PIMS and BCG: New horizons or false dawn?
指出PIMS和BCG增长/份额矩阵两种战略分析方法未能充分反映竞争预期和风险，建议PIMS用于有限经济意义的普遍性分析，BCG用于经验曲线效应，两者都不应主导战略选项的全面分析。
Abstract Strategic market opportunities arise either because a firm is exceptionally well placed competitively or because it recognizes the opportunity, on the basis of private information, before others. Strategic market analysis must reflect these two possible routes to attractive opportunities. Both the approaches developed by the Strategic Planning Institute (SPI) through its Profit Impact of Market Strategy (PIMS) and the Boston Consulting Group's (BCG) growth/share matrix fail to reflect the full impact of competitive expectations and risk. Analysis of PIMS data should be directed more towards generalities of limited direct economic significance whereas the BCG approach should be used mostly in the context of experience curve effects. Neither approach should dominate a full analysis of the specific nature and critical ambiguities in any strategic option.