549 The SPACE Matrix: A Tool for Calibrating Competition Laetitia Radder and Lynette Louw The SPACE Matrix: Another Aid in Strategic Decision-making Competition is at the core of the success or failure of any organization. Competitive strategy, on the other hand, is the search for a favourable competitive po- sition in an industry and is aimed at establishing a profitable and sustainable position against the forces, that determin industry competition.’ Successful strategies are based on an understanding of the macro environment, the industry and the organization’s internal environment. Knowledge about the com- plexities of these environments enables the o} nization to better choose how and where to compete most effectively, given its products, services, capa- bilities and limited organizational resources. Various methods have conventionally been used to analyse the environment and determine the com- petitiveness of an organization, e.g., the Boston Con- sulting Group (BCG) approach, General Electric Stop- light Strategy, McKinsey’s Industry Attractiveness/ Company Strength Matrix, Profit Impact of Market Strategy (PIMS)" and Scenario Planning,’ Some limi tations of these techniques have, however, been indi- cated by Hunger and Whoelen,* Barnett and Wilstead,® Thompson and Strickland? and Dyson.” The SPACE (Strategic Position and Action Evalu- ation) Matrix’ is an attempt to overcome some of these limitations. Compared with, e.g., the McKinsey and General Electric portfolio approaches, where one of the axes of the matrix measures the overall attrac- tiveness of the industry in which the organization operates and the other axis represents the organ- ization’s ability to compote in its market(s), the SPACE method adds two key dimensions to tho matrix, ie, the industry’s stability or turbulence, and the orgenization’s financial strength. All four of the ree ee dimensions are assessed in terms of several factors, each of which is evaluated separately. Including a large number of factors enables the manager to exam- ine a particular stratogic alternative from several por- spectives, and therefore s/he is likely to select a better strategy. Pit S0024-0203(00)00059-2 Long Range Planning, Vol. 31, No. A, pp. 549 to 559, 1998, ‘© 1999 Blsevier Science Lid. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0024-6301/98 $19.0040.00550 After extensive consultation and discussion with business managers and consultants, it became clear that the SPACE method is not yet well-known in South Africa. Many of the managers and consultants however, were interested to learn more about it. Although tho SPACE method has been documented in literature,” there are fow published reports on its application or evaluation. Subsequent to the research. reported in this article, a large South African manu- facturer in a related industry has applied the SPACE method in making outsourcing decisions. As the SPACE method is useful in determining the appropriate strategic posture for an organization, the primary objective of this article is to make strategic planners aware of its potential. A secondary objective is to report on the application of the method in South Africa. Methodology After evaluating the profiles of qualitative and quan- titative research, as well as the criteria for the choice of the most appropriate research method," a quali- tative approach was chosen for this study. The prin- ciples of qualitative research also corresponded well with the objectives of the research, i.., to understand, rather than to predict, with a focus on interpretation. ‘The case study method as.a particular form of quali- tative research was used, taking the form of quali- tative interviews with senior management of all the manufacturers (five in total) in a specific South African industry. Senior management were inter- viewed in each case, but owing to the extreme com- potitiveness in the industry and the sensitivity of the data, none of the organizations or their respondents, are identified. For the illustrative purposes of this article, the three cases which best portrayed the appli- cability of the SPACE method were chosen and are reported on. ‘These organizations are further referred to as Organizations A, B and C. In applying the SPACE method, the methodology as reported by Rowe et al.”” was followed. No changes were made to the dimensions or the variables con- stituting these, as the purpose was to test the appli- cability of the method as proposed by the original authors. The perceived merits of the proposed method as applied in the current study, are evaluated in the concluding section of this article. ‘The basic mechanics of the SPACE method are dis- cussed in the next section, followed by a report on its application in a South African manufacturing situ- ation, The Dimensions ‘The strategic posture of an organization as deter- mined by means of the SPACE method, is based on The SPACE Matrix: A Tool for Calibrating Competition two internal dimensions and two external dimen- sions. The internal dimensions, i. financial strength and competitive advantage, are the major deter- minants of the organization's strategic position, whereas the external dimensions of environmental stability and industry strength characterize the stra- tegic position of the entire industry. The different dimensions result in an aggressive, competitive, con- sorvative or defensive strategic posture for the orga- nization. These postures, in turn, can be translated into generic competitive strategies, thus helping the manager to define the appropriate strategic thrust for the business, i.e., overall cost leadership, differ- entiation, focus or defensiveness. Each of the four dimensions comprises several key factors which are studied individually. The key fac tors which determine environmental stability (ES) include: technological change; rate of inflation; demand variability; price range of competing pro ducts; barriers to entry into the market; competitive pressure and price elasticity of demand. Factors dotormining industry strength (IS) include: growth and profit potential; financial stability: technological know-how; resource utilization; capital intensity; ease of entry into the market and productivity or capacity utilization, Competitive advantage (CA) is of specific importance to marketers. Critical factors in this dimension are: market share, product quality; product life cycles and product replacement cycles. Other variables include: customer loyalty; com petition’s capacity utilization; technological know- how and vertical integration. Factors influencing the fourth dimension, namely, financial strength (FS), include: return on investment; leverage; liquidity: ‘The manager now assigns appropriate values of botween 0 and 6 to each individual factor (See Table 1). The averages for each group of factors are then plotted on the SPACE chart. By connecting the ave- rage values plotted, a four-sided polygon displaying the weight and direction of the particular assessment is constructed. The strategic position can also be determined by adding the two scores on the axes opposite each other to obtain a directional vector that points toa specific location in the chart, as illustrated by Figure 1 The Strategic Postures Four basic postures are shown in the SPACE cl i.e., an aggressive posture, competitive posture, con- servative posture and defensive posture. The aggres- sive posture is typical in an attractive industry with stable economic conditions. Financial strength usu- ally enables an organization with this posture to pro:551 1. Factors determining environmental stability Technological changes Rate of inflation Demand variability Price range of competing products Barriers to entry into market Competitive pressure Price elastic Other ity of demand 2. Factors determining industry strength Growth potential Profit potential inancial stability Technological know-how Resource utilization Capital intensity Ease of entry into market Productivity/capacity utilization Flexibility, adaptability Other Factors determining competitive advantage Market share Product quality Product life cycle Product replacement cycle Customer loyalty Competition’s capacity Technological know-how Vertical integration Other 4, Factors determining financial strength Return on investment Leverage Liquidity Capital requiredicapital available Cash flow Ease of exit from market Risk involved in business Other Many 01234568 Few High 01234568 Low Large 0123456 ‘Small Wide 0123456 Narrow Fow 0123456 Many High 0123456 Low Elastic 0123456 Inelastic 0123456 Average Low 0123456 Low 0123456 Low 0123456 Simple 0123456 Complex Inefficient = 0 12:34 5 6 Efficient High 0123456 Low Easy 0123466 Difficult Low 0123456 High tow 0123456 High 0123456 Average ‘Small 0123456 Large Inferior 0123456 Superior Late 0123456 Variable 0123456 Low 0123456 Low 0123456 tow 0123456 Low 0123456 0123456 Average Low 0123456 High Imbalance 90123 45 6 Balanced Imbalance 90123456 Balanced High 0123456 Low Low 0123456 High Difficult 0123456 Easy Much 0123456 Little 0123456 Average tect its competitive advantage. Such an organization may also take full advantage of opportunities in its own or related industries, look for acquisition can- didates, increase market share and/or allocate resources to products that have a definite competitive edge. Entry of new competitors is, however, a crucial factor. A competitive posture is characteristic of an attrac- tiveindustry ina relatively unstableenvironment. The organization with such a posture is at a competitive advantage and could acquire financial resources to increase marketing thrust, add to the sales force, and improve or extend the product line. Such an orga- nization could also invest in productivity, cut costs, or merge with a cash-rich organization. Financial strength is, however, of critical importance. The conservative posture is distinctive of a low growth but stable market. The focus is on financial stability, while product competitiveness is the critical factor. In this situation organizations could prune their product lines, cut costs, make cash flow improvements, protect competitive products, focus on new product developments, and try to enter into more attractive markets A defining characteristic of the defensive posture is an unattractive industry where competitiveness is the critical factor. The organization finding itself in this dimension often lacks a competitive product and financial strength. It could prepare for retreat from the market, discontinue marginally profitable products, reduce costs and capacity and defer or minimize investments, Long Range Planning Vol. 31 August 1998‘CONSERVATIVE POSTURE (Directional vector) = DEFENSIVE POSTURE 552 AGGRESSIVE POSTURE ‘= (Polygon COMPETITIVE POSTURE Unstable The ‘eristics of the different strategic. pos: tures and their suggested associated strategies are summarized in Table 2.” Case Study: An Application in South African Industry The scores for the individual factors constituting the four dimensions, as indicated by the respondents, are summarized in Table 3, while Table 4 reflects the scores in the respective dimensions. ‘The data from Table 4 were used to construct the vectors as shown in Figures 2~4, These figures also summarize the strategic postures adopted by the three organizations and the suggested future actions. In the subsequent discussion, each of the four dimensions are commented on, followed by the SPACE chart and a discussion of the adopted strategic posture and re- commended action for the particular organization. Organization A Factors determining environmental __sta- bility. Tho score obtained for this dimension was 24, The industry in which the organization ope- rates is relatively stable, The critical factors which dominate this dimension in the particular industry are: high competitive pressure; high rate of inflation; many barriers to entry; and high price elasticity of The SPACE Matrix: A Tool for Calibrating CompetitionDimension (2 \___ |: ete ni il RAL suing | Environment Industry Competitiveness Financial strength Appropriate strategies Strategic postu Aggressive Competitive Conservative Defensive Stable Unstable Stable Unstable Attractive Attractive Unattractive Unattractive Strong Strong Weak Weak High Weak High Weak Growth—possibly by Cost reduction, Cost reduction and Rationalization acquisition productivity product/service improvement, raising rationalization Divestment as Capitalize on ‘more capital to follow appropriate opportunities Innovate to sustain competitive advantage ‘opportunities and. strengthen competitiveness Possibly merge with a less competitive but cash-rich organization Invest in search for new products, services and competitive opportunities 1. Factors determining environmental stability Technological change Rate of inflation Demand variability Price range of competing products Barriers to entry into market Competitive pressure Price elasticity of demand 2. Factors determining industry strength Growth potential Profit potential Financial stability Technological know-how Resource utilization Capital intensity Ease of entry into market Productivity/capacity utilization Flexibility, adaptability Low Low Low Simple Inefficient High Easy Low Low ‘Many High Large Wide Few High Elastic 3. Factors determining competitive advantage Market share Product quality Product life cycle Product replacement cycle Customer loyalty Compotition’s capacity Technological know-how Vertical integration ‘Small Inferior Late Variable Low Low Low tow 4. Factors determining financial strength Return on investment Leverage Liquidity Capital requiredicapital availeble Cash fiow Ease of exit from market Risk involved in business Low Imbalance Imbalance High Low Difficult Much ‘Small Narrow Many Low Inelastic High High High Complex Efficient Low Difficult High High Large ‘Superior Early Fixed High High High High High Balanced Balanced Low High Easy Little Long Range Planning Vol. 31 ‘August 1998,564 Organization Environmental stability (ES) ~ 2.4 29 26 Industry strength (1S) 40 43 38 Competitive strength (CA) 18 24 20 Financial strength (FS) 33 24 31 Razhesiaaaas TT IT ee (es) Concentric diversification Concentration Vertical integration ‘ Ficune 2. SPACE char for Organization A. demand. The industry segment is highly competitive, signifying that the market is well covered by rival organizations. This in turn implies that market entry would be relatively difficult for new entrants. Accord~ ing to the respondents of the organization, numerous barriers to entry exist which include high capital out- lays, high technological research and development costs, and most significantly, the increasing threat of substitute products in the form of imports. The reason for the high price elasticity of demand can be attri- ‘The SPACE Matrix: A Tool for Calibrating Competition buted to the fact that price reductions in the industry have a short-term effect on market share. Organization A attempted to achieve higher profitability by main- taining premium prices for its products. Factors determining industry strength. ‘The score for industry strength was 4.0, Such a score is typical of a relatively stable industry. The factors con- tributing to this situation are high capital intonsit low growth potential; high productivity/capacity uti-OPTION 2 +if not proactive could move to defensive posture -& 8 Moved from aggressive s strategy in 1970's and 1980's Concentric ‘Conglomerate merger TURNAROUND ‘internal restructuring ‘clear corporate position *SPU corporate position lization; high technological know-how; and sound Sinancial stability. Expansion of production capacity or diversity requires large capital outlays, empha- sizing the need for financial stability. Organization A displayed a healthy financial position, allowing it to invest in research and development programmes essential for maintaining market leadership in the industry segment. The organization's high toch- nological know-how and stable financial resources helped it to maintain a cost leadership position. All the respondents of Organization A were in agreement that the total industry is characterized by a slow growth rate. However, the specific industry segment is displaying the highest growth within the industry. Factors determining competitive advan- tage. It is apparent from the dimension score of =155 that the organization has a very strong com- petitive advantage within the industry segment (the lower the negative score, the stronger the competitive advantage). The distinguishing factors contributing to competitiveness include: good product quality; tech- nological know-how; moderate competitor capacity utilization; and high market share, At the time of the study, Organization A had the highest market share in the industry segment. This could be attributed to the all-round performance superiority displayed by its new product, supported by rapid and superior technological innovation. An effective marketing campaign contributed to creating the perception of a superior product image for their new product. Factors determining financial strength. A healthy financial position was reflected by a score of 3.3. The important factors in this dimension are: difficulty of exit from the market; high capital required and capital availability; moderate return on investment, as well as balanced financial leverage and liquidity. The large capital outlay required during set- up acts as a barrier to entry in the market and further Long Range Planning Vol. 31 August 1998results in a high commitment on entry into the indus- try. This also implies a difficulty in exit from the industry, as assets cannot be sold easily. Entry can, however, be attained through the organi ' acquisition by large conglomerates. Interpretation of adopted strategic posture and recommended actions. The co-ordinates of the directional vector (2.5; 0.9) as shown in Figure 2, indicate that Organization A has successfully adopted an aggressive posture and is well entrenched in this, industry segment. The organization exhibits a definite competitive advantage which can be protected with financial strength. Its superiority in the industry seg- ment can be ascribed to numerous factors, which include superior product innovation and tech- nological research, skilful marketing, excellent capacity utilizatis creasing market share, and excellent management with a strategic. focus and a healthy financial position. The only ‘The SPACE Matrix: A Tool for Calibrating Competition EARLY ADOPTER: AGGRESSIVE Concentric diversification Concentration Vertical Integration cal factor is that of entry of new competitors in terms of imports and major strategic moves by existing rival organizations. At the time of the study, Organization A was fol- lowing a strategy of overall cost leadership within the adopted strategic posture. A strategic planning process has allowed it to withstand any problems that have arisen and has laid the foundation for future success. Full advantage can be taken of opportunities within the industry segment (concentration) and/or it can search for acquisition candidates in its own or related industries (concentric diversification) or even follow a strategy of vertical integration. Organization B Factors determining environmental _ sta- bility. ‘The score of ~2.9 obtained for this dimen- jon indicate that Organization B experienced the industry segment as moderately stable. The critical557 factors which dominate this dimension are low tech- nological changes; high price range of competing products; and high barriers to entry into the market. Low technological changes imply that new product innovations are introduced to the market at medium term intervals. Technological research for the specific product of Organization B is done abroad, while the fine tuning and development are done locally. Conse- quently, the launching of a new product (from research to introduction to the market) takes approxi: mately two-four years. The sentiment conveyed by the respondents of Organization B was that competing products in this industry segment vary in price and that brand choices are made by consumer/dealers pri marily on performance criteria. Consumers in this industry segment reportedly tend to link price criteria with variables such as product status, when making their final brand choice. High entry barriers can be attributed to high set-up costs and the high cost associated with purchasing technology from abroad Factors determining industry strength. An industry strength score of 4.3 was obtained, once more implying that the industry in which the orga- nization functions is relatively stable and attractive High profit potential, high technological know-how, relatively high resource utilization and difficult entry into the market are the contributing factors. It was commonly acknowledged by the respondents that this particular industry segment is a very profitable one, but that exit therefrom is very difficult because of the high cost associated with ‘dead assets’. Exit can be achieved through the acquisition of the organization by arival manufacturer. Factors determining competitive advan- tage. A compotitive advantage score of —2.4 was registered. The factors contributing to this dimension soore are relatively high market share, high product quality and a comparatively lower dealer loyalty. The relatively high market share which Organization B enjoyed can be ascribed to high product quality and to the perception held by local consumers that its product is imported. Factors determining financial strength. A below average financial score of 2.4 was recorded for Organization B. The factors that led to this situation are high capital requirements, moderate cash flow, high risk involved in business and difficult exit from the market. The organization attempted to maintain a balanced capital structure between equity and debt financing to avoid financial distress costs, while maintaining a moderate cash flow. The two factors that offset this dimension score are difficult exit from the industry and high risk associated with the par- ticular line of business. Interpretation of adopted strategic posture and proposed actions, _ On examining the dimension scores and vector as shown in Figure 3, it is evident that Organization B has adopted a competitive stra- tegic posture in the industry segment. It is possible that this organization may be forced into a defensive strategic position in the future, should the negative shift not be countered. The aim of the organization should possibly be to return to the aggressive strategic posture which it previously held. In doing so, Orga- nization B could follow the generic strategy of dif- ferentiation that is intended to add value to its prod- uct. Such a strategy would require skilful marketing efforts accompanied by product innovation and superior product engineering. Alternatively, the organization could consider following a strategy of turnaround. A turnaround strategy suggests that restructuring of middle management should be an issue high on the organization’s agenda. Middle ma- nagement could be made leaner, allowing for minor cost reductions, which could be utilized in a new marketing effort. Tactics which could also be implemented include early retirements, ‘golden handshakes’ and retrenchments, if necessary. Top management could start thinking more strategically and formulate a clear corporate vision for the orga nization as a whole and for each of its business units. A skilful marketing effort accompanied by superior product innovation would probably allow Orga nization B to maintain a high market share and a com- petitive strategic posture and could increase capacity utilization, The business needs to identify a corporate position within the organization and this, together with management restructuring, could’ lead to success. Organization C Factors determining environmental _ sta- bility. The score obtained for environmental stab- ility in the case of Organization C was —2.6. Like the other two organizations, the respondents of Organ- ization C viewed the environment as being mod- tely stable, Factors determining industry strength. The perception of a relatively strong industry was reflected by the score of 3.8. The extreme factors with an influence on industry strength were indicated to be complex technological know-how and high entry barriers, offset by low industry growth potential. Complex technological know-how was also regarded as one of numerous entry barriers that exist when functioning in this specific industry, Organization C’s, affiliation with major internationally based orga- nizations allows it to keep abreast of technological advancement within the industry. Although high costs are incurred in purchasing technology, it allows Long Range Planning Vol. 31 August 1998558 the organization to maintain its aggressiveness in the marketplace and maintain technological pace with the increasing threat from imported products. Factors determining competitive advantage. Organization C has a distinct competitive advantage within the industry segment as indicated by a score of —2.0. Important factors are moderate market share, superior product quality, fixed replacement cycles, relatively high customer loyalty and advanced tech- nological know-how. The launch of a new product, accompanied by an aggressive marketing campaign was, however, expected to boost the existing mod- erate market share. With the introduction of its new product and the elimination of a les the organization moved into gaining a competitive advantage and adopting an aggressive strategic. posture. The new product was aimed at achieving a high market share through offering the consumer superior product quality at competitive prices. Fur- wanagement at Organization C hoped to maintain high customer loyalty and take full advan- tage of the international technology available to it, Factors determining financial strength. A sa- tisfactory financial position was illustrated by a score of 3.1. The important factors in this dimen the balanced leverage and liquidity, high degree of difficulty associated with exit from the market and good cash flow position. Organization G put a high value on maintaining a balanced leverage position to avoid financial distress costs, and on maximizing the tax advantage associated with debt usage, thereby enabling the financing of aggressive ventures when opportunities arise within the market. Interpretation of adopted strategic posture and suggested actions, On interpreting the dimen- sion scores for Organization C and the underlying factors influencing them, it is clear thet the organ- ization can adopt an aggressive strategic posture within the industry segment as shown in Figure 4 This posture was based on its distinct competitive advantage and stable financial position. The direc- tional vector co-ordinates of 1.8 and 0.5, however, indicate that the organization is an early adopter and has not yet settled into this posture. It previously held a defensive stratogic posture in the industry segment due to the poor performance of one of its products. In the interim Organization C has moved from the defensive posture through the competitive strategic posture as was ovident by the turnaround and con glomerate strategies followed as reported by the respondents. Organization C’s involvement in the generic strategy of product differentiation for its new product supported this move towards the aggressive strategic posture, ‘The SPACE chart, as shown in Figure 4, indicates, that as an early adopter of an aggressi ture, Organization C could strive to attain the generic strategy of overall cost leadership. Possible alter natives are concentric diversification, concentration and vertical integration. In order to maintain its cur rent posture, the organization has to ensure higher market share, establish a distinct competitive advan- tage and a strengthened financial position which can be achieved by adopting a cost leadership strategy. Organization C has to urgently address the issue of increased market share and capacity utilization, as the increasing threat of imported products may make it difficult to do so in future Concluding Remarks The case study indicated that the SPACE method as proposed by Rowe et al." can be used effectively as an aid in rational decision-making in a manufacturing situation as its four dimensions provide for a more in- depth analysis than is possible with some of the other two-dimensional models. A number of caveats, how- ever, exist, namely: @ It is not clear exactly how the list of factors con- stituting each of the four dimensions was selected. ‘The current list is probably not exhaustive and could also include factors such as internal capa- bilities. @ When the SPACE method is applied to industries, other than manufacturing, another list of factors and even dimensions may have to be constructed, paying attention to key success factors, while being caroful not to include factors of negligible importance. @ It is doubtful that the individual factors in each dimension are of equal importance. A universal rating or weighting system may overcome this problem. @ Itis uncertain whether the level of importance of each factor will remain unchanged with changes in the environment. Rowe et al.” attempted to sme this problem by proposing the SUPER 1g two items, i.e., the relative importance of each factor and the chance of sus taining the importance level of the factor. By mul- tiplying these two items, a combined effect is obtained. Whereas the SPACE method assumes that the various factors will continue at th rent lovels in the future, the SUPER SPACI cates the likelihood of the factors remaining at the same level @_A measure of market share of the firm as well as a measure of industry size may have to be included to make comparisons more realistic. ‘The SPAC Matrix: A Tool for Calibrating Competition559 The findings of the case study in general support the claims by the developers of the SPACE method that it provides a comprehensive approach which gives managers at all levels of the organization an additional way of considering the many different fac- tors relevant to proposing ¢ particular strategy. Apart decision-making, the major advantage of the SPACE method is that by forcing managers to carefully asses: each factor in the four dimensions, they can more effectively examine alternatives and achieve consen- sus, Italso helps them to recognize the significance of each of the factors needed to maintain a competitive from providing managers with another aid in rational posture in the industry. References 1. M.E, Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press, New Vork 1885) 2, S.P. Schaars, Marketing Strategy: A Customer-driven Approach, Free Press, New York (i990) 4. J. Jeannet and H. D. Hennessey, Global Marketing Strategies, Houghton Mifflin Co... Boston (1982), 4, J.D. Hunger and T.L. Wheelan, Strategic Management, 4th Edition, Addison Wesley, Massachusetts (1983), 5, J. H. Barnett and W. 0. Wilstead, Strategic Management—Concepts and Cases, PWS- ient Publishing, Boston (1988), 6. A.A. Thompson (Jt) and A.J. Strickland (Il), Strategic Management—Concepts and Cases, th Edition, Irwin, Chicago (1996) 7. R.G, Dyson, Strategie Planning: Models and Analytical Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1880), 8. A.J. Rowe, R. D. Mason, K. E. Dickel, R. B. Mann & A. J. Mockler, Strategic Management: ‘A Methodological Approach, 4th Edition, Addison-Wesiey, Massachusetts (194). 9. J.L. Thompson, Strategie Management: Awareness and Chango, 3rd Edition, Chapman & Hill, London (1997), G.M. Khan and €. A. Al-Buarki, Strategic planning in Bahrain, Management Decision 30(5) (1992) 11. C. Homburg, Strategieformulierung mit hilfe von Space, Zeitschrift fur Planung 1(1) (1980) 12. K. Reese, Strategie Management and Corporate Restructuring, Southern Book, Halfway Houso (1994), G. J. Hooley and J. Saunders, Competitive Positioning: The Key to Market Success, Prentice Hall, New York (1993) R. Bennet, How is management research carcied out? In N. G. Smith and P. Dainty (eds) The Management Research Handbook, Routledge, London (1991), A.J. Rowe et a, op cit (1994), A.J. Rowe ot a, op cit. 1994), J.-L Thompson, op cit. (1987). A.J. Rowe et al. op cit (1994) A.J. Rowe et a, op cit (1994), 10. 13, 14 18. 16 v. 18, 19. Me iad Dr‘dwetitie! Radder is a She haga ment at at thé! Port Elizabeth, Teghnikon, South Africa. turer in ment a Africa. Lynette Louw is @ lec- shePeperiment of Busi ‘Manago- of Port Elizabeth, South it the University Long Range Planning Vol. 31 ‘August 1998