stratman hb notes

8/2/2019 Stratman HB Notes

1/31

stratman HB

p. 68 wicked shittles .. Mason & Mitroff ( & Rittel)

2.1

what executives want to do

Finally-ethical

~could do~should do(4th element, what are 1st~3rd?)

components of strategy: a~d a)market opportunity b)corporate competence & resources c)personal

values and aspirations d) acknowledged obligations to segments of society,, other than stockholders...

!Importance of trade-offs (see 1.2) again

THE IMPLENtation of strategy

2 tendencies: strategy->structure((logical))

structure->strategy(reality)

keyword: Interdependence (of formulation and implementation)

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

judging strategy?

CLEAR, (words or in practice) (silence is better than empty commitment (saying something you wont

really do) keywords: must be EXPLICIT and SPECIFIC

EXPLOIT OPPORTUNITIES, market opportunityorganizational development

So companies should optimize market opportunity exploitation, or face death by competition. To

accomplish this the company should continue developing itself?? Seems too straight forward but ok

STRATEGY NEEDS TO FIT (core) COMPETENCES AND RESOURCES, PRESENT AND (near) FUTURE

STRATEGY NEEDS TO FIT with all parts of the company (compatibility)

RISK level of strategy should FIT resources AND temperament of the managers

strategy should fit BETWEEN ALL KEY MANAGERS of the company

strategy should fit CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (NL: MVO) profile of the company

strategy should be BOLD in order to FIRE UP employees

TIME will tell if strategy is good enough, even if all above 'test' are taken into account, the market may

not respond. Resources/planning will dictate when the strategy should be aborted.


2/31

483-500 (THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT -- THE ISSUE OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

LEADERSHIP=getting your people to follow you

manager =! leader leader=! manager

manager simply has formal position&power

Sources of leadership influence

2 main sources of power:

position power=formalized(position in hierarchy)

personal power=character,knowledge,skills,relationships

Further categories of power:

positional:

Legitimate: assign work,spend money, demand info

Coercive:punish/withhold rewards

reward: praise, wage raises, promotionpersonal(+subjective):

expert: knowledge/skills

referent: charisma,(likeableness, forcefulness,persuasiveness,visionary qualities,image of success

levers of leadership influence

Throughput control: direct influence (hands-on, by suggesting,engaging discussion, set example, telling

what to do)[requires: knowledge][High impact,low leverage]

Output control: set target objectives/deadlines

Input control: set/shape general conditions:

who,teams,where,resources,relationships,support,inspire[Low impact,high leverage]

arenas of leadership influence

political:(power dispersed throughout organization)Top needs to form coalition of managers in order to

move organization in desired direction... if not: danger of all facing different direction=no direction at all.

"Political arena is where the game is at"

Cultural:Culture~belief~behaviour, Danger of being rusted into old culture/habits must be avoided and

the leader-who is usually infused in the current corporate culture must always look beyond for an

alternative (and better) culture... when found, he must also implement the new culture which requires

guiding his flock. Keywords when guiding: rational persuasion, inspirational appeal, symbolic actions,motivational incentives, subtle pressure.

Psychological: ~individuals, leader must win hearts and minds of his flock...trust, respect..give flock

certainty, clarity, continuity..take away uncertainty ambiguity discontinuity..

THE PARADOX OF CONTROL AND CHAOS

Cannot control everything-worker autonomy is vital for creativity~experimentation~development

balance between: top-down imposition & bottom-up initiative (Control vs/& chaos)


3/31

The demand for top management control

Control is required to steer organization in the direction of the demands of the environment

STRATEGIC control vs OPERATIONAL control

OPERATIONAL: control over activities in the system

STRAT: control over the system itself

the demand for organizational chaos

chaos~disorganized/Unfreezed state (greiner?)

hope that it leads to: innovations, and > self-organization

Soviet command economy (control, visible hand) vs. market economy(chaos,invisible hand) comparisson

SKIPPED SHORT CASE

PERSPECTIVES ON THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

(at least)Two perspectives: organizational leadership & organizational dynamics (Not sure which is

meant with "modern" , "new" "21st cent.." , but im guessing dynamics.. or a mix)

The organizational leadership perspective

Comparisson of organization to human body... illness must be cured, or even better, prevented by

healthy (and strong) leadership.

"Leadership is required, without it, organization will decay"

nature/nurture

HOWEVER, not just simply top-down.. indirect control, bottom-up proposals allowed, top has final say.

delegation possible, but set clear goals.

YET, control must be maintained, will must be imposed.. structure/organization follows strategySKIPPED EXHIBIT

The organizational dynamics perspective

The strong leader that moulds an organization at will is but fiction.

Due to~everybody likes the IDEA that someone is in CONTROL (both manager as the managed)

"manager=cowboy who herds stubborn mules"

importance of politics&culture

leaders power=limited

options: squeeze tighter // let go (outcomes are obvious, right?)[let go in positive light]

So the remaining task for the manager: encourage empowerment, stimulate learning and innovation,

bring people together, take away bureacucreatic hurdles. ~Government market economy (vs Soviet

comparisson above)

In other words: the manager should get to know people, have them exploit their strenghts to the max

and create relationships to overcome weaknesses.

SKIPPED EXHIBIT


4/31

INTRO to DEBATE

Skimmed.. some different viewsbut more of the same really


5/31

WEEK TWEE

P 236

BUSINESS LEVEL STRATEGY

Introduction

Strategic management=> firm~environment=>long term objectives

(SWOT)

SUSTAIN COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

The issue of competitive advantage

Resources=input, activities=throughput, product/service=output

for competitive advantage, output must have:

PRODUCT OFFERING:

1)target specific market segment

2)superior mix of attributes

3)not just offer, also actually supply the offered product

VALUE CHAIN (adds value)

RESOURCE BASE:

skills, resources, etc.

Having a unique element helps, but all 3 must be aligned for efficiency

Product offering

Market rule, specialization..

If fail to specialize, problems:

Low economies of scale

low efficiency

Slow organizational learning

Slow acquirement of knowledge and capabilities

Unclear brand image

you dont stand out if you supply everything.. (P&G as a brand less known than its sub-brands?)

Unclear corporate image

Unclear internal picture.. cant explain why its people are together in the same company..

High organizational complexity

Many products, many divisions etc, complex, high overhead specialization=more simple


6/31

Limits to flexibility

Forced into certain choices due to operational necessity

-Market segments/environments are vague/messy

Delineating industries

Similarities:

Product (simplest)

Activities

Resources

Economic statisticians use product similarity// Strategists use multiple

Rethinking the definition of an industry can be a powerful way to develop a unique product offering

value system/chain (more complex in reality than depicted)

Focus on tangible, neglecting intangible

Segmenting markets

Demand side similarity (all want same product, not specified yet)

market segment (multiple products serving toward the same end (->alternatives, competition, choices,

preferences)

BUYER ATTRIBUTES, objective and easily available, but cannot tell what the person really needs/wants

What people really want: this information is hard to get by

Defining and selecting businesses

Business usually fits within only a small part of an industry

Specialize in two ways:

Selecting a limited number of businesses

with use of structure of a business (See Porters 5 forces model)

Focusing within each selected business

=specialization/focus

Positioning within a business

Where&how to compete

Focus types: Broad, segment, product, niche (large to small)

Competitive advantage arena:

Price

Straight forward


7/31

Features

requires something unique

Bundling

computer packages from same company: compatibility, also: combine various services.. but this is

getting rarer and rarer in reality

Quality

Stronger, Faster, Lighter, More Durablebut probably more expensive

Availability

At the right place, at the right time.

Image

When information is lacking, people tend to blindly trust the image they have of a business

Relations

Play with peoples feelings and build unfounded trust.. does sometimes require spending more on

customer relations.

Porter:

-Cannot usually do both PRICE/COST focus and QUALITY at the same time

Three generic competitive advantages by Treacy & Wiersema:

Operational excellence

lean&mean, low cost, simple service

Product leadership

special features, special performance,

Customer intimacy

tailored to buyer, flexibility, close to the customer

-Others: No generic competitive advantages.. endless variety.Keep looking

Activity system

=The value chain

Again, competitive advantage can be gained here: silly people think Dell gives them an advantage

because they think they can choose/customize more etc

PRIMARY ACTIVITIES: creation production/service+aftersales:

Inbound logistics

(nearly) Everything having to do with supplies to create the product (including warehouse stuff etc)


8/31

Operations

transformation of supplies to product (including testing etc.)

Outbound logistics

Marketing and sales

Service

SUPPORT ACTIVITIES: supply the system:

Procurement

Softer stuff : Vendor selection, negotiations etc.. to do with purchasing inputs

Technology development

Human resource management

Firm infrastructure

general management, planning, finance, accounting, legal, gov affairs, quality management

-Unique and strong configuration of activity system = strong competitive advantage, which is difficult to

imitate.

p.255 The outside-in perspective

Look at environment first = positioning approach..

Reading 5.1 COMPETITIVE STRATEGY PORTER(p273)

-attractiveness of industries Long term Profit (environment)

-relative competitive position (stay ahead of others/competition)

->require balance between the two, stays dynamic

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIES

Five competitive forces: new entrants, substitutes, buyer power, supplier power, rivalry

New strategies can be a double-edged sword

Long-term effects of strategy is often overlooked

Better to improve/protect (entire) industry structure than just look

for own competitive advantage..


9/31

Industry structure and buyer needs

blablah balance

Industry structure and the supply/demand balance

more of the same

GENERIC COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES

low cost or differentiation.. again

SO MUCH REPETITION IN THIS BOOK WTF

COST LEADERSHIP

skiperdepip

DIFFERENTIATION

skippy is dead

FOCUS

suboptimusprime can be taken advantage of. so can no shit Sherlock

STUCK IN THE MIDDLE

inconsistency killed your puppy

PURSUIT OF MORE THAN ONE GENERIC STRATEGY

skim off the top, but dont get stuck in the middle, not even like a boss..

SUSTAINABILITY

=barriers that make imitation of the strategy difficult


10/31

WEEK DRIE

257-263 THE INSIDE-OUT PERSPECTIVE

Companys strengths>external opportunities

Competences>physical assets (more difficult to copy than physical assets)

Should focus competences, instead of acchi-kocchi market shift-based competence building

-competences double edged sword: difficult to unlearn

EXHIBIT 5.3 SKIPPED

INTRO TO THE DEBATE AND READINGS

Strategy, DIY

Porter=generic strategies is a must (diff,cost,focus)

note:reading 5.2, asymmetries=resources

keypoints: discover potential of resources/skills, glue skills together, hone skills in practice

George Day: nooo outside-in dudes, dont forgets about le market research beink inside-out yo

This is all so obvious

idiosyncracy=~uniqueness//trait

Reading 5.4 FIRM RESOURCES AND SUSTAINED COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, JAY BARNEY (p290)

Keyword: sustained competitive advantage; resources

->Porter 5 forces (NOTE THAT BARNEY ALSO SIMPLIFIES: see Priem&Butler 2001)

simplifies: 1) assumes firms are identical(resources,strategies)

2)if firms get different (heterogeneity) resources (to compete) other firms will quicklycatch on and use those too (short lived)

On the other hand -> Resource-based view

1)heterogeneity is seen as POSSIBLE

2)and NOT (perfectly) MOBLE ACROSS FIRMS and thus DURABLE

DEFINING KEY CONCEPTS

Firm resources

=Assets, capabilities, org. processes, firm attributes, information, knowledge. Etc-> physical capital resources; human cap res; organizational cap res

how the above->comp advantage?=topic

Competitive advantage and sustained competitive advantage

ok


11/31

COMPETITION WITH HOMOGENEOUS AND PERFECTLY MOBILE RESOURCES

Resource homogeneity and mobility and sustained competitive advantage

Not possible to enjoy sustained competitive advantage. (cannot develop strat that other firm cannot

also develop) HOWEVER, see below

Resource homogeneity and mobility and first-mover advantages

First-moving firm can make standing relations with distribution channels, customers, &good reputation.

(however, first-mover already has advantage, and is therefore not equal from the onset: they were NOT

homogeneous but heterogeneous)

Resource homogeneity and mobility and entry/mobility barriers

Argument is not valid according to Barney: these barriers are only sources of sustained competitive

advantage if firms were HETEROGENEOS to begin with concerning resources.

FIRM RESOURCES AND SUSTAINED COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

For resources to have the potential to provide sustained competitive advantage:

valuable: exploits &/or neutralizes threats

rare among current&potential competition

imperfectly imitable

NO substitutes

Valuable resources

ok

Rare resources

ok

Imperfectly imitable resources

ok

Unique historical conditions and imperfectly imitable resources

Historical/temporal factor of a firm is importantunique historical events as determinants of firms long-term performance

Casual ambiguity and imperfectly imitable resources

Link between resources & sut.comp.adv not understood

~managers often dont know the source of their advantage~


12/31

Social complexity

Ok

note:complex physical technology is usually imitable..(but the knowledge/relations about usage makes

the difference)

Substitutability

Rare/imperfectly imitable stuff may not lead to a sustained competitive advantage

THE FRAMEWORK

Ok lol

READING 6.2 331-339 THE CORE COMPETENCE OF THE CORPORATION Prahalad & Hamel

ok

RETHINKING THE CORPORATION

Principles of management need reform

THE ROOTS OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

Core competencies are held back because of concept corporation in the West. Strength comes from

core competences, NOT end-products

harmonize.. let all actors know what the customer needs..

core competences enhance over time.. but need to be nurtured and protected.. fades if not used.

need to connect SBUs products, think of what core competence forms those products, and continue to

build on those

HOW NOT TO THINK OF COMPETENCE

Hard to imagine the diverse range of end-products as outcome of core competencies

Shouldnt analyze end-products, but should look at how core competencies are created/maintained etc

Building core competencies is not the same as investing a lot in R&D..

IDENTIFYING CORE COMPETENCIES AND LOSING THEM

How? 1) enables potential access to diverse markets

2) contributes to the customers benefits of the end product (quality\cost)

3) difficult to imitate

Need to build core competencies by letting people build skills, outsourcing production line will

counteract this

Do not throw away a line of products which holds a core compentency~


13/31

Cannot skip technological advancement steps.. must keep up with the competition and keep building

competencies.

FROM CORE COMPETENCIES TO CORE PRODUCTS

ok

THE TYRANNY OF THE SBU

ok

Underinvestment in developing core competencies and core products

ok

Imprisoned resources

SBUs hoard core companies (in the form of people with skills)

Not enough is invested in managing people, compared to simple (financial) resources

Bounded innovation

ok

DEVELOPING STRATEGIC ARCHITECTURE

=tool for communicating with customers&other external constituents. Revels broad direction w/o giving

away every step.

-long term

-difficult to imitate

REDEPLOYING TO EXPLOIT COMPETENCIES

Redeploying should be done by corporate management not SBUs management as long as it profits

all


14/31

WEEK 4 strategische marketing

Reading 5.4 p 283-290 THE CAPABILITIES OF MARKET-DRIVEN ORGANIZATIONS GEORGE DAY

Customer first

know the customer & environment

use skills to create value for customer

CLASSIFYING CAPABILITIES

Need a match between customer desires and firm capabilities

THE ROLE OF SPANNING CAPABILITIES

Ok.. both outside-in as well as inside-out, working together

MARKET SENSING AS A DISTINCIVE CAPABILITY

Anticipate..

OPEN-MINDED ENQUIRY

Market-driven use the following to better sense the (market) environment:

Active scanning

Front line people

Self-critical benchmarking

Market-driven study only the bestnot just (direct) competitors

Continuous experimentation and improvement

Bruce Lee

Informed imitation

Study direct competitors successes in terms of performance, features.. less on outcome

SYNERGISTIC INFORMATION DISTRUBUTION

Low cross-flow inside firm.. similar to SBUs shield/barriering knowledge/skills in the form of people..

and they dont want to share

On the other hand, market-driven does not have this issue (as much?)

MUTUALLY INFORMED INTERPRETATIONS

If people think incorrect things, incorrect things will happen if not, such as in market driven blablabla

ACCESSIBLE MEMORY


15/31

CUSTOMER LINKING AS A DISTINCTIVE CAPABILITY

Supplier->firm is much like firm->consumer.. work together, know eachother..

CLOSE COMMUNICATION AND JOINT PROBLEM SOLVING

ok

COORDINATING ACTIVITIES

Good connection with customer.. sometimes not depends on customer

DEVELOPING THE CAPABILITIES OF MARKET-DRIVEN ORGANIZATIONS

Change from internal to market driven is difficult.. requires cultural shift..

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

What

READING 6.1 p. 325-331 STRATEGY AND THE BUSINESS PORTFOLIO BARRY HEDLEY

OK THINK about table p326

THE BUSINESS PORTFOLIO CONCEPT

Economy of scale advantage?experience curve insert money, get more money back?

THE GROWTH SHARE MATRIX

Stars

Keep high share, even if it means getting low margins, or having to invest at lot

Cash cows

Ok they are the foundation bro

Dogs

kill

Question marks


16/31

Either invest a lot, gain share, thus making it into a star (and then cash cow) .. or kill it before it becomes

a dog

PORTFOLIO STRATEGY

Do not invest in cash cows but use that money to invest in stars (make sure cash cow managers do not

cry)

question marks take priority after stars

THE MATRIX QUANTIFIED

Picture circles size.. position blah

PORTFOLIO APPROACHES IN PRACTICE

Example analyzed for filling space=bla

THE SOUND PORTFOLIO, UNSOUNDLY MANAGED

Businesses do not apply strategies suggested in this text to identified firms (dogs, cash cows etc) but

apply a common/same goal to all their firms.. which sucks

THE UNBALANCED PORTFOLIO

Mistake illustrated


17/31

WEEK 5 college 1

Reading 8.1 445-450 INDUSTRY EVOLUTION M. PORTER

Have to keep in mind that industries change over time.. basically

BASIC CONCEPTS IN INDUSTRY EVOLUTION

Difficult to predict what will happen, but you must

THE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE

You can use the product life cycle yes but..

criticisms:

durations of cycles for different products varies DUH

sometimes it skips maturity.. and sometimes it revitalizes and sometimes w/e

companies can exhibit control over the cycle

different across industries mmhk

so product life cycle cannot safely be used as a guide

A FRAMEWORK FOR FORECASTING EVOLUTION

Initial structure.. (usually slow) -> potential structure

EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES

Ok.. different in diff industries

KEY RELATIONSHIPS IN INDUSTRY EVOLUTION

Changes usually mean more changes..

WILL THE INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATE?

Consolidation does not always occur? Sometimes firms dont get stronger

INDUSTRY CONCENTRATION AND MOBILITY BARRIERS MOVE TOGETHER

Larger get larger, more difficult to enter, smaller die off sooner or later

NO CONCENTRATION TAKES PLACE IF MOBILITY BARRIERS ARE LOW OR FALLING

When times are bad, firms exit, when it gets better, firms enter (even if product maturity is reached..)

EXIT BARRIERS DETER CONSOLIDATION

Airlines.. need to stay in due to investments.. but make little if anything


18/31

LONG-RUN PROFIT POTENTIAL DEPENDS ON FUTURE STRUCTURE

Invested in this star, .. if high barriers, cash cow, if low barriers, question mark or even dog..

CHANGES IN INDUSTRY BOUNDARIES

Things change

FIRMS CAN INFLUENCE INDUSTRY STRUCTURE

As title says and firms should use that to their advantage

READING 8.4 P.468 BLUE OCEAN STRATEGY KIM & MAUBORGNE

Look at what customers want create new target market with the same kind of product, but innovated

red oceans: industries today (mature/commodities) .. bloody water

blue oceans: new fresh- demand is created(usually created from WITHIN a red ocean)

BLUE AND RED OCEANS

Blue oceans = engine of growth (get thought up all the time btw)

red oceans = shrinking (mature & declining/EOL)

differentiation becomes harder?

THE PARADOX OF STRATEGY

Industries stay in red oceans because they like competing ..? like military

blue is about there not being competition

focus on competition in literature ignores: finding NEW markets & exploiting&protecting those

TOWARD BLUE OCEAN STRATEGY

Blue oceans are not about technology innovation

Tech only sometimes used to create blue oceans,

Incumbents often create blue oceans and usually within their core business

Create blue oceans Within red oceans

Company and industry are the wrong units of analysis

Industries rise and fall, make sure to create(strategic move) blue ocean before it falls


19/31

Creating blue oceans builds brands

Blue ocean move makes a brands name be remembered(.. in a good way)

key is NOT R&D, but strategic moves

THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS

Blue ocean creators DO NOT BENCHMARK THEMSELVES TO COMPETITORS

(they do not directly compete anyway)

Cirque: times change, look at what customers want, but go BEYOND (innovate) and create something

new, in this case by adding theatre added effect: every experience stays unique?

BARRIERS TO IMITATION

Blue ocean has unique start.. and already economy of scale.. and eBay: the larger the network, the

better the business.. =higher barrier..

cognitive barrier: Brand name&loyal followers

A CONSISTENT PATTERN

Example Ford model T+Cirquenot direct competitor differentiation AND cost leader at the same

time (only possible when there is no direct~ competition eh?)


20/31


21/31

WEEK 5 COLLEGE 2

NETWORK LEVEL STRATEGY P. 365-376

INTRODUCTION

Also network to environment

THE ISSUE OF INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Relation with who.. and why..and what..and how..(discussed below)

RELATIONAL ACTORS (who)

ok

Upstream vertical (supplier) relations

ok

Downstream vertical (buyer) relations

ok

Direct horizontal (industry insider) relations

Ok (competitors)

Indirect horizontal (industry outsider) relations

Software~hardware rel. or if a firm wants to diversify..

-indirect and direct horizontal is often blurry

Socio-cultural actors

Media, community groups, charities etc

Economic actors

Banks, tax, stock

Political/legal actors

Governments, political parties..

Technological actors

Universities.. research institutes, patent offices..

THE ABOVE ARE REFERRED TO AS EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS


22/31

RELATIONAL OBJECTIVES (why)

Ok ppl have different objectives

RELATIONS ORIENTED TOWARDS LEVERAGING RESOURCES

Work together to improve quantity/quality of RESOURCES

Learning

Get know-how

Lending

This is just trading wtf

RELATIONS ORIENTATED TOWARDS INTEGRATING ACTIVITIES

integrate

Linking

Buyer~seller link

Lumping

Create Economy of scale together

RELATIONS ORIENTED TOWARDS ALIGNING POSITIONS

Learning

Two (or more) firms come together to improve position (relative to 3rd)

Lobbying

Two (or more) come together to influence/pressure political/government/public

RELATIONAL FACTORS (what)

Legitimacy

Codes of conduct.. fairness.. trust

Urgency


23/31

Timing.. urgent or relaxed cooperation

Frequency

One night stand or get to know each other well

Power

He Who has more power.. sets the rules

-

Closeness of relationship (loose / tight) vs Power (balanced / unbalanced):

a)mutual independence

low influence.. both can do what you want

b)unbalanced independence

one more power both independent, but the more powerful one more independent..lol

c)mutual dependence

tight relationship = interdependence

d)unbalanced dependence

domination

RELATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS (how)

Market system

intermediate forms between markets & hierarchies=networks, partnerships, alliances.continuous

handshake

networks/work togethers have advantages (and combine market with hierarchy) win=co-specialization

(synergy, avoids dependency) virtual corporations, trust & mutual interest, while retain individuality..

relationships gets better and moves beyond contract..

Also possible that weakness of both are combined! (hierarchy=bureaucracy & balance of power may

shift to one side, and alas, dependency

Be careful, be clear, communicate. Make contract

THE PARADOX OF COMPETITION AND COOPERATION

KLM& Northwest example.. alliances both cooperative & competitive

THE DEMAND FOR INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETITION


24/31

One wins, one loses..(wow this is so in contrast to the Cirque reading)

gotta get the power and be independent to win

THE DEMAND FOR INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL COOPERATION

Both sides need each other to succeed.. interdependence..

long-term cooperation wins.. but trust is required & coordination & conflict-resolution mechanisms (see

Toyota)

READING 7.2P.394-402 CREATING A STRATEGIC CENTRE TO MANAGE A WEB OF PARTNERS

LORENZONI & BADEN-FULLER

STRATEGIC CENTRE of a web of alliances

creates value for partners

is leader, rule setter, capability builder

structures and strategizes

THE ROLE OF THE STRATEGIC CENTRE

Strategic outsourcing

Create huge web, more than normal, by outsourcing

Capability

Make them all share

Technology

Borrow and share

Competition

Encourage rivalry, so everyone learns faster faster fasterrrr

FROM SUBCONTRACTING TO STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING

Not just we ask them to do this.. demand more.. quality..

DEVELOPING THE COMPETENCIES OF THE PARTNERS

Usually unbalanced alliances..

Benetton and apple share skills

BORROWING-DEVELOPING-LENDING NEW IDEAS


25/31

Borrow=buy, develop=integrate, lend=exploit -> grow by getting from another

other than that much like Toyota article

PERCEPTIONS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS

Common purpose..ok

BEYOND THE HOLLOW ORGANIZATION

Strategic centre: Even though outsources, it is not hollow.

they have critical core competencies (see Toyota)

The idea

vision

The investment

Brand image, systems, support

The climate

trust

The partners

Attracting and selecting the best

SHARING A BUSINESS IDEA

Clear strategic intent/vision(dynamic, according to environment) spread out across suppliers.

learning culture..

success->clarity->success

BRAND POWER AND OTHER SUPPORT

Brand=shared resource

open & free communication

TRUST AND RECIPROCITY

Tight relationship each part must perform.. and go beyond

PARTNER SELECTION

Careful selection..good match in terms of: management system, decision processes, perspectives..

:CULTURAL FIT

SIMULTANEOUS STRUCTURING AND STRATEGIZING


26/31


27/31

MANAGEMENT TRANSFER TO POOR COUNTRIES

RUSSIA AND CHINA

A THEORY OF CULTURE IN MANAGEMENT

IDIOSYNCRASIES OF AMERICAN MANAGEMENT THEORIES

THE STRESS ON MARKET PROCESSES

THE STRESS ON THE INDIVIDUAL

THE STRESS ON MANAGERS RATHER THAN WORKERS

CONCLUSION


28/31

Week 6stakeholderbenadering CSR(MVO).. etc

READING 11.2 623-628 - STOCKHOLDERS AND STAKEHOLDERS: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON CORPORATE

GOVERNANCE FREEMAN & REED

CHANCE! Stockholder->stakeholder

THE STAKEHOLDER CONCEPT

Different concepts of what to do with stakeholders.. and what they encompass..

background..

own definition:

The wide sense of stakeholder

Any all influence

The narrow sense of stakeholder

Org is dependent on

Generalize the marketing approach- to stakeholders

establish negotiation processes: get info, use it, about stakeholders

establish a decision philosophy: pre-emptive strike opposition groups

allocate organizational resources: more for what top stakeholders find important

Different actors have different, new, locations in the stakeholder grid

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND CORPORATE DEMOCRACY

Corporate democracy

READING 11.4 640-649 WHOSE COMPANY IS IT? THE CONCEPT OF THE CORPORATION IN JAPAN

AND THE WEST YOSHIMORI

Monistic=corporations belongs to shareholders (US, UK)

dualistic= shareholder & employees (germany ..(..france))

pluralistic=all stakeholders (Japan)

KEY IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES

Everyone in the network works toward common goal

Drucker: weahtlh maximizing capacity

Porter: a greater community of interest , quasi integration

president of company role= defender of job security & mediator(arbitrator)


29/31

anglo-american use a zero-sum game (all parties fight each other to maximize their own objectives)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIRM AND ITS MAIN BANK

What do you think a bank does, add information center and safety net in case of takeovers

main banks (in japan) can also help reform a company (even send its own executives)

A JAPAN-US COMPARISON OF STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS

TOYO KOGYO

(Mazda)

Sumitomo bank acted as guardian angel, (but also replaced the mazda president) but still very nice nice

CHRYSLER

Distrust and hatred.. government intervention (help) was required

LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON BANKS IN THE UNITED STATES

Transparent and fair etc but lots of distrust and competition

THE ROLES OF THE GERMAN HAUSBANK

Hausbank more like Japanese main bank(s).. more like insurance .. does not get involved in

reorganizations/management

THE FLAWS IN THE JAPANESE CONCEPT OF THE CORPORATION

No control over top management (other than through product market) -> risky

(yet, Japanese managers earn less and desire less?)

RITUALIZED GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Least effective.. mere formality.. decisions take place beforehand..

LIMITED MONITORING POWER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

Board chairman = Symbolic position (half-retired position (old ex-presidents))

BOARD MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT

& Pledge allegiance to him.. so much for supervision of him!

BOARDS ARE TOO LARGE


30/31

Because board membership is often a reward for faithful service title is useful to obtain business from

other major customers (so its a motivation & marketing tool)

INEFFECTIVE STATUTORY AUDITORS

Statutory auditors make sure management decisions are not in conflict with the law and companys

interests (so protect company and stakeholders) etc they have power, but only on paper, never use it.

again: SELECTED BY THE PRESIDENT (57%; 33% by directors/committee)

FLAWED CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN THE WEST

Even worse CEO is board chairman + dependence of outside directors on CEO

CEO/CHAIRMAN DUALITY USA, UK, AND FRANCE

chairman marks his own papers

even in Germany, where legislation forbids members of one board to be a member of anotherthe

management board often influences the supervisory board

LACK OF NEUTRALITY OF OUTSIDE DIRECTORS USA AND EUROPE

MULTIPLE DIRECTORSHIPS USA AND EUROPE

Have a position on multiple boards in multiple firms

they dont have enough time.. to monitor all those areas.. and lack in-depth knowledge as outside

directors (in other firms/companies)

WHICH SYSTEM WILL WIN OUT?

Pluralistic: Those that value stakeholders (plurastic, japan) also fairer sharing of risk!!

monistic concept: employees more risk!

APPLICABILITY OF THE PLURALISTIC CONCEPT

Not unique to Japan.. AEG (german) and GE (US) 1950s +-

EMERGING CONVERGENCE

All concepts (monoistic , dualistic and pluralistic) have pros and cons .. but they are influencing eachother, removing cons..

JAPAN (+germany)

Moving toward more openness&transparency (as in US/UK concept) + shareholder + short term.. long

term employment is being removed merit>seniority etc etc


31/31

USA

Stakeholders are taken into account more.. long term relations are being introduced

GERMANY

Law against insider trading

top less powerful?

CONCLUSION

Moving toward democratization of corporations

stratman hb notes

Documents