英国某商学院的EMBA课程讲座ppt课件

1、“Get the tools, break the rules, make a difference: A conceptual map of the courseDefinition and Dynamics of StrategyWhat is strategy?How can you be sure you are asking the “right strategy questions?How strategy develops: Context, Role-playing, Mental models, and MetaphorsStrategy ContentCompetitive

2、 Forces in an Industry Industry Evolution Valuing Firm Resources Capabilities for positioning Strategy in ActionImplementing Strategy Institutional strategy: Can strategy make a difference?Strategic ManagementSession 4Industry AnalysisIndustry AnalysisLast time we said that to develop our strategy f

3、urther we need to know our competitive environment. Knowing this we can establish:What do we need to do to shape the future action of competitors and other industry players?How should we respond to the actions of competitors and other industry players?The source of profitability is evolving and so i

4、s the role of the managerWhat factors explain these changes?Sustaining competitive advantage appears to be difficultTop Ten U.S Traded Companies by Market Value 1. GE $494b 2. Cisco $447b 3. Intel $426b 4. Microsoft $362b 5. Walmart $307b 6. Nokia $271b 7. Exxon-Mobil $270b 8. Lucent $228b 9. IBM $1

5、96b10. Citigroup $187b 1. IBM$37.6b 2. AT&T$36.6b 3. Exxon$24.2b 4. General Motors$14.5b 5. Schlumberger$11.9b 6. Amoco$11.8b 7. Mobil$11.7b 8. GE$11.5b 9. Sohio$10.8b10. Chevron$ 9.6b1980 1. Exxon $62.5b 2. GE$58.4b 3. IBM$54.1b 4. AT&T$48.9b 5. Philip Morris$38.7b 6. Merck$30.6b 7. Bristol-Myers S

6、quibb$29.4b 8. Dupont$28.1b 9. Amoco$27.9b10. Bell South$27.9b19902000Source: Jeffrey WilliamsThen why are some industries able to sustain higher prices?What drives profitability?A: Intensity of competition in an industry which, in turn, is determined by the structure of the industryAveragePharma.Wh

7、y are some industries consistently more profitable than others?Because firms in these industries consistently face less intense competition What explains profitability variation?41943100232Business unit effectsCorporate parent effectsIndustry effectsYear effectsNot explained by modelTOTALEstimates b

8、y McGahan & Porter1545n/a1002Estimates by Rumelt38From Environmental Analysis to Industry AnalysisTHE INDUSTRYENVIRONMENT Suppliers Competitors CustomersSocial structureThe Industry Environment lies at the core of the Macro Environment. The national/ international economyTechnologyGovernmentThe natu

9、ral environmentDemographic structureSocial structureThe Spectrum of Industry StructuresConcentrationEntry and ExitBarriersProductDifferentiationInformationPerfect CompetitionOligopolyDuopolyMonopolyMany firmsA few firmsTwo firmsOne firmNo barriersSignificant barriersHigh barriersHomogeneousProductPo

10、tential for product differentiationPerfectInformation flowImperfect availability of informationA structural (5 forces) industry analysis reveals:Whether the industry is attractiveThe dimensions along which firms competeWhat structural variables affect competitionWhether individual or collective stra

11、tegies can reduce the intensity of competitionWhat kinds of exogenous forces can affect the structure of the industryDrawbacks of 5 forces analysis:It only offers a static picture. Does not explain why the industry evolved the way it did and how it will evolve in the future.It does not highlight the

12、 role of:technology (e.g. the effect of fabric technologies on Italian fashion), andregulation (e.g. the effect of country policies about global warming on renewable energy).5 forces can explain why industries changeIndustries in transitionUS Banking in the 90sCiticorp & TravelersBankAmerica & Natio

13、nsBankFirst Union & CoreStatesBanc One & First Chicago NBDAutomobileFiats attempts at mergerVolkswagenTelecommunicationsVodaphone & DoCoMo vs. WorldComPublishingBertelsmann & NapsterBarnesandNoble & BertelsmannBecause.Relevant industry is financial servicesBanks vs. mutual funds share of household f

14、inancial assets:90% vs. 10% in 198055% vs. 44% in 1997Economies of scale in New Product DevelopmentInnovations in cellular vs. commoditization in long-distanceNeed to increase market power re: distributorsMarket power re: publishersU.S. Soft Drink IndustryHighlights, mid-1980sRising international sa

15、lesHighly and increasingly concentratedTop 2 firms gaining market share at the expense ofremaining firmsMore new product introductions and advertisingIncreasing price competitionTurnover in ownership of all larger companies except Coca-Cola and PepsiBottlers role important for concentrate producerTh

16、e U.S. Soft Drink Industry in the mid-80sSuppliers:Sweeteners, ContainersRivals:Concentrate ProducersPotential Entrants:TakeoversPotential substitutes:other beveragesBuyers:Bottlers, Stores, OtherIndustryStrategic challenges Identify and segment competitive groups Analyze rivalry within and across s

17、uch groups Identify the focus (e.g., price, quality, service, innovation, features), nature, and intensity of rivalryCompetitorCompetitorCompetitorCompetitorCompetitorCompetitorRivalry among existing competitorsWhat is the nature, intensity, and focus of rivalry within an industry?Competitors can fo

18、cus on multiple factorsPrice, quality, service, features, innovation, etc.Intensity of rivalry can vary within and across competitor groupsIndustry growth ratesCorporate stakes(e.g., strategic businesses)Exit barriers (e.g., specialized assets) Fixed costs (e.g., capacity increments)Lack of product

19、differentiationSwitching costsRivalryTwo dominant playersStrong demand for soft drinks, especially among junior age groupsProduct innovationAdvertising important and substantialStrategic challenges Identify, build and exploit barriers to entry to minimize competitionFirmBIndustryPotentialEntrantsPot

20、entialEntrantsFirmAFirmCBarriers to entryBarriers to entryWhat factors keep potential competitors out?Scale economiese.g., aerospace industryScope economiese.g., retailingCapital requirementse.g., aerospace industryProprietary technologiese.g., pharmaceuticalsBrand (product) differentiatione.g., per

21、fumeSwitching costse.g., MSDOS operating systemAccess to distributione.g., Campbell soupEntry deterring regulationsPotential EntrantsHigh capital expenditures in advertisingEconomies of scale in marketing, distribution, and maybe productionHigh product differentiationLimited access to distribution c

22、hannelsIncumbents have the resources to retaliate against potential entrantsStrategic challenges: Understand the functionality of products and services to customers Identify benefits and/or advantages of potential substitutes Incorporate the benefits of substitutes or provide better price or perform

23、ance featuresFirmAIndustryCustomersFirmDFirmCFirmBThreat of substitutesWhat alternatives are available to customers?Competitors can emerge from within or outside an industryAnalyze potential competitors from customer perspectiveLook beyond current industry structure“Substitutes can:provide the same

24、functionalitydiesel vs gas enginesDirecTV vs cableeliminate the need for a productwater meters vs flat rateSubstitutesLow likelihood of substitution given rising share of soft drinks relative to other beveragesStrategic Challenges Identify critical inputs and analyze suppliers or supplier groups Ana

25、lyze industry of critical suppliers Identify degree and nature of supplier powerSuppliersSuppliersSuppliersSuppliersSuppliersSuppliersIndustrySupplier powerHow can my suppliers extract “value ?Supplier concentrationFew vs many suppliersSupplier volumeLarge vs small purchase decisionsProduct differen

26、cesDependence on unique featuresThreat of forward integrationAbility to become competitorSwitching costsLimitations on ability to change suppliersSupplier Power-SweetenersLittle bargaining power:They sell to relatively large and concentrated concentrate producers (with the exception of G.D. Searle)P

27、rice of sugar is knownConcentrate producers have the resources to integrate backwardAlso, concentrate producers are sensitive to the price of sweeteners:It is a big percentage of concentrate production costsIt is not a differentiated product (with the exception of non-nutritive sweeteners)Therefore,

28、 the market power of sweetener suppliers (with the exception of G.D. Searle) relative to concentrate producers is low.Supplier Power-ContainersMostly low and in some cases moderate market power:It is a big percentage of concentrate production costsOverall undifferentiated product with certain except

29、ionsBuyers are relatively large and concentratedSome self-manufacture on the part of buyersContainers are comparable and the price can be inferredCustomerCustomerCustomerCustomerCustomerCustomerStrategic challenges Focus on how to segment markets served (geography, industries, products, size, etc.)

30、Analyze buying criteria and power of important market segmentsIndustryBuyer powerHow can my customers extract “value?Buyer concentrationFew vs many customersVolume of purchasesLarge vs small purchase decisionsAvailable alternative productsCompetitive productsThreat of backward integrationAbility to

31、become a competitorSwitching costsThreat of switching suppliersInformatione.g. via comparison shoppingBuyer Power-BottlersBottlers have generally low bargaining power:Threat of forward integration (eg. concentrate-owned bottlers)65% of their costs plus shared advertising costs are influenced by conc

32、entrate producersThey could not play off concentrate producers against one another: because product was differentiated on the basis of marketing activities, they could not credibly threaten to bottle lesser-known brands; because of territorial exclusivity, they could not threaten to leave one concen

33、trate producer for another who already operated in that area.Large bottlers might have been able to exercise moderate power over concentrate producersBuyer Power-Stores and FountainsFood stores had moderate power:Soft drinks were important because they drew traffic in the storeBottlers fought for sh

34、elf spaceSome regional concentrationFountains had low to moderate power:Soft drinks were important because they were a substantial source of profitsSome large buyersConcentrate producers competed intensely over fountain salesThe U.S. Soft Drink Industry in the mid-1980sSuppliers:Sweeteners, Containe

35、rsPower:Sweeteners: Low (except for D.G Searle)Containers: Moderate to lowRivals:Concentrate ProducersRivalry: HighPotential Entrants:TakeoversThreat: LowPotential substitutes:other beveragesThreat: LowBuyers:Bottlers, Stores, OtherPower: Moderate to lowEvolution of the industry,mid-1980s to early 1

36、990sRestructuring of bottling operations a key dimension of competitionPrice of concentrate to bottlers raised, price of soft drinks fallsInternational markets of key importance for profitabilityRole of bottlers important internationallyProduct innovation and product line proliferationNew retail for

37、mats (warehouse clubs)Growing importance of private label soft drinks, other beverages as potential substitutes“New Age beverages also important as potential substitutesThe U.S. Soft Drink Industry in the 1990sSuppliers:Sweeteners, ContainersPower:Sweeteners: LowContainers: LowRivals:Concentrate Pro

38、ducersRivalry: HighPotential Entrants:TakeoversThreat: LowPotential substitutes:other beveragesThreat: HighBuyers:Bottlers, Stores, OtherPower: Moderate only for certain distribution channelsWhy is the Soft Drink Industryin the US structured this way?Only 2 major players why?entry barrierssunk costs

39、 (scale economies in advertising)retaliation ability regarding new entrants (e.g. Philip Morris)market foreclosure (distribution channels, bottling)Intense rivalry yet major players profitable why?low capital investmentadvertising intensitynon-price rivalry (advertising, product differentiation)mark

40、et saturation, international expansionWhy is the Soft Drink Industryin the US structured this way? Bottler territorial exclusivity why?coffee & milk historyavoid price competitionreward regional brand and market developmentenourage market saturationswitching costsBottler buy-outs why?capacity commit

41、mentsefficiency improvementsStrategic GroupsSoft Drinks & Non Soft-Drink BeveragesNon soft-drink beveragesSoft DrinksType of BeverageDSD by own bottlers“Piggy-backWarehouse deliveryMeans of distributionCoke & Pepsi BrandInternationalShasta, Cott Price InternationalHires, Dr PepperA&W, 7-Up Brand Nat

42、ionalRC ColaBrandInternationaladvertising intensityregulationadvertising intensityregulationStrategic Groups in Book RetailingVirtualPhysicalPresenceLocalNationalInternationalGeographic ReachMail Order, Online Price Convenience Specialised offeringsB&N, Borders Price Availability Social ExperienceIn

43、dependents Loyalty Know customs ConvenienceFront-endFixed-costTechnology cultureEoSCultureSuperstore “recipeSummary of Soft Drink Industry:Concentrate producers have relatively high market power vs. other competitive forces and are highly concentrated (rivalry is focused between two players)The indu

44、stry remained attractive in the early 90s, but the key dimensions of competition changedSome of the changes were due to exogenous factors but others were initiated by the major playersTherefore, the profitability of these players will be to a large extent determined by how rivalry between them plays

45、 out along the dimensions they have control over.Could the major players compete less aggressively with each other?“Industry can be analyzed at many levels. The more fine-grained the analysis, the better the insights regarding threats and opportunitiesYou can shape the reaction of your competitors: CommitmentEstablish and use a reputationAlexander the Great in TyrosWrite contractsCut off communicationCrossing