DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparative Study of Industry and Resource-Based Approaches to Strategy: the Case of Managerial Education Industry in Sweden

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparative Study of Industry and Resource-Based Approaches to Strategy: the Case of Managerial Education Industry in Sweden Stockholm School of Economics Department of Marketing and Strategy Institute of International Business Master Thesis in Strategy Comparative Study of Industry and Resource-Based Approaches to Strategy: The case of managerial education industry in Sweden The primary aim of our research was to compare the results derived from two different approaches to strategy analysis: industry analysis (outside-in) vs. resource-based view (inside-out). We have chosen this topic because all the previous research dealt with this issue only on theoretical level. We have however decided to compare the practical implications of the two approaches. As an instrument to conduct this comparison, we have chosen managerial education industry in Sweden to analyze industry structure, dynamics and long-term profit potential as well as to define the sources of competitive advantage. Even when looking at this from the purely theoretical perspective we have found the interdependence of the two approaches. But after conducting the empirical study of an industry, we can state that the results of the applications of these approaches have even more in common than it was evident on the more conceptual level. We conclude that strategic analysis of the industry requires examination of both industry structure and firm’s resources and capabilities, since they are complimentary tools. “In” in outside-in analysis smoothly progresses into “in” in inside-out and back, rendering the two approaches extremely interconnected. Tutor: Patrick Regnér Authors: Dmitry Titov 19975 Sergiy Protsiv 80313 Discussant: Shantanoo Bhide 80308 Date and time: December 15, 2006. 15:00 Venue: Room C512 Acknowledgements: First of all, we would like to thank our tutor Patrick Regnér for providing us with many insightful comments and extensive feedback. We would also like to express our gratitude to all the people who took time to meet with us for interviews and contributed greatly to achieving our purpose. Finally, we thank people in Institute of International Business for their comments and providing access to IIB facilities and resources. Outline 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................3 1.1. Background......................................................................................................................3 1.2. Purpose.............................................................................................................................4 1.3. Delimitations ...................................................................................................................4 1.4. Outline..............................................................................................................................4 2. Methodology ...........................................................................................................................5 2.1. Research Design..............................................................................................................5 2.1.1. Research Approach – Stepwise Order...............................................................................5 2.1.2. Research Method – Qualitative ..........................................................................................5 2.1.3. Research Strategy – Single-Case Study ..............................................................................5 2.1.4. Choice of Companies...........................................................................................................6 2.2. Data Collection ...............................................................................................................7 2.2.1. Primary Data – Interviews...................................................................................................7 2.2.2. Secondary Data – Documentation and Formal Industry Studies .................................8 2.3. Quality of Research Design...........................................................................................8 2.3.1. Construct Validity .................................................................................................................8 2.3.2. Internal Validity.....................................................................................................................9 2.3.3. External Validity....................................................................................................................9 2.3.4. Reliability ................................................................................................................................9 3. Theoretical frameworks...................................................................................................... 10 3.1. Academic debate on differences of industry analysis and resource-based view. 10 3.2. Outside-in strategy analysis ........................................................................................ 12 3.2.1. Competitive forces model .................................................................................................12 3.2.2. Strategic groups...................................................................................................................14 3.3. Inside-out strategy analysis......................................................................................... 14 3.3.1. The resources and capabilities of the firm......................................................................15 3.3.2. Intangible resources............................................................................................................15 3.3.3. Dynamic capabilities...........................................................................................................17 3.3.4. Putting resource and capabilities to practice ..................................................................17 3.3.5. Isolating mechanisms .........................................................................................................18 4. Industry overview................................................................................................................ 20 5. Strategy analysis ................................................................................................................... 23 5.1. The industry from the outside-in perspective ......................................................... 23 5.1.1. Five forces analysis .............................................................................................................23 5.1.2. Future trends .......................................................................................................................29 5.1.3. Long-term profit potential.................................................................................................30 5.1.4. Key Success Factors ...........................................................................................................30 5.1.5. Strategic groups...................................................................................................................31 5.2. The industry from the inside-out perspective ......................................................... 33 5.2.1. Strategic resources...............................................................................................................33 5.2.2. Capabilities ...........................................................................................................................36 5.2.3. Assessing the relative importance of resources and capabilities .................................38 5.2.4. Key profitability driving forces.........................................................................................40 6. Comparing the results of applying the two approaches in practice............................. 41 7. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 43 Literature ...................................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix 1. The five forces model.......................................................................................... 47 Appendix 2. The modified VRIO framework ........................................................................ 49 Appendix 3. Interview guides.................................................................................................... 50 Appendix 4. Company profiles ................................................................................................. 51 Appendix 5. Selected financial data on the companies in the industry............................... 55 2 1. Introduction The introduction section is aimed to present the reader with the topic overview. In this part we provide the background of the research, define its purpose and delimitations. The structure of the paper and the content of each chapter are presented in the outline. 1.1. Background Throughout our education at Stockholm School of Economics the issue of strategic analysis has been extensively discussed in many of the courses. We have noticed that many teachers often have their own different preferences concerning which view of strategy to utilize. The most frequently used approaches by far were the industry analysis propagated most notably by Michael Porter (also known as outside-in analysis) and resource-based view introduced by Jay Barney and developed by many other scholars (inside-out approach). These methodologies
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Footprint of the RBV in International Business Studies: the Last Twenty Years of Research
    Understanding the footprint of the RBV in International Business studies: The last twenty years of research Manuel Portugal Ferreira ESTG – Instituto Politécnico de Leiria Nuno Rosa dos Reis ESTG – Instituto Politécnico de Leiria Fernando Ribeiro Serra Uninove – Universidade Nove de Julho Benny Kramer Costa Uninove – Universidade Nove de Julho & Universidade de São Paulo 2013 Working paper nº 96/2013 globADVANTAGE Center of Research in International Business & Strategy INDEA - Campus 5 Rua das Olhalvas Instituto Politécnico de Leiria 2414 - 016 Leiria PORTUGAL Tel. (+351) 244 845 051 Fax. (+351) 244 845 059 E-mail: [email protected] Webpage: www.globadvantage.ipleiria.pt Citação : Ferreira, M.P., Reis, N., Serra, F. & Costa, B. Understanding the footprint of the RBV in International Business studies: The last twenty years of research , Working paper nº 96/2013, globADVANTAGE – Center of Research in International Business & Strategy. Com o apoio 2 Understanding the footprint of the RBV in International Business studies: The last twenty years of research ABSTRACT International business (IB) research has evolved substantially over the past four decades incorporating new concerns and theoretical contributions. During the past two decades, the Resource-Based View (RBV) has gained the preference of many IB scholars and has gradually become one of the dominant theoretical perspectives for studying IB decisions and operations. The 1991 article “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage ” by Jay Barney is recognized as a fundamental contribution to the Resource- Based View (RBV). In this paper we assess the influence of the RBV, proxied by Jay Barney’s (1991) article, on IB research over the twenty years period, from 1991 to 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • The Engineering of Strategy: ��� G������, U������ T����� �� S�������� M��������� ��� P����������
    THE ENGINEERING OF STRATEGY: ��� G������, U������ T����� �� S�������� M��������� ��� P���������� K�� WA���� [email protected] Abstract Strategy scholars and others have long been concerned about limited relevance and usage of strategy theories and methods. This might be addressed by better integration of existing rigorous principles, including those of other management disciplines, into a general, unified theory [GUT] of strategic management and performance. A possible GUT builds on three generic principles—that firm performance at any time depends on current quantities of tangible resources, that those and other resources and capabilities accumulate and deplete over time, and that interdependencies amongst these processes, interacting with rivals and other exogenous factors, capture the dynamics of the organization’s operating system and explain the resulting performance of an organization over time, on any chosen measure(s). These principles are applicable at all levels of strategy and to all contexts, including non-commercial cases. Applying the functions that operationalize the principles provides an “engineering view” of an enterprise, amenable to deliberate design and continuous management. The GUT is amenable to falsification—the search for any situation in which it can be shown to fail. Keywords: strategy theory, strategic management, system dynamics, organizational performance Strategy writers have long expressed concern that the field is not sufficiently relevant to the real world (Hambrick, 2004; Ghoshal, 2005; Farjoun, 2007; Whittington and Jarzabkowski, 2008). There is also suggestive evidence that its tools, methods and frameworks (hereafter, simply ‘methods’) are not widely used (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2013), and may be regarded by practitioners as being of limited value and relevance (Coyne and Subramaniam, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Sustained Competitive Advantage from Human Capital Benjamin Campbell the Ohio State University
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Faculty Publications 2012 Rethinking Sustained Competitive Advantage from Human Capital Benjamin Campbell The Ohio State University Russell Coff University of Wisconsin-Madison See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub Part of the Management Information Systems Commons Original Publication Citation Campbell, B., Coff, R. & Kryscynski, D., 2012. Re-thinking Sustained Competitive Advantage from Human Capital. Academy of Management Review. 37 (3): 376-395. BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Campbell, Benjamin; Coff, Russell; and Kryscynski, David, "Rethinking Sustained Competitive Advantage from Human Capital" (2012). All Faculty Publications. 1977. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1977 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Authors Benjamin Campbell, Russell Coff, and David Kryscynski This peer-reviewed article is available at BYU ScholarsArchive: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1977 Rethinking Sustained Competitive Advantage from Human Capital* Benjamin Campbell** The Ohio State University 744 Fisher Hall 2100 Neil Avenue Columbus, OH 43210 Phone: (614) 292-1747 Email: [email protected] Russell Coff University of Wisconsin-Madison 4259 Grainger Hall
    [Show full text]
  • Tel Aviv Conference 18 North America North America (1,263) +16 (1,004) 1% Ge M Europe Europe
    SMS Special Conference 2013 EMERGING TelSUMMER Aviv StrategicMarch 9–11, 2014 SMSleadership: 33rd ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AN EMERGING MARKET SMSSMS PERSPECTIVE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT NEWSLETTER SOCIETY SMS SPECIAL CONFERENCE DEC 17-19, 2013 • MOHALI, INDIA SMS SUMMER 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS GING EMER 34 AtlantaSEP 28 – OCT 1, 2013R President’s Letter 2 SCHOLA SMS News 3 Journal News 4 SMJ Update 6 GSJ Update 7 Fellows News 8 Emerging Scholar Award 9 SEPT 20-23, 2014 CK Prahalad Award 10 Geneva Conference 11 2012 2008 Competitive 736 Strategy 984 Corporate Strategy 535 and Governance 787 Glasgow Conference 12 Entrepreneurship 617 and Strategy 878 Global 438 Strategy 662 Knowledge and 640 Innovation 897 Strategy 407 Process 504 Strategy 258 Practice 385 Strategic Human Capital 252 Strakeholder Strategy 201 Atlanta Conference 13 Cooperative Strategies 124 Teaching Community 440 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 India Conference 17 SMS MEMBERS BY REGION 2012 SMS MEMBERS BY REGION 2008 Middle East (46) Latin America (68) Africa (28) Middle East (18) Australia/ Latin America (41) Africa (13) New Zealand (82) Australia/ New Zealand (55) Asia Asia (345) (163) ENT SOCIETY Tel Aviv Conference 18 North America M North America (1,263) +16 (1,004) 1% GE Europe Europe A (1,092) (764) N A SMS 32nd ANNUAL TEGIC M INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Copenhagen Conference 19 RA < > PRAGUE October 6–9, 2012 2012 Annual Report THE ST R T FO R SMS Board and IG Leadership 20 L REPO A SMS SPECIAL CONFERENCE Linking Thoughtful Practice with Insightful Scholarship Dec 14–16, 2012 Linking Thoughtful Practice Guangzhou 2012 > ANNU China with Insightful Scholarship scholars | business practitioners | consultants research networking scholars | business practitioners THOUGHTS FROM THE SMS PRESIDENT Over the past year, I have had the distinct privilege, as have many the burden for program organizers.
    [Show full text]
  • Firm-Specific Human Capital Investments As a Signal of General Value: Revisiting Assumptions About Human Capital and How It Is Managed
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive All Faculty Publications 2016 Firm-Specific umH an Capital Investments as a Signal of General Value: Revisiting Assumptions about Human Capital and How it is Managed Shad S. Morris Brigham Young University, [email protected] Sharon A. Alvarez University of Pittsburgh, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub Part of the Human Resources Management Commons Original Publication Citation Morris, S. S., Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Molloy, J. C. (2016). Firm‐specific umh an capital investments as a signal of general value: Revisiting assumptions about human capital and how it is managed. Strategic Management Journal. BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Morris, Shad S.; Alvarez, Sharon A.; Barney, Jay B.; and Molloy, Janice C., "Firm-Specific umH an Capital Investments as a Signal of General Value: Revisiting Assumptions about Human Capital and How it is Managed" (2016). All Faculty Publications. 1822. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1822 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Authors Shad S. Morris, Sharon A. Alvarez, Jay B. Barney, and Janice C. Molloy This peer-reviewed article is available at BYU ScholarsArchive: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1822 FIRM-SPECIFIC HUMAN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS AS A SIGNAL OF GENERAL VALUE: REVISITING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HUMAN CAPITAL AND HOW IT IS MANAGED Shad S.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is It? What's the Benefit of the VRIO Framework?
    “VALUE. RARITY. IMITABILITY. ORGANIZATION.” What Is It? This book is not just a list of concepts, models, and theories. It is the first undergraduate textbook to introduce a theory-based, multi-chapter organizing framework to add additional structure to the field of strategic management. “VRIO” is a mechanism that integrates two existing theoretical frameworks: the positioning perspective and the resource-based view. It is the primary tool for accomplishing internal analysis. It stands for four questions one must ask about a resource or capability to determine its competitive potential: 1. The Question of Value: Does a resource enable a firm to exploit an environmental opportunity, and/or neutralize an environmental threat? 2. The Question of Rarity: Is a resource currently controlled by only a small number of competing firms? 3. The Question of Imitability: Do firms without a resource face a cost disadvantage in obtaining or developing it? 4. The Question of Organization: Are a firm’s other policies and procedures organized to support the exploitation of its valuable, rare, and costly-to- imitate resources? What’s the Benefit of the VRIO Framework? The VRIO framework is the organizational foundation of the text. It creates a decision-making framework for students to use in analyzing case and business situations. Students tend to view concepts, models, and theories (in all of their coursework) as fragmented and disconnected. Strategy is no exception. This view encourages rote memorization, not real understanding. VRIO, by serv- ing as a consistent framework, connects ideas together. This encourages real understanding, not memorization. This understanding enables students to better analyze business cases and situations—the goal of the course.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael J. Leiblein (614) 292-0071 [email protected]
    Michael J. Leiblein (614) 292-0071 [email protected] Education Purdue University, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Ph.D. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Lally School of Business, M.B.A. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, B.S., Electrical Engineering. Professional Assistant to Associate Professor, Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University. Positions Visiting Professor, Copenhagen Business School (Fall, 2012). Instructor to Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina. Consultant, Andersen Consulting. Control Systems Engineer, Johnson Controls. Professional Academic Research Awards Awards • Academy of International Business. 2015 Best Paper Award Finalist (w/ Kiran Awate). • Academy of Management Operations Division. 2009 Chan Hahn Best Paper Award Finalist in Operations Management (w/ John Gray & Aleda Roth). • Academy of Management Strategy Division. 2007 Distinguished Paper Award in Business Policy & Strategy (w/ Tammy Madsen). • Academy of Management Strategy Division. 2005 Distinguished Paper Award in Business Policy & Strategy (w/Tammy Madsen). • Academy of Management Strategy Division. 1996-1997 Free Press Best Dissertation Award in Business Policy & Strategy Finalist. • Academy of Management Innovation Management Division. Honorable Mention for 1996 Best Paper Award in Technology & Innovation Management (w/ Carolyn Woo). • Academy of Management Strategy Division. 1994 Glueck Best Paper Award in Business Policy & Strategy (w/ Tim Folta). Academic Research Grants • Koch Foundation. 2016-2018: Grant for research and teaching in innovation & entrepreneurship. ($1,369,254). Declined. • National Science Foundation. 2011-2015. PI on “Outsourcing, offshoring, and performance.” Proposal 1133043 Funded by Division of Social and Economic Sciences, Innovation and Organization Sciences Program ($341,721). • Ohio State University. 2010-2015: Co-PI, Food Innovation Center ($3,750,000). Academic Teaching Awards • Outstanding Core MBA Professor, Professional MBA Classes of 2000 and 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Richard Jason Makadok Curriculum Vitae Updated to January 11, 2021 Office: Personal: Purdue University, Krannert School of Ma
    Richard Jason Makadok Curriculum vitae updated to January 11, 2021 Office: Personal: Purdue University, Krannert School of Management 5163 Flowermound Drive 425 W. State Street, Room KCTR 216 West Lafayette, IN 47906 West Lafayette, IN 47907-2056 Mobile (678) 908-0847 Voice (765) 494-4271 [email protected] [email protected] http://www.makadok.com Research Interests Competitive advantage, theory of profit, applications of economic modeling to business strategy. Education Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania: • Ph.D. in Organization and Strategy (1994) • M.A. in Organization and Strategy (1993) • M.B.A. in Management (1991) Yale University: • M.A. in Economics (1988) • B.A. in Economics and Mathematics, summa cum laude (1988) Employment 2015 - Present Professor and Brock Family Chair in Strategic Management, Krannert School of Management, Purdue University. 2002 - 2015 Associate Professor of Organization and Management, Goizueta Business School, Emory University. 1997 - 2002 Assistant Professor of Organization and Management, Goizueta Business School, Emory University. 1994 - 1997 Assistant Professor of Management, Freeman School of Business, Tulane University. 1993 - 1994 Lecturer, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania. 1989 - 1993 Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania. 1984 - 1987 Manager of Software Development, Century Management Consultants, Inc. Research Impact Metrics Source database Total citations h-index ISI Web of Science 1917 15 Google Scholar 6014 16 Ranked among the world’s top 100,000 most-cited scientists, across all fields of study: • https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384 (see Tables S1, S2, and S4) 1 Publications Cirik, Kubilay & Richard Makadok (Forthcoming). “First-Mover Advantages Versus First- Mover Benefits: What’s the Difference and Why Does It Matter?”: Conditionally accepted for publication in Academy of Management Review.
    [Show full text]
  • Jay B. Barney Editor in Chief, Academy of Management
    Positioning Papers for Publication JAY B. BARNEY EDITOR IN CHIEF, ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW PRESIDENTIAL PROFESSOR OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT LASSONDE CHAIR OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Introductions: Writing as joining a conversation Introduce yourself Make it clear you’ve been listening Identify the next story Make it clear why the next story adds to the conversation All in 1.5 pages A simple framework First sentence: “This is the conversation I want to join” Rest of first paragraph: “I have been listening to this conversation, and these are its main elements.” First word of second paragraph: “However” Rest of second paragraph: “This is the next topic in this conversation, and this is why this topic is important.” First sentence of third paragraph: “The purpose of this paper is . “ Rest of third paragraph: “Preview critical conclusion/finding; preview unusual sample/unusual method; preview the structure of the paper.” A simple framework: Example—”Diversification and the Value of Individual Firms,” with Ty Mackey and Jeff Dotson, SMJ, 2017 First sentence: “This is the conversation I want to join” “It is probably the case that more has been written about the relationship between corporate strategy and firm performance than any other topic in the field of strategic management.” A simple framework: Example First sentence: “This is the conversation I want to join” Rest of first paragraph: “I have been listening to this conversation, and these are its main elements.” “Theoretically, some scholars have focused on the performance effects of different types of diversification (e.g., related vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Akademik Hassasiyetler the Academic Elegance Yıl/Year: 2021 Sayı/Issue: 15 Cilt/Volume: 8 Sayfa/Page: 189-208 Araştırma Makalesi
    Akademik Hassasiyetler The Academic Elegance Yıl/Year: 2021 Sayı/Issue: 15 Cilt/Volume: 8 Sayfa/Page: 189-208 Araştırma Makalesi Makale Gönderim Tarihi: 07/11/2020 Makale Kabul Tarihi: 24/04/2021 MICHAEL E. PORTER VE JAY BARNEY’ĠN REKABET ÜSTÜNLÜĞÜ ĠLE ĠLGĠLĠ YAKLAġIMLARININ DEĞERLENDĠRĠLMESĠ Ġbrahim Taha DURSUN* Öz Bu çalışma Michael E. Porter ve Jay Barney’in rekabet üstünlüğü anlayışlarına odaklanmaktadır. İki yazarın rekabet üstünlüğü kavramına bakışlarının temelinde hangi fikirlerin yer aldığı çalışmanın temel hedefini oluşturmaktadır. Porter’ın ve Barney’in rekabet üstünlüğü fikirlerini anlamak onların düşünme biçimlerini de anlamayı sağlamaktadır. Porter sektördeki rekabeti belirleyen güçleri sektöre yeni girecek firmaların tehditleri, ikame ürün veya hizmet tehdidi, alıcıların pazarlık güçleri, tedarikçilerin pazarlık güçleri ve mevcut firmalar arasındaki rekabete dayandırmaktadır. Michael E. Porter firmaların rekabet üstünlüğünü işletmelerin çevresinde ve özellikle sektöründe yer aldığını ifade etmektedir. Michael Porter’ın aksine Jay Barney ise işletmelerin rekabet üstünlüğünü işletmenin iç yapısında, yeteneklerinde, iç kaynaklarında aramaktadır. Rekabet üstünlüğüne bu iki farklı bakış beraberinde iki farklı stratejik düşünmeyi getirmektedir. İki görüşün de kendine has özellikleri bulunurken Porter’ın pozisyon yaklaşımının, Barney’in kaynaklara dayalı yaklaşımına üstünlüğü ya da tam tersini söylemek mümkün görünmemektedir. Daha ziyade bu çalışma Porter ve Barney’in yaklaşımlarının birbirlerini tamamlayıcı nitelikte olduğunu ve belirsizliğin yüksek olduğu iş ortamında birlikte değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Michael Porter, Jay Barney, Rekabet, Rekabet üstünlüğü. EVALUATION OF MICHAEL E. PORTER AND JAY BARNEY'S APPROACHES TO COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE Abstract This study focuses on the competitive advantage of Michael E. Porter and Jay Barney. The main objective of the study is to investigate the ideas underlying the two authors' view of the concept of competitive advantage.
    [Show full text]
  • Berlin Management Newsletter September 17–20, 2016 Society
    SMS EMERGING 2015 SCHOLAR SUMMER SMS SMS 36TH ANNUAL SMS CONFERENCE STRATEGIC BERLIN MANAGEMENT NEWSLETTER SEPTEMBER 17–20, 2016 SOCIETY SUMMER 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS President’s Letter 2 Friends of SMS 4 SMS News 5 SMS Fellows News 7 MEDIA IACMENA Initiative 8 INNOVATIONS SRF Update 9 Media Innovations Update 10 SMJ Update 11 SEJ Update 12 GSJ Update 13 Emerging Scholar Award 14 CK Prahalad Award 15 Santiago Recap 16 St. Gallen Recap 17 Denver Conference 18 Linking Thoughtful Practice Rome Conference 22 SMS SPECIAL CONFERENCE with Insightful Scholarship SMS Board and IG 23 ENT SOCIETY M June 13-15, 2014 GE CA openhagen scholars | business practitioners | consultants research networking scholars | business practitioners N A TEGIC M 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 RA <2014> Annual Report THE ST R T FO R L REPO A Linking Thoughtful Practice with Insightful Scholarship 2014 > ANNU THOUGHTS FROM THE SMS PRESIDENT First, I want to thank our past two presidents, Jay Barney and Bob Globalization Hoskisson, for their leadership over the last four years. SMS has One of the areas that the Board explored during the retreat was continued to flourish and progress as a professional academic the recognition that SMS has historically focused more on the U.S. association. Russ Coff is our new President-Elect and has already and Europe. However, if we are to remain the premier strategic contributed greatly in that role. Niko Pelka also has provided the management organization, we must solidly embrace a more global strong management that has our organization and so many of perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the VIRTUES and LIMITATIONS of DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES David
    THE VIRTUES AND LIMITATIONS OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES David J. Collis and Bharat N. Anand [email protected] Harvard GraduatE School of Business Administration Morgan 211 SoldiErs FiEld Boston MA 02163 617-495-6768 [email protected] Harvard GraduatE School of Business Administration Morgan 245 SoldiErs FiEld Boston MA 02163 617-495-5082 ABSTRACT Dynamic capabilities have been identified as a key determinant of competitive advantage. This paper explores the foundations of dynamic capabilities, and the limits to their effectiveness, first theoretically and then through the case of Danaher, the most successful US conglomerate for over three decades. Limitations of dynamic capabilities include that they (a) can be substitutable and (b) embody strategic choices themselves. The Danaher case, an exemplar of dynamic capabilities, illustrates how dynamic capabilities require long-term commitments in order to be effective, involve a set of choices that are closely tied to others made by the firm, and embody tradeoffs that imply that investments in any particular dynamic capability may be inconsistent with acquiring new ones. 1 THE VIRTUES AND LIMITATIONS OF DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES INTRODUCTION StratEgic ManagEment has made the Explanation of diffErEntial firm performancE cEntral to both its rEsEarch agEnda and the normativE prEscriptions it proposEs. In 1994 Rumelt Et al identifiEd, “why arE firms diffErEnt?” as one of the four canonical questions confronting the field in order to account for “the existence of sustained heterogeneity within an industry” (Rumelt et al 1994). And, today, syllabi from the top twenty MBA programs reveal that nearly all state their objective to be some version of “how can a firm Earn long-run profits?” (Alcacer et al 2020).
    [Show full text]