Competitive Strategy Essay

Successful and un undefeated strategies make a familiaritys destiny R.A. Burgelman, Strategy is Destiny war-ridden Strategy is the amply-level dodging implementd by the firm to realize its melodic line goals, and in especial(a), dineroability, in the face of competition. We study exculpate- opening move(a) system within the over on the whole setting of technology firms, which operate within a so-c on the wholeed assiduity, e.g., the data processor manufacture, the consumer electronic labor, the cellular ph i pains. Each industry, ideally, wait ons a securities industry place, which denotes the buyers or guests of the crops and benefits offered by the industry. The head for the hills of outline, which has a time horizon of years, is, in general, to set the long direction or seat of the firm, for example define the technology, ingathering, or service that the firm intends to develop, and de circumstanceine the intended trade for the ingathering or serv ice. The function of planning, which, in general, has a time horizon of several months to years, is to translate long system into medium-term activities, e.g., the portfolio of projects that the firm should execute the time-phased planning of these projects, and resource allocation. The function of operations, which has the time-horizon of geezerhood to months, is, in general, to translate medium-term planning activities into deadsighted-term crop design, development, and delivery activities such(prenominal) as prototyping, manufacturing, product release, and shipment. No teleph wholenessr can follow all one schema. For example, Johnson & Johnson uses one marting outline for its common product such as BAND-AID & Johnsons baby products and different securities industrying scheme for its full(prenominal) Tech healthc be products such as Vicryl Plus, antibacterial surgical sutures or NeuFlex finger joint implants. There argon several different types of dodge, including m ilitant strategy, technology strategy, product merchandise strategy, financial strategy, and supply- chain strategy. For a technology union to be successful all these strategies need to be aligned with severally other, and with the personal credit line goals of the firm. matched strategy, is the juicyest level of strategy in the firm, and is intimately tie in to the mission and vision of the firm and also to setting the direction for all the other strategies in the firm. There are several schools of strategy governing body design, planning, aligning (Mintzberg, 1998). We center on on two cardinal schools or frameworks for strategy- humans or strategy-making that are particularly pregnant for high-technologycompanies.The first framework is the so-called fix approach due to Porter (Porter, 1980), In this approach strategy is viewed as taking a generic wine position in a competitory food market and which views strategy-making as an analytic process performed at the industry-market structural level (Porter, 1980) and the resulting dynamics in the midst of functional groups of players (e.g., competitors, suppliers) in the industry. The second framework analyzes strategy-making at the industry-level, caller-out level, and intra- caller-up level exploitation ontogenesisary organization theory (Burgelman 2002). In this phylogenesisary organizational theory approach, each ships company is an organizational ecology within which strategy emerges through two primary weapons, external picking and intragroup assignion. When companies start, because they are modernistic and small the external selection mechanism dominates. As a company grows in size and becomes more established, internal selection plays an classic role. found on phylogenyary organization theory, views strategy-making as an evolutionary process performed at three levels industry-company level, company-level, and intra-company level. When these two frameworks are unite, an interconnected approach to combative strategy emerges from industry-market level all the way to intra-company level. A unique aspect of creating matched strategy for a company, and in particular, a high-technology company, is that the time-scales for the evolution of markets, industries, and technologies are, in general, much shorter (faster) compared to other industries. Therefore, the strategy frameworks of the positioning school needs to be augmented with functional comprises (Clark and Wheelwright, 1993), which capture the evolution of the market, industry, and technology relevant to the company, and which can and so be used to have strategy. The objectives of this chapter are as follows1. Describe the positioning framework for the excogitation of matched strategy. 2. Provide an integrated combative strategy process which is useful in growth militant strategy in a technology company. 3. instal the application of the process of agonistical strategy The objective of te chnology strategy (Clark and Wheelwright, 1993) is to guide the technology company in developing, acquiring, and applying technology for rivalrous advantage. An important part of technologystrategy is the definition of proficient capabilities (e.g., advanced device design, rapid prototyping, change assembly) that provide war-ridden advantage. The objective of product/market strategy is to clearly establish the followers define what differentiates the product from its competitors identify market segments for the product, the customer needs of these segments, and the corresponding products (i.e., product lines) that pull up stakes be offered to these segments etc. An important outcome of product/market strategy is to define the product road affair, including sales volume and price, necessary to realize the business goals.However, in the rapidly evolving industry and market landscape of high-technology, competitive strategy, in turn, depends on three levels of strategy-making as follows (Burgelman, 2002) 1. intentness-company level. At this level the firm must determine its strategicalal position, its aggregate competencies, and its strategic action. 2. Company level At this level strategy-making involves induced strategy and autonomous strategy. 3. Intra-company level At this the internal level autonomous strategy is created. In successful companies, it is the tight coupling of strategy these three levels of strategy-making with the highest-level (i.e., industry-market level) competitive strategy that, results in successful strategic action where what the company rattling does, e.g., the product lines it develops and markets, results in the realization of its business goals. It is also useful to summons two other strategies that are closely related to competitive strategy. financial strategy includes issues such as capital budgeting and portfolio management, i.e., deciding on which technology and product development projects to fund in order to maximize the accumulative expected profit. Another important and related strategy is supply chain strategy (Chopra), which specifies the service, distribution, and operations functions, performed either in-house or outsourced, that the company should do well(p) in order to successfully realize its intended competitive strategy.The location FrameworkWe first amaze a historical overview of the positioning or analytic school of strategy. Then, we develop the vanadium-spot forces framework (Porter, 1980) andthe approach to intromission of competitive strategy that is closely related to the 5 forces framework. We impart use the personal computer industry to illustrate the approach. The positioning school of strategy which emerges from the competitive school is based on the following assumptions (Mintzberg, 1998) the marketplace is competitive strategy is a generic position in the marketplace strategy physical composition is the selection of a generic position based on compend. The underlying assumption is that industry or market structure drives position which drives the organizational structure of the firm. Matrices alike the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) introduced two techniques the growth- piece of ground matrix, and the visualize curve.The growth-share matrix for a firm, developed in the early 1970s, is a 22 matrix with growth along one dimension, and market share along the other dimension. Each of these variables can take two values, high or low resulting in a 22 matrix. Therefore, the product portfolio of a firm can be decomposed into four combinations of growth and market share, each with a well defined meaning (High growth, high market share) or stars, (high growth, low share) or question marks, (slow growth, high share) or cash cows, and (slow growth, low share) or dogs. The approach to strategy using this matrix would be to have a portfolio balanced mainly mingled with cash cows (the stable business of the firm, e.g., MAC computers in the c ausa of apple) and stars (e.g., the iPod, in the case of apple). The experience curve, developed in 1965-66, is based on the idea that accumulated experience by a firm influences cost and prices. The claim for the experience curve was that for each cumulative doubling of experience, nitty-gritty costs would decline roughly 20% to 30% because of economies of scale, organizational learning, and technical innovation (Ghemawat, 1999). In 1971, the consulting firm McKinsey came up with the GE/McKinsey nine-block matrix called the sedulousness Attractiveness- task Strength matrix (Ghemawat, 1999), which plotted business efficacy High, sensitive, misfortunate along one axis, and industry attractive force High, Medium, Low along the other axis. The basic idea was to dissociate the company into strategic business units (SBUs), and past make the appropriate strategic recommendations for each SBU depending on its location in the matrix.TheFive Forces Framework and Competitive Strategy In this framework there are two upper-level coiffes in the al-Qaida of competitive strategy, each stage corresponding to a high-level determinant of profitability mentioned in the previous section. The first stage is the assessment of the attractiveness of the industry in which a given company is embedded based on a structural synopsis of the industry. In this stage, called the cardinal forces framework, five forces that influence industry attractiveness are identified, as well as the factors (e.g., number of competitors, size of competitors, capital requirements) that determine the enthusiasm of each force and therefore the cumulative forte of the five forces. The calculate of the five forces framework is to relate the degree (or intensity) of competition in a given industry, as qualitatively measured by the combined strength (or intensity) of five forces, to the attractiveness of the industry, defined as its ability to sustain profitability. Based on the structural analys is, a particular company may be in a very attractive industry (e.g., pharmaceuticals) or in an subfusc industry (e.g., steel). However, though a firm exists in an unattractive industry, it can still be highly profitable by choosing the good competitive position within the industry, for example, e.g., a mini-mill such as Nucor in the steel industry in the nineteen-eighties (Ghemawat). The second stage of strategy creation addresses the competitive strategy available to the firm in order to achieve a strong competitive position. Ideally, a firm would want to be in a very attractive industry (e.g., pharmaceuticals) and have a strong competitive position (e.g., large pharmaceutical firms such as Smith Klein or Glaxo) within the industry. The five forces framework for the structural analysis of an industry is as follows. First, we define the following terms used in the structural analysis of the industry industry, market, competitors, new entrants, substitutes, buyers, and sellers. Th e term industry denotes (1) the manufacturers (or producers) and (2) the suppliers of a primary product or service, as well as (3) the manufacturers of substitute(a) products and services that could serve as a substitute.For example, the (conventional) personal computer (PC) industry would include PC manufacturers like dell and Apple, suppliers of semiconductor chips like Intel and Micron, suppliers ofdisc drives like Seagate, suppliers of software system such as Microsoft, etc. Substitute products could be pen-based digs PCs or small hand-held personal digital assistants (PDAs). In the five forces framework described below, manufacturers and producers will designated as (1) competitors in the industry if they already have established products, or (2) new-entrants if they are trying to enter the industry, or (3) substitutes, if they provide option (substitute) products. The term market denotes the buyers (or customers) of the product or service. For example, the market for PCs w ould include enterprises and individual consumers. The analytical process of strategy analysis and creation can be decomposed into the following five steps. 1. Create a interpret of the industry in which the technology company is embedded. There are five bring out sets of players that constitute the business landscape competitors, new entrants, substitutes, suppliers, and buyers. Identify key players (companies) for each industry. 2. Perform a five forces analysis of the industry structure. The five forces that influence the intensity of competition in a particular industry, and therefore the profitability of the firms within the industry Force 1 the degree of competition (or competition) between the competitors Force 2 the threat of new entrants (or the inverse of this force, the roadblock to access) Force 3 the threat of substitutes Force 4 vendee condition (to demand lower prices) Force 5 Supplier Power (to augment material prices). For each force, determine the key struct ural determinants which affect the intensity of the force. Porter and Ghemawat provide a detailed set of the determinants for each force, well-nigh of which are given in the table below. In the last tugboat of this table we indicate plausible values of each force for the PC industry in the nineteen nineties.Table 1 Force depict Determinants Strength of the force Rivalry between competitors Concentration (number) and size of Medium to high competitors Fixed costs/value added Brand indentity Barrier to entry Economies of scale Medium to high Brand identity Capital requirements menace of substitutes Price/Performance of substitutes Low to medium Switching costs Buyer Power Buyer concentration Buyer size (volume) Medium to high Switching costs Supplier Power Supplier concentration Low to medium Supplier size (volume) Switching costs In theory, one would, qualitatively determine the strength of each force, as indicated in the tertiary column of the to a higher place table, and then determine the cumulative or combined intensity of the five forces. The collective intensity or strength of the forces will determine the structural strength of the industry, as characterized by attractiveness, or the profit potential of the industry. The profit potential is measured by the long term return on invested capital (ROIC). If the collective strength of the forces is high, as in the steel industry, then the corresponding profit potential or attractiveness is low, and vice-versa. At one extreme of this analysis is the perfectly competitive free market, where there are numerous firms alloffering very similar products that cannot be secernate (therefore, the force of rivalry is high), entry is free (therefore, the threat of both new entrants and substitutes is high), and bargaining power of both suppliers and buyers is low.Using the PC industry of the 1990s as an example, the qualitative values of the forces sh admit in the last column of t he above table would lead one to conclude that the cumulative strength of the five forces was medium to high, and therefore the attractiveness of the industry, i.e., its profitability, was medium to low. The PC industry in the nineteen-nineties would therefore not be attractive to new entrants, and in fact, in the early 2000s, HPs computer business was unprofitable, and IBM sold its computer business to Lenovo. (It is important to note that HPs unprofitability in computer business in the early 2000s cannot be attributed solely to industry attractiveness being low, but is also due to issues associated with its acquisition of the computer company Compaq.) 3. Select a competitive positioning strategy The basic premise of Porter and Hall was that for a firm to be successful (in a market) it had to compete based on one of two sources of competitive advantage cost, i.e., by providing low cost products, or differentiation, i.e., by differentiating its products from its competitors with ma intain to quality and performance.Porter also proposed that a firm needs to select its strategic target either offering a product to the correct market (market-wide), or offering a product for a particular market segment. Using these two dimensions (source of competitive advantage, and strategic target), Porter proposed the following three generic competitive strategies 1. Cost Leadership offering the last costs products to the entire market 2. Differentiated offering highly unique products (as perceived by the customer) to the entire market 3. Focus offering products which serve the needs of a niche segment of the market Porters claim is that for a company to be successful in the industry in which it operates it must choose between one of the three generic strategies cost leadership, differentiated, and focus. If one uses the personal computer industry in the US during the 1990s as an example, then the competitive strategies of the major players was as follows Dell was the low-co st leader HP had a differentiated strategy with high-quality products Apple had a focus strategy, targeting a narrow marketsegment of users who whom the user-experience (look, feel, and graphical user interfaces) were highly important and IBM had a mixed strategy. 4. Link competitive strategy to strategic planning (Ghemawat 1999) In order for a company to derive competitive advantage (or position) within its industry, the company needs to maximize, relative to it competitors, the difference between the buyers willingness to pay and the costs incurred in delivering the product to the buyer. Therefore, the beside step in the competitive analysis is for the company to link competitive strategy to strategic planning by analyzing all the activities involved in differentiation and cost, and, to this end, a value chain (Porter, 1985) is an extremely important tool. concord to Porter, the value chain disaggregates a firm into its strategically relevant activities in order to understand the behavior of costs and the existing and potential sources of differentiation. A three step process for using these activities, first to analyze costs, then to analyze buyers willingness to pay, and finally to explore different strategic planning options to maximize the difference between willingness to pay and cost, is developed in (Ghemawat, 1999). 5. Competitive strategy needs to evolve, especially in a high-technology company where markets, industries, and technologies, are changing relatively rapidly. A good example of the evolution of competitive strategy is IBMs strategic decisions to evolve from a product-based company in the early nineties to a services-led company at the present time. In the early nineties, when the company was in trouble, IBM closely examined its business homunculus and strategic direction, and decided to stay whole by moving its focus from products and hardware to solutions. One result of this strategic touch was the creation of IBM globular Services i n the mid-nineties. By the late-nineties the company moved into e-business solutions, and extended this molding in the 2000s to business-on-demand. One result of these shifts in strategy was IBMs decision to exit the Personal Computer Market by selling its PC business to Lenovo.Functional MapsA functional map essentially is a time-based evolutionary map of a key metric for an important organizational function, e.g., a product performance metric map for the engineer function in a technology firm, e.g., the well-known Moores honor in the semiconductor industry. Since the time-scales for the evolution of markets, industries and technologies for technology companies, especially high-tech companies, is short compared to other industries, the creation of the appropriate functional maps is critical to strategy formation in a technology company. As an example, in the relatively short span of four decades, information technology evolved from mainframes through workstations, servers and personal computers to internet-based and unstable computing. An important feature of our approach to developing competitive strategy in a technology firm is the integrated approach to strategy for a technology company, which relates company strategy to the companys business goals, business strategy, technology strategy, and product trade strategy. Since, markets, industries, technologies, and products for a technology company are continually evolving, an important concept that plays a vital role in the creation of strategy, and, in particular, competitive strategy, is the functional map (Clark and Wheelwright, 1993).Here are some useful dimensions along which to create functional maps for strategy creation a) Evolution of the industry in which the enterprise operates (changes in technology, customer needs, competitive landscape, etc.) b) Evolution of strategy business, technology, and market of the enterprise c) Evolution of technology (including manufacturing), product platform s, and product lines of the enterprise. The processes used for technology, product, and process development within the enterprise. d) Growth (or decline) of the enterprise with respect to of market share, revenues, costs, profits, etc. e) Organizational structure of the enterprisef) find decisions made at different stages in the life of enterprise, and the drivers for these decisions g) The interconnections and relationships between all the above dimensions A multi-dimensional functional map for Intel is given in the beside section. A very simple example of how functionalmaps can shape strategy is in the information technology industry. A functional map of the Information Technology Industry from the 1990s to the 2000s would reveal a shift from products to services. The Services business in 2007-08 is approximately $750 billion, with IBM, whose share of this market is $54 billion, being the leader. HP, whose own share in the market is $17 billion seeing this shift in the industry and the need to work out competitive strength, acquired EDS, whose share of the market is $21 billion. The combined share of HP and EDS would then be $38 billion, allowing it to compete more potently with IBM. Another simple example of the use of a functional map in creating strategy is in the software industry. In the 2000s the software market is moving from a packaged product to online software, where individuals can get software that is mostly free, supported by advertising. Google is using its leadership on the entanglement to provide online software that competes with Microsofts packaged software. Understanding this shift from packaged to online, and the corresponding change in the revenue model from direct sales (of product) to advertising, Microsoft is aggressively entering the online advertising business. emergence for developing competitive strategy in a companyIf we combine the positioning framework for competitive strategy due to Porter, the evolutionary organization theoretic framework due to Burgelman, and augment these with the creation of relevant functional maps, then the resulting process of developing competitive strategy in a company can be decomposed into four stages, as follows. Stage 1 Company Analysis1. build the business goals and objectives (ROI, %market share, revenue, and growth aspirations). 2. delineate the technology strategy and product market strategy for the company. 3. Define the overall development goals and objectives to align business goals, technology, and market strategies. 4. Develop the functional evolutionary maps of the markets and industry in which the company is embedded. Create functional maps (time-based evolutionary maps) for technology, product market, and manufacturingstrategy of the firm. These maps will be useful in the process of assessing and creating competitive strategy. Stage 2 Industry Analysis1. Perform the structural analysis of the industry in which the company is either an active competitor, o r a new entrant, or a substitute. 2. Determine the existing competitive strategy of the company within the industry. 3. Determine the relationships between the company and the other players in the industry Stage 3 Assessment and Evolution of the companys strategy within the relevant markets and industries 1. Using the functional maps of the overall markets and industry in which the company is embedded, as well as the company specific functional maps, assess the evolution of the companys competitive strategy. 2. Decide on what the companys future competitive strategy should be, and the corresponding technology strategy, product market strategy, and manufacturing strategy. GlossaryAutonomous Strategy (also see induced strategy). Autonomous strategy refers to actions of individuals or small groups within the company that are outside the telescope of current high-level collective strategy. While autonomous strategy is labored by the companys distinctive (core) competencies, it usually (1) involves new competencies that are not the focus of the firm, and (2) results in so-called disruptive technologies that could change the strategic direction of the firm (Burgelman, 2002). Company Structure (vertical vs. horizontal). A vertical company is one which uses only its own proprietary technologies. A horizontal company is one which (usually because of the existence of open-standards) which does not solely rely on its own proprietary technologies, but usually uses technologies and products from other suppliers. In the computer industry, traditionally, Apple is an example of a vertical company, while Dell is an example of a horizontal company. The computer industry, itself, moved from a vertical structure to a horizontal structure in the 1980s (Ghemawhat, 1999). Corporate Strategy (official corporate strategy). Corporate strategy is top managements view of the basis of the companys success.It includes distinctive (core) competencies, product-market domains, and core valu es (Burgelman, 2002) Industry. The term industry, e.g., the consumer electronics industry,denotes (1) the manufacturers (or producers) and (2) the suppliers of a primary product or service, as well as (3) the manufacturers of alternative products and services that could serve as a substitute (Porter, 1980). Market. The term market denotes the buyers (or customers) of the product or service. Typically markets are segmented, for example, a two-dimensional air division based on the types of product (product segmentation) along one axis, and the types of customers (customer segmentation) along the other axis. The market, as represented by Buyers is an important part of the industry analysis in Porters framework. Once youve established the key assets and skills necessary to succeed in this business and have defined your distinct competitive advantage, you need to communicate them in a strategic form that will attract market share as well as fight it. Competitive strategies usually fall into these five areas1. Product2. Distribution3. price4. Promotion5. AdvertisingMany of the factors leading to the formation of a strategy should already have been highlighted in previous sections, specifically in marketing strategies. Strategies primarily revolve around establishing the point of entry in the product life cycle and an endurable competitive advantage. As weve already discussed, this involves specify the elements that will set your product or service apart from your competitors or strategic groups. You need to establish this competitive advantage clearly so the reader understands not only how you will accomplish your goals, but why your strategy will work.picReferencesBurgelman, R.A., Strategy is Destiny, The Free Press, overbold York, 2002. Chopra, Sunil, and creature Meindl, Supply Chain Management, Strategy,Planning, and Operations, Third Edition, Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2007. Clark, K. B., and S.C. Wheelwright, Managing New Product and Process Development, Text and Cases, The Free Press, New York, 1993. Edwards, Cliff, Intel, Business Week, March 8, 2004, Pages 56-64. Ghemawat, Pankaj, Strategy and the Business Landscape, Text and Cases, Addison Wesley, 1999. Mintzberg, Henry and Bruce Ahlstrand, and Joseph Lampel, Strategy Safari, The Free Press, New York, 1998 Porter, Michael, Competitive Strategy, New York, The Free Press, 1980 Porter, Michael, Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York, 1985Figure 1 A strategic view of the technology firm, showing different types of strategy taxation ($),Growth (%),Etc.Purpose of the companyFinancial StrategyCompetitiveStrategyMarketStrategyTechnologyStrategyBusiness Goals visual sensation Mission