Strategic Alliances Although some theorists suggest that the resource-based view could be a new theory of the firm, it is still part of a developing paradigm in strategy research (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Barney, 1991; Conner, 1991; Conner & Prahalad, 1996; Grant, 1996; Mahoney & Pandian, 1992; Mehra, 1996; Miller & Shamsie, 1996; Roth, 1995). The usefulness and richness of the paradigm need to be demonstrated in a variety of strategy areas. Indeed, researchers are still in the phase of accumulating applications of the resource-based view. For example, Peteraf (1993) shows that sustainable differences in firm profitability that cannot be attributed to industrial differences can be better explained by the resourcebased view. Our understanding of diversification strategy is also enhanced because the resource-based view strongly argues for strategic relatedness within a conglomerate (Chatterjee & Wernerfelt, 1991). Harrison, Hitt, Hoskisson, and Ireland (1991) examined the performance of mergers and acquisitions through a resource -based perspective. Global strategy, technological strategy, and strategic regulation have also been studied by applying the resource-based view (Collis, 1991; Leonard-Barton, 1992; Maijoor & Van Witteloostuijn, 1996). One area that remains under-explored in the literature is the resource-based view of strategic alliances, even though such alliances are rapidly increasing in importance in today's competitive landscape (Das & Teng, in press; Doz & Hamel, 1998; Gomes-Casseres, 1996; Yoshino & Rangan, 1995). A resource-based view seems particularly appropriate for examining strategic alliances because firms essentially use alliances to gain access to other firms' valuable resources. Thus, firm resources provide a relevant basis for studying alliances. The few studies that have applied the resource-based perspective to strategic alliances cover only limited aspects (e.g., Blodgett, 1991; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996; Kogut, 1988; Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman, 1998; Rouse & Daellenbach, 1999; Tyler & Steensma, 1995, 1998; Varadarajan & Cunningham, 1995). Focusing exclusively on the resource-based view of strategic alliances, Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1996) found essentially that alliances are more likely to be formed when bot h firms are in vulnerable strategic positions (i.e., in need of resources) or when they are in strong social positions (i.e., possess valuable resources to share). Other researchers have tackled only selected aspects of alliances, such as organizational knowledge (Kogut, 1988) and international business (Blodgett, 1991; Lyles & Salk, 1997). Thus, a general resource-based theory of strategic alliances has yet to emerge. Our purpose here is to develop a more encompassing resource-based theory of strategic alliances than is available in the extant literature.
Background Information In implementing a strategic plan for Coastal Medical Center, our consulting team has conducted many analyses and formed numerous strategies in order for Coastal Medical Center to be successful. Such assessments include an internal analysis, external analysis, gap analysis, and SWOT analysis. In conducting these analyses, our consulting team was able to better understand the internal environment, external environment, where the organization currently stands in terms of performance, and the major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that oppose the Coastal Medical Center. From our inquiry, we will be able to establish a strategic plan that best fits the organization’s needs.
After analyzing the Coastal Medical Center, it is apparent that the employees and staff have no conception of the mission, vision, and values of this health care facility. In addition to this lack of structure, CMC has many projects in the midst of production that lack support of a common goal, employees are unsatisfied with their jobs, the two boards lack ability to agree on strategic decisions for the organization,, and the medical center has a dismal reputation when it comes to quality care.
Outsiders wondered how each company’s internal changes would affect their endless competitive battle in the industry. The case illustrates how global competitiveness depends on the organizational capability, the difficulty of overcoming deeply rooted administrative heritage, and the limitations of both classic multinational and global models.
...ative aspects of diversification, for example through better corporate planning, human recourse management and reaching further synergies between its various business lines.
Internal resource is the first consideration that can lead to sustainable competitive advantage and Resource –Based View (RBV) is a theory that usefully helps a firm focus on internal resources (Kraaijenbrink, Spender & Aard, 2010). According to RBV (Valuable, Rare, hard to imitate and non-substitutable), companies have different tangible and intangible resources, these resources can be transformed into unique ability, this special ability cannot flow between firms and rival firms and difficult to reproduce. These unique resources and abilities are the source of enterprise sustainable competitive advantage. In this part, Starbucks and Apple are worth to be analyzed by RBV.
Before the alliance the two firms were in totally different market and they were also in different country but the industry was of same type. Both of the firms were aware about their future plan and lacking.
S, Tywoniak 2007, Making sense of resource based view, Academy of Management Conference, University of Technology, Australia.
Gilpin discussed the MNC’s evolution through the lenses of a number of business economic theories. Using Raymond Vernon’s Product Cycle Theory, the overseas expansion of American companies until the 1960s was shown as a means of preempting foreign competition and preserving monopoly positions, which was possible then because of the wealth and technology gaps that existed between the US and the rest of the world (282-83). Following the closing of such gaps, Dunning and the Reading School’s Eclectic Theory explained the next stage of the MNC’s evolution as propelled by the great leaps made in technology and communication, which made internationalized management both possible and viable (283). Michael Porter’s Strategy Theory, meanwhile, asserted that the MNC is now in the era of strategic management, wherein activities and capabilities spanning borders allow it to “tap into the value chain” in the most advantageous positions (285-85). Gilpin made an interesting point, however, that MNCs are oftentimes the result of market imperfections and unique corporate situations. In many instances, the decision to expand a firm’s operations in another country was a means of circumventing protectionist measures and trade barriers, or simply to curry favor with governments, as practiced by IBM (280...
...y, and enforceability of property rights and contracting institutions. These measurements are useful tools in understanding the institutional context of strategy and entrepreneurship in international business. Furthermore, Dung presents a short definition of resources and capabilities investment that is a significant mechanism through which the three legs of the strategy tripod come together and interact rather than being separate forces governing firm’s behaviour and successes. Furthermore, McKinley, Mone, and Moon (1999) argued that whether a particular theory gains prevalent recognition depends on its continuity, novelty, and scope. The scholars conclude that the institution-based view shines in all three attributes, thereby propelling its recent rise as the third leading perspective in strategy, in combination with the resource-based and the industry-based views.
It is also perhaps not feasible to evaluate the attractiveness of an industry independent of the resources a firm brings to that industry. It is thus argued that this theory be coupled with the Resource-Based View (RBV) in order for the firm to develop a much more sound strategy. It provides a simple perspective for accessing and analysing the competitive strength and position of a corporation, business or organisation.
Ensign PC 2004, ‘A resource based view of interrelationships among organizational groups in the diversified firms’, Strategic Change, Vol. 13. pp. 125-137.
This video provides an overview of product diversification. It explains that there are two types of diversification, which are related diversification and unrelated diversification. In addition, the video informs that diversification often involves merger and acquisition activities. Furthermore, it stresses the importance of keeping diversifications balanced, as in some instances, companies that do not take advantage of diversification, can miss out on some benefits, and/or could experience negative effects. However, on the other hand, the opposite could also occur, because some companies that over-diversify, extend themselves too far and can experience detrimental and disadvantageous effects as well. The key is staying
There are three premises of corporate strategy, which any successful corporate strategy is built on a number of premises. The first premise is competition occurs on the business unit level, which diversified companies do not compete, only their business units do. The second premise is diversification inevitably adds costs
Organisational change can arise due to a change in strategy and this begins with examining capabilities and the internal environment. This is portrayed in the Strategy diamond. Firstly through arenas the organisation can plan where they will be active in and which part to place most emphasis on for example technologies or value creation strategies. Only after determining this can they implement a positive change, leading to the next element, vehicles to get them where they need to be such as alliances. This can lead to change in management along with strategic partnerships, and the way managers transition to this change will determine if the strategy impacts on the overall organisation in a way that reinforces its purpose and goals. Partnerships indicate how an organisation can strengthen its capabilities by merging with businesses who possess the skills they lack. (Carpenter et al. 2010)
Hitt, M., Ireland, and Hoskisson, R. (2009).Strategic management: Competitiveness and Globalization, Concepts and Cases. In M. Staudt & Stranz (Ed.