Strategic Management

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary 2

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Background 4

3.0 Strategy 5
3.1 Strategy Analysis 6
3.1.1 External Audit 6
3.1.2 Internal Audit 8
3.2 Strategy Formation 8
3.3 Strategy Implementation 9

4.0 Paradoxes 10
4.1 Logical (Rational) versus Creative (Generative) Strategies 10
4.2 Intended (Deliberate) versus Realised (Emergent) Strategies 12
4.3 Strategy Fit versus Strategy Stretch 14

5.0 Conclusion 16

6.0 References 17

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 1

 Strategic Management

Executive Summary

This paper assumes a Singapore based organisation, Asia Pacific Breweries aspirations to
be more active in the global level by offering its leading brand, Tiger Beer on tap for the
European market. We examine some literature reviews by leading commentators on the
strategic management process and discuss several paradoxes from a beer market point of
view. Recommendations for the company’s move were also made based on challenges and
advantages that are predictable.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 2

 Strategic Management

1.0 Introduction

The long-term survival of many organisations around the world owes its success to effective
strategic management based on solid strategic planning. According to Porter (1980), the goal
of the strategist is to find a position in the industry where his or her company can best defend
itself against the forces which exist in the industry or to use them in its favour. Many
organisations often rely on various approaches to develop strategy by processing industry
information as part of the strategy development process (Hofer and Schendel 1978; Porter
1980). Many studies on strategic processes could also be found in environment with
sufficient market data to facilitate such analyses (Benson et al, 1999; Theodore, 2009; Selley,
2007).

With the increasingly global and competitive business world, strategic decision making has
become more complicated as many companies are now forced to find ways to counter these
challenges. Some of the obstacles faced by companies include the need to increase
productivity, improve on operation abilities, innovate and develop new technologies and
manage organisational change that is vital for survival. As a result, it is particularly easy to
make poor strategic judgments. A traditional way to avoid strategic errors is to simply wait to
see how events unfold, or to imitate others (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1987). However, the
"wait and see" and "me too" decision strategies may also result in failure, as competitive
positions change and windows of opportunity close. The dilemma of strategic decision
making in this environment is that it is easy to make a mistake by acting too soon, but equally
ineffective to delay decision making or to copy others.

Beer is the predominant alcoholic drink in many parts of Europe and possesses a huge market
share in the global market (Vrontis, 1998). The European beer market generated total
revenues of US$213.7 billion in 2009. Standard lager sales proved the most lucrative for the
market in 2009, generating total revenues of US$100.2 billion, equivalent to 46.9% of the
market's overall value (Datamonitor, 2010). At a glance, the figures look tempting enough for
any beer company in the world to get a fair share of the pie. For the purpose of this
assignment, we will be studying a Singapore based company, Asia Pacific Breweries Limited
(APB) in its strategic aspirations to gain a foothold into the European beer market.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 3

 Strategic Management

2.0 Background

Listed on the Singapore Exchange, APB is one of the key players in the beer industry in the
South East Asia region. APB, previously known as Malayan Breweries Limited was
produced as a result of the joint venture between the Fraser and Neave Group of companies
and Heineken in 1931. The first brewery was established in Singapore and subsequently, the
award-winning Tiger beer was created. Today, APB boasts an extensive global marketing
network, spreading across 60 countries and is supported by 36 breweries in 13 different
countries (Asia Pacific Breweries, 2010).

In Singapore, APB houses a portfolio of over 40 beer brands and brand variants, including
Tiger beer, Heineken, Anchor beer, ABC Extra Stout and Baron’s Strong Brew. The
organisation corresponds with their in house Tiger beer which could be found brewing in
10 countries and offered in 60 markets worldwide. The Group also represents Heineken in
nine other markets including Singapore. Overall, APB offers a wide range and variety of
brews to various markets in various countries. Due to its parent history, it is not a surprise to
find that APB beers are brewed under the guidance of Heineken technical experts, who
possess a rich European brewing culture and experience (Asia Pacific Breweries, 2010).

Due to its heritage, it is easy to spot similarities in practice (such as the brewing techniques)
in APB as compared to Heineken. It is however important to note that since APB was
established in Singapore, we need to assume that the style of leadership and operations are
predominantly Asian. Because of its multiple products portfolio, for the rest of this
assignment, we shall only be focusing on APB’s leading brand, Tiger Beer. Tiger Beer has
been available in bottled form in the UK since the 1940s (Heineken UK, 2010) but it has
never been made available on tap. We would only be exploring and considering the
opportunities to market Tiger Beer in Europe by offering the beer on tap as a way to
participate more actively on the global platform.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 4

 Strategic Management

3.0 Strategy

A. Price and E. Newson (2003) explored strategic management in construction with an

interesting framework of paradoxes, processes and associated concepts. In this paper, we
would be adopting a similar structure of review to the European beer industry. Many would
agree that there is no fixed, single, globally accepted definition of strategy (Mintzberg et al.,
1998). De Wit and Meyer (1998, p 3) stated that ‘‘there are strongly differing opinions on
most of the key issues within the field and the disagreements run so deep that even a common
definition of the term strategy is illusive’’.

For a better understanding of what is strategy, we examine the following definitions which
are somewhat perceived differently by different authors. De Wit and Meyer (1998, p. 68)
think that ‘‘strategy can be broadly conceived as a course of action for achieving an
organization’s purpose’’; Quinn (1980, p. 7) stated that ‘‘a strategy is the pattern or plan that
integrates an organization’s major goals, policies and action sequences into a cohesive
whole’’; while Johnson and Scholes (2002, p. 10), defined strategy as ‘‘the direction and
scope of an organization over the long term: which achieves advantage for the organization
through its configuration of resources within a changing environment, to meet the needs of
markets and to fulfill stakeholder expectations.’’

According to De Wit and Meyer (1998, p. 5), there are ‘‘three dimensions of strategy that can
be recognized in every real-life strategic problem situation.’’ The first dimension is strategy
process, it is concerned with the how, who, and when of strategy. The second is strategy
content and can be considered as the product of the strategy process. The last dimension is
strategy context and it refers to the organizational and environmental situations where the
first two dimensions are determined. All three dimensions are interlinked although each
dimension can be examined on its own. For this assignment, we will only study the strategy
process, which itself can be divided into three parts. They include strategic analysis, strategic
formation and strategic implementation.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 5

 Strategic Management

3.1 Strategic Analysis

Strategic analysis is the understanding of an organisation’s strategic position. It scrutinises
and examines the company’s existing situation. It could include knowing where the company
is aiming for, what they want to achieve as an organisation, being aware of their placing in
the market and understanding their competitors. This process is typically categorised into two
main actions, namely external and internal audit.

External audit is the environmental competitive analysis which includes an assessment of the
industry, the market and the rivals. By using tools such as PEST, SWOT, Porter’s five forces,
Strategic Grouping Mapping and Pricing Quantity Dynamics, an organisation can gain a clear
picture of their environment. Opportunities and threats can also be identified while strengths
and weaknesses can be spotted for actions.

Internal audit is the process of doing a health check of the organisation to recognise its core
competencies, its potential to excel, its forte and limitations. Techniques that can be used to
conduct an internal audit include the Boston Consulting Group Matrix, McKinsey 7-S model
and Porter’s value chain analysis.

3.1.1 External Audit

APB’s aim to gain a market share worldwide with Tiger beer is evident in its presence in
Denmark, Germany, Ireland and United Kingdom in Europe. Its slogan “An Award-Winning
Lager, Savoured Around the World” suggests its objective to market its product to any beer
drinking market possible. Adapting Porter’s five forces, we can identify the company’s
competitive rivalry, bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of customers, threat of
new entrants and the threat of substitute products.

The European beer market has seen an increase global competition and saturation of domestic
market since the mid 90s causing threats even to the key players. To date, only a few large
breweries control the global market (Vrontis, 1998). When examining the competitors of the
European market, we consider various factors such as the increase of industry concentration,
the growth in the market and the increase in product diversification. There are top three
leaders with a variety of brands in various market segments holding 53% of the total
European market volume, making it a fairly concentrated playground (Datamonitor, 2010).

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 6

 Strategic Management

With a wide range of beer such as ales, stouts, standard and premium lager, the market has a
high level of product differentiation. The first factor for Tiger Beer to gain entry into the
market is to identify the number and size of the existing players in the market.

Supplier power in Europe is in a moderate position because raw materials such as hops and
malted grain are commonly available. At this stage, Tiger beer is only selling exported
bottled beer in the European market as it doesn’t have a brewery in this part of the world. It
would hence be in favour for the company to attempt selling beer on tap knowing that
supplier power is mediocre.

Bargaining power of customers for Tiger Beer would include retail supermarkets and
hypermarkets apart from direct sales to consumers. These retail chains usually have
considerable buyer power with their ability to mass distribute across the country. This puts
them in a highly advantageous position to negotiate a lower price. However, as Tiger Beer is
attempting to sell their product on tap, we would probably consider direct sales to consumers
through pubs and clubs. Bargaining power of customers here would seem to be moderate too
because people who choose to head out for drinks would already be prepared to pay for it but
the choices are abundant in such venues.

The threat of new entrants for the beer market is average in Europe as it depends on the
government regulations and policies. In some countries, these rules may be more stringent
than others which could cause problems on the ease of market entry. It is also important to
find out the exact growth prospects of the market if the company is keen to be more active in
the region as growth prospects would affect market entry.

Other alcoholic beverage such as spirits and wines would be considered as the main
substitutes for beer. Tiger beer is in a very vulnerable position here as switching costs are low
and wine can prove to be more popular in some European countries due to their drinking
habits and culture. Overall, the threats from substitutes are high and the company has to take
this highly into consideration before making any decisions.

The above factors would be points for consideration if Tiger Beer is keen to be more active
with either brewing their own beer or serving the beer on tap in the Europe market.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 7

 Strategic Management

3.1.2 Internal Audit

APB is owned by Heineken although it operates and functions separately in the Asia region.
In Singapore, Heineken is brewed in the same brewery as Tiger beer although both brands are
marketed separately with different working teams. In UK, Tiger Beer is supported by
Heineken UK and marketed as a specialty brand amongst many others such as Scrumpy Jack,
Woodpecker, Amstel and so on (Heineken UK, 2010). To achieve its global objective of
offering Tiger Beer on tap in Europe, it seems advisable for APB to invest in an office locally
or to branch away from Heineken UK for better results. Some of the areas for consideration
for the Europe working team include having Tiger Beer setting up its own brewery house in
the region or working with other brewers, getting their own suppliers, managing distribution,
marketing, accounting, transportation and logistics.

3.2 Strategy Formation

Strategy formation is the process of deciding the direction and appropriate courses of action
for attaining company’s objectives and purposes. The formulation should include deliberation
of the type of strategy to be adopted. According to Porter (1998), there are two main
categories of generic competitive strategies. They include cost leadership; and product
differentiation and market segmentation.

Many of the businesses from beer to fashion to automobile industries easily fall into the two
main categories. Generally, beer is considered a cheap and homogeneous product. It is
difficult for beer companies to start a price war or adopt a cost leadership strategy as the
profit margin would be minimal. Little competitive advantage occurs if beer companies take
on board this strategy. Hence, most beer companies go with the product differentiation and
market segmentation route which seems to make more sense in such a competitive
playground. Traditionally, beer brands like to be associated with their origins, for example,
Budweiser sold its image as all-American; Fosters makes a play of its Aussie heritage; and
Carlsberg was linked to advertisements to the Danes. In Europe, Tiger Beer has been
marketed more as an exotic, premium beer with its Asian heritage and all the mystique and
romance that are associated with the Orient (J. Tai, 2008).

Strategy formation can also come in the form of development strategies such as mergers,
acquisitions, and strategic alliances (A. Price and E. Newson, 2003). This is common in the

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 8

 Strategic Management

beer industry as witnessed with the merger between SABMiller and Molson Coors, and the
acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by Belgium’s InBev in 2008 (Reuters, 2010).

In the case of Tiger Beer, with the combination of both strategies, we can have APB merging
with another local brewer (preferably within the parent company’s group) to have its beer
brewed locally. The beer can then be marketed as an exotic Asian premium beer being
offered on tap. A merger with a local brewer will be a wiser move here as the financial and
physical (such as looking for a brewery house and running it) risks involved will be greatly
reduced in case the business doesn’t take off. APB might also consider marketing and
positioning the beer with the same Asian image so that existing customers are not confused
and hopefully it can entice a new target group of consumers.

3.3 Strategy Implementation

Johnson and Scholes (1999, p. 22) state that strategy implementation ‘‘is concerned with the
translation of strategy into organizational action through organizational structure and design,
resource planning and the management of strategic change.’’ Organisations need to execute
and follow through decisions and changes that will have impacts on both organisational
culture and the processes. Processes can include physical change such as organisational
structure, management systems, policies and procedures, action plans, short term
budgets/resources allocation, and information systems. Cultural changes are intangible and
usually involve behavioural changes, such as value given to quality, excellence,
communication, innovation, and employee participation (A. Price and E. Newson, 2003).

If the intention of APB is to create more presence in the European market by offering Tiger
Beer on tap or to start a brewery in the region, the company needs to make sure that they are
committed to the process by providing as much support from the home office as possible.
Senior managers from Singapore could be given the chance to relocate and start up an office
in Europe, value chain analysis has to be done in depth and market research needs to be
conducted substantially to ensure a smooth start up. It is also possible for the Heineken UK
office to assist in the change as they would be much more experienced in this market as
Europe is their home ground.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 9

 Strategic Management

4.0 Paradoxes

Strategic analysis, strategy formation, and strategy implementation have frequently been
drawn as individual levels in a rational and continual process. However, De Wit and Meyer
(1998) have taken a different approach where they believe that imagination and judgement
should take priority over logic. These are the common diverse opinions of many theorists in
the field of strategy. Here in this case, we consider several paradoxes viewed from the beer
industry perspective. This would offer some understandings of the various complications
involving the strategic management process and recommendations as to how APB should
respond. The main paradoxes considered were logical (rational) versus creative (generative)
strategies; intended (deliberate) versus realized (emergent) strategies; and strategic fit versus
strategic stretch.

4.1 Logical (Rational) versus Creative (Generative) Strategies

There are various perspectives on how executive teams should make key strategic decisions
from the rational approach. It assumes that top management can agree on the priorities of
company’s objectives, explore thoroughly for all options that are available, and then integrate
the optimal choice into existing strategy (Fredrickson and Mitchell, 1984). Chandler (1962)
and Ansoff (1979) agree that it was crucial to build long-term goals and objectives. Planning
is the key to decision making and organisation should make plans to conjoin its aims, policies
and behaviour into a strong, consistent unit (Quinn, 1980). Janis (1982) argues that extensive
consideration of goals and a wide range of alternatives is a prerequisite to sound decision
making. According to Andrews (1987), decision making can be logical even if other options
carry emotional attachments.

Ansoff (1979) offered a constructive systematic approach of framework which focused on a

dissection of the environment to help organisations screen their options, calculate the risks
associated, narrowing it down and choosing the ones that best suit their situation. Allison
(1971) implies that strategic success depends on in depth analysis and planning before action
in the Rational Actor model. Kotler and Cox (1988) argued that strategic management is a
framework within which decisions are made concerning the nature and direction of an
organization.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 10

 Strategic Management

The role and portrayal of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is another point for discussion.
It’s been questioned if the CEO should dictate strategy like a commander; get the
participation of the management team to build consensus in making strategic decisions; or act
as a premise-setter who takes a back seat after outlining the key points, and allowing the top
management team to decide (Bourgeois and Brodwin 1984; Mintzberg and McHugh 1985;
Mintzberg 1987). It is often suggested that decisions should be the outcome of management
team participation and agreement (Bourgeois 1980).

Logical or rational strategies associate the process of strategy with formal planning systems
that are usually based on impartial and unbiased analysis, that are derived by a consistent
employment of logic. They are thought to be a scientific style of management as they depend
a lot on the availability and use of statistics, records, data, information and facts (A. Price and
E. Newson, 2003). In contrast, De Wit and Meyer (1999, p. 60) believe that ‘‘heavy emphasis
placed on rationality can actually stifle creativity, while creativity is essential for generating
novel insights, new ways of defining problems and innovative solutions’’.

Mintzberg (1987, p. 66) suggested that the image of crafting better captures the process of
strategy development than the image of planning. He believed that planning was associated
with ‘‘rational control, the systematic analysis of competitors and markets, of company
strengths and weaknesses,’’ whereas crafting implied ‘‘not so much thinking and reasoning
as involvement, a feeling of intimacy with the materials at hand, developed through long
experience and commitment.’’ In addition, Mintzberg (1994) differentiated strategic planning
and strategic thinking. He associated the former as analytical, formal, and concerned with
programming; while affiliating the latter as creative, intuitive, and characterized by synthesis.
He believes that strategic thinking is crucial to successful strategy and is convinced that the
strategy process requires fresh ideas and mindset; by operating beyond traditional
compulsions and supporting informal learning.

De Wit and Meyer (1998, pp. 72, 74), stated that ‘‘Advocates of the rational thinking
perspective argue that strategic thinking should not be based on emotions, habit or pure
intuition, but on explicit logical reasoning just like science;’’ but ‘‘Advocates of the
generative perspective argue that the essence of strategic thinking is the ability to creatively

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 11

 Strategic Management

challenge the (status quo) and to generate new and unique ways of doing things. As such,
strategic thinking closely resembles the frame-breaking behaviour common in the arts.’’

The need for beer brands in the industry to stand out from each other increased the need for
creativity through branding and marketing in any market, especially so in Europe because of
the concentration. In this case, we need a more relaxed approach to achieve its objective. The
increased use of internet with mobile phone applications and social networking sites have
encouraged many beer companies to go with a more flexible and imaginative approach over
logic when it comes to decision making. This allows radical and rapid changes to handle the
high velocity of society today. The ability to stand out and be different is highly crucial to
remain competitive and beer companies need to think outside the box to achieve this.

However, it is also important for companies to have logical long term plans where they can
forecast and project long term goals. It is therefore important to strike a balance between
logic and creativity for successful strategy business plans. The dilemma for both approaches
have been accepted by theorists such as Ansoff (1988) who later stated that “paralysis by
analysis” could occur and Mintzberg (1994) claiming that both logical and creative thinkers
are necessary for the success of an organisation.

4.2 Intended (Deliberate) versus Realised (Emergent) Strategies

Mintzberg and Waters (1985) distinguished intended strategies to be patterns of decisions and
realized strategies as patterns of actions to avoid any complications that could occur due to
the various definitions of strategy. While intended strategies are acts that focus on thinking
before acting, realised strategy is a set of action that develops over time in a company in the
absence of specific objectives and visions. De Wit and Meyer (1998, p. 151) also commented
that ‘‘intended strategies are the patterns of decisions that organizations plan to execute,
while realized strategies are the patterns of actions that have been accomplished.’’

Andrews and Ansoff are the representations of the design school and the planning school
respectively. However, the design school does recognize that some revisions to the original
strategy may be required due to and guided by operational feedback (Andrews, 1987).
Ansoff’s notion of strategy is broadly based on proper planning and supported by analytical
techniques.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 12

 Strategic Management

Mintzberg is a subscriber to the theory of the learning school. He sees strategy formulation as
an emergent process of trial and error that takes place during implementation (Mintzberg,
1990). He argues that the above schools misrepresented the concept of strategy formulation;
and it also suffered from three fallacies including that events can be predicted, that strategic
thinking is separable from operational management, and that hard data, analysis and
techniques are capable of producing innovative strategies. He believes that in practice,
strategy making was both deliberate and emergent: purely emergent strategies preclude any
planning and control; and purely deliberate strategies preclude learning. He also compares
learning and planning to “two feet walking”, one following the other, along the path to an
emerging strategy (Mintzberg, 1991).

In the other extreme, Quinn (1978, 1980) introduced the concept of “logical incrementalism”
arguing that strategic management practice had little similarities to the rational, analytical,
planned approach. His theory is based on the belief that it is ‘‘literally impossible to predict
all the events and forces that will shape the future of the company’’ (Quinn 1980, p. 53).
Instead, these changes in strategy processes used were usually fragmented, evolutionary, and
largely intuitive. He found out that organisations practise deliberate strategies to increase
central control but in return, creativity suffers. He thinks that the process is ‘‘pulsing,
dynamic and organic’’ and can only be managed incrementally (Quinn, 1980, p. 138). Huff
(1990) implies that different people possess different schemata. Individual leaders have
different mental models that will affect their decisions hence causing different impact on the
strategies of the organisation.

Intended strategies emerge during the strategic planning process, and realized strategies
emerge over a period of time. APB moving into a different market might take many years to
establish their foothold. The beer market is also highly volatile as competitors are always
coming up with novel ideas and promotions. Effective strategic planning processes must
therefore have an in-built flexibility that monitors current and emerging situations with a
view to updating the strategic direction of an organization. It is an intended strategy for APB
to offer Tiger Beer on tap for its European consumers but the response for the offer would
trigger a series of realised strategies for the company and hence adequate anticipations.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 13

 Strategic Management

If APB were to go with pure intended strategy, the company would be drawing up perhaps a
five year plan and setting up procedures and marketing plans of penetrating the European
market for Tiger Beer. This strategy would adhere whether the company makes a profit or
loss. The emergent strategy suggests that the company should test the market by offering the
product on tap in a small market and depending on the response, form new ways of running
the business. This seems pretty much like what APB is currently doing under the Heineken
UK organisation. Again in this scenario, it seems like a combination of both strategies would
prove most effective. APB should set up a long term plan and drawing its current data from
the parent company, it should work out the best way to bring the product to the next level.

4.3 Strategic Fit versus Strategic Stretch

This paradox scrutinises the relationship of organisation and its competitive environment
with regards to the definition of strategy that is adopted. Ansoff (1984, p. 94) defined strategy
as a management responsibility ‘‘to position and relate the firm to its environment in a way
which will assure its continued success and make it secure from surprises.’’ Strategic fit
could be seen as having companies configuring a fit between its resources and the
opportunities it pursues (Hamel and Prahalad, 1993). On the other end of the stick, strategic
stretch focus on identifying a few core competencies, creating strategic alliances with
suppliers and exploiting these advantages to gain competitive edge and favourable
opportunities for the organization.

The elements of strategy fit include finding a fit between market opportunities to
organisation’s resources; gaining competitive advantage through correct positioning by
market need; find and defend niche; and reduce risk through the portfolio of products. On the
other hand, strategy stretch is identified with leveraging of organisation’s resources to
improve its value for money; differentiate based on competencies to gain competitive
advantage; survive by changing the rules of the game in the industry; and reduce risk through
portfolio of competencies (Johnson and Scholes, 1999).

Traditionally, beer breweries have their own pubs serving locally brewed beer to consumers
walking in to the pubs, hence their core competencies lay in the quality of the beer they
produced. Today, most beer brands offered on tap are owned by international groups
(Brandwood, 2006) with strong emphasis on branding and marketing (Medcalf, 2008). In this

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 14

 Strategic Management

paradox, it is again the marriage of both environmentally led fit and resource-led stretch
strategies that were going to prove most favourable for APB to adapt. APB identified the
market opportunities of offering exotic and authentic Asian beer as their positioning in the
European region. This is niche as it might appeal to a different group of drinkers since the
older generation tend to be quite loyal to their home brands. In this scenario, the organisation
has adopted a strategy fit concept. However, the strategy stretch concept suggests APB could
also ride on Heineken UK’s successful establishment to achieve its objectives by exploiting
their contacts and infrastructure resources.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 15

 Strategic Management

5.0 Conclusion

This assignment has looked at the various considerations of strategic management for a
company such as APB to participate more actively in the global market with its core brand of
Tiger Beer. We have looked at the brief history of the company and made suggestions on
strategic decisions based on the strategy paradoxes raised by leading strategists.

In order for APB to bring Tiger Beer on tap to Europe, we suggest that the company should
have a more relaxed approach when it comes to decision making. If the company decides to
set up an office in Europe, (divorce from Heineken UK) managers in the Europe office
should be given the authority to take charge and make business decisions instead of reporting
to head office in Singapore all the time. However, depending on the gravity of the situation,
head office should also be able to have a say in any major final decisions made. A balance
should be achieved here. Likewise, a combination of using intended and emergent strategies
as part of the business plan is important as long term objectives and goals need to be set. On
the other hand, managers should have the flexibility of changing such objectives or aims
depending on the market responses and needs. In order for APB to succeed in the European
market, it has to find its niche to appeal to the market but at the same time, it could also make
use of its parent company’s resources to leverage its position.

More importantly, APB needs to do both an internal and external audit to find its strengths
and weaknesses and overcome them to achieve its global aspirations. We suggest that APB
should work or merge with another brewer at this stage to provide its beer on tap. They
should also continue with its market positioning as a premium Asian beer to appeal for the
younger target consumers. Although we have also pointed out the various challenges and
obstacles in the European market competition, we also believe that with accurate analysis,
proper planning and an open to changes attitude approach, this move is highly possible to be
successful.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 16

 Strategic Management

6.0 References

Books:

1. Andrews, K. R., 1987. The concept of corporate strategy, 3rd Ed., Irwin, Homewood.

2. Ansoff, H. I., 1979. Strategic management, Macmillan, London.

3. Ansoff, H. I., 1984. Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice-Hall, London.

4. Ansoff, H. I., 1988. Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for
growth and expansion, Penguin, London.

5. Ansoff, H. I. & McDonnell, E. J., 1990. Implanting strategic management, Prentice-

Hall, London.

6. Chandler, A. D., 1962 Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the
Industrial Enterprise, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

7. DeWit, B. & Meyer, R., 1998. Strategy: process, content, context—An International
Perspective, West Publishing Co., Minneapolis.

8. De Wit, B. & Meyer, R., 1999. Strategy Synthesis, International Thomas Business
Press, London.

9. Hofer, C. W. & Schendel, D., 1978. Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts. West
Publishing Co., St Paul.

10. Huff, A. S., 1990. Mapping Strategic Thought, Somerset, NJ: Wiley.

11. Janis, I. L., 1982. Victims of Groupthink, Rev. ed., Houston Mifflin, Boston.

12. Johnson, G. & Scholes, K., 1999. Exploring corporate strategy: Text and cases, 5th
Ed., Prentice-Hall, London.

13. Johnson, G. & Scholes, K., 2002. Exploring corporate strategy, 6th Ed., Prentice-Hall,
London.

14. Kotler, P. & Cox, K., 1988. Marketing management and strategy, 4th Ed., Prentice-
Hall, London.

15. Mintzberg, H., 1994. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Hemel Hempstead,
UK: Prentice Hall.

16. Mintzberg, H., Lampel, L., and Ahlstrand, B., 1998. The strategy safari, Jossey–Bass,
San Francisco.

17. Porter, M. E., 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors, New York: Free Press.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 17

 Strategic Management

18. Porter, M. E., 1998. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior
performance, Free Press, New York.

19. Porter, M. E., 1998. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and
competitors, Simon and Schuster, New York.

20. Quinn, J. B., 1980. Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Homewood, IL:
Irwin.

21. Tai, J., 2008. Great Asian Brands: Tiger Beer. Marshall Cavendish Corp/Ccb.

22. Thompson, J. L., 1997. Strategic management: Awareness and change, International
Thomas Business Press, London

Journals:

23. Ansoff, H. I., 1987. The Emerging Paradigm of Strategic Behavior. Strategic
Management Journal 8, pp. 501-51 5.

24. Ansoff, H. I., 1991. Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s ‘The Design School:
Reconsidering the Basic Premises of Strategic Management’. Strategic Management
Journal 12, pp. 449-461.

25. Benson-Armer, R., Leibowitz, J. & Ramachandran D., 1999. Global Beer: What’s on
Tap? The McKinsey Quarterly 1, pp. 111-121.

26. Bourgeois, L. J., 1980. Performance and Consensus. Strategic Management Journal
1(3), pp. 227-248.

27. Bourgeois, L. J., 1985. Strategic Goals, Perceived Uncertainty, and Economic
Performance in Volatile Environments. Academy of Management Journal 28(3), pp.
548-573.

28. Bourgeois, L. J., McAllister D. W. & Mitchell, T. R., 1978. The Effects of Different
Organizational Environments Upon Decisions About Organization Structure.
Academy of Management Journal 21(3), pp. 508-514.

29. Bourgeois, L. J. & Brodwin, D. R., 1984. Strategy Implementation: Five Approaches
to an Elusive Phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal 5(3), pp. 241-264.

30. Bourgeois, L. J. & Eisenhardt, K. M., 1988. Strategic decision processes in high
velocity environments: four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management
Science 34(7).

31. Bourgeois, L. J. & Eisenhardt, K. M., 1988. Strategic decision processes in Silicon
Valley: The Anatomy of a ‘Living Dead’. California Management Review 30(1), pp.
143-159.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 18

 Strategic Management

32. Frederickson, J. W. & Mitchell, T. R., 1984. Strategic Decision Processes:

Comprehensiveness and Performance in an Industry with an Unstable Environment.
Academic Management Journal 27(2), pp. 399-42.

33. Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K., 1993. Strategy as Stretch and Leverage. Harvard
Business Review 71(2), pp 75-84.

34. Harrington, R. J., Lemak, D. J., Reed, R. & Kendall, K. W. 2004. A Question of Fit:
The Links among Environment, Strategy Formulation, and Performance. Journal of
Business and Management 10(1), pp. 15-38.

35. Isenberg, D. J., 2008. The Global Entrepreneur. Harvard Business Rev, pp. 107-111.

36. Mintzberg, H., 1978. Patterns In Strategy Formation. Harvard Business Rev, pp. 66-
75.

37. Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J. A., 1985. Of Strategies Deliberate and Emergent.
Strategic Management Journal 6, pp. 257-272.

38. Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A., 1985. Strategy Formation in an Adhocracy. Admin.
Science Quarter, 30, pp. 160-197.

39. Mintzberg, H., 1987. Crafting Strategy. Harvard Business Review 65(4), pp 66-75.

40. Mintzberg, H., 1987. The strategy concept, part I: Five p’s for strategy. California
Management Review 30(1), pp. 11–25.

41. Mintzberg, H., 1987. The strategy concept, part II: Another look at why organizations.
California Management Review 30(1), pp. 25–33.

42. Mintzberg, H., 1990. The Design School: Reconsidering the Basic Premises of
Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 11, pp. 171-195.

43. Mintzberg, H., 1991. Learning 1, Planning 0: Reply to Igor Ansoff. Strategic
Management Journal 12, pp. 463-466.

44. Nutt, P. C., Backoff, R. W. & Michael, F. 2000. Managing the Paradoxes of Strategic
Change. Journal of Applied Management Studies 9(1), pp. 5-31.

45. Porter, M. E., 1979. The structure within industries and companies’ performance.
Review of Economics and Statistics 61(2), pp. 214–27.

46. Porter, M. E., 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review 74(6), pp. 61-79.

47. Price, A. D. F. & Newson, E., 2003. Strategic Management: Consideration of

Paradoxes, Processes, and Associated Concepts as Applied to Construction. Journal
of Management in Engineering, pp. 183-192.

48. Quinn, J. B., 1978. Strategic change: ‘Logical incrementalism’. Sloan Management
Review 20(1), pp. 7–21.

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 19

 Strategic Management

49. Robertson, D. A., 2003. Agent-Based Models of a Banking Network as an Example of

a Turbulent Environment: The Deliberate vs. Emergent Strategy Debate Revisited.
Emergence 5(2), pp 56-71.

50. Roger, J. N., 1996. An Analysis of Deliberate and Emergent Strategies Relative to
Porter’s Generic Differentiator and Cost Leader: A Bias and Variance Modeling
Approach. Developments In Business Simulation & Experiential Exercises 23.

51. Selley, C., 2007. Imported beer: the price is right. Maclean’s 120(42), pp. 44.

52. Stoney, C., 2001. Strategic management or strategic Taylorism? A case study into
change within a UK Local Authority. International Journal of Public Sector
Management 14(1), pp. 27–42.

53. Vrontis, D., 1998. Strategic assessment: the importance of branding in the European
beer market. British Food Journal 100(2), pp. 76-84.

Internet:

54. Anon, 2010. Case Study Brand Watch: Tiger Beer. Event Magazine, pp. 26-27.
Available through: EBSCO [Accessed 27 November 2010].

55. Anon, 2010. Top four brewers account for over half world's beer. Reuters, [online]
Available at: <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE61723K20100208>
[Accessed 1 Dec 2010].

56. Asia Pacific Breweries, 2010. Corporate Profile. [online] Available at:
<http://www.apb.com.sg/corporate-profile.html> [Accessed 27 November 2010].

57. Brandwood, G., 2006. The vanishing faces of the traditional pub. [online] Brewery
History. Available at: <http://breweryhistory.com/journal/archive/123/Pub.pdf>
[Accessed 27 November 2010].

58. Datamonitor, 2010. Beer Industry Profile: Europe. [online] Available through
EBSCO [Accessed 27 November 2010].

59. Heineken UK, 2010. Specialty Brands. [online] Available at:

<http://www.heineken.co.uk/specbrand_tiger.php> [Accessed 27 November 2010].

60. Medcalf, G., 2008. Good On You, Mate. New Zealand Marketing Magazine, pp. 17-
22. Available through: EBSCO [Accessed 27 November 2010].

61. Theodore, S., 2009. Beer defies the odds. Beverage Industry 100(4), pp. 22-25.
Available through: EBSCO [Accessed 27 November 2010].

Submitted by Connie Tham Page 20