Not Dead Yet: The Rise, Fall and Persistence of the BCG Matrix

The BCG Matrix was introduced almost 50 years ago, and is today considered one of the most iconic strategic planning techniques. Using management fashion theory as a theoretical lens, this paper examines the historical rise, fall and persistence of the BCG Matrix. The analysis highlights the role played by fashion-setting actors (e.g., consultants, business schools and business media) in the rise of the BCG Matrix. However, over time, portfolio planning models such as the BCG Matrix were attacked and discredited by a host of different actors, and gradually fell out of favor. Even though the BCG Matrix has fallen from grace, it is still alive and has left an imprint on management education and practice. Despite being largely discredited in academic circles, many practitioners still view it as an important corporate portfolio planning technique.

management gurus offering newer techniques and solutions, the BCG Matrix has showed remarkable staying power and longevity. Although it is evident that the popularity of the BCG Matrix has declined since its heydays during the 1970s, it is still widely used as a corporate portfolio planning technique by practitioners (Pidun, Rubner, Krühler, Untiedt & Nippa, 2011).
Purpose and contribution. Against the background outlined above, the purpose of the current paper is to provide an examination of the historical evolution of the BCG Matrix. Although this paper is not the first to provide a historical examination of the BCG Matrix (Morrison & Wensley, 1991), earlier contributions are by now quite dated. It is the author's view that this warrants a re-examination taking into account developments in the BCG Matrix's evolution pattern over the last 25 years.
This study also utilizes a different theoretical lens; the management fashion perspective (e.g., Abrahamson, 1996;Kieser, 1997). This perspective has, to the best of the author's knowledge, not been applied in previous studies of the BCG Matrix. While Morrison and Wensley (1991) suggested that fashion, consulting firms and communication networks could have played a role in the popularization of the BCG Matrix, their examination did not draw explicitly on management fashion theory. Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 124) called the BCG Matrix "a case history in successful innovation and diffusion of a particular analytical framework". In light of this quote, re-analyzing the emergence and evolution of the BCG Matrix from a management fashion perspective may provide new insights.
Research approach. The research approach followed in this paper is explorative and theoretical. Based on a close reading of both practitioner-oriented and scholarly literatures on the BCG matrix, this paper synthesizes different accounts on the historical emergence and evolution of the BCG Matrix. The author has followed a similar research approach in studies of other popular management concepts and ideas (see, e.g., Madsen The aim of the paper is to uncover an "overall picture" of the way the BCG Matrix has evolved as a management technique over time. In a prior historical examination of the BCG Matrix, Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 116) argued in favor of a similar approach: "the factors described do "fit" together to form a mosaic picture of the period, which provides a plausible narrative understanding of the success of the BCG ideas".
The remainder of the paper follows the following structure. Section 1 provides a brief history and overview of the BCG Matrix. In section 2 the BCG Matrix is examined as a fashionable management technique. This includes an analysis of its key characteristics that are important to understand its subsequent evolution. In section 3 and 4 the supply and demand sides of the BCG Matrix are analyzed. In section 5, themes related to the BCG Matrix's emergence and evolution are discussed in the context of the management fashion literature. Finally, the last section highlights the study's contributions, and discusses limitations, as well as presents some ideas for future research on the BCG Matrix.

A brief history of the BCG Matrix
This section examines the historical emergence of the BCG matrix. The section is divided into three parts. The first part sketches the basics of the BCG Matrix, while the second provides a brief history of the BCG Matrix. The last part sketches important historical Zeitgeists in the management discipline and community that have shaped the evolution pattern of the BCG Matrix.

The basics of the BCG Matrix.
The BCG Matrix is a strategic planning technique that can be used for portfolio planning in diversified firms. Visually the BCG Matrix is presented as a two-by-two matrix (Table 1), where the two dimensions are market share (high share, low share) and market growth rate (high growth, low growth). The matrix can be used to sort and categorize different businesses into so-called stars, cows, dogs and question marks. The BCG offers, as Allio (2006) calls them, "notorious resource allocation prescriptions" for managers, i.e., milk the cows, divest the dogs, invest in the stars, and analyze the question marks.  (Henderson, 1970 (Tilles, 1966). According to Tilles, the firm should be seen as a portfolio of businesses, a line of thinking that is a cornerstone of the BCG Matrix.
According to Morrison and Wensley (1991), the early development of the BCG matrix was not based on theory, but largely based on practical experiences picked up in actual consulting work. The role of interaction with practitioners in the early development of the BCG Matrix has also been by noted by other authors. For example, Cummings and Daellenbach (2009, p. 258) pointed out that: "We should not forget that some of the most popular and long lasting strategy frameworks mentioned at the outset of this article were first thought out by such seasoned senior executives interacting with consultants and academics. The Growth-Share Matrix, for example, emerged when BCG consultants brainstormed and doodled with think-tankers and managers from the Mead Paper Corporation". Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 110) point out that the BCG Matrix was revised during the 1970s. For example, Henderson wrote a series of books and articles where the BCG Matrix was developed further (Henderson, 1970(Henderson, , 1973(Henderson, , 1979(Henderson, , 1984 (Coate, 1983). As Gluck (1985) puts it, American managers' love affair with strategic planning (and strategic planning techniques such as the BCG Matrix) was fading.
1.3.3. 1990s and beyond. By the 1990s, there was less demand for traditional strategy consulting, and instead the focus shifted to new buzzwords such as "strategy implementation" and "strategy execution" . As a result, strategy consultants "readjusted their wares to cope with the new client demand" (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994, p. 5).
Leading strategy consulting firms such as McKinsey and BCG readjusted their traditional consulting repertoire to focus more on implementation and efficiency (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994, p. 5).
During the 1990s there was much "academic disillusionment" with prevailing schools of thought within the field of strategy (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994, p. 5).
For example, the strategic planning school had until the 1990s enjoyed a dominant position within the field of strategy. The strategic planning school was heavily criticized by leading strategy scholars, in particular Henry Mintzberg who presented a more fluid and dynamic view of the strategic planning process (Mintzberg, 1994a, b). Hence, the 1990s and 2000s did not provide a friendly environment for the BCG Matrix. The shift from viewing the firm as portfolio to viewing the firm as a network (Davis et al., 1994) meant that the BCG Matrix was largely out of step with the zeitgeist in the business community.

The BCG Matrix viewed from a management fashion perspective
So far, the focus has been on the historical emergence of the BCG Matrix and the Zeitgeists that have shaped its evolution pattern. In this section, the focus shifts to viewing the BCG Matrix from a management fashion perspective. After a short introduction to the management fashion perspective, the characteristics of the BCG Matrix are analyzed. These characteristics have influenced the popularity and evolution of the BCG Matrix. The characteristics of the BCG Matrix have, however, left it vulnerable to attacks. The last part reviews different types of criticism that have been leveled at the BCG Matrix.

The management fashion perspective.
The management fashion perspective focuses on studying upswings and downswings in the popularity of management techniques (Abrahamson, 1991(Abrahamson, , 1996 There are several definitions of the term "management fashion". In the most widely cited article on management fashion, Abrahamson (1996, p. 257) defines management fashion as "a relatively transitory collective belief, disseminated by management fashion setters, that a management technique leads rational management progress".
According to management fashion theory, the diffusion and popularization of new management techniques is viewed as taking place within a management fashion market, and the evolution of management techniques are shaped by both supply side and demand side forces.
On the supply side of management actors, there is a "fashion-setting community" (Abrahamson, 1996) or "management fashion arena" (Jung & Kieser, 2012) comprised of actors promoting and propagating management techniques. These actors include consulting firms, management gurus, software firms, business media, conference organizers, and professional organizations (Clark, 2004b). The demand side of management fashions is made up of organizations and managers considering adopting new management techniques.
Although the management fashion perspective stresses the role played by supply side actors (e.g., consultants) in influencing the popularity of new management techniques, by creating a "fashion wave" and bandwagon effects (Benders, 1999;Kieser, 1997), researchers have also pointed out that some management ideas are more "potent" and contagious than others (Benders & Van Veen, 2001;Røvik, 2002), i.e., they have a higher popularity and fashion potential. In the subsequent sections, the popularity potential of the BCG Matrix is analyzed.

Analysis of the characteristics of the BCG Matrix.
In the following, the focus shifts to an analysis of the key characteristics of the BCG Matrix. This discussion elaborates on four characteristics that are typically emphasized in the literature on fashionable management concepts and ideas (Kieser, 1997;Røvik, 1998Røvik, , 2002: (1) catchy label, (2) performance enhancements, (3) interpretive space, and (4) universality. These characteristics have influenced the popularity of the BCG Matrix, and have implications for how the BCG Matrix has evolved over time as a management technique.

Catchy label.
In the literature on management concepts and ideas, it is pointed out that fashionable management techniques are typically labeled in a distinctive way, often using a fancy and catchy label (Røvik, 1998). In many cases, a two or three letter acronym are used (Grint, 1997;Røvik, 1998). This is certainly the case for the BCG Matrix, where the three-letter acronym BCG is an abbreviation of the name of the consulting firm Boston Consulting Group. However, as Table 2 shows, the BCG Matrix is known by several different names. In particular, the label "growth-share matrix" is frequently used in both academia and practice. Other less common labels include the "BCG zoo" (Karlöf & Helin Lövingsson, 2005) and the "BCG Grid" (Lowy & Hood, 2011). In the following, the focus is on the label "BCG Matrix". Several researchers have noted that this label is easy to remember (Armstrong & Brodie, 1994) and "memorable" (Jarzabkowski & Kaplan, 2015). Related to this point, Spee and Jarzabkowski (2009) write that "clearly designed tools such as the BCG matrix are easier to remember". In addition, as Lowy and Hood (2011, p. 169) have pointed out, most people, at least those with business and management backgrounds, will think of the BCG matrix when hearing the term "2x2 matrix".
Researchers have pointed out that the BCG Matrix is one of the most iconic and memorable labels in the fields of strategy and marketing. For example, the BCG matrix has become part of the "language of business strategy" (Seeger, 1984) and according to "standard popular terms and a convenient shorthand in strategic discussions" (Lowy & Hood, 2011, p. 169).

Performance improvements.
Another key characteristics of management fashions is that proponents of new management innovations tend to promise substantial performance improvements in case of adoption (Benders & Van Veen, 2001;Røvik, 1998). After all, potential adopters are unlikely to adopt unless they perceive potential benefits (Benders, 1999). The BCG Matrix is accompanied by promises of potential performance improvements. Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 110) point out that Bruce Henderson of BCG made a "very grand and provocative claim for his matrix". Henderson (1973, p. 6) argued that "such as a single chart, with a projected position for five years out, is sufficient alone to tell a company's profitability, debt capacity, growth potential and competitive strength".
BCG positioned the BCG Matrix as a prescriptive model that would be highly useful (i.e., performance enhancing) in conglomerate-type organizations, an organizational form that was in vogue during the 1970s. The BCG matrix allowed managers to view the firm as a portfolio. The matrix showed which businesses were dogs, cash cows, stars, etc. In other words, the Matrix helped to sort a conglomerate's different businesses into useful categories (Armstrong & Brodie, 1994) and gave managers clear recommendations and prescriptions, e.g., sell dogs, harvest cows, and invest in stars.
The BCG Matrix could also potentially increase performance in other ways. For example, there is an implicit assumption that the BCG Matrix will help managers to stay in control and manage their businesses more effectively. For example, Ernst  , "what has made the framework so powerful and enduring is its amazing breadth; not only is it a method for structuring strategic priority-setting discussions, it also represents a business typology, making it possible for planners to think about a portfolio of holdings from an investment perspective". In other words, the BCG Matrix can be interpreted and used in different ways, as actors apply it in relation to their own organizationspecific issues and problems.

Universality.
Finally, a fourth characteristics of management fashions is that they are typically presented as universal in nature (Røvik, 1998;Strang & Meyer, 1993). Presenting a management technique as universally applicable obviously increases the size of the potential adopter market (Fincham & Evans, 1999;Røvik, 2007). McKenna (2012) points out that BCG followed an universalistic approach when developing techniques such as the BCG Matrix. BCG consultants claimed that their theories "were universally applicable across all industries in part because the BCG consultants had to overcome the potential liability that they were not trained as industry specialists" (McKenna, 2012, p. 154).
The universality of the BCG Matrix also has implications for its use by actors on the demand side (i.e., managers). For example, the BCG Matrix is so simple and intuitive that no particular expertise is required in applying it. The matrix has an intuitive appeal (Day, 1977 84) wrote that "the simplicity of the matrix and its edicts is alluring, but some argue that it all seems too simple". Seeger (1984) argues that this may lead to "oversimplified prescriptions for action which students and managers may attach to the images: we should kick the dogs, cloister the cows, and throw our money at the stars".
The BCG Matrix has also been criticized for being mechanistic (Wilson, 1994). Some argue that using a single management technique such as the BCG Matrix may not be sufficient in increasingly "dynamic" and turbulent business environments (cf. Other critics have pointed out that the BCG Matrix is presented in a seductive way. Managers may be seduced by the BCG Matrix, because it presents the world using dichotomies, and decisions are portrayed as choices between mutually exclusive alternatives (ten Bos, 2000, p. 35). Related to this, is the observation that portfolio matrices have become somewhat of an "article of faith" in the marketing community (Ardley, 2008) and the observation that the BCG Matrix is "folklore" (Armstrong, 1996).

Summary.
In this section, the characteristics of the BCG Matrix have been analyzed. The analysis has shown that the BCG Matrix exhibits several of the characteristics that give management techniques "the ability to flow" (Røvik, 2002) and become fashionable. These inherent characteristics, in particular a very high degree of universality and perceived performance improvements, are important in explaining the BCG Matrix's rise in popularity in the business community.
However, the analysis has also presented various critical perspectives on the BCG Matrix. Several of the characteristics that served the BCG Matrix well in the upswing phase, e.g., its simplicity and universality, became vulnerabilities when the BCG Matrix came under fire by actors seeking to undermine and discredit the BCG Matrix during the late 1970s and 1980s.

The supply side of the BCG Matrix
In this section, the focus shifts to the supply side of the BCG Matrix. The supply side consists of those actors involved in the promotion and propagation of the BCG Matrix. This section begins by with a broad description of the different supply side actors involved in the "fashion-setting community" or "fashion arena" around the BCG Matrix, before the role and activities of each actor type are analyzed in more detail.

The field of actors around the BCG Matrix.
This section provides a broad overview of the most influential actors who have been involved in diffusing and popularizing the BCG Matrix around the world ( Table 4). As can be seen, in particular consulting firms have played a leading role in the diffusion and popularization of the BCG Matrix. Business schools have also played a key role in the diffusion and legitimization of the BCG Matrix. Prestigious user organizations have had some influence as model firms and well-known users of portfolio matrices.
Other actors types have been of lesser importance. For example, the conference/scene and the management gurus that speak at such events have been of relatively low importance. Software firms and social media have also been of little relevance in the case of the BCG Matrix. Even in later years, software firms have not really been involved. This may be due to the relatively simple nature of the BCG Matrix, which does not create much of a need for software solutions.
In addition, the BCG Matrix is not getting much attention on social media compared to other contemporary management ideas (Madsen & Slåtten, 2015b). One explanation for the lack of attention on social media is that the BCG Matrix is perceived as old news in the management community. After all, the historical review in this article has shown that "portfolio matrix wave" took place years prior to the advent of the Internet and social media.  Table 5 provides an overview of several of these competing matrices. In other words, the "firm-as-portfolio" model was promoted by most management consulting firms (Davis et al., 1994, p. 553).
In the following, the portfolio matrices offered by three of the leading strategy consulting firms in this period (Boston Consulting Group (BCG), McKinsey, and Arthur D. Little) will be described in greater detail.   Academics publish articles about new concepts and ideas, and teach new concepts and ideas in business schools, in particular at the MBA and executive education level. Business schools may, therefore, play an important role in creating awareness about and legitimizing new management techniques, by given them a stamp of approval.

Boston Consulting Group (BCG
The role of business schools has been noted in prior research on the BCG Matrix. Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 113) noted the role of the Harvard network in the early popularization of the BCG Matrix: "It is possible that, at its inception, the BCG Matrix was "launched" through Henderson's lines of communication with the Harvard Business School and the corporations connected in various ways to that institution, as well as by direct consultancy work".

MBA and management education. The BCG
Matrix has been covered extensively in US business administration education (Armstrong & Brodie, 1994). The BCG Matrix is commonly taught in strategy courses (Wright et al., 2013), e.g., at the MBA level. This means that the BCG Matrix will be part of the toolbox of aspiring managers and consultants, alongside other strategy tools such as Porter's Five Forces and SWOT Analysis. Mintzberg (2004) argues that the BCG brand name over time has become "imprinted" in management education.

Textbooks.
Although the BCG Matrix has been overtaken in popularity by newer strategy tools, it is still commonly referred to in marketing and strategy textbooks, as well as in MBA education. It is featured in most strategy and marketing textbooks (Griffin, 2016, pp. 79-81;Johnson et al., 2008, pp. 278-280). Furthermore, the BCG matrix is described in the numerous handbooks on management and strategy tools ( However, the coverage of the BCG Matrix in textbooks has not been all positive. For example, the negative aspects of the BCG Matrix have been laid out in influential textbooks (Johnson et al., 2008). Today, the BCG Matrix no longer occupies a central place in most textbooks, and instead has been relegated to a relegated a historical curiosity or footnote. In the words of Phelan (2005, p. 2), "References to the BCG matrix have disappeared from graduate textbooks and academic journals, and are slowly being phased out of undergraduate and marketing text except, perhaps, as historical footnotes".

Research topic.
The BCG Matrix's popularity as a subject of academic research has also changed over time. In the aftermath of the rise in popularity of the BCG Matrix during the 1970s, many academics wrote articles about the BCG Matrix. Phelan (2005) notes that in 1982, six major academic journal articles about the BCG Matrix were published.
Academics tend to take a critical stance towards new management trends, especially those propagated by consulting firms and gurus. This skeptical attitude has also been seen in the case of the BCG Matrix, and the academic criticism surfaced relatively early. Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 116) wrote that "whilst the US business community was revelling in their "new" discovery, the academic community was busy dissecting the BGG and other matrices, and evaluating their failings and shortcomings". At the same time, Morrison and Wensley (1991) point out that this early criticism did not necessarily have a negative effect on its popularity among organizations and managers, noting that "perhaps for BGG, all publicity was good publicity".
Over time, the BCG Matrix has been widely criticized in the fields of marketing and strategy, and the review of criticism leveled at the BCG Matrix reveals a certain level of scholarly disdain. Untiedt et al. (2012) note that portfolio matrices in spite of being relevant and widely used by practitioners have disappeared from the research agendas of academics. Over the course of the last decades, the BCG Matrix has received much attention in the business media. Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 115) noted the attention given to the BCG Matrix in business media as an important factor in explaining its rise: "the publicity generated by BCG, and by the lively debate in the business and academic press, no doubt had a further significant effect on adoption".

Business media. Business media organizations influence the diffusion and institutionalization of new
Hence, it can be argued that the business media acted as an important cheerleader in the early phase. However, business media also played an influential role in the fall of the BCG Matrix. During the 1980s conglomerates, and by implication, portfolio matrices, were heavily criticized in the business press. As pointed out by Davis et al. (1994, p. 564), "the business press denounced the conglomerate merger movement as a bout of collective madness on the part of American businesses and announced the coming of a firmas-network model to replace the now-discredited firmas-portfolio model."

Prestigious user organizations.
Prestigious user organizations sometimes play important roles in the diffusion and popularization of new management techniques by putting themselves on public display as general models (Meyer, 1996). In part, organizations put themselves on display as models to enhance their own legitimacy and status. Prestigious users and experienced early adopters may participate in the fashion arena by writing articles in the business media or giving interviews. In addition, adopters and users of the concepts participate in conferences and seminars by giving speeches and presentations. Hence, experienced adopters may assume the role of experts on a particular technique.
In the case of the BCG Matrix, Morrison and Wensley (1991) point out the role of companies such as Mead Paper and American Standard. With respect to Mead Paper, Morrison and Wensley (1991, p. 114) noted that the director of that company also served as chairman of BCG's parent company.
In addition, the famous American conglomerate General Electric was involved in the development of the GE/McKinsey Matrix. In that case, the GE brand name became closely associated with the name of the matrix. Kieser, 1997). Conference/seminar organizers have played a limited role in the case of the BCG Matrix. Although there may have been a market in the early phase in during the 1970s, in general, it can be difficult to make a living selling conference/seminar seats for well-known and relatively simple management techniques such as the BCG Matrix or SWOT Analysis.

Management gurus.
Management gurus are important in the creation and diffusion of management fashions (Huczynski, 1993;Jackson, 2001). In the case of the BCG Matrix, management gurus have not played a key role.
Bruce Henderson could arguably be called a "BCG Matrix guru", since he played the key role in the early development and writings about the BCG Matrix (Henderson, 1970(Henderson, , 1973(Henderson, , 1979. However, Henderson did not operate on his own, as is often seen in the case of gurus in relation to new management fashions; instead, he was associated with BCG throughout his career.

Summary.
This section has examined the field of actors involved in the market built around the BCG Matrix. Viewed as a whole, consulting firms have clearly played the most important role in the diffusion and popularization of the BCG Matrix. However, business schools have assumed an active role, and bestowed a stamp of legitimacy on the BCG Matrix in the early phase by incorporating the technique in textbooks and educational programs. Business media also created a lot of attention in the early phase. Other actor groups such as conference/seminar organizers and management gurus have played a relatively limited role in the case of the BCG Matrix.
Over time, the roles of the various actors have shifted. As the BCG Matrix fell out of favor, academic researchers and business media became the leading critics and de-legitimizers. As the Zeitgeist shifted, business media organizations published negative pieces on the conglomerate model. Scholars also stepped up their criticism of the BCG Matrix. Consultants have also become less active over time, and have shifted their focus and efforts to newer and more timely management concepts and ideas.

The demand side of the BCG Matrix
This section examines the demand side of the BCG Matrix. The demand side consists of organizations and managers that are potential consumers of portfolio matrices such as the BCG Matrix. The first part of the section examines trends in the interest in and awareness of the BCG Matrix, followed by trends in the adoption and diffusion of the BCG Matrix in different sectors and countries. The final part examines how the BCG Matrix has been implemented and translated in practice. (Choi & Varian, 2012) is an analytic tool that contains Google search data dating back to 2004. Google Trends can be used to take the temperature on the interest in the BCG Matrix among potential consumers on the demand side (Madsen, 2016b).

Interest and awareness. Google Trends
The limited data availability is a weakness in the case of the BCG Matrix since this management technique dates back nearly half a century. However, the data from 2004 and onwards give a partial picture of the interest in BCG Matrix. Figure 1 indicates that even though the search interest appears to be on a downward trajectory, it has not collapsed completely. Furthermore, the Google data indicate that "growth-share matrix" is a more commonly searched for term than "BCG Matrix". Data source: https://www.google.com/trends/, accessed 15 July 2016.

Adoption and diffusion.
This section examines trends in the adoption and use of the BCG Matrix over time. The historical review in section 1 showed that the BCG Matrix was introduced in 1970, but it did not take long before it became widely adopted by organizations and managers. As discussed in section 3, General Electric was an early proponent of portfolio matrices (McKenna, 2012). As early as in 1972, more than 100 major companies in the US used the BCG Matrix (Day, 1977).
Portfolio analysis gained in popularity among companies after the oil crisis in 1973 (Ghemawat, 2002). In the mid to late 1970s, Day (1977) noted that portfolio planning models such as the BCG matrix had "gained wide acceptance among managers of diversified companies". In a similar vein, Lorange (1975) pointed out that analysis similar to the BCG Matrix was widely used and universally practiced in corporate planning.
By the end of the 1970s, the BCG Matrix had spread widely in the US. Around that time it was used in many different sectors (Haspeslagh, 1982). Ghemawat (2002) cites a study that shows that by 1979, portfolio planning techniques were used, at least to a certain extent, by 45% of Fortune 500 companies. Phelan (2005) cites studies (Bettis & Hall, 1981;Haspeslagh, 1982) that demonstrate that the BCG Matrix was used by almost half of Fortune 500 firms during the period from 1972 to 1982.
During the 1980s, the BCG Matrix was the most popular portfolio matrix (Morrison & Wensley, 1991) and widely used in strategic planning (Hax & Majluf, 1983). However, there were industry differences in how the BCG was applied and used (Morrison & Wensley, 1991).
Over the course of the 1990s, the BCG continued to decline in popularity. In a contribution from the late 1990s, Glaister and Falshaw (1999, p. 112) pointed out that "little use is made of portfolio matrices". However, the evidence about usage is mixed, as other researchers note that although traditional planning models have gone out of fashion, American companies were reluctant to discard these classic planning tools (McCabe & Narayanan, 1991).
Research papers published after the year 2000 show that BCG Matrix is still relatively widely used and that the awareness is high. Jarzabkowski and Giulietti (2007) find that portfolio matrices are currently used by 29% of organizations, while 20% have used them previously but not anymore. They also find that the awareness is high. 40% have heard of portfolio matrices but are not using them, while only 13% have not heard of such matrices at all.
In a study conducted in Jordan, Aldehayyat and Anchor (2008) find that portfolio analysis techniques (e.g., BCG Matrix) rank 10 and 3 in terms of use and awareness, respectively. Tassabehji and Isherwood (2014) document a usage rate of 26.4 percent in a sample biased towards UK/USA firms.
In a recent study, Jarzabkowski and Kaplan (2015, p. 546) find that the use of the BCG Matrix persists at a moderate level. Pidun et al. (2011) argues that corporate portfolio planning techniques such as the BCG Matrix are still popular among practitioners. Table 6 sums up the overall trends in the adoption and use of the BCG Matrix over time. The studies reviewed in this section generally show that the BCG has been on a downward trajectory in terms of usage since the heydays in the 1970s. However, at the same time, practitioners seem hesitant to discard these techniques.

Implementation and translation.
In the analysis of the BCG Matrix's characteristics, it was noted that the BCG Matrix allows for different interpretations.
The BCG Matrix is also universal in nature, meaning that it can be adapted to different contexts (Haspeslagh, 1982).
Researchers have noted that BCG Matrix can be applied and translated in different ways in practice. Spee and Jarzabkowski (2009) notes that "the same strategy tool (e.g. BCG matrix) can have different meanings when applied for different purposes, by different individuals or in different contexts". The use of the BCG Matrix also shapes how managers perceive different strategic activities (Armstrong & Brodie, 1994).
The interpretive space also means that the BCG Matrix is often combined with other management concepts in practice. For example, researchers have found that it is combined with other strategy tools such as SWOT (Tao & Shi, 2016). In recent years, the portfolio thinking has also been translated to customer portfolio management (Thakur & Workman, 2016), where the BCG Matrix is applied to customers instead of businesses.

Discussion
In this section, the findings are discussed in the context of the management fashion perspective. The discussion focuses on three themes relevant to the rise, fall and persistence of the BCG Matrix: (1) historical emergence, (2) evolution and life cycle, and (3) institutionalization and deinstitutionalization.

Historical emergence.
The historical analysis in this paper has shown that the BCG Matrix emerged in the late 1960s, mostly as a result of practice-based development. Researchers have found that the BCG Matrix was developed based on experiences from consulting work (Morrison & Wensley, 1991) and in close interaction with actors in business practice (Cummings & Daellenbach, 2009

Institutionalization and deinstitutionalization.
Finally, the rise and fall of the BCG Matrix will be discussed in light of institutionalization and deinstitutionalization, two key concepts in institutional theory (Scott, 2001), and more recently also in discussions of management fashions ( 1993). After a rapid rise in interest and popularity, new fashions become "old" and ultimately fall out of favor and decline into obscurity.
However, it is increasingly recognized that management fashions can be institutionalized via the institutional work of supply side actors who anchor these fashionable techniques as more permanent and resilient frameworks and practices (Perkmann & Spicer, 2008). The enduring nature of some management fashions has, for instance, been shown in the case of Knowledge Management (Grant, 2011;Hislop, 2010;Jemielniak & Kociatkiewicz, 2009).
The case of the BCG Matrix is interesting to discuss in relation to institutionalization and deinstitutionalization processes. On the one hand, it is clear that the BCG Matrix was on the rise in terms of popularity, and for a while enjoyed a very high standing in the business community (signs of institutionalization). On the other hand, the BCG Matrix's fall from grace was triggered by different factors, including a shift in zeitgeist and the "deinstitutional work" of key actors in the business community. In particular, business media and scholars criticized and discredited the conglomerate form and the "firm-as-portfolio model" (Davis et al., 1994) represented by the BCG Matrix.
Despite having risen and fallen in popularity, the BCG Matrix has not completely gone away. The research cited in this paper shows that it still enjoys at least some level of popularity among practitioners, even though it is widely discredited in academic circles. However, it can be argued that the BCG Matrix has left an imprint on management education and practice.
Although consultants these days find it more difficult to make a living selling 2x2 matrices, the BCG Matrix is still closely associated with its creator BCG. Today, BCG enjoys a position as one of the elite strategy consulting firms (Kiechel, 2010). This in and of itself could explain some of the BCG Matrix enduring nature, as management techniques that are associated with the elite consultancies may be perceived more positively by business managers.
Although BCG consultants are not promoting the matrix to the extent that they did in the early 1970s, it may be in the self-interest of BCG to protect its intellectual legacy and brand name. Therefore, it is not surprising that the BCG Matrix is still featured in the book "The Boston Consulting Group on Strategy" (Stern & Deimler, 2012). In 2014, leading BCG consultants still refer to their matrix as a "BCG Classic" (Reeves et al., 2014), and they argue that "BCG Matrix 2.0" still continues to be relevant even in today's turbulent and dynamic business environment.

Conclusion
Contributions. The present paper has examined the rise, fall and persistence of the BCG Matrix using management fashion theory as a theoretical backdrop. Although previous contributions alluded to fashion as being a possible factor involved in the rise of the BCG Matrix (Morrison & Wensley, 1991), this theoretical perspective has not been fully considered and utilized. As shown in this paper, the management fashion perspective casts a new light on the role of the actors and institutions involved in shaping the evolution pattern of the BCG Matrix.
Although the main focus of the paper has been to provide a new theoretical perspective on the historical evolution of the BCG Matrix, the paper also has some practical implications. Despite its fall from grace, the BCG Matrix has left an imprint on business school education, consulting, as well as managerial practice. Portfolio matrices such as the BCG Matrix are, despite their shortcomings, are viewed as practically relevant and still used in practice (Untiedt et al., 2012). The historical examination in this paper could potentially be useful for practitioners seeking to understand the origins and evolution of the BCG Matrix, and how it relates to other approaches in the field of management.
Limitations and future research directions. Like all research studies, this study is certainly not immune to limitations and weaknesses. Therefore, future research papers could elaborate on the present study in a several different ways.
For example, the current study has only presented an overall macro picture of the rise, fall and persistence of the BCG Matrix. The approach bears similarities with Morrison and Wensley (1991) who assembled a "mosaic" of the factors explaining the rise in the popularity of the BCG Matrix. Since the present study has covered a period stretching nearly 50 years, it has not been possible to focus in depth on a particular sub-period. Future studies can focus specifically on the evolution of the BCG Matrix within specific time periods, and in greater detail trace the activities of the various actors supporting or opposing the BCG Matrix.
Another limitation is related to the choice of management fashion as a theoretical lens. The author recognizes that this could have led to bias, as it may lead to an "over-socialized" view of the rise and fall of the BCG Matrix. There are certainly many other factors that could explain the evolution pattern of the BCG Matrix. Future studies on the BCG Matrix could draw on a wider spectrum of theoretical perspectives about the adoption, diffusion and evolution of management practices (see, e.g., Sturdy, 2004).
Generally, there is a need for more research on tools and techniques for corporate portfolio analysis. Practitioners would also benefit from a better understanding the origins and evolution of management techniques. A better understanding of shortcomings could enable practitioners to better adapt and "translate" classic techniques such as the BCG Matrix to the modern business environment (cf. Reeves et al., 2014).
Finally, there is a need for more research on the management techniques launched and propagated by elite consulting firms such as BCG and McKinsey. These elite consulting firms are powerful actors who greatly influence the diffusion and popularization of management knowledge (O'Mahoney & Sturdy, 2016). As the case study presented in this paper shows, these firms play a key role in the rise and fall in popularity of particular management techniques.