-
ELSEVIER
Technology, Competencies, and Competitiveness: The Case for
Reconfigurable and Flexible Strategies Marilyn E. Booth THE QUEEN'S
UNIVERSITY OF BELFAST
George Philip THE QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY OF BELFAST
The past two decades have witnessed the emergence of two
diJferent schools of thought on competitiveness, the
technology-driven and compe- tency-driven approaches. This article
examines the features of each ap- proach and argues the case for a
convergence of these opposing views if organizations are to succeed
in the 1990s and beyond. The technology- driven approach, stresses
the importance of information technology. A corresponding emphasis
on rigorous planning and the use of generic strategies separate
this flom competency-driven routes to competitiveness. Sixteen
senior management figures from leading edge companies were
interviewed to establish which, if either, of these two very
different ap- proaches to competition was more apparent. Technology
was found to be a possible source of advantage against competitors,
although the emphasis was on its use in conjunction with other
valuable, and unique, resources within the company. The attitudes
taken to customers and suppliers reflects the need to take a much
more flexible stance to strategy, as the companies of the 2990s
reinvent themselves to.face the challenges of the future in a
global environment, j susN eEs 1998. 41.29-40. @ 1998 Elsevier
Science Inc.
T he search for competitiveness has become an increas- ingly
important issue as organizations strive to come to terms with an
increasingly fast moving global envi-
ronment; an environment where stakeholder demands for
profitability and stability must be balanced against the need for
ever more dynamic and creative strategies which are neces- sary for
survival in this "brave new world" (Boynton and Victor, 1991).
Companies are bombarded with information on how to increase their
competitive potential, while interven- tion by government and
government-sponsored bodies (DTI, 1995; NIGC, 1995; DED, 1994)
highlight the important con- nection between individual company
success and the eco- nomic welfare of the region at large (Porter,
1990). Conflicting
Address correspondence to George Philip, The Queen's University
of Belfast, Queen's School of Management, Belfast, Northern
Ireland, BT7 1NN UK.
Journal of Business Research 41, 29-40 (1998) @ 1998 Elsevier
Science Inc. All rights reserved. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New
York, NY 10010
advice may lead many to question whether there can ever be any
path to success. Given that companies are facing such changes, how
do managers make sense of the complex and different choices they
face?
Since the mid-1980s academic pundits have advanced two major
theories on the achievement of competitiveness. The first, which
takes its origin from the emergence of powerful and inexpensive
PCs, terminals, and communication net- works, is prescriptive and
based around the potential of infor- mation technology (IT) to
improve efficiency and create strate- gic advantage. The second
theory, part of which originates from the traditional marketing
discipline, is more dynamic and multidimensional: it recommends
that companies identify and harness their own unique skills and
competencies through both internal and external consolidation. In
other words, ac- cording to the first theory, technology is the
bulwark of com- petitiveness, while the ethos of the second is that
of the learn- ing organization--playing on one's own strengths to
stay ahead by benchmarking, as well as anticipating and re-
sponding effectively to change (Booth and Philip, 1996). In this
article, we examine these two theories and, using the practical
experiences of senior management figures, seek to understand their
relevance to the real world of business. More specifically, we were
interested in studying which view is more prevalent within the
business community, and in establishing which, if either, will take
companies forward into the next century.
IT-based Approaches to Competitiveness This approach is rooted
in the belief that IT can be isolated as a factor in company
success. Popularized by Michael Porter (Porter, 1980, 1985; Porter
and Millar, 1985), it is claimed that IT will offer new and
innovative ways to compete through cost reduction and product
differentiation, the key parts of
ISSN 0148-2963/98/$19.00 PII S0148-2963(97)00009-X
-
30 J Busn Res M.E. Booth and G. Philip 1998:41:29-40
25
E e-
20
15.
10
5
8
E
4 3 :'~;
9
N
year
g, ~ g ,, ~,- ,e - ~ ,e -
21
Figure 1. Analysis of citations (Porter and Millar, ]985).
Porter's generic strategies, (cost leadership, differentiation,
and focus).
Porter's views on industry structure and strategic types have
been widely used as a basis for research aimed at estab- lishing
how companies can achieve competitive advantage through information
technology; a linkage sustained by the range of case study evidence
which served to further the claims of the technology-driven
approach, and supported by Porter himself:
[T] he question is not whether Information Technology will have
a significant impact on a company's competitive posi- tion, rather
the question is when and how the impact will strike (Porter and
Millar, 1985, p. 160).
For many investigating the linkages between IT and strat- egy,
the framework laid down provides a valuable starting point (Cash
and Konsynski, 1985; Griffiths, 1989; Jackson, 1991; Ives and
Learmonth, 1984; McFarlan, 1984; Sabherwal and Tsoumpas, 1993), and
it has been shown (Bergeron, Bluteau, and Raymond, 1991) that
companies can use the work of Porter to identify areas where IT
could be used in a competitive fashion. The case for IT's strategic
potential is strengthened further by the year-to-year increase in
IT/com- petitive strategy literature (Philip, Gopalakrishnan, and
Ma- walkar, 1995). Figure 1 shows a corresponding increase in
attention being paid to the work of Porter. A citation analysis was
performed on the 1985 paper, "How Information Gives You Competitive
Advantage," (Porter and Millar, 1985). The
recommendations made are still the focus of attention for many
researchers addressing the part IT has to play in the creation of
competitive advantage. However, it must be taken into account that
not all these papers will be complementary in tone.
Earl (1989) showed that companies in many industries did
increase their overall performance through the use of IT, although
he also stresses the important role which manage- ment has to play
in harnessing the technology's full potential (Earl, 1989, 1993).
While many companies do see IT as a competitive weapon, its
effective management has risen higher on the executive agenda
(Galliers, Merali, and Spearing, 1994; Lefebvre, Lefebvre, and
Pefontaine, 1994; Niederman, Bran- cheau, and Wetherbe, 1991) as
many companies fail to realize any sustainable tangible or economic
benefits from the tech- nology (Mahmood, 1993; Strassman, 1994;
Willcocks, 1992).
Touche Ross Management Consultants (1995), along with several
other researchers (King and Grover, 1991), have put forward two
main reasons for this failure to realize anticipated benefits from
the technology. First, despite IT's ubiquitous presence in
organizations, it is not a resource which is actively managed.
Indeed our own research has shown that many companies lack
technology management skills. Second, com- panies fail to
distinguish between IT and information, with the result that the
medium (technology) often becomes more important than the message
(information).
. . although more technology has been implemented, the problems
with information remain unsolved.. , the focus
-
Technology and Competency Approaches J Busn Res 31
1998:41:29-40
is still on IT . . . . (Touche Ross Management Consultants,
1995, p. 3).
Companies such as ASB Bank (Barton and Peters, 1992), Rosenbluth
Travel (Clemons, 1991), and Otis Elevator (Jelassi, 1993) have
shown how IT can be a factor in company success. Similarly,
companies such as McKesson and American Airlines have undoubtedly
benefited from innovative IT-based applica- tions. One has to ask,
however, is it the single factor in the good fortune of these
companies? The focus on case studies which the proponents of this
approach have tended to rely on, has recently come under scrutiny
(Segars and Grover, 1994; Kettinger, Grover, Guha, and Segars,
1994). Can the situation in one company be replicated in others,
especially when information systems can be so quickly copied?
Porter (1980) argues that the path to competitiveness lies in
overcoming the five forces of industry structure, (namely
customers, suppliers, new entrants, substitute products, and
industry rivals) through the use of the three mutually exclusive
generic strategies (cost, differentiation, and focus). A concur-
rent emphasis on exhaustive planning decreases the uncer- tainty
surrounding the whole process of competition. Evidence has shown
that such an approach can lead to significant advan- tages,
including an improvement in financial performance (Orpen, 1994).
Others have suggested that poor performance is directly linked to
the lack of a coherent strategy, (Miller and Friesen, 1986a,
1986b). However, the work of Miller and Friesen (1986a, 1986b) also
suggests that the choice of strategy is not the only factor in
creating advantage, but that it depends on a range of strengths
within the business.
Porter's focus on exhaustive planning has begun to be widely
questioned, although evidence has been found to sup- port the
existence of generic strategies (Dess and Davis, 1984; Hambrick,
1983). Others, however, have questioned the range of strategic
options (Mintzberg, 1992) and the inherent dan- gers associated
with a focus on one particular front or issue (Miller, 1992).
Indeed, Porter's overall approach can be con- sidered as indicative
of the "traditional strategic formulas" which some writers on
strategy want to dispense with (Quinn, Doorley, and Paquette, 1990,
p. 58). Despite these and other criticisms (Hen&y, 1990), the
work of Porter still provides the basis for much research into
strategy and strategy formulation.
As the debate on strategy making continues, the role of IT comes
under further scrutiny as well. Hopper (1990) contends that the
time when companies could view IT as a competitive weapon may have
passed (if it ever truly existed); a view shared by others who have
come to regard the technology as a competitive necessity, as
opposed to an actual source of competitiveness (Applegate, Cash,
and Quinn Mills, 1988; Grainger-Smith and Oppenheim, 1994). For the
modern com- pany IT will undoubtedly prove an important tool in the
competitive arena, and will be an essential part of business life.
The importance placed on IT in today's organization is highlighted
by the fact that, for some, it also has an important part to play
in competency-driven routes to success.
Competencies, Capabilities, and Multifaceted Strategies Unlike
the technology-driven approach, the competency- driven approach to
competitiveness places emphasis on using IT in conjunction with
other (unique) skills which the organi- zation has at its disposal
(Clemons, 1991; Land, 1994). Com- petencies can be considered as an
"experience-based, tacit know-how which is acquired, developed and
improved over a period of time rather than explicit knowledge"
(Doz, 1989, p. 48). Nonaka (1991) reasons that it is this
organization- wide, sometimes "tacit" knowledge which has enabled
some of the world's most successful companies to offer ever more
flexible responses to customers. They have been variously described
as "core competencies" (Doz, 1989; Pralahad and Hamel, 1990),
"invisible assets" (Itami, 1989), and "distinctive capabilities"
(Kay, 1993). All agree that it is the unique combi- nation of
factors within the firm, as well as its individual character which
impact on the competitive position. The indi- vidual character of
the firm is expressed in terms of assets, skills, and
organizational knowledge, or "collective learning" (Doz, 1989). The
more unique and idiosyncratic the compe- tencies, the stronger and
more sustainable the advantage, (McGrath, McMillan, and
Venkataraman, 1995).
This view is presented in greatest detail in the work of John
Kay (1993). Kay's "Structure of Strategy" recognizes that
successful firms tend to gain advantage from a unique combi- nation
of "distinctive capabilities" which can be used to give a firm an
orientation for the strategic position to adopt. Four such
capabilities have been identified, namely architecture, reputation,
innovation, and strategic assets.
Kay's approach to competitiveness shares some similarities with
that of Porter in that both question overall sustainability of
advantage and recognize that any advantage must be unique to the
firm concerned. However, while Porter offers three generic
strategies, Kay reasons that there are no magic recipes through
which success can be achieved. Instead, he suggests that firms will
tend to focus on three main areas, depending on which of the
capabilities are strongest: pricing and positioning initiatives;
advertising and branding; as well as exploiting relationships with
other players in the supply chain.
The importance of business relationships is emphasized in the
literature on collaborative advantage (Gomes-Casseras, 1994;
Kanter, 1994), while others suggest that closer ties with suppliers
can lead to shared cost reductions (Burnes and Whittle, 1995;
Coleman and Bhattacharya, 1995). For Lamborghini (1989, p. 63)
linkages with other players in the supply chain are useful ways for
companies to compete in an era of change:
In today's conditions only a real synergistic relationship
between a company and its territory can provide an innova- tive and
challenging support to the development of the competitiveness of a
company.
-
32 J Busn Res M.E. Booth and G. Philip 1998:41:29-40
Changing traditional modes of competing is also the order of the
day for Bakker, Jones, and Nichols (1994, p. 13), who suggest that
"more of the same won't do"; that reliance on either cost or
differentiation is no longer enough to ensure sustainable
advantage. Creativity in terms of competitive ac- tion and
relationships with other organizations can result from this need to
break away from "how things have always been done." Tampoe (1994,
p. 66) calls for a deeper understanding of the sources of
competitiveness, while recognizing that orga- nizations have to
move faster than ever simply to keep apace with the
competition:
In today's hothouse atmosphere it is not good enough to produce
a mouse trap today because someone else will produce a better and
cheaper mouse trap tomorrow and take your competitive edge away. .
, we have accelerated the evolutionary cycle. This means that
organizations have to dig deeper to understand where their
competitive edge comes from.
Companies must try to identify, and hence cultivate, the sources
of advantage which they have at their disposal.
One more departure from prescriptive approaches to strat- egy is
found in regard to actual formulation of strategy: "the strategy of
successful firms is adaptive and opportunistic" (Kay, 1993, p. 4).
Kay's wide range of strategic options leads to more flexible
approaches to planning for the future. Hamel and Pralahad (1989, p.
64) take a similar view, regarding approaches such as that
advocated by Porter in terms of "a snapshot of a moving car."
Rigorously planned strategies, which are adhered to at all costs
are considered as archaic, and too static for fast-moving
marketplaces (Collis and Mont- gomery, 1995). Mintzberg (1994a,
1994b, 1994c) warns of the dangers of rigidly planned and
inflexible strategies which leave no room for creativity and
changing circumstances. In- stead he reasons that strategy should
sometimes be allowed to "emerge" and that firms be adaptable enough
to take advan- tage of opportunities as and when they arise. In
this respect the competency-driven approach can give rise to a wide
variety of strategic combinations and orientations. Haeckel and
Nolan (1993, p. 123) also point out the importance of adaptability
and versatility in the fast-moving "sense and respond" environ-
ment of the 1990s, claiming that "adding the institutional ability
to adapt in a dynamic environment has become a survival imperative
for many companies." Strategies which can be modified quickly thus
assume greater importance.
In such a dynamic environment the role of highly planned
strategies comes under scrutiny, as does Porter's somewhat static
approach to the appraisal of industry structure, an ap- proach
which somehow seemed to negate the fact that those other players
would be involved in similar analysis, reaction, and
counter-reaction. For Stacey (1996), strategy, the re- sponse, and
how it is implemented is an active process, a game where the
actions of the other players have a significant
impact on the range of outcomes; as Clemons (1991, p. 25) points
out, however, this is a game which "is not Solitaire."
This approach has been criticized, however, for the lack of
information on how competencies themselves can be identi- fied
(Tampoe, 1994). Collis (1994, p. 147) suggests that the very
"tacit" or inbuilt nature of the resources are their main downfall,
containing "the seeds of its own self-destruction." What happens
when a valuable, but tacit, competence or capability is made
explicit: will others seek to replicate it, and will it cease to
have any value? Collis (1994) also criticizes the lack of methods
by which individual competencies can be measured and
quantified.
Given that these two approaches (technology-driven and
competency-driven) seem to be so diametrically opposed, we were
interested to find out which would prove to be more prevalent in
practice. Would managers subscribe to one view, or would it prove
to be a combination of the two? We also wanted to establish which
approach managers felt would be suitable to take them into the next
century and the rationale behind their position. Also, because the
technology-driven approach is based on a range of case study
evidence, we wanted to test its applicability to actual business
practice across the board.
Methodology To establish which of the above views companies felt
to be most appropriate for the current competitive climate, it was
decided to interview a number of senior-level managers from a range
of leading edge companies; an equal number from the manufacturing
and service sector. Sixteen companies were chosen from the "Top
100" companies in Northern Ireland as published by the Belfast
Telegraph (Simpson, 1995). A decision was made to exclude those
companies in the list that had not made a profit in their last
financial year. Company size ranged from 300 to over 4000
employees, with many having plans to expand further within the next
few years. All the companies had been established for more than 20
years, with two having been established for almost a century.
Despite restricting this study in location, all but one of the
companies involved oper- ate on a global basis, and 11 are the
European leaders in their respective fields. The types of company
involved are shown in Table 1.
It was felt that a semistructured interview schedule should be
used as this method offers a high degree of flexibility-- issues
can be explored in detail if and when they arise (Babble, 1992).
The chief executive (or equivalent) of each company was approached
with a request for interview. The chief execu- tive was the
preferred choice because of his or her level of involvement in
strategic issues (Dess and Davis, 1984). This person did not prove
to be always available; in those cases another management figure
was substituted. These included a marketing manager, production
director, human resource
-
Technology and Competency Approaches J Busn Res 33
1998:41:29-40
Table 1. Breakdown of Company Type
Company type Number in Study
Food and drink manufacturing 3 Clothing manufacturing 1 General
manufacturing 1 Engineering 2 Construction 1 Retailing 1 Transport
1 Financial services 3 Telecommunications 1 Utilities 1 Private
health care (nursing homes) 1
manager, and a strategic planning manager. Each interview was
recorded for future reference.
The same interview schedule was used within each inter- view,
although the nature of the semistructured method meant that issues
could be probed as they arose. Although the empha- sis was on
prepared questions, each interview was tailored by drawing on cues
given by individual interviewees. The open- ing question held true
for each company, "What is the secret of your success." This broad
and wide-ranging question set the scene for the rest of the
interview. Each interviewee was then given a brief description of
Porter's "Model of Industry Structure" and generic strategic types
and asked to relate their own experiences.
While the work of Michael Porter was used to test the claims of
the technology-driven approach, Kay's "Structure of Strategy" was
used to test the importance placed on competen- cies and
capabilities. Here, managers were questioned on the role that each
of the four distinctive capabilities played within their
organization. Kay also suggests that an organization's strengths
may only be appropriate for certain markets; an attempt was made to
examine this issue by asking each inter- viewee if they thought
their company would be as successful if it moved into other
unrelated areas of business. The question, "What do you see as your
sources of competitive advantage," was included in order to try and
establish which, if either, of the two approaches was most
prevalent. This proved useful in that it avoided the interviewer
having to directly mention competencies or information technology,
which might have, inadvertently, affected the responses obtained.
At the end of each interview if IT still had not been discussed, a
direct question on its importance was asked.
Approaches taken to the formulation of strategy were also raised
within each interview, in an attempt to ascertain the flexibility
or otherwise of the strategies being employed, and whether or not
they were emergent or highly planned and inflexible. Here, the
interviewee was asked to relate what actually happened in the
strategic planning process, and asked about their own level of
involvement--although in one case the managerial position of the
respondent made such ques- tions infeasible.
Results Redefining Porter's "Model of Industry Structure"
Porter's "Model of Industry Structure" proved a useful toot for
companies to identify the competitive threats which they were
currently facing. The nature of this particular framework also
enabled representatives to chart the history of the linkages
between the different elements, and detail relationships with
others in the supply chain.
Porter suggests that companies will compete by attempting to
reduce the influence of each of the five forces of industry
structure. This did prove true for some companies; however, the maj
ority claimed that this situation was changing as supply chain
relationships come under the microscope. Only three companies
actively agreed with Porter, following his sugges- tions by trying
to minimize the impact of each force upon their business. One, a
leading engineering company, minimizes the threat from new entrants
by continuous product development and redevelopment, making the
cost of entry prohibitively high for any potential entrant into the
industry. Another was firmly controlled by a single customer, and
tried to have equal influence over the actions of its own
suppliers. Despite their attitude to new entrants, the former
company prefers to adopt a more conciliatory attitude to
suppliers.
The other companies shared similar views on potential entrants
and producers of substitute products. However, a move away from
this view was apparent in the attitudes taken to the remaining
forces, namely customers, suppliers, and competitors. This reflects
the belief expressed in the literature that company structures are
being redefined as one way of finding fresh competitive
stances.
Several representatives pointed out that "the whole supply chain
is changing" as managers realize that suppliers can play an active
and vitally important role in consolidating, and assisting firms
with their competitive strategies. Relationships with suppliers are
the current focus of attention for half the study companies who
recognize that partnerships with those suppliers can lead to
significant improvements in cost and quality. One representative
remarked on the dangers of not viewing the supplier as a "long-term
co-producer of equip- ment," claiming that, "It has to be a
partnership with your supplier: otherwise you end up destroying
each other." Two companies actively involve suppliers in the
business. In these instances the margins of the organiration become
increasingly blurred as employees frequently cross over between
organiza- t ions-one sign of a movement toward the "boundaryless"
company (Kay, 1993; Syrett and Kingston, 1995). The benefits
include an insight into how suppliers produce "raw material";
knowledge which was used by individual employees to suggest where
savings could be made in both companies. This marks a departure
from the more antagonistic stance advocated by Porter (1980), and a
recognition that a close relationship can provide more sustainable
and long-term benefits.
-
34 J Busn Res M.E. Booth and G. Philip 1998:41:29-40
Relationships with customers are also undergoing redefini- tion,
with all the interviewees claiming that today's customer is a lot
more demanding, and recognizing that strategies, structures, and
processes have to become a lot more flexible in order to cope with
their exacting demands. Speed of re- sponse, and overall
flexibility and customization prove impor- tant in this new era of
relations with customers. Whereas Porter (1980) would have
advocated "locking in" or beating down the influence of the
customer, their influence and input is now actively sought out,
through a range of feedback mecha- nisms. Increasingly, customers
are being offered a tailored response ("It depends on which
customer"). As companies strive to come to terms with a changing
business environment, fast and flexible responses become the main
focus of attention, with those responses being rearranged to suit
the needs of individual customers.
The changing relationship with the customer is associated with a
parallel change in organizational structure. One view was that:
"Organizational structures are changing to allow organiza- tions
to respond a lot more quickly than in the old bureau- cracies."
Three other companies also emphasized the importance of more
flexible organizational structures, with one claiming that such
changes were necessary in order to avoid becoming "like
supertankers which can't turn around quickly." Instead, this
representative attributed their organiration's success to this
ability to respond quickly and the adoption of a "constantly-
changing fluid position." Within this company structural changes
were also apparent in the appointment of business- focused teams
and in the promulgation of cross-functional management activities.
These changes, coupled with the trans- fer of responsibility for
making customer-related decisions to those most directly involved
in implementing them, facilitate the delivery of a fluid and
adaptable response as all important customer demands change. All
three of these companies were involved in the manufacture of
fast-moving consumer goods--a vigorous environment where new
products and en- trants come into the marketplace with increasing
regularity.
Allied to changes in organizational structure are changes in the
way processes and activities are performed. Again a focus on
increasing responsiveness was the main reason why three companies
have made some changes in their business processes. It is widely
recognized that Business Process Reen- gineering (BPR) offers
companies a chance to renew and re- fresh themselves for new
competitive challenges and the ability to offer more customization
(Hammer and Champy, 1993). Direct references to BPR were not made,
although they were implied: one company has already been
reengineered, al- though with a different name attached to the
change.
Only two companies had changed their attitudes to direct
competitors, with one suggesting that "alliances are a secure
way to move forward." Others were only prepared to collabo- rate
on issues where competitive interests did not overlap.
Generic Strategies and Unique Mixtures "We would continue to try
and increase our customer base by looking at a number of
areas."
This view proved to be the consensus among the study compa-
nies, as they reject generic and unidimensional strategies in favor
of multidimensional strategies which combine elements of cost
leadership, differentiation, and "the flexibility to meet the needs
of customers."
Only two companies subscribed to the use of generic strate-
gies: both were involved in manufacturing and had decided to
concentrate on differentiation. Although they were follow- ing pure
differentiation strategies, they claimed that this did not have to
preclude cost leadership. It is interesting to note that both of
these companies have exceptionally stable rela- tionships with
their customers, and that the markets within which they operate are
less susceptible to change than others in the study. Indeed, a
similar point was raised by one inter- viewee following a mixed
strategy. The representative claimed that generic strategies would
only be suitable in a more stable industry, but the threat from
potential entrants meant that customers had to be attracted via a
range of cost and differenti- ation measures.
The other companies were keen to stress aspects of quality
(differentiation) in their competitive responses. Cost reduction
was also an important issue, as respondents reasoned that there
would be a limit to the price which customers would be willing to
pay for that quality. One representative claimed that competition
today was essentially about "keeping the delicate equation of cost
efficiency and quality in balance," while another rejected the idea
of generic strategies on the grounds that: "If you concentrate on
one thing the rest would fall around you". Better relationships
with customers and sup- pliers also formed part of mixed
strategies, addressing both the issues of cost and quality of
service.
So, companies tended to follow multifaceted strategies,
rejecting the generic strategies put forward by Porter (1980).
Hence, while the research of Dess and Davis (1984) and Hambrick
(1983) did validate the existence of generic strate- gies in
practice, such rigid formulas do not seem to be appro- priate for
the demands of the 1990s. The nature of the environ- ment calls for
strategic choices which are more difficult for rivals to pinpoint,
and subsequently replicate. Imitation of a "non-generic" strategy
becomes more difficult, and when tailored responses and constantly
changing strategic mixtures are added into the equation it becomes
harder for companies to catch up with stronger competitors.
Constant change and "moving the goalposts" were advocated by six
interviewees, showing just how dynamic companies have to be at a
time when advantages are becoming sustainable for shorter periods
of time:
-
Technology and Competency Approaches J Busn Res 35
1998:41:29-40
"Ultimately, the only thing that separates a company from the
masses is its ingenuity and the determination to change faster than
anybody else."
This view was shared by others who agreed that, yes, strategies
of cost and differentiation were important to them, but many other
factors come into play in the competitive arena. Certain companies
closely mirrored Kay's views on distinctive capabil- ities and
their translation into competitive advantage--more evidence for the
competency-driven approach was found in a focus on core skills.
Harnessing Distinctive Capabilities The growing importance
placed on relationships with other companies in the supply chain
highlights the importance placed on architecture. Four company
representatives re- marked upon the equal importance of internal
architecture as a means of enabling faster responses. Here, various
methods were used to improve communication with employees at oper-
ational levels, including the promotion of team-based manage- ment,
cross-functional activities, opportunities for employees to put
questions directly to senior management, and manage- ment by
walking about.
Building on architectural strengths was seen as a realistic way
of creating long lasting advantages, as savings can stretch right
back through the supply chain. Innovation, however, was not felt to
offer such sustainable or long-term advantages:
"Generally you only have short-term advantage and if a new
innovation comes in somebody else is right behind you with it."
Six companies referred to the importance of innovation in their
strategies. Again those strategies were mixed, as companies
stressed the importance of both cost and differentiation. Not
surprisingly, innovation was never quoted as a single factor in
company strategy. New innovations are regarded as being too
susceptible to replication by rivals. Indeed, none of the four
distinctive capabilities were used in isolation, with archi-
tecture playing a strong role for both those who rely on innova-
tion and reputation.
Reputation was viewed as an important factor for those companies
producing consumer goods, where image is con- stantly reinforced by
strong advertising and marketing cam- paigns as well as other
brand-building exercises. Good cus- tomer relations was also seen
as important for fostering this particular capability. Again those
involved in food and drink manufacturing were at the forefront in
this respect, offering the customer 24-hour delivery and caflout,
and helplines. Representatives also pointed out that they too would
only deal with those suppliers felt to have equally good
reputations. Only one person dismissed the importance of this
attribute.
The last capability--strategic assets--was manifested in several
ways by the companies in both a positive and a negative sense.
Restrictive government legislation (UK-wide) has
proved to be a competitive barrier for three companies. How-
ever, government-sponsored assistance has proved helpful for many
companies in Northern Ireland, including seven of those involved in
this study.
Kay (1993) claims that the most valuable advantages occur when
capabilities are applied to the most appropriate markets. The study
companies seemed to be in agreement, although opinion was split
between the manufacturing and service sec- tor. Only one service
company felt that it could transfer its skills to another market
area, while only one manufacturing company dismissed the idea of
moving into new business areas.
Six representatives claimed that their skills would not be
appropriate for other types of business--two of these compa- nies
had already suffered business failures as a result of moving into
unrelated areas. Three said they would move into new areas, but
only those which were closely related to their current activity.
One of these stressed the need to emphasize core management skills
which the interviewee felt could only be transferable to a similar
service industry:
"I think it is very important to stay close to what your core
business is--the things that you understand."
Of those who believed they could move into other lines of
business, two stressed their belief in the strength of their
quality of service, with one interviewee claiming, "Good ser- vice
is important in any industry." In this respect we see a blurring of
the traditional distinctions between manufacturing and service
industries, with service being provided to custom- ers becoming a
paramount source of strength, irrespective of industry sector.
Other skills felt to be transferable included the vision and
commitment of management.
Sources of Competitive Advantage So, it would seem that
companies are competing more in line with Kay's suggestions and
adopting their own strategic mixtures to reflect the demands of
their own particular situa- tion. However, many other sources of
competitive advantage were put forward, strengthening the view that
competitiveness arises from strengths in a range of areas. When
asked directly about their sources of competitive advantage, the
most popular response (five companies) was a focus on customer
satisfac- tion. The importance of the company's people was
mentioned by three companies--again support for the competency-
driven approach in that the assets and skills are often "tacitly"
held by the employees within an individual company, and when those
people leave it is difficult to replace that asset base (Nonaka,
1991).
Several other factors were put forward--many being men- tioned
by one or two companies--again highlighting the fact that advantage
may arise from those attributes which are unique to a firm (see
Table 2). Here, the increasing attention being paid to customers,
and the quality of service which is provided to them, is very much
in evidence, as is a sincere
-
36 J Busn Res M.E. Booth and G. Philip 1998:41:29-40
Table 2. Sources of Competitive Advantage
Advantage Number in Study
Focus on customer satisfaction (TQM) 5 Employee skills 3
Management skills 3 Promotion 2 Brand 2 Customer relations 2 Inward
investment 1 Location 1 Size 1 Flexibility 1 Caution 1 Global
outlook 1 Information technology 1 Incumbency 1
acknowledgment of the role of employees. However, how much the
importance of employees is actually acknowledged within the company
is difficult to verify without gaining closer access to those
employees themselves.
Table 2 also provides more supporting evidence for the increase
in the use of multiple strategies and flexibility of approach
adopted by companies. It is, perhaps, misleading that flexibility
was only mentioned by one respondent as a direct source of
competitive advantage, given that flexibility of response was
advocated by many throughout the interviews, especially in relation
to strategy formulation. Significantly, only one respondent felt
that their company had benefited from a single source of
advantage--its management skills.
Information technology was mentioned by only one com- pany as a
source of direct competitive advantage; however it was not seen by
this company as an isolated factor in success, reflecting the wider
recognition articulated by the other com- panies that technology
(of all kinds) must be integrated into the organization and used
firmly in conjunction with other skills and resources--that is, in
line with competency-driven approaches to competitiveness.
Role of Information Technology As mentioned above, only one
company directly attributed its competitiveness to its information
technology platforms. However, it was felt that this advantage was
only worthwhile when systems were still new--sustainability was the
main concern here. Systems would only be able to confer advantage
until they were, inevitably, reproduced by others in a similar line
of business. More important however, IT was not seen as the single
factor in securing this competitive advantage.
Two other companies mentioned the strategic impact of their IT
at later points in the interview, claiming that it was a useful way
of differentiating products and offering unique features to
customers. One manager looked forward to the day when IT would
enable direct electronic links to the cus- tomer, with separate
strategies being adopted for each of those
individual home-based customers. In such a "virtual" com- pany
(Davidow and Malone, 1992), IT enables changes to occur in the
whole process of buying and producing prod- ucts--a link with BPR.
Again, however, the interviewee was keen to stress that IT would
not be the only element in this change, but would facilitate the
logical extension of a TQM- based focus on customer satisfaction
and supplier relation- ships.
Although the other companies did not view IT as a strategic
weapon, all stressed, with only one exception, that it was an
essential part of business life, simplifying many areas:
"We couldn't handle our customers on paper like we used to."
Not only does IT enable companies to speed up processes, it has
become a vital tool with many subscribing to the view expressed by
one representative, "We couldn't do without it." Despite this
general approval of the technology, its potentially negative impact
was highlighted by four respondents, who attributed decreasing
sustainability to the availability of cheaper, faster, and more
flexible systems:
"IT is so transient that you can only expect to gain limited
advantage from it."
The importance placed on IT belies the fact that it was not
mentioned at all during the interviews by 13 companies l When the
issue was raised at the end of each interview, representa- tives
did tend to praise the technology, and related how IT had often
played the role of competitive weapon in the past. Five stressed
the technology's importance to their continuing success, "Our
success going forward will be maintained through IT." The general
consensus, however, was that the technology is proving to be more
of a strategic necessity, as opposed to a competitive weapon. This
reflects the change in attitude reflected within the literature as
sustainability of IT- based advantages comes under the
microscope.
Strategy Formulation The actual procedures of formulating
strategy would seem to owe more to the technology-driven approach
in this study. However, great concern was expressed that strategies
be flexi- ble enough to cope with changing condition, reflecting a
link with the work of both Kay (1993) and Mintzberg (1994a, 1994b,
1994c).
Seven companies explicitly stressed the importance of this
attribute--two manufacturing companies have rejected the idea of
strategic planning documentation as a direct result:
"If you write strategy the danger is that it will soon be
outdated and you may be focusing your attention on the wrong areas
in the business."
This concern, to some extent, corroborates Mintzberg's (1994c)
"Fallacy of Predetermination/Planning" which ques- tions the
possibility of making adequate plans for a constantly
-
Technology and Competency Approaches J Busn Res 37
1998:41:29-40
changing environment. Admittedly the two companies that had
rejected strategic planning were operating in an extremely
fast-moving and unstable environment, where technological
innovations have substantially reduced product life cycles, and the
sustainability of competitive advantage. The second company had
rejected strategic plans because they were never used, as it was
felt that they failed to take account of the realities of business
life at operational level:
"It was very difficult to get a link between the business
planning department and the delivery arm."
In this company people were also too caught up in the ac- tual
day-to-day operation of the business to take account of written
documentation. The chief executive reasoned that the perfect
solution to this particular problem would be to have those at the
front line formulating strategy. However, they were not considered
to have the necessary experience to effec- tively do so.
Planning itself was seen as beneficial when making deci- sions
on future investments. It was also seen as a means whereby the
unpredictability of the external environment could be reduced and
controlled:
"You've got to have a sense of direction. It's no use saying I
hope this path takes me somewhere nice."
Indeed, emergent strategies were also dismissed by three
representatives for this reason, as preparation was seen as a way
of being able to take advantage of opportunities as they arose.
Strategies were constantly appraised by one company, who described
strategy making as "a living process." The others were keen to
stress that, although they did rely on strategy documents, they did
find room for opportunistic decision making if and when those
opportunities presented themselves.
Documentation was updated by all the companies on an annual
basis, although most were couched inside three- or five-year plans
which took a longer-term view of the com- pany's future. Those
involved suggested that luck or chance was not a factor in their
success, but that benefits ensued as a direct consequence of the
preparedness which they pro- moted--in the words of one senior
executive, "You make your own luck." A wide range of stakeholders
in the organization were included in the formulation of the
strategy, addressing the fallacy of detachment put forward by
Mintzberg (1994c). The chief executive (or equivalent) tended to
assume overall responsibility, forming a team to represent as many
interests as possible: "the benefit is that (those involved) know
what's happening to the business." In one case the customers were
also actively involved in the planning process.
The emphasis on flexibility within what would appear to be a
rigid planning framework highlights the fast-moving world within
which the study companies are operating, as well as the need to be
in a position to take advantage of the changes which the}, are
facing, reflecting the views expressed
by one chief executive: "you've got to be changing all the time
to try and keep ahead."
Conclusions This need for constant change is expressed in the
companies' recognition of the need to move away from old ways of
doing business and approaching competition. Elements of the two
approaches to competition identified earlier were manifested by all
the study companies, although the emphasis was more on mix and
match combinations of cost, differentiation, and other incentives,
rather than on any one generic posture. Such a multidimensional
stance represents a change in the way in which companies are
responding to a changing marketplace, changing customers, and ever
more competitive and complex industries. Some aspects of Porter's
(1980) views on the strat- egy process were evident, although all
interviewees constantly stressed the need to move away from older
more static ap- proaches, in favor of fresh and creative stances.
So, while those who operate in relatively slow-moving or stable
environments may be able to view customers and suppliers as
threats, incon- venient obstacles whose influence must be reduced,
and strate- gic plans as immovable feasts, the dynamics of the
environ- ment and hectic pace of change have meant that others have
to embrace the more flexible facets of competency-driven
approaches.
Such stances would seem to offer more flexible and unique ways
of competing in an environment where suppliers, cus- tomers (and,
to some extent, competitors) are beginning to play increasingly
important roles within the organization. It is this emphasis on
external relationships which may prove to offer IT its most
important role in business: the technology will be used in terms of
the competency-driven approach, and not within the more rigid and
one-dimensional confines of technology-based routes to
competitiveness. Indeed, IT will be used to deliver the
increasingly flexible and tailored response which today's customer
demands.
An emphasis on flexibility was also apparent within the actual
processes of strategy formulation although the emphasis of the
majority was still firmly on planning and control; show- ing that
remnants of Porter's work on strategy and strategy making are still
relevant.
The acceptance of the competency-driven approach is, to a
certain degree, the result of the way in which the environ- ment
has changed since Porter's (1980) views were first put forward:
global competition, faster product life cycles, in- creased
uncertainty, recession, greater customer awareness, and,
increasingly, the introduction of often computerized de- live U
channels such as the Internet. These have all played a part in the
changing nature of competition from a highly- planned and
one-dimensional stance, to the need for a more multifaceted, easy
to change, and increasingly tailored re- sponse. This movement is
best summed up by Haeckel and Nolan (1993, p. 131), who view it
as:
-
38 J Bush Res M.E. Booth and G. Philip 1998:41:29-40
[N]othing less than a change in the nature of strategy itself,
from a plan to produce specific offerings for specific markets, to
a structure for sensing and responding to change faster than
competition.
This new structure is built around flexibility, adaptability,
and anticipation of customer needs.
From this study we can draw several conclusions. First,
competitive advantage is more likely to result from a unique
combination of factors, with competition occurring on a num- ber of
dimensions. This represents a change in the received wisdom of
Porter (1980), and from the experiences described by Dess and Davis
(1984) and Hambrick (1983). Companies are rejecting formulaic and
generic strategies, realizing that they have to compete on a
different basis to attract a more informed and sophisticated
customer who wants an acceptable balance between low cost and high
quality.
Second, increasingly flexible and reconfigurable strategies are
required as advantages gained become harder to sustain. Technology
and other influences make it easier for follower companies to
replicate innovations and decimate advantages. Constant innovation,
product redevelopment, service im- provement, and enhancement
become the norm in such an intense environment.
Third, the move away from inflexibility in strategy and strategy
making is accompanied by the recognition that struc- tural and
process changes may be necessary in order to remain competitive
into the next century. The need to move quickly necessitates a
change in structure with decisions being made by those who will
implement them, closer to the customer interface. Increasing
cross-functional cooperation may also result in moves to find more
effective ways of performing processes.
Fourth, great changes are occurring in relationships with
customers and suppliers. There is a greater recognition that these
players in the supply chain can have a beneficial impact as their
influence and connection with the company increases. It is no
longer valid to view the customer or supplier as a threat--rather,
they should be seen as long-term partners who are as intent on
ensuring continuing success for the company as those within the
organizational boundary. Increasing ex- ploitation of vertical
relationships will act as a driver in the increased importance
placed on IT. Again this represents a move away from conventional
attitudes where IT was viewed as a means of control as opposed to
partnership.
The strategies which companies employ are changing as they
attempt to come to terms with changes in the way prod- ucts and
services are produced and eventually delivered to the final
customer. The companies involved in this study have become more
competitive by selecting from the two approaches, and are
formulating strategies which offer the greatest degree of
flexibility, versatility, and suitability for the marketplace in
which they find themselves.
References Applegate, Lynda, M., Cash, James I. Jr., and Quinn
Mills, D.: Infor-
mation Technology and Tomorrow's Manager. Harvard Business
Review 66 (November-December 1988): 128-136.
Babble, Earl: The Practice of Social Research (6th ed.),
Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. 1992.
Bakker, Hans, Jones, Wynford, and Nichols, Michele: Using Core
Competences to Develop New Business. Long Range Planning 27
(December 1994): 13-27.
Barton, P. S., and Peters, D. H.: The ASB Bank: An IT Case Study
in Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems 1 (June 1993): 165-1/0.
Bergeron, Francis, Bluteau, Chantal, and Raymond, Louis:
Identifica- tion of Strategic Information Systems Opportunities:
Applying and Comparing two Methodologies. MI5 Quarterly 15 (March
1991): 89-101.
Booth, Marilyn E., Philip, G.: Technology Driven and Competency
Driven Approaches to Competitiveness: Are they Reconcilable?
Journal of Information Technology 9 (June 1996): 143-159.
Boynton, Andrew C., and Victor, Bart: Beyond Flexibility:
Building and Managing the Dynamically Stable Organization.
California Management Review 33 (Fall 1991): 53-66.
Burnes, Bernard, and Whittle, Paul: Supplier Development:
Getting Started. Logistics Focus 3 (February 1995): 10-14.
Cash, J. I., and Konsynski, B. R.: IS Redraws Competitive
Boundaries. Harvard Business Review 63 (March-April 1985):
134-142.
Clemons, E. K.: Corporate Strategies for Information Technology.
Computer 24 (November 1991): 23-32.
Coleman, Julian L., and Bhattacharya, Arindam K.: The Supplier's
Response to Changes in Industry Structure. Logistics Focus 3 (Feb-
ruary 1995): 6-8.
Collis, David J.: Research Note: How Valuable are Organizational
Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 15 (Winter, 1994):
143-152.
Collis, David J., and Montgomery, Cynthia A.: Competing on Re-
sources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review 73 (july-
August 1995): 118-129.
DED: Directory of Services, Department of Economic Development,
HMSO, Belfast. 1994.
DTI: Competitiveness: Forging Ahead. A Summary, Department of
Trade and Industry, DTI, London. 1995.
Davidow, William, H., and Malone, Michael S.: The Virtual
Corpora- tion, Harper Collins Publishers, New York. 1992.
Dess, Gregory G., and Davis, Peter S.: Porter's (1980) Generic
Strate- gies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and
Organi- zational Performance. Academy of Management Journal 27
(Septem- ber 1984): 467-488.
Doz, Yves: Competence and Strategy, in Information Resources and
Corporate Growth, Eduardo Punset and Gerry Sweeney, eds., Pinter
Publishers, London. 1989, pp. 47-55.
Earl, Michael J.: Management Strategies for Information
Technology, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead. 1989.
Earl, Michael J.: Experiences in Strategic Information Systems
Plan- ning. MIS Quarterly 17 (March 1993): 1-20.
Galliers, R. D., Merali, Yasmin, and Spearing, Laura: Coping
with Information Technology? How British Executives Perceive
the
-
Technology and Competency Approaches J Busn Res 39
1998:41:29-40
Key Management Information Systems Issues in the mid-1990s.
Journal of Information Technology 9 (September 1994): 223-238.
Gomes-Casseras, Benjamin: Group versus Group: How Alliance Net-
works Compete. Harvard Business Review 72, (July-August 1994):
62-74.
Grainger-Smith, Neff, and Oppenheim, Charles: The Role of
Informa- tion Systems Technology (IS/IT) in Investment Banks.
Journal of Information Science 20 (5 1994): 323-333.
Griffiths, Pat: Using Information Systems and Technology to Gain
Competitive Advantage, in Information Resources and Corporate
Growth, Eduardo Punset and Gerry Sweeney, eds., Pinter Publish-
ers, London. 1989, pp. 78-88.
Haeckel, S. H., and Nolan, R. L.: Managing by Wire. Harvard
Business Review 71 (September-October 1993): 122-132.
Hambrick, Donald, C.: High Profit Strategies in Mature Capital
Goods Industries: A Contingency Approach. Academy of Management
Journal 26 (December 1983): 687-707.
Hamel, Gary, and Pralahad, C. K.: Strategic Intent. Harvard
Business Review 67 (May-June 1989): 63-76.
Hammer, Michael, and Champy, James: Reengineering the
Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Nicholas Brealey
Publishing, London. 1993.
Hendry,John: The Problem with Porter's Generic Strategies.
European Management Journal 8 (December 1990): 443-450.
Hopper, Max: Rattling SABRE--New Ways to Compete on Informa-
tion. Harvard Business Review 68 (May-June 1990): 118-125.
Itami, Hiroyuki: Mobilising Invisible Assets, in Information
Resources and Corporate Growth, Eduardo Punset and Gerry Sweeney,
eds., Pinter Publishers, London. 1989, pp. 36-46.
Ives, Blake, and Learmonth, Gerard, P.: The Information System
as a Competitive Weapon. Communications of the ACM 27 (December
1984): 1193-1201.
Jackson, Colin: Building a Competitive Advantage through
Informa- tion Technology. Long Range Planning 22 (August 1991):
29-39.
Jelassi, Tawfik: Gaining Business from Information Technology:
The Case of Otis Elevator, France. European Management Journal 11
(March 1993): 62-72.
Kanter, Rosabeth M.: Collaborative Advantage: the Art of
Alliances. Harvard Business Review 72 (july-August 1994):
96-108.
Kay, John Anderson: Foundations of Corporate Success: How
Business Strategies Add Value, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
1993.
Kettinger, William J., Grover, Varun, Guha, Subashish, and
Segars, Albert H.: Strategic Information Systems Revisited: A Study
in Sustainability and Performance. MIS Quarterly 18 (March 1994):
31-55.
King, William R., and Grover, Varun: The Strategic Use of
Informa- tion Resources: An Exploratory Study. IEEE Transactions on
Engi- neering Management 38 (November 1991): 295-305.
Lamborghini, Bruno: The Impact of Information and Information
Technology on the Structure of the Firm, in It!formation Resources
and Corporate Growth, Eduardo Punset and Gerry Sweeney, eds.,
Pinter Publishers, London. 1989, pp. 56-66.
Land, Frank: The Emergent Organization: Does Information
Technol- ogy Matter? in Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.2 Working
Conference on InJormation Technology and New Emergent forms of
Organizations, R. Baskerville, S. Smithson, O. Ngwenyama, and J. I.
Degross. Ann Arbor, MI. 11-13 August, 1994.
Lefebvre, Elizabeth, Lefebvre, Louis. A., and Pefontaine, Lise:
Relating
Technology Management Capabilities to the Use of Information
Technology, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Confer-
ence on Systems Science; Volume III: Information Systems: Decision
support and Knowledge-based Systems, J. Nunamaker and R. H.
Sprague, eds. 1994, pp. 460-468.
Mahmood, M. A.: Associating Organizational Strategic Performance
with Information Technology Investment: An Exploratory Re- search.
European Journal of Information Systems 2 (June 1993): 185-200.
McFarlan, Warren F.: Information Technology Changes the Way you
Compete. Harvard Business Review 62 (May-June 1984): 98-103.
M cGrath, Rita, McMillan, lan C., and Venkataraman, S.: Defining
and Developing Competence: A Strategic Process Paradigm. Strategic
Management Journal 16 (May 1995): 251-275.
Miller, Danny: The Generic Strategy Trap. The Journal of
Business Strategy 13 (January/February 1992): 37-41.
Miller, Danny, and Friesen, Peter, H.: Porter's (1980) Generic
Strate- gies and Performance: An Empirical Examination with
American Data. Part 1: Testing Porter. Organization Studies 7 (1
1986a): 37--55.
Miller, Danny, and Friesen, Peter, H.: Porter's (1980) Generic
Strate- gies and Performance: An Empirical Examination with
American Data. Part II: Performance Implications. Organization
Studies 7 (3 1986b): 255-261.
Mintzberg, Henry: Generic Strategies, in The Strategy Process:
Concepts and Contexts, Henry Mintzberg and James Brian Quinn, eds.,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1992, pp. 70-82.
Mintzberg, Henu: The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning.
Harvard Business Review 72 (January-February 1994a): 107-114.
Mintzberg, Henry: Rethinking Strategic Planning Part II: New
Roles for Planners. Long Range Planning 27 (June 1994b): 22-30.
Mintzberg, Henry: Rethinking Strategic Planning Part 1: Pitfalls
and Fallacies. Long Range Planning 27 (june 1994c): 12-21.
NIGC: Interim Summary of Progress, Northern Ireland Growth Chal-
lenge. 10 May 1995.
Niederman, Fred, Brancheau, James C., and Wetherbe, James C.:
Intormation Systems Management Issues for the 1990s. MIS Quar-
terly 14 (December 1991): 475-500.
Nonaka, Ikujiro: The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Busi-
ness Review 69 (November-December 1991): 96-104.
Orpen, Christopher: Strategic Planning, Scanning Activities and
the Financial Performance of Small Firms. Journal of Strategic
Change 3 (June 1994): 45-55.
Philip, George, Gopalakrishnan, Mohan, and Mawalkar, Sanjay:
Technology Management and Information Technology Strategy:
Preliminary Results of an Empirical Study of Canadian Organiza-
tions. International Journal of Ir@rmation Management 15 (August
1994): 303-315.
Porter, Michael E.: Competitive Strategy: Techniques for
Analyzing In- dustries and Competitors, Free Press, New York.
1980.
Porter, Michael E.: Competitive Advantage: Creating and
Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press, New York. 1985.
Porter, Michael E.: The Competitive Advantage q[ Nations,
Macmillan, London. 1990.
Porter, Michael E., and Millar, Victor E.: How Information Gives
You Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Review 63 (July-August
1985): 149-160.
Pralahad, C. K., and Hamel, Gary: The Core Competence of the
-
40 J Busn Res M.E. Booth and G. Philip 1998:41:29-40
Corporation. Harvard Business Review 68 (May-June 1990):
79-91.
Quinn, James B., Doorley, Thomas L., and Paquette, Penny C.: Be-
yond Products: Services-based Strategy. Harvard Business Review 68
(March-April 1990): 58-67.
Sabherwal, R., Tsoumpas, P.: The Development of Strategic
Informa- tion Systems: Some Case Studies and Research Proposals.
Euro- pean Journal of Information Systems 2 (October 1993):
240-259.
Segars, A. H., and Grover, V.: Strategic Group Analysis: A
Method- ological Approach for Exploring the Industry Level Impact
of Information Technology. OMEGA, International Journal of Manage-
ment Science 22 (January 1994): 13-34.
Simpson, John: The Top 100, Business Telegraph (Belfast
Telegraph). 10 January 1995.
Stacey, Ralph D.: Strategtc Management & Organizational
Dynamics, (2nd ed.), Pitman Publishing, London. 1996.
Strassman, Paul A.: Information Technology and Organizational
Ef- fectiveness, Hawaii International Conference of Systems
Sciences, Maui, Hawaii. 6 January 1994.
Syrett, Michel, and Kingston, Klari: GE's Hungarian Light
Switch. Management Today (April 1995): 52-58.
Tampoe, Mohen: Exploiting the Core Competences of Your Organiza-
tion. Long Range Planning 27 (August 1994): 66-77.
Touche Ross Management Consultants Information Management: A
Survey of Current Practices and Trends--1994, Touche Ross, Lon-
don. 1995.
Willcocks, Leslie: IT Evaluation: Managing the Catch 22.
European Management Journal 10 (June 1992): 220-229.