課程-技術(shù)管理

What isstrategy?Strategy

is

a

firm’s

theory

about

how

to

compete

successfully.Four

fundamental

questions:Why

dofirmsdiffer?How

do

firmsbehave?What

determines

thescope

of

thefirm?What

determines

thesuccess

and

failureof

thefirm?Three

leadings

onstrategyIndustry-basedcompetitionInstitutional

conditionsand

transitionsFirm-specific

resourcesandcapabilitiesStrategyPerformanceA

small

caseThe

automobile

industry

(Dateof2004)Chrysler,

Ford,

Hyundai,

Nissan,

Renault,

Toyota,

andVolkswagenMass-market;Profit

margins

at

5

percent;Audi,

BMW,

Mercedes-Benz,

and

PorscheLuxury;Profit

margins

at

10

percent;Ferrari,

Lamb hini,

and

Rolls-RoyceUltra

luxury;Profit

margins

at

20

percent;Defining

industry

competitionAn

industry

isa

groupof

firmsproducing

productsand/orservices

that

are

similar

to

each

other.Industrial anization

(IO)economiesStructure-conduct-performance

(SCP)

model;Structure

refers

to

the

structural

attributes

of

an

industry;Conduct

refers

to

the

firm’s

actions;Industry

structure

determines

firm

conduct

(or

strategy),

which,inturn,determines

firmperformance.Theindustry-based

view

of

strategy

is

underpinned

by

the

fiveforces

framework, advocated

byMichael

Porter.IndustrycompetitivenessThe

five

forces

frameworkRivalry

amongcompetitorsBargainingpower

ofbuyersThreat

ofsubstitutesThreat

ofentrantsBargainingpower

ofrsLessons

from

the

five

forces

frameworkThe

five

forces

framework

provides

three

significantlessons:,

notall

industries

areequal

interms

oftheirpotentialprofitability;Second,

the

task

forstrategists

is

to

assess

the

opportunities

andthreats

underlying

each

competitive

force

affecting

an

industry,andthen

estimate

thelikelyprofitpotential

ofthe

industry;Finally,

the

key

is

to

stake

out

a

position

that

is

less

vulnerable

toattack

fromhead

tohead

opponents,

whether

established

ornew,and

less

vulnerable

toerosion

fromthedirection

of

buyers,rs,

andsubstitutes.Three

generic

strategiesIn

1985,

Porter

suggested

three

generic

strategies:costleadership;differentiation;focus;All

of

which

are

intended

to

strengthen

the

focal

firm’sposition

relative

to

the

five

competitive

forces.Three

generic

strategiesProductdifferentiationMarketsegmentationKeyfunctionalareaCostleadershipLow

(mainly

byprice)Low

(mass-market)Manufacturing

andmaterialsmanagementDifferen-tiationHigh

(mainly

byuniqueness)High

(many

marketsegments)R&D,

marketing

andsalesFocusLow

(mainly

byprice)

or

high(mainly

byuniqueness)Low

(one

or

afewsegments)Any

kind

offunctional

areaLessons

from

the

three

generic

strategiesThe

essence

of

the

three

strategic

choices

is

whether

toperform

activities

differently

or

to

perform

different

activitiesrelative

tocompetitors.Two

lessons

emerge.,

cost

and

differentiation

are

two

fundamental

strategicdimensions.

The

keyis

tochoose

onedimension

andfocus

onitconsistently;Second,

companies

that are

stuck

inthe

middle,

that

is,neitherhave

the

lowest

costs

nor

sufficient

differentiation

(or

focus),

canindicate

either

thelack

of

aclear

strategy

ora

driftingstrategy.ReferencePorter,

M.

Competitive

strategy.

New

York:

Free

Press.1980Porter,

M.

The

contribution

of

industrial anization

to

strategicmanagement.

Academy

of

Management

Review,

1981,

6:

609-620.Hill,

C.

Differentiation

versus

low

cost

or

differentiation

and

low

cost.Academy

of

Management

Review,

1988,

13:

401-412.McGahan,

A.,

Porter,

M.

How

much

does

industry

matter,

really?

StrategicManagement

Journal,

1997,

18:

15-30.Michael,

S.

Investments

to

create

bargaining

power.

StrategicManagement

Journal,

2000,

21:

497-514.Campbell-Hunt,

C.

What

have

we

learned

about

generic

competitivestrategy?

Strategic

Management

Journal,

2000,

21:

127-154.Shamsie,

J.

The

context

of

dominance:

an

industry-driven

framework

forexploiting

reputation.

Strategic

Management

Journal,

2003,

24:

199-215.A

small

case2008年基金公司規(guī)模公司

基金數(shù)量

總規(guī)模

平均規(guī)模（33家）博時(shí)基金132140基金基金82775華夏基金152111140工銀瑞信754577上投7795113易方達(dá)富國(guó)基金54349諾安基金5754150嘉實(shí)基金13中郵創(chuàng)業(yè)267華寶974983南方基金13招商基金66匯添富4689廣發(fā)基金交銀549599海富通76799771118159光大保德信437393泰達(dá)荷銀826433銀華基金91093121國(guó)投5361112建信基金430476華安基金101026102長(zhǎng)信基金435488中銀國(guó)際430375鵬華基金1189581長(zhǎng)盛基金834943友邦華泰428771融通基金1088488基金434887中?；?28394The

resource-based

viewWhile

the

industry-based

viewfocuses

on

how

“average”firms

within

one

industry

compete,

the

resource-based

viewsheds

considerable

light

on

how

individual

firms

differ

fromeach

other

within

one

industry.A

basic

propositionof

the

resource-based

viewis

that

a

firmconsists

ofa

bundleof

productive

resources

andcapabilities.Resources,capabilities,

and

the

value

chainDo

wereallyneed

performthisactivity?Sell

the

unit

orleaseitsservicestoother

firmsDo

we

have

the

resour-ces

and

capabilities

thatadd

value

in

awaybetter

than

rival

do?Keepng

itAcquiring

necessaryresources

andcapabilities

in-houseAcquiring

necessaryresources

andcapabilitiesthroughalliancesNoYesNoYesA

value ysis

focusesonhow

afirm’sbundle

resources

and

capabilities

cometogether

to

add

value.The

VRIOframeworkThe

resource-based

view

focuses

on

the

value(V),

rarity

(R),imitability

(I),

and anizational

(O)

aspects

of

resources

andcapabilities,

which

lead

to

a

VIROframework.Two

key

assumptions:Resource

heterogeneity;Resource

immobility;Feature

of

a

resources

and

capabilityValuableRareCostly

toimitateExploitedbyanizationCompetitiveimplicationsFirmperformanceNo--NoCompetitivedisadvantageBelowaverageYesNo-YesCompetitive

parityAverageYesYesNoYesTemporarycompetitiveadvantageAboveaverageYesYesYesYesSustained

competitiveadvantagePersistentlyaboveaverageLessons

from

the

VRIO

framework

,

some

firmsoutperform

othersin

that

they

have

somevaluable,

rare,

hard-to-imitate,

and anizationally

embeddedresources

and

capabilities

that

are

unmatched

bycompetitors;Second,

imitation

is

not

likely

to

be

a

successful

strategy.

Thebestperforming

firms

areoften

entrepreneurial

bycreatingnew

ways

of

adding

value;Third,

a

sustained

competitive

advantage

does

not

imply

that

itwill

last

forever.

Firms

should

anticipate

future

needs

andmove

early

tobuild

upresources

and

capabilities

forfuturecompetition.ReferenceWernerfelt,

B.

A

resource-based

view

of

the

firm.

Strategic

ManagementJournal,

1984,

5:

171-180.Barney,

J.

Firm

resources

and

sustained

competitive

advantage.

Journal

ofManagement,

1991,

17:

99-120.Teece,

D.J.,

Pisano,

G.,

Shuen,

A.

Dynamic

capabilities

and

strategicmanagement.

Strategic

Management

Journal,

1997,

18:

509-533.Teece,

D.J.

Explicating

dynamic

capabilities:

The

nature

andmicrofoundations

of

(sustainable)

enterprise

performance.

StrategicManagement

Journal,

2007,

28:

1319-1350.Makadok,

R.

Toward

a

synthesis

of

the

resource-based

and

dynamic-capability

views

of

rent

creation.

Strategic

Management

Journal,

2001,

22:387-401.Sirmon,

D.G.,

Hitt,

M.A.,

Ireland,

R.D.

Managing

firm

resources

indynamic

environments

to

create

value:

Looking

inside

the

black

box.Academy

of

Management

Review,

2007,

32:

273-292.A

small

caseUSdevelopeddrugsLIPITORZOLOFTVIOXXNEXIUM2002globalsales$7.97billion$2.74billion$2.53billon$1.98billionPer

prescription20mg/30tables50mg/30tables25mg/30tables20mg/30tablesUS

prices$

93.99$

69.99$

78.99$112.00Canadian

prices$70.74$55.30$47.49$74.87Mexican

prices$88.74Not

sold$56.33$63.46French

prices$54.45$28.96$49.01$44.35n

prices$7.50$2.24$2.60$2.09Understanding

institutionsInstitution

is

“the

rules

of

the

game”

in

the

society,

whichcontains formal

institutions

(laws,regulations,

andrules)

andinformal

institutions

(norms,cultures,

andethics).

(MikePeng)What nstitutions

do?Institutions

define

what

is

legitimate

and

what

is

not,

andtheir

keyfunction

istoreduce

uncertainty.Uncertainty

surrounding

economic

transactions

can

leadtotransactioncost.Without

stable

institutional

frameworks,

transaction

costs

maye

prohibitively

high,to

theextent

that

certaintransactions

simply

would

not

take

place.An

institution-based

view

of

strategyInstitutions

FirmsStrategicchoicesFormal

andinformalconstraintsIndustry

conditions

andfirm-specific

resourcesandcapabilitiesDynamicinteractionTwo

core

propositionsTheinstitution-based

view

suggests

two

core

propositions.,

managers

and

firms

rationallypursue

their

interestsandmake

strategic

choices

within

institutional

constraints;Second,

while

formal

and

informal

institutions

combine

toern

firm

behavior,

in

situations

where

formal

constraints

fail,informal

constraints

play

a

larger

role

in

reducing

uncertaintyandproviding

constancy

tomanagers

and

firms.A

strategic

response

frameworkThe

institution-based

view

focuses

on

how

certainstrategicchoices,

under

institutional

influences,

are

diffused

from

a

fewfirmsto

many.How

individual

firms

respond

leads

to

a

strategic

responseframework

that

features

four

strategic

choices:Reactive;Defensive;modative;Proactive;A

strategic

response

frameworkInstitutionconstraintsPrimaryunderlyingpressuresStrategicresponsesStrategic

behaviorsFormalRegulatoryReactiveDeny

responsibility,

do

lessthanrequiredFormalRegulatoryDefensiveAdmit

responsibility,

butfight

it,

dotheleast

that

isrequiredInformalNormativemodativeAccept