retailer is!A discount retailer sells a large variety of consumer goods at discounted prices, generally carrying everything from housewares and appliances to clothing. Kmart, Woolworth, and Wal-Mart are prime examples in the United States.ApproachSet up the frameworkOh, I see. Then I think it makes sense to structure the problem this way: First,let's understand the competition in the Canadian market and how CanadaCo has become the market leader. Then let's look at the United States to understandhow USCo has achieved its position. At the end, we can merge the two discussions to understand whether USCo's strength in the United States is transferable to the Canadian market.That sounds fine. Let's start, then, with the Canadian discount retail market. What would you like to know?Evaluate the case using the frameworkAre CanadaCo's 500 stores close to the competition's 300 stores, or do they serve different geographic areas?The stores are located in similar geographic regions. In fact, you might even see a CanadaCo store on one corner, and the competition on the very next corner.Do CanadaCo and the competition sell a similar product mix?Yes. CanadaCo's stores tend to have a wider variety of brand names, but by and large, the product mix is similar.Are CanadaCo's prices significantly lower than the competition's?No. For certain items CanadaCo is less expensive, and for others the competition is less expensive, but the average price level is similar.Is CanadaCo more profitable just because it has more stores, or does it have higher profits per store?It actually has higher profits than the competition on a per-store basis.Well, higher profits could be the result of lower costs or higher revenues. Are the higher per-store profits due to lower costs than the competition's or the result of higher per-store sales?CanadaCo's cost structure isn't any lower than the competition's. Its higher per-store profits are due to higher per-store sales.Is that because it has bigger stores?No. CanadaCo's average store size is approximately the same as that of the competition.If they're selling similar products at similar prices in similarly-sized stores in similar locations, why are CanadaCo's per-store sales higher than the competition's?It's your job to figure that out!Is CanadaCo better managed than the competition?I don't know that CanadaCo as a company is necessarily better managed, but I can tell you that its management model for individual stores is significantly different.How so?The competitor's stores are centrally owned by the company, while CanadaCo uses a franchise model in which each individual store is owned and managed by a franchisee who has invested in the store and retains part of the profit.In that case, I would guess that the CanadaCo stores are probably better managed, since the individual storeowners have a greater incentive to maximize profit.You are exactly right. It turns out that CanadaCo's higher sales are due primarily to a significantly higher level of customer service. The stores are cleaner, more attractive, better stocked, and so on. The company discovered this through a series of customer surveys last year. I think you've sufficiently covered the Canadian market—let's move now to a discussion of the United States market.How many stores does USCo own in the United States, and how many does the second-largest discount retailer own?USCo owns 4,000 stores and the second-largest competitor owns approximately 1,000 stores.Are USCo stores bigger than those of the typical discount retailer in the United States?Yes. USCo stores average 200,000 square feet, whereas the typical discount retail store is approximately 100,000 square feet.Those numbers suggest that USCo should be selling roughly eight times the volume of the nearest United States competitor!Close. USCo's sales are approximately $5 billion, whereas the nearest competitor sells about $1 billion worth of merchandise.I would think that sales of that size give USCo significant clout with suppliers. Does it have a lower cost of goods than the competition?In fact, its cost of goods is approximately 15 percent less than that of the competition. So it probably has lower prices.Right again. Its prices are on average about ten percent lower than those of the competition.So it seems that USCo has been so successful primarily because it has lower prices than its competitors.That's partly right. Its success probably also has something to do with a larger selection of products, given the larger average store size.How did USCo get so much bigger than the competition?It started by building superstores in rural markets served mainly by mom-and-pop stores and small discount retailers. USCo bet that people would be willing to buy from it, and it was right. As it grew and developed more clout with suppliers, it began to buy out other discount retailers and convert their stores to the USCo format.So whenever USCo buys out a competing store, it also physically expands it?Not necessarily. Sometimes it does, but when I said it converts it to the USCo format, I meant that it carries the same brands at prices that are on average ten percent lower than the competition's.What criteria does USCo use in deciding whether it should physically expand a store it's just bought out?It depends on a lot of factors, such as the size of the existing store, local market competition, local real estate costs, and so on, but I don't think we need to go into that here.Well, I thought it might be relevant in terms of predicting what it will do with the 300 stores that it bought in Canada.Let's just assume that it doesn't plan to expand the Canadian stores beyond their current size.OK. I think I've learned enough about USCo. I'd like to ask a few questions about USCo's ability to succeed in the Canadian market. Does USCo have a strong brand name in Canada?No. Although members of the Canadian business community are certainly familiar with the company because of its United States success, the Canadian consumer is basically unaware of USCo's existence.Does CanadaCo carry products similar to USCo's, or does the Canadian consumer expect different products and brands than the United States discount retail consumer?The two companies carry similar products, although the CanadaCo stores lean more heavily toward Canadian suppliers.How much volume does CanadaCo actually sell?About $750 million worth of goods annually.Is there any reason to think that the costs of doing business for USCo will be higher in the Canadian market?Can you be more specific?I mean, for example, are labor or leasing costs higher in Canada than in the United States?Canada does have significantly higher labor costs, and I'm not sure about the costs of leasing space. What are you driving at?I was thinking that if there were a higher cost of doing business in Canada, perhaps USCo would have to charge higher prices than it does in the United States to cover its costs.That's probably true, but remember, CanadaCo must also cope with the same high labor costs. Can you think of additional costs incurred by USCo's Canadian operations that would not be incurred by CanadaCo?USCo might incur higher distribution costs than CanadaCo because it will have to ship product from its United States warehouses up to Canada.You are partially right. CanadaCo has the advantage in distribution costs, since its network spans less geographic area and it gets more products from Canadian suppliers. However, since CanadaCo continues to get a good deal of product from the United States, the actual advantage to CanadaCo is not great—only about two percent of overall costs.All this suggests that USCo will be able to retain a significant price advantage over CanadaCo's stores: if not ten percent, then at least seven to eight percent.I would agree with that conclusion.RecommendSummarize and make recommendationsI would tell the CEO the following: In the near term, you might be safe. Your stores have a much stronger brand name in Canada than USCo's, and they seem to be well managed. However, as consumers get used to seeing prices that are consistently seven to eight percent less at USCo, they will realize that shopping atUSCo means significant savings over the course of the year.Although some consumers will remain loyal out of habit or because of your high level of service, it is reasonable to expect the discount shopper to shop where prices are lowest. Moreover, over time your brand-name advantage will erode as USCo becomes more familiar to Canadian consumers. You certainly have to worry about losing significant share to USCo stores in the long term. You should probably do something about it now, before it's too late.Can you suggest possible strategies for CanadaCo?Maybe it can find ways to cut costs and make the organization more efficient, so it can keep prices low even if its cost of goods is higher.Anything else?It might consider instituting something like a frequent shopper program, where consumers accumulate points that entitle them to future discounts on merchandise.What might be a potential problem with that?Well, it might not be that cost-effective, since it would be rewarding a significant number of shoppers who would have continued to shop there anyway.Any other suggestions?CanadaCo might want to prepare a marketing or advertising campaign that highlights its high level of service. It might even institute a CanadaCo Service Guarantee that surpasses any guarantees offered by USCo.Assuming the only way to keep customers is through competitive pricing, is there anything CanadaCo can do to appear competitive to the consumer?It might want to consider offering fewer product lines, so that it can consolidate its buying power and negotiate prices with suppliers that are competitive with USCo's. It might lose some customers who want the variety of products that USCo has, but it may be able to retain the customer who is buying a limited array of items and is just looking for the best price.All of your suggestions are interesting, and you would want to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each in more detail before making any recommendations to the CEO.。

波士顿矩阵案例及习题

波士顿矩阵案例及习题1波士顿矩阵波士顿矩阵（BCG Matrix），又称市场增长率-相对市场份额矩阵、波士顿咨询集团法、四象限分析法、产品系列结构管理法等，是由美国著名的管理学家、波士顿咨询公司创始人布鲁斯·亨德森于1970年首创的一种用来分析和规划企业产品组合的方法。

这种方法以发展率和相对市场份额为坐标，将企业业务分为：明星业务、奶牛业务、瘦狗业务和问题业务四种。

这种方法的核心在于，要解决如何使企业的产品品种及其结构适合市场需求的变化，只有这样，企业的生产才有意义。

同时，如何将企业有限的资源有效地分配到合理的产品结构中去，以保证企业收益，是企业在激烈竞争中能否取胜的关键.它用来帮助管理层实现他们对多种产品的组合进行分析，以提高企业整体的财务业绩。

两个指标的计算：市场增长率＝（本期的销售额－上期的销售额）÷上期的销售额（高低分界点无绝对的标准）市场份额是指一个企业的产品或者服务在特定市场中的销售收入占所有在这个市场中销售收入总额的百分比。

相对市场份额能够通过比率来评估，同最大竞争者的市场份额进行比较。

相对市场占有率＝本企业某产品的市场占有率÷该产品最大竞争对手的市场占有率（以1为高低分界点）产品1：20%÷40%=0.5产品2：20%÷10%=2波士顿矩阵的纵坐标表示产品的市场增长率，横坐标表示本企业的相对市场份额。

根据市场增长率和市场份额的不同组合，可以将企业的产品分成四种类型：明星产品、金牛产品、问号产品和瘦狗产品。

一个企业的所有产品，都可以归入这四种类型，依据其所处的地位采取不同的战略。

明星产品。

（双高产品）明星产品代表在高增长的市场中占有高份额。

市场占有率高使得产品可以获得较多利润和营业现金流入；市场增长率高使得产品具有投资价值，短期需要资本投入超过产生的现金，以便保持它们的市场地位，但是未来会带来高额的回报。

市场份额有足够大的开发机会，但高增长率将吸引新来者或竞争者。

波士顿案例分析方法

任何企业都必须要结合外部环境，制定出一套与之相适应的企业战略。 SWOT 是帮助企业分析其内部优势、弱点和外部机会、威胁的一个非常有用的工具，但是，SWOT 分析只是工作的第一步。是企业的一举一动真正能够与外部环境相适，对于大多数企业来说，都是一项艰巨的挑战。
Made by Jade
对持矩阵（Confrontation Matrix）
Made by Jade
完成目标受到褒奖。而且，他们还会被允许将大笔资金再投入到业已成熟的业务上去。瘦狗SBU则是在打一场―不可能‖的战斗。更为糟糕的是，再投入资金，去挽救无望的瘦狗业务。问号和吉星则因为它们的市场和现金表现，只能得到一般性投入，照此它们永远也成不了金牛。投入不足，对企业来说无疑也是一种资金浪费。明智的做法是，要么选择一部分问号产品，加大投入使它们成长为金牛（或者吉星），要么减资。同时，公司要从那些未被选取的问号产品上尝试获取任何可能的现金。
BCG矩阵的局限
BCG矩阵的局限主要有以下几个方面：它忽略了SBU之间的协同效应。高市场份额并不是企业成功的唯一因素。高增长并不是市场吸引力的唯一指标。瘦狗有时候比金牛赚得更多。获取准确的市场份额和市场增长数据比较困难。对市场组成成分的定义不明。高市场份额并不总是带来高利润。仅仅考量了两个维度——市场份额和增长速度，这有可能诱使企业专注于某一特殊产品，或者是剥离尚未成熟的产品。低市场份额的产品业务可能同样有利可图。忽视了那些市场份额增长快速的小公司。
进攻
竭尽全力而为之
防御
密切注视竞争对手一举一动
调整
恢复优势力量
生存
战略转移
工作看起来自相矛盾，却是 SWOT 分析的挑战所在。这可以通过结合运用自外而内的战略（如市场驱动战略）或自内而为战略（资

以宝洁为例分析波士顿矩阵(中英文对照版)

波士顿矩阵是一种规划企业产品组合的方法，它指导企业的产品品种及其结构适应市场需求的变化,同时，将企业有限的资源有效地分配到合理的产品结构中去,从而保证企业的收益,这种方法是企业在激烈竞争中取胜的关键.The Boston Matrix is a planning enterprise product combination method, which guides the enterprise's product variety and structure to adapt to changes in market demand, at the same time, the limited resources of enterprise effectively assigned to a reasonable product structure, so as to ensure the profit of the enterprise, this method is the enterprise in the fierce competition to win the key。

用BCG增长份额矩阵分析宝洁公司产品的市场定位BCG growth share matrix analysis with P & G's product market position 宝洁公司旗下在市场上占主导的品牌有舒肤佳、碧浪、飘柔、潘婷、海飞丝、玉兰油。

因为较强的广告针对性和产品组合的内在一致性，根据BCG增长份额矩阵分析得出:“海飞丝的”广告策略是全明星阵容，去头屑。

“沙宣”选用很酷的美女,是专业美发。

“潘婷”是营养，维他命原B5。

“飘柔”是洗护二合一，顺滑。

“润妍"是黑发。

“伊卡璐"是草本。

Procter ＆Gamble company in the market dominance of thebrand have Safeguard，Bilang , Rejoice，Pantene，Head & Shoulders，Olay。

波士顿矩阵与经典案例分析

波士顿矩阵(BCG Matrix)与经典案例分析波士顿矩阵又称市场增长率-相对市场份额矩阵、波士顿咨询集团法、四象限分析法、产品系列结构管理法等。

模型介绍制定公司层战略最流行的方法之一就是BCG矩阵。

该方法是由波士顿咨询集团（Boston Consulting Group, BCG）在上世纪70年代初开发的。

BCG矩阵将组织的每一个战略事业单位（SBUs）标在一种2维的矩阵图上，从而显示出哪个SBUs提供高额的潜在收益，以及哪个SBUs是组织资源的漏斗。

BCG矩阵的发明者、波士顿公司的创立者布鲁斯认为“公司若要取得成功，就必须拥有增长率和市场分额各不相同的产品组合。

组合的构成取决于现金流量的平衡。

”如此看来，BCG的实质是为了通过业务的优化组合实现企业的现金流量平衡。

BCG矩阵区分出4种业务组合。

（1）问题型业务（Question Marks，指高增长、低市场份额）处在这个领域中的是一些投机性产品，带有较大的风险。

这些产品可能利润率很高，但占有的市场份额很小。

这往往是一个公司的新业务。

为发展问题业务，公司必须建立工厂，增加设备和人员，以便跟上迅速发展的市场，并超过竞争对手，这些意味着大量的资金投入。

“问题”非常贴切地描述了公司对待这类业务的态度，因为这时公司必须慎重回答“是否继续投资，发展该业务？”这个问题。

只有那些符合企业发展长远目标、企业具有资源优势、能够增强企业核心竞争力的业务才得到肯定的回答。

得到否定回答的问题型业务则适合采用收缩战略。

如何选择问题型业务是用BCG矩阵制定战略的重中之重，也是难点，这关乎企业未来的发展。

对于增长战略中各种业务增长方案来确定优先次序，BCG也提供了一种简单的方法。

通过下图权衡选择ROI相对高然后需要投入的资源占的宽度不太多的方案。

波士顿矩阵与经典案例分析

波士顿矩阵(BCG Matrix)与经典案例分析波士顿矩阵又称市场增长率-相对市场份额矩阵、波士顿咨询集团法、四象限分析法、产品系列结构管理法等。

模型介绍制定公司层战略最流行的方法之一就是BCG矩阵。

该方法是由波士顿咨询集团（Boston Consulting Group, BCG）在上世纪70年代初开发的。

BCG矩阵将组织的每一个战略事业单位（SBUs）标在一种2维的矩阵图上，从而显示出哪个SBUs提供高额的潜在收益，以及哪个SBUs是组织资源的漏斗。

BCG矩阵的发明者、波士顿公司的创立者布鲁斯认为“公司若要取得成功，就必须拥有增长率和市场分额各不相同的产品组合。

组合的构成取决于现金流量的平衡。

”如此看来，BCG的实质是为了通过业务的优化组合实现企业的现金流量平衡。

BCG矩阵区分出4种业务组合。

（1）问题型业务（Question Marks，指高增长、低市场份额）处在这个领域中的是一些投机性产品，带有较大的风险。

这些产品可能利润率很高，但占有的市场份额很小。

这往往是一个公司的新业务。

为发展问题业务，公司必须建立工厂，增加设备和人员，以便跟上迅速发展的市场，并超过竞争对手，这些意味着大量的资金投入。

“问题”非常贴切地描述了公司对待这类业务的态度，因为这时公司必须慎重回答“是否继续投资，发展该业务？”这个问题。

只有那些符合企业发展长远目标、企业具有资源优势、能够增强企业核心竞争力的业务才得到肯定的回答。

得到否定回答的问题型业务则适合采用收缩战略。

如何选择问题型业务是用BCG矩阵制定战略的重中之重，也是难点，这关乎企业未来的发展。

对于增长战略中各种业务增长方案来确定优先次序，BCG也提供了一种简单的方法。

通过下图权衡选择ROI相对高然后需要投入的资源占的宽度不太多的方案。

波士顿法律经典案例(3篇)

第1篇一、案件背景2009年，美国国家航空航天局（NASA）宣布取消对火星探测任务“凤凰号”的发射。

这一决定引发了公众和科学界的广泛关注。

随后，一位名叫简·泰勒的科学家向美国地方法院提起诉讼，指控NASA违反了《信息自由法》（Freedom of Information Act，简称FOIA），要求NASA公开与“凤凰号”任务相关的所有文件。

二、案件经过1. 泰勒提起诉讼泰勒是“凤凰号”任务的一名科学家，她在得知NASA取消发射计划后，认为这一决定对科学研究和公众知情权造成了损害。

于是，她向NASA提交了FOIA请求，要求公开与“凤凰号”任务相关的所有文件。

然而，NASA仅向泰勒提供了部分文件，并拒绝公开其余文件。

2. 法院审理泰勒随后向美国地方法院提起诉讼，要求法院判决NASA公开所有文件。

NASA则辩称，部分文件涉及国家安全和商业机密，不宜公开。

3. 法院判决经过审理，法院认为NASA在处理FOIA请求时存在滥用职权的行为，判决NASA公开所有与“凤凰号”任务相关的文件。

NASA不服判决，向美国第九巡回上诉法院提起上诉。

4. 上诉法院判决美国第九巡回上诉法院维持了一审法院的判决，认为NASA在处理FOIA请求时未充分考虑公众知情权和科学研究的需求。

上诉法院还指出，NASA在解释“国家安全”和“商业机密”时过于宽泛，导致部分文件被错误地排除在公开范围之外。

5. 最高法院拒绝审理NASA随后向美国最高法院提起上诉，但最高法院以“无正当理由”为由拒绝审理此案。

三、案件影响1. 提高公众知情权泰勒诉美国国家航空航天局案使得公众对NASA在处理FOIA请求时的行为有了更深入的了解，提高了公众对科学研究和政府决策的知情权。

2. 强化政府透明度此案促使美国政府更加重视信息公开和透明度，推动相关法律法规的完善，以保障公众的知情权和监督权。

3. 促进科学事业发展该案对NASA和科学界产生了积极影响，使得科学研究和政府决策更加公开、透明，有利于科学事业的健康发展。

2019年法律英语经典案例：波士顿大屠杀审判

2019年法律英语经典案例：波士顿大屠杀审判【法律英语经典案例：波士顿大屠杀审判】Although it has been over two centuries since the moonlit March night in 1770 when British soldiers killed five Bostonians on King Street， peoplestill debate responsibility for the Boston Massacre. Does the blame rest with the crowd of Bostonians who hurled insults， snowballs， oysters shells， and other objects at the soldiers， or does the blame rest with an overreacting military that violated laws of the colony that prohibited firing at civilians？Whatever side one takes in the debate， all can agree that the Boston Massacre stands as a significant landmark on the road to the American Revolution.The MassacreIn the snowy winter of 1770， many residents of Boston harbored deep resentment against the presence of British military in their city. Two regiments of regulars had been quartered in Boston since September of 1768，when they had landed in response to a call by the Governor to restore orderand respect for British law. Trouble had arisen earlier that summer whenBoston importers refused to pay required custom duties. Some Bostoniansdisliked soldiers because they competed for jobs， often willing to take part-time work during their off-duty hours for lower wages. Seamen saw the soldiers as enforcers of the detested impressment laws， which authorized persons to be seized and forced to serve in the British navy.Clashes between soldiers and civilians were on the rise in early March. On March 2， a fist fight broke about between soldiers and employees of JohnGray's Ropewalk after one of the employees insulted a soldier. A cable-making employee reportedly asked a passing soldier，“Do you want work？” When the soldier replied that he did， the employee told the soldier，“Wee then， go and clean my shithouse.” The angry soldier returned later with about a d ozen fellow soldiers， and the fight ensued.The tragedy of March 5 began with a simple dispute over whether a British officer had paid a bill to a local wig-maker. The officer was walking downKing Street when Edward Garrick， the wig-maker's apprentice， called out，“There goes the fellow who hath not paid my master for dressing his hair.” The officer with the new haircut， Captain John Goldfinch， passed on without acknowledging Garrick. But Garrick persisted， telling three passers-by that Goldfinch owed him money. A lone sentry named Hugh White overheard Garrick'sremarks. White told the apprentice，“He is a gentleman， and if he owes you anything he will pay for it.” Garrick's answer——that there were nogentlemen left in the regiment——caused White to leave his post and confront Garrick. After a brief， heated exchange of words， the sentry struck Garrick with his musket， knocking him down.Soon a small crowd， attracted by the ruckus between White and Garrick，gathered around the lone guard and began taunti ng him. “Bloody lobster back！Lousy rascal！ Lobster son of a bitch！” they yelled. The crowd grew to about fifty. Some in the mob of mostly young men threw pieces of ice at White， and he grew fearful. As the crowd continued to increase in size and hostility，White retreated from his sentry box to the Custom House steps， loaded his gun，and began to wave it about. White knocked on the door and banged the butt ofhis gun against the steps. Desperate， White yelled，“Turn out， Main Guard！”Meanwhile， a few blocks north， another confrontation between civilians and Redcoats broke out. Under a barrage of snowballs， a group of soldiers was hustled into its barracks. A third mob， this one about two hundred strong and carrying clubs， gathered in Dock Square. A tall man with a white wig and ared coat did his best to rile up the crowd. Trouble seemed to be erupting all over the city. “Let's away to the Main Guard！” someone shouted， and the crowd began streaming down an alley toward King Street. Someone pulled thefire bell rope at the Brick Meeting House， bringing dozens of more residents out into the restless streets.In front of the Main Guard， officer for the day， Captain Thomas Preston，paced back in front for nearly thirty minutes， worrying about what to do. If he did nothing， he thought， White might be killed by the mob. But trying to rescue White carried its own risks， as the soldiers would be vastly outnumbered by the frightening mob. Moreover， Preston knew well that Province law forbid the military from firing on civilians without the order of a magistrate. Finally，Preston made his decision. “Turn out， damn your bloods，turn out！” he barked at his men.Preston and seven other men， lined up in columns of twos， began moving briskly across King Street with empty muskets and fixed bayonets. They pushed on through the thick crowd near the Custom House. Managing to make it to the beleaguered Private White， Preston ordered the sentry to fall in. Prestontried to march the men back to the Main Guard， but the mob began pressing in. Hemmed in， the soldiers lined up——about a body length apart——in a sort ofsemi-circle facing the crowd that had grown to over three hundred. Many in the crowd threw missiles of various sorts——chunks of coal， snowballs， oyster shells， sticks——at the soldiers. Preston shouted for them to disperse. A large club-wielding man named Crispus Attucks——a forty-seven-year-old mullato——moved forward， grabbed one of the soldier's （Hugh Montgomery's）bayonets， and knocked him to the ground. Montgomery rose，shouting “Damn you， fire！” and unloading his musket in the direction of the crowd. Soon after ——estimates varied from six seconds to two minutes——Montgomery shouted “Fire！”， the other soldiers also began firing. A blast from the gun of Matthew Killroy hit Samuel Gray as he stood with his hands in his pockets，blowing a hole in his head “as big as a hand.” From another gun，two bullets hit Crispus Attucks in the chest. As the mob moved toward the soldiers， more guns fired. Five civilians lay dying in the streets； another half dozen lay injured. The soldiers loaded their weapons and prepared to fire again when Captain Preston （according to his own statement） yelled，“Stop firing！ Do not fire！”Arrests and ImprisonmentWord of the shootings reached Acting Governor Thomas Hutchinson in this North Square home. Hutchinson rushed to King Street where he found an angry crowd and a shaken Captain Preston. Hutchinson confronted Preston：“Do you know， Sir， you have no power to fire on any body of the public collected together except you have a civil magistrate with you give orders？” After talking with Preston， Hutchinson proceeded upstairs in the Town House， where several members of the Council had already gathered. He assured Council members that he would do his best to see justice done， then he stepped out onto a balcony overlooking the scene of the massacre and asked the crowd for calm：“Let the law have its course. I will live and die by the law.”After midnight， Justices Richard Dania and John Tudor gave the sheriff a warrant for the arrest of Captain Preston. Preston was arrested and brought to the Town House， where he was interrogated for an hour about the shooting by the two justices. At three o'clock in the morning， the justices concluding they had “evidence sufficient to commit him，” sent Preston to the jail where he would remain for the next seven months.Later that morning a thirty-four-year-old Boston attorney， John Adams，was visited in his office near the stairs of the Town Office by a Boston merchant. “With tears streaming from his eyes” （according to the recollection of Adams）， the merchant， James Forest， asked Adams to defendthe soldiers and their captain， Thomas Preston. Adams understood that taking the case would not only subject him to criticism， but might jeopardize his legal practice or even risk the safety of himself and his family. But Adams believed deeply that every person deserved a defense， and he took on the case without hesitation. For his efforts， he would receive the modest sum of eighteen guineas.A week after the massacre， at the request of Attorney General Jonathan Sewall， a grand jury handed down indictments against Captain Preston andeight soldiers. About the same time， Preston offered his version of theevents of March 5 in a deposition：About 9 some of the guard came to and informed me the town inhabitantswere assembling to attack the troops， and that the bells were ringing as the signal for that purpose and not for fire， and the beacon intended to be fired to bring in the distant people of the country. This， as I was captain of the day， occasioned my repairing immediately to the main guard. In my way there I saw the people in great commotion， and heard them use the most cruel andhorrid threats against the troops. In a few minutes after I reached the guard，about 100 people passed it and went towards the custom house where the king's money is lodged. They immediately surrounded the sentry posted there， andwith clubs and other weapons threatened to execute their vengeance on him. I was soon informed by a townsman their intention was to carry off the soldier from his post and probably murder him. On which I desired him to return for further intelligence， and he soon came back and assured me he heard the mob declare they would murder him. This I feared might be a prelude to their plundering the king's chest. I immediately sent a non-commissioned officer and 12 （sic） men to protect both the sentry and the king's money， and very soon followed myself to prevent， if possible， all disorder， fearing lest the officer and soldiers， by the insults and provocations of the rioters， should be thrown off their guard and commit some rash act.Jail-cell writings of Preston appeared in the Boston Gazette. In an early letter to the paper，Preston extended his “thanks……to the inhabitants of this town——who throwing aside all party and prejudice， have with the utmost humanity and freedom stept forth advocates for truth， in defense of myinjured innocence.” On June 25， however， a letter Preston sent to London found its way into Boston papers and undermined whatever goodwill he mighthave built up earlier. In his London letter， Preston complained about Bostonians who “have ever used all means in their power to weaken theregiments and to bring them into contempt， by promoting and aiding desertions，and by grossly and falsely promulgating untruths concerning them.” He wrotethat bitter “malcontents” were maliciously “using every method to fish out evidence to prove [the March 5 shooting] was a concerted scheme to murder the inhabitants.”As Preston and the eight indicted soldiers languished in jail， Boston residents （including such notable figures as Samuel Adams and John Hancock）pressed demands on Hutchinson and Colonel Dalrymple for th e “instant removal” of all troops from the city of Boston. The two men initially balked at the demand， but finally gave into overwhelming public pressure. The two regiments evacuated the city and moved to Castle William.Samuel Adams also busied himself——in today's jargon——with “spin control.” He participated in writing A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacrein Boston， a decidedly slanted， anti-British account of the events of March5. The goal of the publication was to refute charges that Bostonians were the aggressors in the incident and to build up public pressure against the British military. In letters to the Boston Gazette， Samuel Adams became the principal defender of Crispus Attucks， denying accounts that Attucks had attacked a soldier with a club. Wrote Adams，Attucks “had as good a right to carry a stick， even a bludgeon， as the soldier who shot him had to be armed with musket and ball.”The period after the massacre was tough for Acting Governor Hutchinson.Two weeks after the Massacre， Hutchinson wrote：“In matters of dispute between the King and the colonies government is at an end and in the hands ofthe people. Still， Hutchinson resisted demands for quick trials——”so that，“ he said，”people may have time to cool.“The TrialsAuthorities determined that Captain Preston should be tried separatelyfrom the eight soldiers. On October 21， the soldiers objected in a letter tothe Court：“We poor distressed prisoners beg that ye would be so good as tolet us have our trial at the same time with our Captain， for we did ourCaptain's orders， and if we do not obey his command should have been confined and shot for not doing it.” The soldiers feared——not without reason——that Preston's best defense lay in denying that he gave any orders to fire， andthat their own best defense lay in claiming that they only followed their Captain's orders. If Preston were to proceed to trial first， their defensemight well be compromised. The conflict between the interests of Preston andthe soldiers must have presented a dilemma for John Adams， who had agreed to defend then both. Under the ethical standards of today， Adams should have made a choice between representing either Preston or the soldiers， but such conflicts were viewed differently in the 1700s. The soldiers' request for ajoint trial was denied without explanation……Captain Preston's trial for murder came on first the Queen Street Courthouse. The trial ran from October 24 to 30. The prosecution was led by Samuel Quincy， the colony's solicitor general， and prominent Boston lawyer，Robert Paine. Josiah Quincy assisted John Adams in his defense of Preston.The central issue concerned whether or not Preston gave the order to fire on the civilians. Preston's steadfast denial that he gave an order to fire was supported by three defense witnesses， while four witnesses for theprosecution swore that did give the fatal order. The most convincing of the prosecution eyewitnesses was Daniel Calef：I was present at the firing. I heard one of the Guns rattle. I turnedabout and lookd and heard the officer who stood on the right in a line withthe Soldiers give the word fire twice. I lookd the Officer in the face when he gave the word and saw his mouth. He had on a red Coat， yellow Jacket andSilver laced hat， no trimming on his Coat. I saw his face plain， the moon shone on it.Although the trial was transcribed in shorthand， no copy survives， and Preston's testimony must be surmised from the deposition he gave in advance of trial. In Preston's deposition， he offered the following account of theactual shooting：Some well behaved persons asked me if the guns were charged. I replied yes. They then asked me if I intended to order the men to fire. I answered no， by no means， observing to them that I was advanced before the muzzles of themen's pieces， and must fall a sacrifice if they fired； that the soldierswere upon the half cock and charged bayonets， and my giving the word fire under those circumstances would prove me to be no officer. While I was thus speaking， one of the soldiers having received a severe blow with a stick，stepped a little on one side and instantly fired， on which turning to and asking him why he fired without orders， I was struck with a club on my arm，which for some time deprived me of the use of it， which blow had it been placed on my head， most probably would have destroyed me. On this a generalattack was made on the men by a great number of heavy clubs and snowballs being thrown at them， by which all our lives were in imminent danger， some persons at the same time from behind calling out， damn your bloods-why don't you fire. Instantly three or four of the soldiers fired， one after another，and directly after three more in the same confusion and hurry.John Adams evidently succeeding in creating doubts in the minds of jurors as to whether Preston ever gave an order to fire. The sequestered twelve-man jury （which had survived the trial on a diet of “biscett and cheese and syder” along with “sperites licker”） deliberated only a few hours before acquitting Preston on all charges.Eight weeks later， the eight soldiers faced trial. A transcript of the trial， formally called Rex v Weems et al， survives， giving us a much more complete picture of the proceeding. Witnesses testified as to military-civilian clashes such as the one at Gray's Ropewalk three days before the massacre， as well as to the events on the night of March 5 near King Street.The prosecution's most damning testimony came from Samuel Hemmingway， who swore that Private Matthew Killroy——identified by another prosecution witness as the man who shot citizen John Gray——“would never miss an opportunity， when he had one， to fire on the inhabitants， and that he had wanted to have an opportunity ev er since he landed.”The defense presented testimony to support its theory that the soldiers fired in self-defense. Defense witnesses such as James Bailey presented the picture of an out-of-control gang of hooligans. Bailey described the soldiers being pelted by large chunks of ice and other objects. Bailey also testified that he saw Crispus Attucks knock down Private Montgomery with “a large cord-wood stick.” Adams asked the jury to consider whether “it have been a prudent resolution in them， or in any body in their situation， to have stood still， to see if the [the mob] would knock their brains out， or not？”Of particular interest in the defense case was testimony concerning the dying statement of Patrick Carr， one of the victims in the massacre. It is the first recorded use of the “dying declaration” exception to the rule that excludes hearsay evidence：Q. Was you Patrick Carr's surgeon？A. I was……Q. Was he [Carr] apprehensive of his danger？A. He told me……he was a native of Ireland， that he had frequently seen mobs，and soldiers called upon to quell them……he had seen soldiers oftenfire on the people in Ireland， but had never seen them bear half so muchbefore they fired in his life……Q. When had you the last conversation with him？A. About four o'clock in the afternoon， preceding the night on which he died， and he then particularly said， he forgave the man whoever he was that shot him， he was satisfied he had no malice， but fired to defend himself.After presenting over forty witnesses， John Adams summed up for the defense. His eloquent speech blended law and politics. He finished by telling the jury that this was a case of self-defense：I will enlarge no more on the evidence， but submit it to you.-Facts are stubborn things； and whatever may be our wishes， our inclinations， or the dictates of our passions， they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence：nor is the law less stable than the fact； if an assault was made to endanger their lives， the law is clear， they had a right to kill in their own defence；if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives， yet if they wereassaulted at all， struck and abused by blows of any sort， by snow-balls，oyster-shells， cinders， clubs， or sticks of any kind； this was a provocation， for which the law reduces the offence of killing， down to manslaughter， in consideration of those passions in our nature， which cannot be eradicated. To your candour and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause.Justices Trowbridge and Oliver instructed the jury. Justice Trowbridgetold the twelve men of Boston that “malice is the grand criterion that distinguishes murder from all other homicides.” Justice Oliver discussed Patrick Carr's dying statement to his physician：“This Carr was not upon oath， it is true， but you will determine whether a man just stepping into eternity is not to be believed， especially in favor of a set of men by whomhe had lost his life.”After less than three hours deliberation， the jury acquitted six of the soldiers on all charges. Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Killroy——the only two soldiers clearly proven to have fired——were found guilty of manslaughter.On December 14， Montgomery and Killroy came into court. Asked if their was any reason why the sentence of death should not be passed， the two men invoked “the benefit of clergy，” a plea that shifted their punishment from imprisonment to the branding of their thumbs. As John Adams looked on， the men held out their right thumbs for Sheriff Stephen Greenleaf to brand.Not surprisingly， reactions to the verdicts varied. Samuel Adams expressed his displeasure in a letter signed “Vindex”：They not only fired without the order of the civil magistrate but they never called for one， which they might easily have done. They went down……armed with muskets and bayonets fixed， presuming they were clothed with as much authority by the law of the land as the posse comitatus of the country with the high sheriff at their head.On the other hand， Samuel's second cousin， John Adams， found the verdicts deeply satisfying. Looking back at the trials looking after an illustrious career that had taken him to the White House， Adams said：The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers， procured me Anxiety， and Obloquy enough. It was， however， one of the most gallant，generous， manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life， and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches， anciently. As the Evidence was， the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.。

波士顿法律经典案例分析(3篇)

第1篇一、案件背景美国诉约翰逊案（United States v. Johnson）是波士顿法律中一个极具代表性的经典案例。

该案于2004年在美国波士顿联邦法院审理，涉及的主要问题是：在互联网上传播色情内容是否构成非法？本案的判决对于互联网色情内容的监管和传播产生了深远的影响。

二、案情简介本案的被告约翰逊是一名色情网站的所有者。

他在自己的网站上传播了大量色情内容，包括成人影片、色情图片等。

根据美国相关法律规定，传播色情内容是非法的。

然而，约翰逊辩称，他的网站只提供了色情内容的链接，并未直接传播色情内容，因此不构成非法。

三、法庭辩论1. 检方观点检方认为，约翰逊的网站实际上是一种色情内容的传播平台，他在网站上提供了大量色情链接，使得用户可以轻松地访问这些内容。

根据美国法律，传播色情内容是非法的，因此约翰逊的行为应被认定为违法。

2. 约翰逊辩护约翰逊的律师辩称，约翰逊的网站仅提供了色情内容的链接，并未直接传播色情内容。

根据美国宪法第一修正案，言论自由是公民的基本权利，政府不应限制公民的言论自由。

因此，约翰逊的行为不应被认定为违法。

四、判决结果经过审理，波士顿联邦法院最终判决约翰逊败诉。

法院认为，约翰逊的网站实际上是一种色情内容的传播平台，他在网站上提供了大量色情链接，使得用户可以轻松地访问这些内容。

根据美国法律，传播色情内容是非法的，因此约翰逊的行为构成违法。

五、案例分析1. 互联网色情内容的监管本案的判决表明，互联网色情内容的监管在美国具有法律依据。

政府有权对互联网色情内容进行监管，以保护未成年人免受不良信息的影响。

同时，互联网色情内容的监管也需要平衡言论自由和公共利益的矛盾。

2. 言论自由与公共利益本案中，约翰逊辩称其行为不构成违法，主要依据是美国宪法第一修正案所保护的言论自由。

然而，法院认为，约翰逊的网站实际上是一种色情内容的传播平台，其行为已经超出了言论自由的范畴。

这表明，在处理言论自由与公共利益的关系时，需要根据具体情况进行权衡。

波士顿法律经典案例分析(3篇)

第1篇一、案例背景《波士顿法律》（Boston Legal）是一部美国情景喜剧，讲述了一家位于波士顿的律师事务所——斯普林菲尔德律师事务所的日常故事。

该剧以其独特的幽默风格和深刻的社会议题而广受欢迎。

本文将选取该剧中的一个经典案例进行分析，探讨法律与道德的冲突，以及律师在职业操守与个人信仰之间的抉择。

二、案例概述在本剧中，斯普林菲尔德律师事务所接到了一个关于同性婚姻合法化的案件。

原告是一对同性恋人，他们希望法院承认他们的婚姻关系。

然而，这个案件在法庭上引发了激烈的辩论，律师们面临着巨大的压力，既要维护客户的权益，又要坚守自己的道德底线。

三、案例分析1. 案件争议焦点本案的争议焦点在于同性婚姻的合法性。

一方面，原告认为同性婚姻是个人权利的体现，应当受到法律保护；另一方面，被告认为同性婚姻违背了传统价值观，应当受到法律的限制。

2. 律师的职业操守在处理这个案件时，斯普林菲尔德律师事务所的律师们面临着巨大的压力。

他们不仅要为原告辩护，还要面对来自社会各界的质疑。

在这种情况下，律师们如何坚守职业操守，成为本案的关键。

（1）辩护律师的立场辩护律师认为，同性婚姻是个人权利的体现，符合宪法规定的平等权。

在法庭上，他们运用法律知识，为原告争取权益。

尽管面临着巨大的压力，但他们始终坚持自己的立场，为原告提供了有力的法律支持。

（2）原告律师的立场原告律师在法庭上表示，他们尊重被告的信仰，但坚信同性婚姻的合法性。

在辩护过程中，原告律师注重道德与法律的结合，既维护了原告的权益，又尊重了被告的信仰。

3. 案件判决在经过长时间的审理后，法庭最终判决原告胜诉，承认了同性婚姻的合法性。

这一判决在国内外引起了广泛关注，成为同性婚姻合法化进程中的重要里程碑。

4. 案件反思本案反映了律师在职业操守与个人信仰之间的抉择。

在面对社会压力和道德困境时，律师们如何坚守自己的信念，成为本案的重要议题。

（1）坚守职业操守本案中，斯普林菲尔德律师事务所的律师们始终坚守职业操守，为原告提供了有力的法律支持。

关于波士顿分析法

烟草在线专稿指导经营和品牌培育是客户经理工作的重要内容。

如何对卷烟零售客户的日常卷烟经营进行分析，将指导经营和品牌培育进行有效结合，提升零售客户的经营水平和赢利能力，从而达到客我双赢的目的，是营销人员共同关心的热门话题。

下面运用波士顿矩阵分析法，举例说明具体实施分析的过程：一、客户基本情况概述零售客户任明非，位于城区主干道博源中路路口，地理位置较为优越；卷烟消费群体主要为附近居民和部分外来流动顾客；经营卷烟品种三十多个，主销品牌以将军系列、泰山系列、红塔山等为主，但经营品种较为散乱，存在库存结构不合理的现象；店主能够积极配合客户经理工作，对公司信任程度较高。

二、品牌分析过程所谓波士顿矩阵分析是把客户经营的各个卷烟品牌按照市场增长率和相对市场份额两个参数进行分析，将经营品牌分为四个类型：瘦狗类、问题类、明星类和现金牛类，按照每类卷烟品牌的不同特点，制定有针对性的营销措施，整合在销品牌，扩大经营规模，提高经营利润。

（一）瘦狗类品牌是指低市场增长率、低相对市场份额的卷烟品牌。

根据对该客户三个月卷烟销售情况的调阅，结合其库存状况，符合此类标准的品牌主要有：黄山（1993）、红河（源）等，这类品牌特点是销量较小，库存偏大。

（二）问题类品牌是指高市场增长率、低相对市场份额的卷烟品牌。

主要牌号有：将军（尚勇）、泰山（乐章）等，品牌特点为：上市时间短，品牌知名度不高，销量呈现上升态势。

（三）明星类品牌是指高市场增长率、高相对市场份额的卷烟品牌。

主要牌号有：泰山（宏图）等，品牌特点为：销量仍处在上升阶段，有一定提升空间，消费者接受程度较高，经营利润较高。

（四）现金牛类品牌是指低市场增长率、高相对市场份额的卷烟品牌。

主要牌号包括：将军（普通）、将军（特纯）、泰山（华贵）和部分低档卷烟品牌，品牌特点为：销量大、经营利润稳定，提升空间较小，享有规模经济和高边际利润的优势。

三、制定对应营销措施（一）发展。

实施对象：问题类品牌和明星类品牌。

the affect of the Boston Tea Party 波士顿倾茶事件英语论文

Kitty SnowHistoryThe reason and impact of Boston Tea PartyAs Europeans developed a taste for tea in the 17th century, rival companies were formed to import the product from the East Indies. In England, Parliament gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698. When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain. The East India Company did not export tea to the colonies; by law, the company was required to sell its tea wholesale at auctions in England. British firms bought this tea and exported it to the colonies, where they resold it to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.Until 1767, the East India Company paid an ad valorem tax of about 25% on tea that it imported into Great Britain. Parliament laid additional taxes on tea sold for consumption in Britain. These high taxes, combined with the fact that tea imported into Holland was not taxed by the Dutch government, meant that Britons and British Americans could buy smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices. The biggest market for illicit tea was England—by the 1760s the East India Company was losing £400,000 per year to smugglers in Great Britain—but Dutch tea was also smuggled into British America in significant quantities.There is a very important event in American History is called Boston Tea Party. There is an event of Boston people of North American colonies against the British East India Company’s monopoly of tea trade was happened in 1773. In 1773, the British government wanted to Dumping the accumulation tea of East India Company by Relief the East India Company Ordinance. The regulation give the East India Company a patent right to the North American colonies that they can sell the backlog tea and they can exempt from the high import tax. They only imposed a little ea tax. The ordinance said that they forbid to selling private tea in colonial. So, the East India Company monopoly distribution of tea in North American Colonial. Their price of tea is cheaper about fifty percent that the private tea. This ordinance caused a lot of people of the North American colonies very angry. People drink the smuggling tea accounted for nine of ten. The people of New York, Philadelphia and Charleston refused to unload the tea.December 16th, 1773, the Boston Tea Party was broken out which event evoked the North American War of Independence. Two of the European power countries Britain and France, they had been in the competition foe hegemony in Europe and the world’s expeditions. In 1763, Britain has made the victory in the 7 years of war. The France was forced to give Canada to Britain and withdrawal retained only five towns from the India. Britain became a colonial overlord since this. And Britain put the costs of the war passed on to the North American Colonies. This caused the dissatisfaction of local people and leaded to the Boston Tea Party.In November of the same year, seven large-scale merchant bound to colonial. They including four bound to Boston, the other three were bound to New York, Charleston and Philadelphia. The ship will not dock and the reviews of newspaper were filled with the smell of gunpowder. The importers in New York, Charleston and Philadelphia lost the courage to accept the goods. The tons of tea have to be shipped back to London. Four ships of tea which were bound to Boston have more tragic fate. December 16th in 1773, Samuel and Adams lead the Indians who were made-up by the Sons of Liberty sneaked into the merchant. They put 342 boxes of tea that the value about 1.5 million pounds in to the sea.Whether or not Samuel Adams helped plan the Boston Tea Party is unknown, but he immediately worked to publicize and defend it. He argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights.Governor Thomas Hutchinson had been urging London to take a hard line with the Sons of Liberty. If he had done what the other royal governors had done and let the ship owners and captains resolve the issue with the colonists, the Dartmouth, Eleanor and the Beaver would have left without unloading any tea.In Britain, even those politicians considered friends of the colonies were appalled and this act united all parties there against the colonies. The Prime Minister Lord North said, "Whatever may be the consequence, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over".The British government felt this action could not remain unpunished, and responded by closing the port of Boston and putting in place other laws known as the "Coercive Acts". In the colonies, Benjamin Franklin stated that the destroyed tea must be repaid, all 90,000 pounds (which, at two shillings per pound, comes to £9,000). Robert Murray, a New York merchant, went to Lord North with three other merchants and offered to pay for the losses, but the offer was turned down. A number of colonists were inspired to carry out similar acts, such as the burning of the Peggy Stewart. The Boston Tea Party eventually proved to be one of the many reactions that led to the American Revolutionary War.Why did the North American people refuse to import which is cheaper from the East India Company? East India Company’s tea is very cheap, but it’s in order to suppress the local tea’s price.At that time, American people’s wish of free was especially strong. They don’t w ant to see such an outcome. Because of the cheap price weighed on the local tea and it caused a lot of smuggling and the merchants who grew tea cannot live. Finally, it will cause the way of import tea completely caught the hands of the British East India Company. At that time, the tea prices were manipulated and violation the competition of the fair. If the North American people all drunk the tea which was produced by the North American tea sales would be affected and the North American people’s interests would be jeopardized. North American people decided the East India Company was supported by the Britain. If they drunk the tea of East India Company, it means that they continue to be oppression and exploitation by the British colonial.。

波士顿爆炸案英文版介绍

Police bomb experts investigation at the scene of the explosion.
Boston police in Boston Park arrested a bombing suspect.
波士顿爆炸案中的牛仔英雄
He said he was off the belt to the wounded bleeding, the picture he red tape, hand should be the belt. In the video he obviously also be still suffering from the shock, hand kept trembling.
The United States Capitol Hill at half-mast mourning Boston bombing victims
Held in Losangeles, the United States baseball before the start of the league, the former Losangeles Lakers star Abdel Jabbar and Hollywood star Harrison - Ford for the Boston bombing victims in silence.
The streets filled with fireworks. In the winner crosses the line about three hours later, near the finish line Boyles Houston Street North came a loud explosion. A few seconds later came a loud explosion.

波士顿分析案例

波士顿分析案例【篇一：波士顿分析案例】波士顿矩阵(bcg matrix)与经典案例分析波士顿矩阵又称市场增长率-相对市场份额矩阵、波士顿咨询集团法、四象限分析法、产品系列结构管理法等。

模型介绍制定公司层战略最流行的方法之一就是 bcg 矩阵。

该方法是由波士顿咨询集团?boston consulting group, bcg?在上世纪 70 年代初开发的。

bcg 矩阵将组织的每一个战略事业单位?sbus?标在一种 2 维的矩阵图上?从而显示出哪个 sbus 提供高额的潜在收益?以及哪个sbus 是组织资源的漏斗。

bcg 矩阵的发明者、波士顿公司的创立者布鲁斯认为公司若要取得成功?就必须拥有增长率和市场分额各不相同的产品组合。

组合的构成取决于现金流量的平衡。

如此看来?bcg 的实质是为了通过业务的优化组合实现企业的现金流量平衡。

bcg 矩阵区分出 4 种业务组合。

?1?问题型业务?question marks?指高增长、低市场份额? 处在这个领域中的是一些投机性产品?带有较大的风险。

这些产品可能利润率很高?但占有的市场份额很小。

这往往是一个公司的新业务。

为发展问题业务?公司必须建立工厂?增加设备和人员?以便跟上迅速发展的市场?并超过竞争对手?这些意味着大量的资金投入。

问题非常贴切地描述了公司对待这类业务的态度?因为这时公司必须慎重回答是否继续投资?发展该业务? 这个问题。

只有那些符合企业发展长远目标、企业具有资源优势、能够增强企业核心竞争力的业务才得到肯定的回答。

得到肯定回答的问题型业务适合于采用战略框架中提到的增长战略?目的是扩大 sbus 的市场份额?甚至不惜放弃近期收入来达到这一目标?因为要问题型要发展成为明星型业务?其市场份额必须有较大的增长。

得到否定回答的问题型业务则适合采用收缩战略。

如何选择问题型业务是用 bcg 矩阵制定战略的重中之重?也是难点?这关乎企业未来的发展。

对于增长战略中各种业务增长方案来确定优先次序?bcg 也提供了一种简单的方法。