UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS L'BR^iris, AT URBANA-CHAWIPAIGN
BOOKSTACKS
- I
DATE DUE
GAYLORD
PRINTED IN U S A
5
SI
BEBR
FACULTY WORKING PAPER NO. 1238
Exploring the Linkage Between Strategic Groups and Competitive Strategy
Avi Fiegenbaum John McGee Howard Thomas
College of Commerce and Business Administration Bureau of Economic and Business Research University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
BEBR
FACULTY WORKING PAPER MO. 1238 e g e of Commerce and Business Administration University of Illinois at Urbana-Charapaign April 1*86
Exploring the Linkage Between Strategi Grcups 3r. d Competitive Strategy
A v i Fiegenbaum, Assistant Department of Business Administration
John McGee Temple ton College, Oxford
Howard Thomas, Professor Department of Business Administration
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
http://www.archive.org/details/exploringlinkage1238fieg
ABSTRACT
Since Hunt (1972) coined the term "strategic groups" in his study on the home appliance industry, a growing body of literature, both theoretical and empirical, has used this concept in different ways for different purposes. This paper reviews existing literature and explores the linkage between strategic groups and competitive stra- tegy. The STRATEGIC SPACE (SSP) concept is proposed in order to help the resolution of such issues as the identification of strategic groups and understanding the dynamic behavior of strategic groups.
INTRODUCTION In the last decade, the nature of a firm's competitive strategy has been realized by both practitioners and academicians as an impor- tant element in business success. Competitive strategy "... involves positioning a business to maximize the value of the capabilities that distinguish it from its competitors" (Porter (1980:47)). According to this definition, two major questions are raised in competitive stra- tegy analysis:
1. Who are the firm's competitors?
2. What kind of strategic decisions should an organization take in order to position itself relative to its competitors?
In economics, an industry is often used to define competitive boundaries. Two criteria normally define the boundaries of the industry: markets and technologies. The market criterion (e.g., Caves (1977)) includes within a specific industry those firms that have products sufficiently similar as to be close substitutes. This similarity is tested by the cross-elasticity of demand. The tech- nological criterion (e.g., Andrews (1951)) focuses upon the classifi- cation of firms according to the similarity of their production proc- esses. In the United States, the Standard Industrial Classification, or S.I.C., follows the market criterion by defining industries in pro- duct terms. (See McGee and Thomas (1986) for a comprehensive dis- cussion. )
With the difficulties of satisfying both market and technological criteria, and with the increasing industrial complexity since World War II — diversification of products, participation in several "indus- tries" and multinational activity — the definition of the set of
-2-
competitors for a given firm (i.e., the industry) has become increas- ingly imprecise. To illustrate the problem, (Huff> Thomas, and Fiegenbaum (1985)) consider the response of Walter Wriston, the Chief Executive Officer of CITICORP, when asked to identify his competitors:
Sometimes Wriston mentions Morgan Guaranty... other- wise, Wriston sees his competition as being Merrill Lynch, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Sears Roebuck and company, Prudential-Bache and the American Express company. (Bennett (1983:16))
These comments indicate that the problem of defining the firm's com- petitors (i.e., industry or competitive set) is an increasingly dif- ficult issue in formulating competitive strategy.
In his doctoral dissertation on competitive processes in the "white goods" industry, Hunt (1972) coined the term "Strategic Group" (SG) for the finer classifications that exist within industries. He observed that different firms in the industry adopted different stra- tegies in order to achieve their organizational goals. Indeed, firms similar in their strategic behavior were clustered into a strategic group.
The concept of strategic groups allows firms to make more sense of competition in analyzing complex industries (McGee and Thomas (1985)), in defining firms' competitors, and in illustrating the com- petitive positions available within an industry. Based on the concept of strategic groups, Caves and Porter (1977) generalized the theory of entry barriers (Bain (1956), Vernon (1972), Scherer (1980)) and devised the term "mobility barriers." The theory of Mobility barriers argues that barriers not only protect firms in a strategic group from entry by firms outside the industry but also provide barriers to firms
-3-
within the industry shifting strategy positions from one strategic group to another.
Based on the concepts of strategic groups and mobility barriers, Porter (1979) developed a theory that explains interfirm performance differences. According to this theory, the structure of strategic groups (the height of mobility barriers, number of strategic groups, distance between groups, etc.) affects the process of rivalry within the industry and hence both the average profit and the dispersion of firms' profits. In addition, mobility barriers enable some strategic groups to maintain persistent performance advantages over other stra- tegic groups. Thus, the concept of strategic groups provides impor- tant frameworks for analyzing competitive strategy.
In the next section we review the literature on strategic groups and go on to link, the strategic group concept with the analysis of competitive strategy.
STRATEGIC GROUPS: LITERATURE REVIEW For research on strategic groups, it is crucial to understand what the word "strategy" means. Therefore, the first part of this section illustrates some different approaches which have been suggested for operationalizing the strategy concept. Workable guidelines (rather than theoretical arguments) are stated to provide benchmarks for iden- tifying a firm's strategy. In the second part of this section, stra- tegic groups studies are reviewed from a number of relevant perspec- tives and important findings are summarized.
-4-
Strategy
Despite many studies exploring different aspects of firms' strat- egy, there is no clear consensus on the word's definition. The word "comes from the Greek strategos , a 'general' which in turn comes from roots meaning 'army' and 'lead'" (Bracker (1980: 219)). A strategist in Greek literature was, therefore, the individual who planned and managed wars. In the last three decades, the importance of a "strategist's viewpoint" for running an organization was realized by both business practitioners and academicians. Chandler, a business historian, is one of the pioneers in the development of the field. According to Chandler (1962: 13) "strategy" is:
... the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals.
Chandler did not differentiate the processes of strategic formulation from the concept itself. He also ignored the important strategic link between the firm and its environment. However, Chandler's study was the springboard for further contributions concerned with the defini- tion and the meaning of the concept. Many other authors (e.g., Andrews (1971), Ansoff (1965), Cannon (1968), Steiner (1969), Katz (1970), Ackoff (1970), Paine and Naumes (1974), Glueck (1976)), also addressed different aspects of strategy. These include such perspec- tives as its breadth, its components, the characteristics of its objectives, the levels of strategy, and so forth.
Chaffee (1985) examined studies on the strategy concept and classified them into "three models of strategy." First, according to the linear model, strategy consists of decisions, actions, and plans
-5-
that will be taken by the firm in order to achieve its goals. The strategy of firms which fit this model is characterized by changing markets, products, and other activities. The writings of Chandler (1962), Cannon (1968), Andrews (1971), Drucker (1974), and Steiner and Miner (1977) rest on such a linear model. Second, adaptive strategy is concerned with the development of a viable match between the oppor- tunities and risks present in the external environment and the organi- zation's capabilities and resources for exploiting those opportunities' (Hofer (1973: 3)). Adaptive strategy tries to achieve a match between the firm and its environment. In contrast to the linear model the adaptive model considers a firm's action or reaction as a response to the nature and magnitude of environmental changes and pressures. Hofer (1973), Hofer and Schendel (1978), Mintzberg (1978), Quinn (1980), Gluck et. al (1982) employ this model. Finally, Chaffee calls the third model interpretive strategy, for it looks at strategy from the viewpoint of the organization's culture. In this model, strategy becomes the "orienting metaphors to motivate behavior expected to pro- duce favorable organizational results" (Chaffee (1985:83)). Different groups and stakeholders can affect the firm's strategy and, therefore, good strategy can be achieved by fostering sound communication and relationships between the various stakeholders. Such writers as Pettigrew (1977), Van Cauwenbergh and Cool (1982), Dirsmith and Covaleski (1983), and Chaffee (1985) emphasize the relevance of the interpretive model.
In trying to find a workable guideline (rather than theoretical arguments) to identify strategy, the following statements should be considered:
-6-
(1) Strategy is "a pattern in a stream of decisions" (Mintzberg (1978: 934)). This view of strategy stresses the longitudinal nature of strategic development and its internal consistency.
(2) "The decision must be important to the success of the enter- prise" (Shirley (1983: 265)). This statement emphasizes that only decisions that can affect the success (or failure) of the enterprise should be considered as strategic decisions.
(3) It is important to relate strategy to organizational level. Hofer and Schendel (1978) emphasize four levels of an organi- zation that different strategic questions should be raised in each level. At the enterprise strategy level, strategy is concerned with the question of "how can we maintain the poli- tical legitimacy of the organizations?" (Hofer and Schendel (1978:15)). At the corporate strategy level, the question is "what set of businesses should we be in?" (Hofer and Schendel (1978: 27)). At the business strategy level, the question is "how to compete in a particular industry or product/market segment." (Hofer and Schendel (1982: 27)). And at the functional strategy level, the question is on the "Maximization of resource productivity" (Hofer and Schendel (1978:29)).
(4) For each level of organizational strategy, four components of strategic decisions can be identified:
1. Scope, that is, the extent of the organization's present and planned interactions with its environment.
2. Resource Deployment, that is, the level and pattern of the organization's past and present resource and skill deployments.
3. Competitive Advantage, that is, the unique position an organization develops vis-a-vis its competitors.
4. Synergy, that is, the joint effects that are sought from the organization's resource deployments and/or scope decisions" (Hofer and Schendel (1978: 25)).
(5) It is important, as noted by Mintzberg (1978), to distinguish between two major kinds of strategies, intended and realized. Intended strategy is an ex-ante concept whereas realized strat- egy is an ex-post result. Mintzberg suggests that these two strategies should be studied so that "...the interplay between intended and realized strategies may lead us to the heart of this complex organizational process" (Mintzberg (1978: 934)).
In summary, the five perspectives above can serve as a guideline
for the purpose of formulating strategic groups. More specifically,
-7-
iteras 1, 3 and 4 (longitudinal, level and component, respectively) define what may be called the Strategic Space (SSP). Either intended
Insert Figure 1 About Here
or realized strategy can be drawn on this space (item 5). Item (2) above emphasizes that strategic decisions are important to the success (or failure) of the organization. Therefore, the important dimensions which define strategic groups should reflect matters of salience and importance to the company.
Strategic Groups: Review and Perspectives Since Hunt (1972) coined the term, both theoretical and empirical literature has used the concept of "strategic groups'" in different ways. Researchers in industrial organization economics, strategic management, marketing, among others, have all employed the concept. An extensive research review is available in McGee and Thomas (1986). In this paper the review of studies on strategic groups falls into the following categories.
1. Fundamentals of strategic groups theory.
2. The theory of strategic structure within an industry and firm performance.
3. Strategic group formation and the behavior of firms and groups over time.
4. Summary of the empirical studies on strategic groups.
5. The relevance of strategic groups for competitive strategy analysis.
-8-
Fundamentals of Strategic Groups Theory
The traditional paradigm in the field of industrial organization
economics argues that firm performance is strongly influenced by
market structure. Market structure includes elements such as seller
concentration, barriers to entry and exit, product differentiation,
industry growth, and economies of scale (see Bain (1956), Vernon
(1972), Caves (1977), Scherer (1980)). The logic of this paradigm is
that market structure influences the market conduct of the firms and
that in turn determines market performance. The crucial assumption is
that all firms are profit maximizers and sharing the constraints of
market structure, will tend to behave in the same way.
Firms in an industry are assumed to be alike in all economically important dimensions except for their size (Porter (1979; 214)).
The homogeneity assumption, which considers each firms' behavior
(strategy) to be alike, was the reason that firm behavior elements
were ignored in the structure/performance paradigm. A number of
empirical studies (e.g., Comanor and Wilson (1967), Hall and Weiss
(1967), Collins and Preston (1968), Shepherd (1972), Gale (1972),
Bass, Cattin and Wittink (1978)) have confirmed that firms' profits in
an industry can be partially explained by market structure elements.
In the last decade, more attention has been paid to the relevance
of firms' behavior. Newer industrial organization (10) paradigms
attempt to integrate more formally the firm's performance with its
conduct as well as with the market structure. The main argument in
the "behavioralist " paradigm, namely, that a firm's strategic choice
has an impact on the firm's performance, brings the industrial
-9-
organization and strategic management disciplines closer to each other. Strategic management writers argue that the study of a firm's conduct should be the primary focus for research (see Porter (1981a) for the contribution of 1.0. to strategic management.) Empirical studies (e.g., Hatten (1974), Patton (1976)) have shown that firm- level conduct (strategy) variable(s) contribute to the explanatory power of the structure/performance paradigm.
Investigating the strategic patterns in the '"white goods" industry, Hunt (1972) realized that within the industry, groups of firms use different strategies. Hunt coined the novel term strategic groups to characterize the strategic diversity within the industry. According to Hunt (1972; 8-16) a strategic group is defined as:
A group of firms within the industry that are highly symmetric ... with respect to cost structure, degree of product differentiation, degree of vertical inte- gration, and the degree of product diversification ... formal organization, control systems, and manage- ment rewards and punishments ... (and) the personal views and preferences for various possible outcomes.
From an industrial organization point of view, the clustering of
companies into strategic groups has an important contribution to the
structure/conduct/performance paradigm. The empirical findings have
shown that the explanation of firm performance in an industry improves
when strategic group factors are included as independent variables
(e.g., Newman (1973)). In addition, different relationships between
profit and strategy were found for firms in different strategic groups
(e.g., Hatten (1974), Patton (1976)). From a strategic management
point of view, the recognition of strategic groups within an industry
has the important implication that it occupies an intermediate level
-10-
between Che industry and the firm for analyzing the nature of com- petitive strategy.
Based on the concept of strategic groups, Caves and Porter (1977) developed the concept of mobility barriers, a modification of the entry barrier (Bain (1956)) idea. Theories about entry barriers argue that existing firms are protected from new entrants into the industry by such elements as economies of scale, product differentiation, and the like. The mobility barriers theory argues that barriers impede not only newcomers but also firms in the same industry but with dif- ferent asset configurations who might wish to improve their relative strategic positioning by moving into another strategic group.
In summary, it is argued here that the strategic groups concept is important. More specifically, the concept is important in examining the structure/conduct/performance paradigm, the nature of intra-industry structures and their effects on firm performance, and the duality of mobility barriers and strategic groups. Two topics are explored in the following sections, namely, the theory of the strategic structure within an industry and firm performance, and strategic groups for- mation and the behavior of firms and groups over time.
The Theory of the Strategic Structure Within an Industry and Company's Performance
Porter (1979, 1980) presents a theory of the determinants of firm
profit performance based on the strategic structure within the
industry. Based on the concepts of strategic groups and mobility
barriers, the theoretical explanation is divided into the following
steps :
-11-
a) The configuration of strategic groups within the industry has an impact on the overall performance of the industry. Porter (1979; 218) suggested that the number and size distribution of strategic groups, the strategic distance among strategic groups, and the market interdependence among groups are the major variables which define con- figuration. The greater the number of strategic groups, when most of the groups have equal size, then the greater is the rivalry among them or the greater is the chance of tacit collusion. On the other hand, when few strategic groups exist, and the size distribution of these groups is not equal, this structure gives advantage to the large stra- tegic groups; tacit collusion is not expected.
It is also expected that the greater the distance among strategic groups, the more difficult will be any tacit collusion, and the more likely strong rivalry will exist within the industry.
Market interdependence indicates the degree to which different strategic groups compete for the same customers. It is expected that with a high level of interdependency , competition will not only be intense but varied in form reflecting the diverse asset structures of competitors.
Hergert (1983) developed statistical measures for the strategic groups configuration. He was able to show that some of the expected relationships between strategic groups configurations and industry
Harrigan (1985) and Hergert (1985) have measured strategic distance in terms of the distance (difference) between the centroids of the strategic groups (defined in terms of the relevant and impor- tant strategic variables).
-12-
profits were in the expected direction (as were hypothesized by Porter (1979)).
b) The location of the strategic group relative to other strate- gic groups may convey advantages or disadvantages to the group's members. There are several possible reasons. First , some types of strategies are more suited to market conditions than others, and can result in superior performance. Thus, firms which belong to better performing strategic groups will have the opportunity to achieve above industry average profit. Second, each strategic group has a different ability to protect itself from competitive firms in other strategic groups (Caves and Porter (1977)). Strategic groups with significantly superior mobility barriers are better able to exploit profit oppor- tunities. McGee (1985) and McGee and Thomas (1986) categorized the mobility barriers into three classes: market, supply and firm-specific strategic variables. In addition, mobility barriers may also arise from what Lippman and Rumelt (1981) called the concept of "uncertain iraitability , " meaning that even if a firm wants to replicate the stra- tegy of firms in a superior strategic group, it may fail because of
its uncertainty about how to imitate and implement that strategy in practice. Third, the degree to which firms in the same strategic group compete amongst each other can also affect the average profit of the group relative to other groups. When firms in the same strategic group try to improve their position, other firms may retaliate, and the potential profit of the strategic group as a whole may decrease.
c) The location of the firm within the strategic group affects
the firm's performance. The rationale for this proposition is given by Porter (1979; 218-219):
-13-
While firms following similar strategies will likely be of comparable scale, scale differences may work to the disadvantage of smaller firms in the group where there are aspects of the strategy (e.g., captive dis- tribution) subject to economies of scale.
d) The ability of the firm to implement its strategy will also affect the firm's performance. Some firms are better organized, managed, controlled than others, which will give them superior perfor- mance (see Galbraith and Nathanson (1978) for a comprehensive discussion on strategic implementation).
In summary, the concept of strategic groups was developed by Porter in order to structure a theory of interfirm performance dif- ferences. Four elements are the fundamentals of this theory. First, the configuration of strategic groups (e.g., the number of groups and the size distribution of groups) has an impact on the overall perfor- mance of the industry. Second, the location of a strategic group relative to other industry level strategic groups may have performance implications for group members. Third, the location of the firm within the strategic group may influence its performance. Fourth, the ability of the firm to implement its strategy may affect its perfor- mance.
Strategic Groups Formation and the Behavior of Firms and Groups Over Time
Why and how do strategic groups form? How do they behave over time? How do firms move within and between groups? These questions have not yet attracted much attention.
-14-
The Formation of Strategic Groups:
A necessary condition for the formation of strategic groups is that companies within an industry behave differently. Economics and organi- zation theories suggest several rationales for this phenomenon.
a) Different firms have different goals: profit maximizing (Stigler (1964)), revenue maximizing (Baumol (1967)), growth maximizing (Morris (1964), Williamson (1966)) or management utility maximizing (Williamson (1963).
b) Even if firms compete for the same goal, different strategies can be used to achieve those goals. Hergert (1983: II-2) developed an industry level mathematical model which assumed that member firms maximize the same goals (utility function) and yet found that they achieved them through the use of markedly different strategies. This implies that firms within industries may adopt dissimilar strategies even when they are trying to achieve similiar goals.
c) Firms make different assumptions about the future potential of the industry (Porter 1980; 49), which may lead them to behave dif- ferently.
d) Firms have different skills and resources. For example, new entrants don't have the same experience as established firms (Henderson (1979)), giving the latter firms a potential competitive advantage over new entrants. To compete effectively, the new entrants will look for other competitive dimensions: unique skills or resources in marketing, production, research and development, and the like.
e) Changes in the industry environment — growth or decline in demand, technical change or whatever — will affect different firms in different ways.
-15-
Firm-level and Group-level Behavior Over Time:
To understand Che dynamic characteristics of strategic groups requires two levels of investigation: the firm and group.
Firm level: The theory of strategic groups argues that firms within an industry can be clustered into groups. Most studies in the area of strategic groups either specify current strategic groups or investigate the relationship between performance and strategy for dif- ferent strategic groups. However, it is argued here that strategic group studies can contribute to our understanding of the firm's strate- gic behavior. More specifically, once strategic groups are iden- tified, and firms make sense of the strategies of close competitors, it is likely that strategic group members (firms) will follow similar strategies over time. Several explanations can be offered to support this viewpoint. First, firms in the same strategic group have similar assumptions about the future potential of the industry (Porter (1980)). Secondly, strategic group members have similar goals and the skills that are required to achieve these goals. If there is either an external or an internal change in the industry, all strategic group members are expected to react in the same way (Caves and Porter (1977: 251)). This argument is consistent with the adaptive model of firm's strategy (Chaffee (1985)). Moreover, taking the adaptive model one step further, firms within the same strategic group have similar mechanisms for strategic adaptation, and these adaptation mechanisms differ across strategic groups. Even if a firm is not "happy" with its current strategy, it is not easy to move to a more successful strategic group. Such strategic barriers such as mobility barriers
-16-
(Caves and Porter (1977), McGee and Thomas (1986)), uncertain inst- ability (Rumelt (1981)) and inertia (Huff, Thomas and Fiegenbaum (1985)) may induce firms to remain in the same strategic group. Three empirical studies on firm movement among strategic groups support this proposition. Oster (1982) observed that few firms moved between the two strategic groups she defined (as below and above the industry average of advertising over last year sales). Fiegenbaum and Primeaux ((1983), (1985)) also found low level of firm movement among strate- gic groups when strategic groups were defined in terms of market share and several other strategic variables.
In summary, strategic group members will probably follow similar strategies over time. Similarities involving strategic assumptions, goals, skills, and the strategic barriers that prevent firms from easily moving among strategic groups explain this phenomenon, and stu- dies, such as Oster (1982) and Fiegenbaum and Primeaux ((1983), (1985)) provide empirical support.
Group level: In the previous section it is argued that strategic group members will follow similar strategies over time. Therefore, the composition of strategic group membership is most likely to be the same over time. However, another important aspect of strategic group behavior over time is whether or not the strategic group as an entity will move toward a new strategic position in the strategic space.
Organization theories argue that the organization's environment is unstable (e.g., Dess and Beard (1984)) and that firms are trying to adapt their strategic behavior to environmental change (e.g., Miller and Friesen (1980), Hofer and Schendel (1978), Chaffee (1985)). The
-17-
final outcome may be that the strategic group as a whole will be located in a new position over time. This, however, depends on the strategic group members' ability to differentiate themselves viably from other strategic groups.
In addition, the studies of Kumar, Thomas, and Fiegenbaum (1984a, 1984b) have looked at strategic groups from a different angle in order to identify the feasible strategic group positions within the strate- gic space. These studies are primarily deductive in nature and explore a fundamental theoretical issue; namely, whether there are limits to the numbers of strategic groups which may exist within a specific industry context. Using the notion of equilibrium as a benchmark, Kumar et al. (1984a) specified the strategic groups that may exist in equilibrium under "dominant strategy" assumptions. The concept of dominant strategy assumes that only firms which have the "right strategic mix" (strategy) will survive the competitive game. The weaker firms will be dominated by the more successful firms. Kumar et al. (1984b) also used a game theoretic approach to investi- gate some other properties of strategic groups in equilibrium. They concluded that in a monopolistic competitive market, the number of strategic groups that will exist in equilibrium depends on environmen- tal conditions "if there are K uncontrollable variables in the utility function, then there can be at most (K + 1) strategic groups in a "structurally stable "equilibrium" (p. 8). (The K structurally uncontrollable variables, represent the environmental variables of the model) .
-18-
These approaches in strategic group studies are important because they include the future as another important dimension for strategic group analysis. They argue that equilibrium positions represent viable future competitive positions which will emerge as the industry evolves. (Also see Camerer (1985) for the importance of equilibrium and game theoretic approaches for "redirecting research in business policy and strategy").
In summary, the strategic rationale of firms and the pattern of group behavior over time have been examined here. Tt is argued that group membership is likely to remain stable over time. On the other hand, the strategic group as a whole may be located in a new position on the strategic space over time. Studies by Kumar, Thomas, and Fiegenbaum (1984a, 1984b) have also suggested an alternative way of examining strategic groups, namely, in terms of their future rather than past or present orientation. In the next paragraph, the empiri- cal studies on strategic groups will be reviewed.
Empirical Studies on Strategic Groups
Since Hunt (1972) published his study on strategic groups in the home appliance industry, several writers have explored various impor- tant aspects of the strategic group concept. Table 1 compares these studies summarizing them along the following dimensions:
(*) The author and year of publication.
(*) The level of strategic grouping.
(*) The component(s) of the strategic grouping.
(*) Intended vs. realized strategic groups.
(*) The sample in the study.
-19-
(*) Static vs. dynamic treatment.
(*) The variable(s) used to cluster strategic groups.
(*) The technique used to cluster strategic groups.
(*) The definitions of strategic groups.
(*) The main findings of each study. Some of the important issues arising from these empirical studies are discussed below. First, it can be seen that existing studies have investigated strategic groups at different strategy levels (column 2), specifically, corporate, business, and functional perspectives.
Insert Table 1 About Here
Corporate-level strategy examines the issue of which set of busi- nesses the organization should develop whereas business-level strategy addresses the issue of how to compete in a particular industry or product/market segment. Nevertheless, in some existing studies it is sometimes hard to differentiate between these two levels. For example, in the research of Hunt (1972), Newman (1973, 1978) and Ramsler (1982), it is clear that strategic groups were formed according to corporate level strategy, since the criterion variables for grouping were the dispersion of the firms' product/market activities. Further, studies such as Porter (1979), Oster (1982), Primeaux (1983, 1985), Ryans and Wittink (1985), Fiegenbaum and Primeaux ((1983), (1985)), Baird and Sudharshan (1983), Hayes et al. (1983), implicity identified corporate level strategy since the criterion variables used to cluster strategic groups reflected particular aspects of the entire organization (e.g. ,
-20-
investment strategy, advertising strategy). On the other hand, stud- ies such as Hatten (1974) and Patton (1976) exemplify strategic groups specified at the business level. This is because most of the firms in the brewing industry are not diversified in other industries and the product is relatively homogeneous. Finally, the studies of Frazier and Howell (1983) and Hawes and Crittenden (1984) defined strategic groups according to functional (marketing) level strategy.
Second, the studies have identified strategic groups according to the components of the firm's strategy (Column 3). Most of the studies used either scope or resource deployment criteria (see Hofer and Schendel (1978)) but some of them used both these components (Ramsler (1982), Fiol (1984)).
Third, the formation of strategic groups depends upon the strat- egy definition used (i.e., strategy as intentions (ex-ante strategy formulation) or realizations (ex-post inference of intended strategy) (Mintzberg (1978)) Column 4). Most studies have used the realized strategy definition to define strategic groups by inferring strategic intent from ex-post archival financial statement information. Only two stud-ies, Dess and Davis (1984), and Hawes and Crittenden (1984) appear to have defined strategic groups using strategy as intentions. They used a questionnaire to derive perceptual data which they then analyzed to form strategic groups.
Fourth, many industries have been studied. They range from con- sumer goods industries to producer goods industries, and from single product industries to multi-product industries (see Column 5).
-21-
Fifth, few studies have analyzed the dynamic aspects of strategic groups. Only Oster (1982), Ryans and Wittink (1985), and Fiegenbaum and Primeaux ((1983), (1985)) have looked at some dynamic aspects of strategic groups (see Column 6).
Sixth, different strategic dimensions have been used to cluster strategic groups (see Column 7). Some of the authors used such single criteria as market share (Porter (1979), Primeaux (1983, 1985), Fiegenbaum and Primeaux (1983)), advertising to sales ratio (Oster (1982)), and security prices (Ryans and Wittink (1985)). Other writers (e.g., Hatten (1974), Hergert (1983)) used multivariate criteria.
Seventh, strategic groups have been identified using either sta- tistical or rule of thumb procedures (see Column 8). By rule of thumb we mean that the writer had information about the industries that, based with the information on the criterion variables, allowed them to sort the firms logically into strategic groups (e.g., Hunt (1972), Porter (1979), Harrigan (1981)).
On the other hand, some writers who used multiple criteria to identify strategic groups have used such statistical packages as cluster analysis or three mode factor analysis (e.g., Harrigan (1985), Baird and Sudharshan (1983), respectively).
Eighth, different strategic groups were identified in the various studies (see Column 9). In one case no single strategic group was identified in six out of fifty industries. (Hergert (1983: 111-28)) while in other studies many strategic groups were consistently iden- tified (e.g., Newman (1973, 1978), Baird and Sudharshan (1983)). Each
-22-
writer named the various strategic groups according to some properties that dominated the strategic group membership.
Finally, the main conclusions and purposes of each study can be specified. The main conclusion of Hunt's (1972) study, which was the springboard for the whole field of research, was that strategic group structure can be identified in the home appliance industry. Other studies have reinforced Hunt's conclusions in different industries and at different levels of firm strategy.
Some writers have investigated the structure/conduct/performance paradigm of industrial organization economics. Writers such as Newman (1973, 1978), Hatten (1974), Patton (1976), Hergert (1983), have focused on this aspect of strategic groups. Primeaux (1983, 1985) was able to show that different strategic groups occur at different stages of the investment life cycle. Oster (1982), and Fiegenbaum and Primeaux ((1983), (1985)) examined, movement among strategic groups. The low level of movement seen in these studies may have important implications for the dynamics of competitive strategy. Yet the main studies in the area of strategic groups are 'data-driven.' That is, they identify a number of key strategic dimensions drawn from Porter's (1980:127) or McGee and Thomas's (1986) listing of key strategic variables and typically use cluster analysis with data bases such as COMPUSTAT to form groups of firms who 'cluster' together in terms of their observed strategic behavior. Criticisms have been voiced (McGee and Thomas (1986) as to whether the observed groups made sense to managers within those industries or other interested parties such as investment analysts. What is clearly needed Is the adoption of
-23-
multiple frameworks (McGee and Thomas 1986) for better understanding of the complexity which exists in competitive and often fragmented service industries. Therefore, it would seem sensible to study man- agers' beliefs and perceptions about competition and competitors in order to identify the frameworks they use in competitive positioning. Such an approach would clearly identify key strategic dimensions which managers perceive to be important in formulating strategy and provide a better basis for understanding the nature of the strategic dimen- sions which characterize strategic group formation. Further, it would provide insights into the groupings which make sense to managers and industry analysts and also allow comparison to be made between the quantitative 'data-driven' groupings and the perceptual groupings. Perhaps themes such as policy dialogue (Thomas (1984)) and triangula- tion in research strategy (Denzin (1978), Jick (1979)) can help researchers and managers make better sense of the strategic group con- cept.
In the next section, the linkage between strategic groups and com- petitive strategy is explored.
STRATEGIC GROUPS AND THEIR RELEVANCE FOR COMPETITIVE STRATEGY Even though many studies have explored different aspects of stra- tegic groups, it is still unclear how the concept of strategic groups can be applied to define and analyze competitive strategy. Therefore, these existing research studies are categorized in terms of factors that are important for formulation of competitive strategy.
-24-
The Identification of the Relevant Strategic Dimensions
The identification of the relevant strategic dimensions used by firms in a given industry is a key and often neglected issue in some of the more 'data-driven' studies which determine strategic groups. While these dimensions are extremely important for making sense of strategic groups, they can also be used to assess the mobility barriers (Caves and Porter (1977)) that protect strategic group mem- bership from attack by other firms. For firms which are in the "superior" performing strategic groups, the knowledge of the barriers that protect them can aid their strategic planners in making decisions about where to recommend further investment to protect and reinforce those key strategic barriers. On the other hand, a firm which wants to move to another strategic group may be able to identify a potentially vulnerable strategic dimension (barrier) which may match its com- petitive skills and strengths, hence provide the firm with a "gateway" to entry into that strategic group.
Researchers need to develop better research instruments for iden- tifying key strategic dimensions. Approaches such as perceptual mapping in marketing and other cognitive mapping techniques (Eden (1984)) can help managers identify their strategic group maps. The maps of industry analysts and brokers can be identified through appropriately designed questionnaires which use closed ended questions and analyze results using multi-dimensional scaling to form relevant groupings.
-25-
The Identification of Strategic Group Members
An important rationale for forming strategic groups is to enable planners to identify and better understand the behavior of com- petitors. But, who are the competitors? In complex industries where firms compete on different strategic dimensions, the definition of the set of competitors for a given firm is not always clear. Porter (1980) suggested that firms in the same strategic group should recognize each other as close competitors while firms in different strategic groups are less closely competitive. Therefore, knowing strategic group membership (the competitors) can aid planners in understanding the bases of competition and in making more effective competitive strategy decisions.
For planners it is important to compare groups defined on the basis of industry wisdom (e.g., analysts, managers insights, etc.) with those derived from empirical, quantitative studies. Differences in these groups may allow managers and analysts to review and reinterpret their notions of competition.
The theorv of the strategic structure within an industry and
i - -- - - -- - - -
2 interfirm performance differences
Porter (1979) presented a theory of the determinants of firm-level
profit based on the strategic structure within the industry. According
to this theory and the empirical findings that partially support it,
firms following similiar strategies will tend to have similiar
performance profiles.
The underlying theory is explained in pages 10 and 11 of this
paper.
-26-
For example, suppose that two strategic groups exist within an industry (SGI, SG2) and two performance measures, risk and return, are considered by the companies (see Figure 2).
Insert Figure 2 About Here
It can be seen that different performance levels can be associated with each strategic group. This information may help strategic plan- ners. For example, should firms stay in the same strategic group and benefit from the average level of performance, or to try and move to another more attractive strategic group requiring a different finan- cial and capital structure profile but which provides an improved potential average profit level. The causal relationship between structure, strategy and performance
Some writers, among them Hatten (1974), Patton (1976), Hergert (1983), found that different relationships exist between performance measures and elements of industry structure and strategy for firms in different strategic groups. Thus, careful modelling of the strategy- structure relationship should highlight the important strategic factors (and variables) for each strategic group and indicate how they differ across groups. For example, in one of the Purdue brewing studies (Patton (1976)) the relationship between Debt (strategic element) and ROE (a performance measure), was examined for each strategic group. For the national brewer strategic group and for the small regional brewer strategic group positive relationships were found (regression coefficients of 0.15 and 0.33 respectively). On the other hand, for the large regional strategic group the relationship was found to be
-27-
negative (regression coefficients of -0.61). Clearly the relevance of debt and the influence of debt varies markedly across strategic groups. Similar patterns can be found for other key strategic dimen- sions in those and other studies. Therefore, the strategic importance of certain key dimensions can more clearly be assessed.
Porter (1980: 138-140) also argued that the structure of strate- gic groups has implications in explaining industry rivalry, and hence, firm performance. Strategic groups characteristics, such as, the number of strategic groups, the extent to which different strategic groups are competing for the same customers, and the strategic distance among strategic groups were mentioned by Porter as important elements. Hergert (1983) showed empirically that the characteristics of strategic group structure affect the market performance of firms within industries.
In summary, the strategic groups structure within an industry has an impact on firms performance. Therefore, when either existing or potential firms are trying to evaluate their future performance poten- tial, the strategic groups structure as well as the characteristics of the specific group should be considered. Understanding Strategic Group Dynamics
Understanding dynamics in strategic management is crucial since the formulation of competitive strategy is an evolutionary process. Several writers have investigated dynamic aspects of strategic groups. Oster (1982), and Fiegenbaum and Primeaux (1983, 1985) found a low level of movement among strategic groups. Huff, Thomas, and Fiegenbaum (1985) have considered the role of grounded theories and
-28-
model building approaches in understanding strategic group dynamics and speculate that organizational inertia barriers (MacMillan and McCafferty (1982), Harrigan (1980)) as well as mobility barriers may hinder shifts between groups and thus explain the low level of move- ment. Further research on this topic should provide important guide- lines for the determination of competitive strategy.
The Prediction of Benchmark Strategic Groups
The studies of Kumar, Thomas, and Fiegenbaum (1984a, 1984b) have highlighted another aspect of strategic group dynamics. Examining the nature of the future strategic group equilibrium as the industry evolves can provide guidelines (benchmarks) for strategic planners in examining the viability of alternative competitive strategies. Some future strategic group positions may appear more attractive as the firm considers the match between its skills and the available environ- mental opportunities.
SUMMARY Today, 13 years after the publication of Hunt's (1972) study, there is much confusion about the implementation of the strategic group concept (McGee and Thomas (1986)). The main problem is that different researchers have used different measures to describe the firms' strategy. They range from one variable (e.g., market share) to many variables. Most of the studies have treated the problem sta- tically, rather than dynamically. According to Mintzberg (1978: 934), strategy is "a pattern in a stream of decisions," that is, the behavior over time of a firm's actions, an aspect not considered in
-29-
most studies. In their study of the brewing industry Hatten and Schendel (1977: 110) concluded that "attention to homogeneity over time, as across sections, is likely to be worthwhile." Indeed, in a later study Hatten and Hatten (1985) found that both group membership and the strategic relationships clearly changed over time.
Huff, Thomas, and Fiegenbaum (1985) argued for more research into the dynamics of strategic groups. Since the firm's environment and its expectations and objectives are not stable over time, it is reaso- nable to expect that the structure of strategic groups may also change over time.
It is clearly important to investigate the linkage between strategic groups and competitive strategy processes so as to develop a clearer theoretical framework for the determination of strategic groups. One key issue in this framework is the appropriate definition of strategy.
For more than three decades, researchers in the field of strategic management have discussed this question of definition. Broadly defined, a firm's strategy matches its internal resources and skills against the threats and opportunities created by its external environ- ment (Hofer and Schendel (1978: 12)). Most would argue that a firm's strategy can be described in terms of three major dimensions:
1) The level of strategy (enterprise, corporate, business, and functional ) .
2) The component of strategic decisions (scope, resource, deployment, competitive advantage, and synergism).
3) The influence of time on strategic decisions.
-30-
These three dimensions capture the nature of the strategic environment. Figure 1 defines the dimensions of the STRATEGIC SPACE (SSP). Thus, a firm's strategic decisions in each level of the
organization and for each time period can be depicted in terms of the SSP. It can be seen immediately that strategic groups can be defined for each level of the organization, for each strategic component, and for each time period as well as for any combination of the three.
Following Porter's (1981b) suggestion in an anti-trust symposium, and McGee and Thomas's (1985) paper, in-depth historical analysis of an industry can supplement strategic group analysis by enabling managers and extra-firm policy makers to make sense of complex industries. Further, the industry study of strategic groups obtained by quantitative approaches such as multivariate analysis should be validated by managers and industry analysts as they try to understand competition and close competitors in an industry. It should be noted that little follow-up with industry participants has been reported except in the case of the Purdue brewing industry studies (Hatten (1974) and others) and the more recent studies of Frazier and Howell (1983), Dess and Davis (1984) and Hawes and Crittenden (1984). This richer industry-study approach is also consistent with studies on strategic groups by Hunt (1972) on the home appliance industry and by Hatten (1974) and Patton (1976) on the brewing industry.
CONCLUSIONS Studying strategic groups can highlight different aspects of competitive strategy. First, identifying the strategic dimensions
-31-
that define strategic groups is a key issue in understanding how competitors formulate their strategies. Second, strategic groups help us understand which firms compete strongly with each other. Third, strategic groups can throw light upon the character and performance differences associated with the range of competitive strategies adopted in the industry. Fourth, the strategic groups structure can be used as a framework for modelling competition and hence in explain- ing performance differences between strategic groups. Fifth, an understanding of the dynamics of strategic groups is useful in explaining changes in competitive strategy over time. Sixth, the concept of benchmark strategic groups (which represent long-run competitive equilibruim positions) may be important in understanding future strategic group positions.
-32-
Ref erences
Andrews, K. , The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Horaewood, 111.: Dow-Jones, 1971.
Andrews, P. W. S. , "Industrial Analysis in Economics," In Andrews and Wilson (eds.), Oxford Studies in Price Mechanism, 1951.
Ansoff, H. I., Corporate Strategy, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Bain, Joe S. , Barriers to New Competition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956.
Bain, Joe S., Industrial Organization, 2d ed . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968.
Baird, I. S. , and Sudharshan, D. , "Strategic Groups: A Three Mode Factor Analysis of Some Measures of Financial Risk," WP No. 931, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Feb: 1983.
Bass, F. M. , Cattin, P., and Wittink, D. R. , "Firm Effects and Industry Effects in the Analysis of Market Structure and Profitability," Journal of Marketing Research, 1978, 15, 3-10.
Baumol, L. J., Business Behavior, Value and Growth, rev. ed . , Harcourt, Brace, 1967.
Bracker, Jeffrey, "The Historical Development of the Strategic Manage- ment Concept," Academy of Management Review, 1980, Vol. 5, No. 2, 219-224.
Camerer, C. , "Redirecting Research in Business Policy and Strategy," Strategic Management Journal, 6, 1985, 1-15.
Comanor, W. S. , and Wilson, T. A., "Advertising Market Structure and Performance," Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov 1967, A23-440.
Cannon, J. T. , Business Strategy and Policy. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1968.
Caves, R. , American Industry: Structure, Conduct, Performance, 4th edition. Prentice-Hall Inc., 1977.
Caves, R. E. and Porter, M. E. , "From Entry Barriers to Mobility
Barriers," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, May 1977, 241-261.
Chaffee, E. E. , "Three Models of Strategy," Academy of Management Review, 10, 1985, 89-98.
-33-
Chandler, A. D. , Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1962.
Collins, Norman R. and Preston, Lee E., Concentration and Price-Cost Margins in Manufacturing Industries. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.
Dess , G. G. and Beard, D. W. , "Dimensions of Organizational Task
Environments," Administrative Science Quarterly, 29 (1984) 52-73.
Dess, G. G. and Davis, P. S. , "Porter's (1980) Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance," Academy of Management Journal , Sept. 1984.
Dirsmith, W. M. and Covaleski, A. M. , "Strategy, External Communication and Environment Context," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 4, 137-151, 1983.
Drucker, P. F. , Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.
Fiegenbaum, A. and Primeaux, Jr., W. , "Strategic Groups and Mobility Barriers: The Level of Struggle in an Industry." BEBR Faculty Working Paper No. 984, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1983.
Fiegenbaum, A., and Primeaux, W. J., "An Empirical Examination of the Dynamics of Strategic Groups" Cup No. 1108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, January, 1985.
Fiegenbaum, A., Sudharshan, D. , and Thomas, H. , "The Concept of Stable Strategic Time Periods in Strategic Group Research," Managerial and Decision Economics, forthcoming, 1986.
Fiol , C. M. , "A Search for Relevance in the Study of Strategic Groups," Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, August 1984.
Frazier, G. L. and Howell, R. D. , "Business Definition and Performance," Journal of Marketing, 1983, 47, 59-67.
Gale, B. T. , "Market Share and the Rate of Return," Review of Economics and Statistics, LIV , 1972, pp. 417-423.
Galbraith, J. and Nathanson, D. , Strategy Implementation: The Role of Structure and Process. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1978.
Galbraith, J. and Schendel , D. E. , "An Empirical Analysis of Strategy Types," Strategy Management Journal, 4,2, 1983, 153-173.
-34-
Glueck, William, Business Policy, Strategy Formulation and Management Action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
Gluck, F. , Kaufmann, S. , and Walleck, A. S. , "The Four Phases of
Strategic Management" Journal of Business Strategy, 1982, 2(3), 9-21.
Gort, M. , Diversification and Integration in American Industry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962.
Hall, M. , and Weiss, L. , "Firm Size and Profitability," The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol XLIV, No. 3, August 1967, pp. 319-331.
Hatten, K. I., "Strategic Models in the Brewing Industry."
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, 1974.
Hatten, K. J., and Hatten, M. L. , "Some Empirical Insights for
Strategic Marketers: The Case of Beer," In H. Thomas and Gardner, D. M. (eds.), Strategic Marketing and Management, Chichester: John Wiley, 1985.
Hatten, K. I. and Schendel, D. £, , "Heterogeneity Within an Industry: Firm Conduct in the U.S. Brewing Industry, 1952-1971," The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1977, 26, 97-113.
Hatten, K. I., Schendel, D. E. , and Cooper, A., "A Strategic Model of the U.S. Brewing Industry: 1952-1971," Academy of Management Journal, 1978, 21, 592-610.
Harrigan, K. R. , Strategies for Declining Business, New York: Lexington Books, 1980.
Harrigan, K. R. , "An Application of Clustering for Strategic Group Analysis," Strategic Management Journal, 6, 1985, 55-73.
Hawes, M. J. and Crittenden, F. W. , "A Taxonomy of Competitive
Retailing Strategies," Strategic Management Journal, 5, 1984, 275-287.
Hayes, A., Spence , M. , and Marks, D. , Competitive Structure in Investment Banking, 1983.
Henderson, B. , Henderson on Corporate Strategy, Abbott Books, Cambridge, Mass, 1979.
Hergert, M. , "The Incidence and Implications of Strategic Grouping in U.S. Manufacturing Industries," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, 1983.
-35-
Hofer, C. W. , "Some Preliminary Research on Patterns of Strategic Behavior.*' Proceedings of the Business Policy and Planning Division of the Academy of Management, Paper 7/5, Boston, August 1973.
Hofer, C. W. and Schendel, D. , Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts . St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1978.
Hunt, M. S. , "Competition in the Major Home Appliance Industry, 1960- 1970," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1972.
Huff, A. S. , Thomas, H. , and Fiegenbaum, A., "Modeling Strategic Moves: Toward Understanding Strategic Group Dynamics," WP, University of Illinois, 1985.
Karnani, A., and Wernerfelt, B. , "Multiple Point Competition," Strategic Management Journal, 1985, 6, 87-96.
Khandwalla, P. N. , "Environment and Its Impact on the Organization," International Studies of Management and Organization, 2, 1972, 297-313.
Kumar, K. R. , Thomas, H. and Fiegenbaum, A., "Benchmark Strategic Grouping for Formulating Future Competitive Strategy," WP 1087, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, November, 1984a.
Kumar, K. R. , Thomas, H. and Fiegenbaum, A., "Strategic Groups and Competitive Equilibrium: A Game Theoretic Approach" WP 1083, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, October 1984b.
Lippman, S. A., and Rumelt, R. P., "Efficiency Differentials Under Competition: A Stochastic Approach to Industrial Organization," UCLA, 1981.
MacMillan, I. C. , and McCafferty, M. L. , "Strategies For Low Entry Barrier Markets such as Service Industries" Journal of Business Strategy, 1982
McGee, J., "Strategic Groups: Review and Prospects." In H. Thomas and Gardner, D. M. (Eds.), Strategic Marketing and Management. Chichester: John Wiley, 1985.
McGee, J., and Thomas, H. , "Making Sense of Complex Industries," WP, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1985.
McGee, J., and Thomas, H. , "Strategic Groups: Theory, Research and Taxonomy," forthcoming in Strategic Management Journal, 1986.
-36-
Miller, Danny, "The Role of Multivariate 'Q-Techniques ' in the Study of Organizations," Academy of Management Review, July 1978, 515-531.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H. , "Archetypes of Organizational
Transition," Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1980, 208-299.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H. , "Strategy-making and Environment: The Third Link," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 4, 221-235, 1983.
Mintzberg, H. , "Patterns in Strategy Formation," Management Science, 1978, 24, 934-948.
Morris, R. , The Ecomomic Theory of Managerial Capitalism. Macmillian, 1964.
Newman, H. H. , "Strategic Groups and the Structure Performance Relationships: A Study with Respect to the Chemical Process Industries," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1973.
Newman, H. H. , "Strategic Groups and the Structure Performance
Relationship," Review of Economics and Statistics, 1978, 60, 376-383.
Oster, S. , "Intraindustry Structure and the Ease of Strategic Change," Review of Economics and Statistics, 1982, 64, 376-383.
Paine, F. and Naumes, W. , Strategy and Policy Formulation: An Integrative Approach. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974.
Patton, G. R. , "A Simultaneous Equation Model of Corporate Strategy: The Case of the U.S. Brewing Industry," Unpublished Ph.D. Disser- tation, Purdue University, 1976.
Pettigrew, A., "Strategy Formulation as a Political Process,"
International Studies of Management and Organization, vol. 7, no. 2 (Summer 1977), pp. 78-87.
Pitts, R. A. and Hopkins, D. H. , "Firm Diversity: Conceptualization and Measurement" Academy of Management Review, 1982, 7, 620-629.
Pitts, Robert A., "Strategies and Structures for Diversification," Academy of Management Journal, 1977, Vol. 20, No. 2, 197-208.
Porter, M. E. , "The Structure Within Industries and Companies' Performance," Review of Economics and Statistics, 61, 1979, 214-219.
Porter, M. E. , Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press, 1980.
-37-
Porter, M. E. , "The Contribution of Industrial Organization to
Strategic Management," Academy of Management Review, 1981, Vol. 6, No. 4, 609-620.
Porter, M. E. , Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press, 1985.
Primeaux, W. J., "The Interdependence of the Life Cycle and Strategic Group Concepts: Theory and Evidence." Working paper No. 961, University of Illinois-Urbana, College of Commerce and Business Administration, 1983.
Primeaux, W. J., "A Method for Determining Strategic Groups and Life Cycle Stages of an Industry." In H. Thomas and Gardner, D. M. (eds.), Strategic Marketing and Management. Chichester: John Wiley, 1985.
Quinn, J. B. , Strategies for Change. Homewood , 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1980.
Ramsler, M. , "Strategic Groups and Foreign Market Entry in Global Banking Competition," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, August 1982.
Rumelt, R. P., Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Division of Research, 1974.
Rumelt, R. P., "Toward a Strategic Theory of the Firm," paper prepared for a conference on Non-traditional Approaches to Policy Research, Graduate School of Business, University of Southern California, 1981.
Ryans , B. A. and Wittink, D. R. , "Security Returns as a Basis for
Estimating the Competitive Structure in an Industry." In Thomas, H. and Gardner, D. M. (Eds.), Strategy Marketing and Management. Chichester: John Wiley, 1985.
Schendel, D. and Hofer, C. W. , Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning. Boston: Little Brown, 1979.
Schendel, D. E. , and Patton, R. G. , "A Simultaneous Equation Model of Corporate Strategy," Management Science, 24, 1978, 1611-1621.
Scherer, F. M. , Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd ed., Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1980.
Shepherd, G. W. , "The Elements of Market Structure," The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. LIV, No. 1, February 1972, pp. 25-37.
-38-
Shepherd, G. W. , The Economics of Industrial Organization. Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1979.
Shirley, C. Robert, "Limiting the Scope of Strategy: A Decision-Based Approach," Academy of Management Review, 1982, Vol. 7, No. 2, 262-268.
Snow, C. C. and Hambrick, D. C. , "Measuring Organizational Strategies: Some Theoretical and Methodological Problems," Academy of Management Review, 1980, 5, 527-538.
Steiner, G. A. and Miner, J. B. , Management Policy and Strategy: Text, Readings and Cases. New York.: Macmillan, 1977.
Stigler, G. J., "A Theory of Oligopoly," Journal of Political Economy, Jan, 1964, 44-61.
Vernon, John M. , Market Structure and Industrial Performance: A
Review of Statistical Findings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972.
Van Cauvenbergh, A., and Cool, K. , "Strategic Management in a New Framework," Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1982, 245-265.
Williamson, J. D. , "Profit, Growth and Sales Maximization," Economica , 33, Feb. , 1966, 1-16.
Williamson, 0. E. , "Managerial Discretion and Business Behavior," American Economic Review, 53, December 1963, 1032-57.
D/372
Figure 1
TIME
i<?r
Resource Competitive \C\-yt s^ Scope Deployment Advantage Synergism
Enterprise Corporate Business Functional
LEVEL
Figure 1: The Strategic Space (SSP)
Figure 2
Figure 2: Risk/Return Groups Risk ... "
4
3h
Return (ROE)
Cf
s*e cjf ee
A 3 A «w 3
-1 Q. □ v_ n.
55
od a.
* a. -•
ss
a
3 i 3 N
C I r. -.
ft »- 3" —
r» 3 (1 1
*- CT — *-
3 1 3 w
a. a
c c r> *»
D -D O
£^8
Z" 1
3- •» ft PI
i a » •
e
|
en » |
frB |
ft a. |
|
n *- |
c *• |
|
|
O -1 |
r» 3 3 |
|
|
00 B |
•— » c |
A •* |
|
n |
3 3 •"■• |
• a |
|
ft ■ |
oq n m |
"i |
|
^ — |
•* o |
n a |
|
3- H |
• ft -■ |
ft 3 |
|
►- ft |
r» *- C |
•O n |
|
n |
"1 n |
■1 |
|
ft |
B » *- |
A < |
|
ft 3 |
r» 3 3 |
a • |
|
n a. |
ft O.M |
A "I |
—. -b, ^ r-
r» O w A
3* •- O ft
a »- m a.
■ » »
» - ~
3- rt -o ft
A A n 3"
»-0Q O A
- - c y
o c «-
• no
rt 0Q r» ft
n »n • •—
ft O • r» C
n *j ft
OQ • 5
■* o. n •
o ft
no »-
»- o •-
|
cr |
n |
•>*> — |
ft |
r |
O ** |
a |
•D |
T3 |
P |
T3 |
p |
•-ft. |
|
» |
o |
o c |
oq |
-3 |
•*» 3 |
o> |
n |
i |
E |
ft |
c |
c |
|
« |
D |
o •— |
»i |
n |
o |
3 |
3 |
|||||
|
ft |
OQ |
Q. •— |
o |
"O A |
a. |
C |
C |
B |
||||
|
A |
o |
a oq |
o |
c |
ft |
|||||||
|
O |
"0 ft* |
c |
• |
rt n |
a |
r> |
ft |
ft |
||||
|
B |
-i ft |
ft |
A |
ft |
o |
o |
||||||
|
D |
a |
O 3 |
0 « |
n |
3 |
3 |
||||||
|
n |
a. ft |
c |
— fl |
■ |
a |
c |
a |
c |
il |
|||
|
O |
ft |
c |
H |
A & |
1 |
■*1 |
||||||
|
3 |
o -o |
ft |
*o |
C |
* |
ft |
A |
I |
rt |
£ |
||
|
a |
ft |
rt n |
n |
Q *Q |
r» |
3 |
•^ |
*1 |
||||
|
B |
• 0 |
o |
•i |
ft |
& |
|||||||
|
*7J |
0. |
o |
ft |
■o o |
||||||||
|
n |
ft |
c |
=r |
E |
«-t a. |
o |
0 |
|||||
|
* |
■^ |
o |
A |
o |
o c |
ft |
a |
D |
||||
|
ft |
B |
■ |
a. o |
n |
• |
k |
||||||
|
• |
■— |
H |
n |
c a |
m |
— |
■— |
O ft 0 f
|
8 « 2 |
3- < ft 3 |
C ft 3 6 ft 1 |
|
|
r. g >• |
n |
ft ft ft |
|
|
<r •* |
i |
- - ■- « |
r- 1 - 3 - - |
|
~ ~. 1 |
i |
ft ft O |
>• B 3- ft n |
|
3 11 |
< |
~ 00 ^ B |
■W ft ft G. 3 •* |
|
a ■ * |
# |
31 ft ft |
»-&.••» ^ |
|
C =r 3 |
ft X |
ft ft •• *^ ft |
|
|
ft m rt |
• |
~ 8 C 3 |
|
|
r> ^3 |
» |
06 3" ft ft ^ •— |
|
|
n ft ft |
o i c a. |
||
|
•- » T) C |
* - C 1 ' |
||
|
ft k* n |
^ ft ft |
>- a 3 •*» r> |
|
|
ft 3 ft |
O ■« r. |
. _ _ o • 3- |
|
|
C i C " |
. •_ ft ft ft |
||
|
a ft |
ft O ft •• |
- ft |
|
|
— •» |
-. — - n |
p >- M ft |
|
|
•» •> |
ft — t • |
« r. r 3 ft |
|
|
•• o |
y "8 3 ft r. ft 6 -< 3- < ft • |
||
|
ft |
ft ft 0 " |
||
|
I |
3 CT 3 3" a. — n |
c 9
r» ft rt 3 --
ft " ft ft
OQ ft OQ ^ •—
•» 3 »- »-l ft
O r. o o **■
C "* CT 3*
•o CX ft •* •- • .- ct — -o
ft »- ft 3 ■ 3 r» C
ft 0Q "ft ft
3- ft
>- ft r. ft
3 1 ft 0
Q. 0Q 1
C « ** ft ft 3* O
r* ft 3
n OQ O
^< ^ i 0
- i o o
O C OQ
«-» -O ft
- «
r. . O
C
c « •
•« 3" r» ft
^ft"
ft-2.?
O ft
ft rt 5
O. (V)
•< r»
3 ft
ft r*
t?
b X ^»»
K. -« ^ 6. —
?■ u b a. w p,
pi • •
f "> ? 2
oo ■8 A 1 3
>• tr If
■ rt D
"I
if
O. 1
•> A
■O ■ p- O
o c
A A
►» o o c
I! S
n ■
— • -a
•
c ►»
S.-S
C «"■
• 1
r> O
rt 3 r» pi & B ►» I*
a B
! p
E-?
►— • O rt
<»-C<-*rtrtrt
.- • - re 3 V C =r o. n i- * a n rt rt e bk -y r* ►*■ " rt
5.2 - S^S 3E
3- 3 O. •» i» «"»
oob"CB3*o S S. " B " A 3"
p- A "3 <
p. ■ -O A B 1
O. in < "
3 » • n
E."
n »» o •
o S o n er
03<-»3p-B3*A B O. A »" 3 • I
(t - -> I O I
111 ~>
no *^ I
b 3 i» a w o. > '
n o « d t c r» '
3 i-l OQ rt n n "**■
O vc 3 - « </>'
c «• 1 3 A 00
- A A 3
•o C
— •O
3 • •
3 »
n o
p- n
* o
p- A
>< 00
pi
■o o
n c P-TO
A O n A •<■»■»
r. P- T O.
O r. A
«J < 1
O A B
M ** 3*00
■ ■ _
S rt n r ' I
r> A B O • —
se •» ►» — =■
n o >- o
• " r
« M < A
•11 • <
BO p» •
<■> C ■""
A ^ O
R ■ *» O
— — C
•D «
r* p-
3 B
00 B
B
r- O.
|
on |
< O |
||
|
p| |
n n |
||
|
0 |
US: |
||
|
C |
|||
|
T> |
3 3 |
||
|
B |
r» 0Q |
||
|
So" |
S |
a. r* |
B ft <X O A rt 1 *•• |
|
i c |
n i |
3 ft O "* |
|
|
o |
2 |
3 -• |
n« C <* |
|
• •— |
re ^ »» |
||
|
• rt |
8 |
tm ■* |
fta ft » n |
|
< |
«»00 |
»- rt |
|
|
r> A |
a. |
— O ft 3 |
|
|
rt, |
*% rt |
r» »--. -i « |
|
|
a. |
rt |
||
|
• O |
0Q |
o n » |
|
|
ft i |
X 3" O rt |
||
|
■ |
o o |
n rt a *-. |
|
|
11 |
n c o -o |
B- ft |
|
|
r% < |
n ft |
. 3 ** rt |
|
|
A |
a |
< — .00 |
|
|
oc e |
*- n |
rt -* "- |
|
|
n <» |
3 ft |
• |
|
|
O 3 |
00 3 |
rt n |
: ?
|
It g A o e • a |
— O ■"» p* C "^ |
B A |
|
t— A A A 3 B 3 A |
A "O A pi • n A A |
n B t- A A A •0 3 < |
|
3 B < 0 OX O ■"• |
3 | 3 |
p- « A |
|
►- a a A i b« 5 |
n p- |
|
|
►- — B 3 O A O |
00 E o |
|
|
IB 3 H n C "" |
B O* B |
|
|
nOQ B» A "O B A K OO B t O- B |
n A rt ty I 1 B B B |
O 3 C 00 p. |
|
B 1 r» A |
•* 3* r* |
•O •* |
|
" ° *■ B ^ C JT |
A p» A |
• *1 |
|
B C - 00 A 3-3 00 -o ~ a a a. |
BUB |
B |
|
a a r _ £ C ' O 3 ~ • |
: f" |
cr
k ■«
3 »- O. ft
Ff
c?e
CD *
f
.6
vc a.
i n
zz
«• o — o
fit
ft !• n o
•- 3
S JT
* • o2
a. i
ft ft "O ■ ►- O
oca
■ n r>
li 1
• an
ft •
S.P
*- A ^ r. O
BA so a « » O ■**■-»! "O ^
• is* Cnsn 3 3" 1 »
3 ~ ■ O ac a a — O -o
r» » •* r* 0 OQ C — a. A
• - •» -i - ,i • cr n Cn
*— H *» ft ►— "o r» *n p o
— • A A A *l A to rr
• ft* • •*> n n *<C •
y»- D l m ►* *-.
I ft* I C DO
s i
T3 cr oq n • tj •» ^ kj
h i A 3* c H 3 3* K>
O 0> D • T3 O fcV A
a. o a ** a o. ■-•.
c a. n d n c » -o —
O •* • d ft *- to n
nOQ O to rt»->-B
AM a*, i-, » ~ D •
O O |T A n
o 1 A EL • •*
' ft 3* A
» a ■
o a *»
E-o
ZB
O" rr »— a
i ►» a ■ a • «-> «o
*- »» r» ft a 00
O 1 1 13
< 3 a ft n <
ft B <-? 3 a a
*1 ft r* ■ r|
— OQ ft Nh
* >< p 3 m
or a n o"
•- O. 1 —
a ►• *• a. n
a B « -.
a r» n*
9 »» I
I 3
It s
o o
o. g a -o
|
1— |
» n |
.tola) K> |
»— |
|||
|
c |
3 c |
|||||
|
3 |
cl a |
|||||
|
O |
||||||
|
t~> |
ft o c B |
to |
a> |
?tc |
:£ |
|
|
o |
at n |
1 |
•t |
a» » o |
*- < |
|
|
3 |
r» »-i |
A |
n |
n |
** a -^. |
n n |
|
Of |
O |
3 |
ft |
3 r» m |
• n |
|
|
B OQ |
3 |
n "^j» |
r* |
|||
|
ft H |
to |
a> ® — |
||||
|
•• o |
CD |
« a <* |
« |
|||
|
m C |
fi» |
O |
*—m |
|||
|
■o |
» |
§ . |
3 |
|||
|
a |
OQ |
|
« o |
a x |
|
i •- |
BS |
|
o »• |
|
|
c — |
^- ►* |
|
■o » |
►- o |
|
a n |
3 |
|
• |
or a |
|
•■» o |
n «» |
|
o « |
a • |
|
n |
C |
|
•m, |
a t |
|
a |
i a |
|
a o |
M |
|
n •• |
« — |
|
3- |
1 O |
|
a |
O 3 |
|
- r» |
c a |
|
S 1 |
■o ►- |
|
c a |
• |
|
C r. |
a |
|
a a |
a |
EE 2.;
|
w n >• > C O 3 tfc |
5 2? |
It 3 *U |
|
O" 3 ►* « |
« •* n |
*-*.»» » |
|
B • n n |
-l «^* c |
|
|
►» a •* A |
1 A • |
i B |
|
a i a a |
*— n |
B * -* |
|
a < n a |
►- it |
m •» |
|
— » o - |
3 |
S |
|
< n n < |
O r» |
|
|
• » a a |
O *- |
• |
|
< |
• to |
|
|
o. a a |
f» " |
5 |
r. r. H
n ft a
•» ~ot
f> o —
oo oo at o o *■.
n o
o
«- -
o PS
sT < •"»
»>>■)•«
►- A
•- a i
« •— A
< M O
ST *
» i ■
• -
»* B *1
•- r» A
A rt
•1 a- A
• A <X
• < ►*
** « o ■ tn
A 3 < O «
n A A • n
A <1 1 r» to
0 A n
ft « a- A
A to *- — OQ
• " B w -
A A A ft
a n a n
i t t i I
a 3 - E a
« rt r* ** ^
ft a ■» o ft
a> o n
•- a s a a
?f
B D S
|
~ tx. |
•«J |
» |
TJ |
< |
•o |
a-> rt |
•m |
OQ |
n 3" |
T3 H |
|
O i |
o |
1 |
to |
A |
A A |
A |
ft O |
A 3 |
||
|
n o |
•^ |
•i |
c |
1 OQ |
n |
3 |
"B |
1 A |
||
|
E4 |
B |
o |
A a* |
B |
A |
3*0 |
||||
|
• |
• |
to |
O |
3 ft |
A |
O |
AOQ |
O A |
||
|
D A |
A |
r*j |
n |
c |
1 A |
»* r» |
||||
|
ft |
» |
K |
— Ot |
to |
3 |
E E |
||||
|
■ Z |
3 |
■ |
o- |
0 |
"< *! |
D |
rt A |
|||
|
3 |
3 |
O |
30 |
3 ft |
||||||
|
•o < |
C |
•1 |
ft |
A C |
Da |
3 |
» C |
ft r» |
||
|
n A |
to |
A |
3 ^ |
Ok |
3 A |
A C |
||||
|
O |
D |
Ck. A |
c |
|||||||
|
— a. |
A |
»< |
• |
-O A |
||||||
|
A |
Ot |
? if |
A |
O 3 |
to 1 |
|||||
|
1 |
| |
3 |
•1 |
-> O. |
•1 ft |
|||||
|
A •"•> |
A |
ft |
3 |
PI |
< 3" |
A |
c |
to O |
||
|
a A 1 |
D |
OQ |
C |
to |
A to < |
3 |
A A |
ST. |
a- a. |
|
|
A |
n |
!X |
i |
& to |
r» *1 |
oc c |
||||
|
3 |
A |
o |
•1 |
A |
A — |
B « |
||||
|
n |
*1 |
c |
C c |
3 |
tm a |
n |
n a O A |
r^ |
HECKMAN
BINDERY INC
JUN95
_ , N MANCHESTER