尋找價(jià)值和維護(hù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)

1、尋找價(jià)值和維護(hù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)尋找價(jià)值和維護(hù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)Sustainable competitive advantageThe ultimate determinants of success and failure in the firms search for value. Are there any useful generalisations to be made which can help to guide the strategy process? Sustainable competitive advantSustainable competitive advantage and res

2、ource based theoryIntroduction: an examination of the sources of sustainability of profits Why are some firms able to sustain success over a long period? Porters approach to business performance: competitive advantage.The capabilities approach to firm performance The nature and significance of capab

3、ilities Architecture, reputation, and innovation The value of capabilities: A resource based theory of firm performance: Peterafs model.ConclusionsSustainable competitive advantPart 1: Porters approach Porters five forces approach (industry attractiveness) sees industry performance as a function of

4、industry structure/conduct. (P&S, table 10.1)BUT within industries firm performance varies,So what determines relative firm performance?In Competitive Advantage he tried to answer this ? Part 1: Porters approach PortPorter, cont. Competitive advantage argues that it depends on the firms ability to m

5、anage the cost drivers/ differentiation drivers so as to produce a cost advantage or a differentiation advantage. But this approach has problems and is incomplete. Porter, cont. Competitive adSome questions about PorterWhy does the successful firm not buy the unsuccessful and teach it how to minimis

6、e costs? Why does the successful firm not sell its expertise in cost reducing to less successful firms? Why does the successful firm not cut its prices and drive its competitors out of business? Why does the unsuccessful firm not bid for the executive(s) in charge of cost drivers from the successful

7、 firm? These do happen: e.g. battle between General Motors and Volkswagen for the services of cost guru Mr. Lopez.Some questions about PorterWhyPorters recipe If it is possible for Michael Porter to describe how to create and sustain competitive advantage then surely all firms have equal access to t

8、his knowledge once Porter has codified it. So can it be a source of SCA? Beware recipes! Finally, low cost/differentiation cant be the ultimate source. The ultimate source is surely who or what produces the low cost/differentiation advantage. Porters recipe If it is possiBeyond Porter Does anyone of

9、fer a better explanation of the roots of business performance? In the 90s a capabilities approach emerged as a new orthodoxy leading to a distinctive resource based view of the firm and strategy. Beyond Porter Does anyone offePart 2: The capabilities approach Question: What could give a particular f

10、irm a sustainable edge over its rivals?A series of influential articles in the HBR during the 90s suggested a new approach (although it turned out its origins were much earlier) Part 2: The capabilities approPrahalad and Hamel (1990): core competenciesManagements ability to consolidate technology an

11、d production skills into competencies so the business can adapt quickly to changing opportunities/circumstances. Core competencies = collective learning of the organisation about prod/tech/markets.e.g. Sonys miniaturisation skills. Competencies have to be built over a long period. They are difficult

12、 to identify precisely and hard to imitate. Many firms fail to identify their own core competencies and so fail to nurture them properly or exploit them fully. Prahalad and Hamel (1990): cStalk, Evans, and Shulman (1992): capabilitiesCompetitive advantage is based on the ability to respond to evolvi

13、ng opportunities which depends on business processes or capabilities. Business success involves choosing the right capabilities to build, managing them carefully, and exploiting them fully. e.g. Honda, Canon. Stalk, Evans, and Shulman (199Chandler (1990): initial risky investmentsChandler (1990): su

14、ccessful giants such as IBM and Bayer derive from the initial heavy and risky investments in building organisational knowledge and capabilities which allowed them to exploit the opportunities available to exploit scale and scope economies.Chandler (1990): initial riskCollis and Montgomery (1995): co

15、mpeting on resourcesCompetitive advantage derives ultimately from the ownership of a valuable resource.Superior performance derives from developing a competitively distinct set of resources and deploying them in a well conceived strategy. Resources can be physical, intangible, or organisational capa

16、bilities. Example: Marks and Spencer (poor timing!) Collis and Montgomery (1995): John Kay (1993): Distinctive capabilities. In his best seller, The foundations of corporate success Kay argues that the source of competitive advantage is the creation and exploitation of distinctive capabilities. The

17、value of any advantage created depends on its sustainability and its appropriability. Kay provides a detailed analysis of this (see also P&S) John Kay (1993): Distinctive cDistinctive capabilitiesKay identifies only three basic types of distinctive capability:Corporate ArchitectureInnovationReputati

18、on. Distinctive capabilitiesKay idDistinctive capabilitiesWhat is it about these things in particular? Difficult to build and maintain. Difficult to codify/ make into recipes.Difficult to copy/ emulate. Cant simply be bought off the shelf. Distinctive capabilitiesWhat iStrategic assets He also discu

19、sses market dominance (monopoly) based on the ownership of strategic assets as a source of success. Natural monopolies such as utility networks, or licensed monopolies such as the national lottery. And those based on heavy sunk costs which discourage challengers for the first mover. But he argues th

20、at in these case it is essentially structural factors that count not distinctive capabilities. There may of course be room for debate in some cases. Strategic assets He also discuArchitecture as a distinctive capability Concerns organisational effectiveness in the search for value. Connects back to

21、the discussion of corporate objectives and the co-operation needed to get things done in P&S chap 4. How to focus individuals on achieving organisational goals.Architecture as a distinctive ArchitectureThe network of contractual relationships which defines the firm. The capacity of organisations to:

22、1. Create and store organisational knowledge and routines2. Promote more effective co-operation between the members.3. Achieve an open and easy flow of information between members.4. Adapt rapidly and flexibly. ArchitectureThe network of conArchitectureArchitecture is largely about how you organise

23、to get things done as effectively as possible.But NB it also influences what you choose to do (strategy) in the first place. Because? Architecture is about organisational form, incentive mechanisms, work organisation, performance evaluation, and governance. ArchitectureArchitecture is laArchitecture

24、e.g. IBM in its heyday, Marks and Spencer (back when!), Liverpool Football Club.e.g. Many Japanese firms: the Japanese employment system, its supplier networks, the close relations between industry and finance, the great emphasis on co-operation and collaboration, the development of long term commer

25、cial relationships, and the generally higher level of trust which encourages co-operationArchitecturee.g. IBM in its heArchitecture Now a specialised study area. See for example, Brickley, Smith, and Zimmerman: Economics and Organisational Architecture. Architecture Now a specialisedReputation as a

26、distinctive capabilityThis is about conveying information to consumers about quality. But it isnt equally important for all goods and services. It applies to a particular category of goods called, Long term experience goods.These are goods where product quality is vital to the consumer but where it

27、is difficult for the consumer to establish quality except through time and experience. Reputation as a distinctive caReputation Kay mentions car hire services, legal services, accountancy services, funeral services (?), consumer durables. Add vitamin pills, roofing services, pension funds, and All s

28、tudents are very familiar with the problem involved. Reputation Kay mentions car hiReputation Problem is that you want quality, but that quality takes time to manifest itself. All suppliers will guarantee satisfaction.How can you distinguish between them? If difficult then consumers will assume low

29、quality and pay only low prices. If you can convince them you can obtain a premium price for quality assurance. Reputation Problem is that youReputation Selling on reputation is saying we have made an investment in an asset so we have a lot to lose if we fail to satisfy. So you can trust us, but not

30、 the hit and run suppliers who sell on (low) price alone. How might it be done. Longevity (est.1768 sort of thing). Warranties. Advertising? Reputation Selling on reputatiAdvertising and reputation Heavy advertising may be a way. Adv is a sunk cost which implies commitment to the service. There is s

31、omething to lose. Evidence is that long term experience goods do have the highest adv/sales ratio(5%). (B.S.R. 1992). Advertising and reputation HeaReputation and diversification Note for later, Reputation might be a basis for growth through diversification but Kay notes that an expensively created

32、reputation can be damaged by unwise diversification when firms stray into areas they dont fully understand. Reputation and diversificationInnovation as a distinctive capabilityA capacity for lowering costs or improving its products or introducing new products ahead of its competitors.Innovation by i

33、tself as a source of competitive advantage is actually quite rare.Innovation is very difficult. It is uncertain, and it is hard to manage properly. There are no recipes. It can be difficult for firms which invest in R&D to secure or appropriate all the returns. So being able to do it well will undou

34、btedly give you a good edge. However many firms which seek competitive advantage by this route fail. Often what appears to be competitive advantage based on a capability for innovation is actually based ultimately on architecture. e.g. Sony and GlaxoInnovation as a distinctive caThe Value of Capabil

35、ities Distinctive capabilities generate success which attracts competitors. Their value depends on their sustainability and the appropriability of the value they generate. (see also Collis et al HBR 95) These in turn depend on the following factors: The Value of Capabilities DistThe Value of Capabil

36、itiesTransparency: how easy is it to identify and understand? J. management techniques? Replicability: how easy to imitate/replicate? A team formation such as 4-4-2 is easy, but German efficiency or Brazilian flair is more difficult. Substitutability: How easy to find a substitute for. Sony o/m of i

37、nnovation, M&S supply chain organisation. The Value of CapabilitiesTransThe Value of CapabilitiesWho captures the income stream from the capability? The organisation or the underlying resources. This is the issue of appropriability. To be valuable to the organisation the capability has to be immobil

38、e/ organisationally specific. Not able to walk! The Value of CapabilitiesWho cAppropriability Resources such as people are marketable and can capture their full market value. So the organisations capability has to be more than the sum of its (marketable) parts. Take Manchester United and the Roy Kea

39、ne effect (50,000 per week!). To be a valuable business MU must produce a team capability beyond the market value of its expensive players and coaches. Appropriability Resources suchTo sum up The value of the organisations capability requires that the competition: Cant see it easily. Cant imitate it

40、. Cant find a sub for it. Cant just buy it. To sum up The value of the orgIsolating mechanisms Name given to barriers preventing the replication of organisations capabilities. Causal ambiguity. Time compression diseconomies. Extra costs of accumulating resources and capabilities quickly to take on a

41、 first mover. Isolating mechanisms Name givePART 3: RESOURCE BASED THEORY OF THE FIRM A distinctive resource based theory of the firm has emerged trying to formalise the capabilities approach. The “resource-based” approach is concerned with the nature of the firms resources and how these resources a

42、re combined into capabilities.Key example is Peteraf (1993). Her approach is outlined below and summed up in this figure. Note she uses the term RENT common in US writing to connote the result of sustainable competitive advantage. The Linn example is from a student case study. PART 3: RESOURCE BASED

43、 THEORYPeterafmodelHeterogeneityEx-post limitsto competitionImperfectmobilityEx-ante limitsto competitionRents obtainedRents capturedby the firmRents sustainedRents not offsetby building costsCompetitiveadvantagePeterafHeterogeneityEx-post liCompetitive AdvantageEx-post limits to competitionEx-ante

44、limits to competitionHeterogeneityImperfect MobilityThe industry is made of firms with access to different resources and skills. Linn has particular distinctive competencies.Specialist knowledge and reputationShared specialist knowledge and reputationLinn has demonstrated an ability to leverage the

45、potential of existing technologiesPeterafs model - Linn ProductsALL THESE LEAD TO SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE THROUGH DIFFERENTATIONCompetitive AdvantageEx-post lCompetitive Advantage a la Peteraf A firm is said to have a competitive advantage when it can: achieve rents: which requires resourc

46、e heterogeneity between firms (some better bundles than others). enjoy rents that are not offset by the costs of achieving a superior set of resources: which requires ex ante limits to competition for those resources. appropriate those rents for the firm: which requires imperfect resource mobility.s

47、ustain those rents: which requires ex-post limits to competition.Competitive Advantage a la PetHeterogeneity:Bundles of resources and capabilities are heterogeneous across firms. Heterogeneity implies that firms with superior resources/ capabilities will earn superior returns.An important class of r

48、esources are those which are limited in the short run but may be renewed and expanded within firms that use them. Prahalad and Hamel (1990) argue that core competencies - particularly knowledge-based resources - are enhanced as they are used because of learning. Heterogeneity:Bundles of resouEx-post

49、 limits to competitionForces which limit competition from imitators. These arise from sources already discussed:Imperfect imitability, replicability, and substitutabilityof resources/ capabilities isolating the firm from challengers. Ex-post limits to competitionFEx ante limits to competitionThe sou

50、rce of a firms rents is a superior resource position. But imagine the situation before any firm has achieved this position. If many firms recognised its potential, a competitive struggle would ensue to obtain the resources and build the capabilities to occupy that position. This process would compet

51、e away all rents that could be obtained from occupying the position. For example,North Sea Oil fields. Manchester United team! National Lottery licence. Sony licence for transistor. The script for Four weddings and a Funeral Ex ante limits to competitionTEntrepreneurship and rentSo a firm needs the

52、foresight to acquire resources and build capabilities in the absence of such competition. This requires the presence of uncertainty and incomplete information and a willingness to take risks. The essence of successful ENTREPRENEURSHIP is of course foresight and taking advantage of uncertainty and in

53、complete information before someone else does. So what Peteraf seems to be saying here is simply that all rents begin with an entrepreneurial act. Which seems inherently sensible. Entrepreneurship and rentSo aImperfect resource mobilityThis refers to the marketability or otherwise of the underlying

54、resources and capabilities. See discussion above of appropriability. Thus good high street locations are important for retailers but competition means the rental costs reflect this fact. The value of the location is captured by the property owner not the retailer per se. Imperfect resource mobilityThiSumming up on SCAThe ultimate determinants of success and failure? No recipes but the starting point is being cheaper, or better, or faster to market.The capabilities approach developed in the 90s looks to the development and deploym