Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AT
ILLINOIS ^
L' BR
URBANA-CHAWIPAIGN
,
iris
BOOKSTACKS
- I
DATE DUE
PRINTED IN U SA
GAYLORD
SI
5
BEBR
FACULTY WORKING
PAPER NO. 1238
AviFiegenbaum
John McGee
Howard Thomas
April 1*86
A v i Fiegenbaum, Assistant
Department of Business Administration
John McGee
Temple ton College, Oxford
http://www.archive.org/details/exploringlinkage1238fieg
ABSTRACT
Since Hunt (1972) coined the term "strategic groups" in his study
theoretical and empirical, has used this concept in different ways for
tegy analysis:
duct terms. (See McGee and Thomas (1986) for a comprehensive dis-
cussion. )
competitors for a given firm (i.e., the industry) has become increas-
These comments indicate that the problem of defining the firm's com-
"white goods" industry, Hunt (1972) coined the term "Strategic Group"
group .
entry barriers (Bain (1956), Vernon (1972), Scherer (1980)) and devised
that barriers not only protect firms in a strategic group from entry
group to another.
the industry and hence both the average profit and the dispersion of
competitive strategy.
the word "strategy" means. Therefore, the first part of this section
Strategy
"comes from the Greek strategos , a 'general' which in turn comes from
from the concept itself. He also ignored the important strategic link
between the firm and its environment. However, Chandler's study was
tion and the meaning of the concept. Many other authors (e.g.,
(1970), Ackoff (1970), Paine and Naumes (1974), Glueck (1976)), also
that will be taken by the firm in order to achieve its goals. The
(1962), Cannon (1968), Andrews (1971), Drucker (1974), and Steiner and
tunities and risks present in the external environment and the organi-
the firm and its environment. In contrast to the linear model the
(1980), Gluck et. al (1982) employ this model. Finally, Chaffee calls
groups and stakeholders can affect the firm's strategy and, therefore,
interpretive model.
considered:
-6-
4. Synergy that is, the joint effects that are sought from
,
define what may be called the Strategic Space (SSP). Either intended
or realized strategy can be drawn on this space (item 5). Item (2)
Since Hunt (1972) coined the term, both theoretical and empirical
In this paper the review of studies on strategic groups falls into the
following categories.
that market structure influences the market conduct of the firms and
that all firms are profit maximizers and sharing the constraints of
empirical studies (e.g., Comanor and Wilson (1967), Hall and Weiss
Bass, Cattin and Wittink (1978)) have confirmed that firms' profits in
In the last decade, more attention has been paid to the relevance
conduct should be the primary focus for research (see Porter (1981a)
studies (e.g., Hatten (1974), Patton (1976)) have shown that firm-
Hunt (1972) realized that within the industry, groups of firms use
profit and strategy were found for firms in different strategic groups
between Che industry and the firm for analyzing the nature of com-
petitive strategy.
entry barrier (Bain (1956)) idea. Theories about entry barriers argue
that existing firms are protected from new entrants into the industry
the like. The mobility barriers theory argues that barriers impede
not only newcomers but also firms in the same industry but with dif-
steps
-11-
groups, the strategic distance among strategic groups, and the market
interdependence among groups are the major variables which define con-
the groups have equal size, then the greater is the rivalry among them
when few strategic groups exist, and the size distribution of these
groups is not equal, this structure gives advantage to the large stra-
groups, the more difficult will be any tacit collusion, and the more
competitors.
(1979)).
strategies are more suited to market conditions than others, and can
tunities. McGee (1985) and McGee and Thomas (1986) categorized the
from what Lippman and Rumelt (1981) called the concept of "uncertain
,
iraitability " meaning that even if a firm wants to replicate the stra-
group compete amongst each other can also affect the average profit of
the group relative to other groups. When firms in the same strategic
group try to improve their position, other firms may retaliate, and
managed, controlled than others, which will give them superior perfor-
within the strategic group may influence its performance. Fourth, the
ability of the firm to implement its strategy may affect its perfor-
mance.
Why and how do strategic groups form? How do they behave over
time? How do firms move within and between groups? These questions
(Williamson (1963).
maximize the same goals (utility function) and yet found that they
the industry (Porter 1980; 49), which may lead them to behave dif-
ferently.
different ways.
-15-
this viewpoint. First, firms in the same strategic group have similar
(1980)). Secondly, strategic group members have similar goals and the
members are expected to react in the same way (Caves and Porter (1977:
step further, firms within the same strategic group have similar
(Caves and Porter (1977), McGee and Thomas (1986)), uncertain inst-
(1985)) may induce firms to remain in the same strategic group. Three
proposition. Oster (1982) observed that few firms moved between the
two strategic groups she defined (as below and above the industry
((1983), (1985)) also found low level of firm movement among strate-
goals, skills, and the strategic barriers that prevent firms from
easily moving among strategic groups explain this phenomenon, and stu-
unstable (e.g., Dess and Beard (1984)) and that firms are trying to
and Friesen (1980), Hofer and Schendel (1978), Chaffee (1985)). The
-17-
concept of dominant strategy assumes that only firms which have the
model)
-18-
group behavior over time have been examined here. Tt is argued that
Some of the important issues arising from these empirical studies are
in the research of Hunt (1972), Newman (1973, 1978) and Ramsler (1982),
level strategy, since the criterion variables for grouping were the
such as Porter (1979), Oster (1982), Primeaux (1983, 1985), Ryans and
Frazier and Howell (1983) and Hawes and Crittenden (1984) defined
the components of the firm's strategy (Column 3). Most of the studies
Schendel (1978)) but some of them used both these components (Ramsler
(Mintzberg (1978)) Column 4). Most studies have used the realized
stud-ies, Dess and Davis (1984), and Hawes and Crittenden (1984) appear
Fourth, many industries have been studied. They range from con-
groups. Only Oster (1982), Ryans and Wittink (1985), and Fiegenbaum
strategic groups (see Column 7). Some of the authors used such single
(1982)), and security prices (Ryans and Wittink (1985)). Other writers
we mean that the writer had information about the industries that,
sort the firms logically into strategic groups (e.g., Hunt (1972),
various studies (see Column 9). In one case no single strategic group
tified (e.g., Newman (1973, 1978), Baird and Sudharshan (1983)). Each
-22-
specified. The main conclusion of Hunt's (1972) study, which was the
springboard for the whole field of research, was that strategic group
The low level of movement seen in these studies may have important
variables and typically use cluster analysis with data bases such as
provide insights into the groupings which make sense to managers and
researchers and managers make better sense of the strategic group con-
cept.
In the next section, the linkage between strategic groups and com-
barriers (Caves and Porter (1977)) that protect strategic group mem-
bership from attack by other firms. For firms which are in the
that protect them can aid their strategic planners in making decisions
key strategic barriers. On the other hand, a firm which wants to move
petitive skills and strengths, hence provide the firm with a "gateway"
groupings.
-25-
set of competitors for a given firm is not always clear. Porter (1980)
suggested that firms in the same strategic group should recognize each
i
-- strategic structure within
The theorv of the
- - - -- an industry and
- - -
2
interfirm performance difference s
to this theory and the empirical findings that partially support it,
performance profiles.
industry (SGI, SG2) and two performance measures, risk and return, are
with each strategic group. This information may help strategic plan-
ners. For example, should firms stay in the same strategic group and
(and variables) for each strategic group and indicate how they differ
ROE (a performance measure), was examined for each strategic group. For
the national brewer strategic group and for the small regional brewer
coefficients of 0.15 and 0.33 respectively). On the other hand, for the
groups. Similar patterns can be found for other key strategic dimen-
groups are competing for the same customers, and the strategic
within industries.
Oster (1982), and Fiegenbaum and Primeaux (1983, 1985) found a low
hinder shifts between groups and thus explain the low level of move-
Some future strategic group positions may appear more attractive as the
firm considers the match between its skills and the available environ-
mental opportunities.
SUMMARY
group concept (McGee and Thomas (1986)). The main problem is that
firms' strategy. They range from one variable (e.g., market share) to
many variables. Most of the studies have treated the problem sta-
later study Hatten and Hatten (1985) found that both group membership
Huff, Thomas, and Fiegenbaum (1985) argued for more research into
its expectations and objectives are not stable over time, it is reaso-
of strategy.
ment (Hofer and Schendel (1978: 12)). Most would argue that a firm's
organization and for each time period can be depicted in terms of the
for each level of the organization, for each strategic component, and
for each time period as well as for any combination of the three.
with industry participants has been reported except in the case of the
Purdue brewing industry studies (Hatten (1974) and others) and the more
recent studies of Frazier and Howell (1983), Dess and Davis (1984) and
home appliance industry and by Hatten (1974) and Patton (1976) on the
brewing industry.
CONCLUSIONS
strategic groups can throw light upon the character and performance
Ref erences
219-224.
A23-440.
137-151, 1983.
Drucker, P. F. Management:
, Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices . New
York: Harper and Row, 1974.
Gluck, F. Kaufmann, S.
, and Walleck, A. S. "The Four Phases of
, ,
9-21.
319-331.
275-287.
297-313.
515-531.
214-219.
No. 4, 609-620.
Primeaux, W. J., "A Method for Determining Strategic Groups and Life
Cycle Stages of an Industry." In H. Thomas and Gardner, D. M.
(eds.), Strategic Marketing and Management . Chichester: John
Wiley, 1985.
25-37.
-38-
262-268.
1972.
D/372
Figure 1
TIME
i<?r
Resource Competitive
\C\-yt
s^ Scope Deployment Advantage Synergism
Enterprise
Corporate
Business
Functional
LEVEL
Risk ...
3h
Return (ROE)
Cf s*e cjf ee
A 3 A «w 3
-1 Q. v_ n.
a. -•
55
od a.
^ft"
ft-2.?
O
ss ft
ft rt 5
a
*- CT — *-
3 i 3 N 3 1 3
a
w D -D O
C
ft
I r. -.
»- 3" —
a.
c c r> *» £^8
r» 3 (1 1
Z" 1
O. (V)
•< r»
3 ft
ft r*
t?
»
3- •»
ft PI
en
n
O
*-
-1
frB
3 3
r»
ft
c
a.
*•
i a 00 B •— » c A •*
» • n 3 3 •"• • a
ft oq n m "i
^3- — •* o n a
-
-H • 3
ft ft
e ft r» *- C •O n
n "1 n 1
ft B » *- A <
ft 3 r» 3 3 a •
n a. ft O.M A "I
r»
3* •-
O w
O ft »
» »
- ~
A A
»-0Q
n 3"
O A
» o
« D o
o c
•—
oq
»i
-3
n
•*» 3 o> n i E
o 3
ft c c
3
a »- m a. - -
o
c y
c «-
ft
A
OQ Q. •—
o
o A
a oq
"O
o
a.
c
C C B
•
rt 0Q
no
r» ft
O
B
"0 ft* c • rt n
-i ft
a
ft
r>
A
ft
ft
ft
o
ft
o
n »n • •— D a O 3 « n 3 3
ft O • n a. ft c — fl a c a c il
r» C O ft c H A & 1 *1
n *j ft 3 o -o ft *o C * ft A rt
* •
OQ 5 a rt n n Q *Q 3 •^ I £
ft r» *1
o. B • o •i ft &
n •
o n
*7J 0. o ft o o
o
c =r E a.
no
»- o
ft
»-
•-
* ^
ft
o A o o c
a. o
«-t
ft
n
a
•
D
k
ft B
• — H n c a m — —
O ft f
8 « 2 3- < ft 3 C ft 3 6 ft 1 c 9
r. g >• n ft ft ft ft 0Q "ft ft
<r •* i - - - « r- 1 - 3 - - 3- ft
~ ~. 1 ft O >• B 3- ft n r» ft rt 3 -- >- ft r. ft
3
a
11* i
<
# 3
~ 1
ft
00
ft
^ B
ft
W»-&.••»
ftG. ft 3 •*
^
ft
OQ
"
ft
ft
OQ ^
ft
•—
3 1
Q.
ft
0Q 1
C =r 3 ft X ft ft •• *^ ft •» 3 »-
o o
»-l ft C « ** ft
ft m rt • O r. **
ft 3* O
r>
n
^3 » ~ 8 C 3 06 3" ft ft ^ •— r*
n
ft 3
ft ft o i c a. O
OQ
•-
^ » T) C * - C 1 ' ^< ^i i
n
_ a 3 o o
ft k* ft ft >- •*» r> -
ft 3 ft O « r. . _ o • 3- C "* CT 3* O C OQ
i C " •_ ft •o CX ft •* •- «-»
C . ft ft
• — -O ft
a
— •»
ft ft O ft ••
—
- ft
M
.- ct -o - «
-. - n p >- ft r. . O
•» •> ft — t • « r. r 3 ft C
•• o y "8 c « •
ft ft ft " 3 ft r. ft
»-
•« 3"
3 CT 3 3" 6 -< 3- ft ft r» ft
I a. — n < ft • 3
r»
3
C
b X ^»»
K. -« ^ 6. — "I if
?
pi
ub
w •
p,
a.
•
8 A
1 3
oo
>• tr
rt D
f "> ?2
If
O. 1 A A
•> A
Op- O » o
o c o c
n
— • -a
I! S
S.-S
C «"
c » • 1
r> O
a B
rt 3 r»
»&
pi B
I*
!
p
O. in
E-? < "
3 »
• n
E."
— • O rt
S^S
5.2 -
3
E no
a w o.
*^
>
I
3 b 3 i»« '
c «•
oob"CB3*o
S "
3-
B " A
S.
O. •» i» «"»
3"
n o
3
O
i-l
vc
OQ
3 -
d
n n
rt
«
t c r»
"**
</>'
'
1 3
A 00
n »» o •
S o n er
03<-»3p-B3*A
B O. A »" 3 • I
- O
111
(t -> I
~>
I
- A
A 3
S rt n r ' _
I
A O n A r> A B O • —
•<»» se •» » — =
— •OC
•o r. P- T O.
o
O r. A n o >-
"
3 •
p- A < 1 • r
•
«J
O A B « M
•11
<
•
A
<
3 »
n o
>< 00
pi
M ** 3*00
BOC p» •
p- n on c
o <>
A ^ O
""
* o P-TO R *» O
on < O
p| n n
C US:
T> 3 3
B r» 0Q
B ft <X O : ?
So" a. r* A rt 1 *••
g A o e • a — O "»
B A
i c S n i n« ^OC
3 ft "*
<*
It
t— A p*
A
C "^
n B t-
o •— 2 3 -• A "O
A A A
• re »»
3 A pi • n
• rt tm * fta »ft n A A 3 B A A •0 3 <
3 B < OX O "• p- « A
< 8 «»00 »- rt
- a a A i b« 5 3 | 3
•D « r> A a. —
r»
O
»--.
ft
-i
3
« - — B 3 O A O n p-
rt, *% rt
IB 3 H n C "" E o
— — C
• O
a.
0Q o n »
rt
nOQ B» A "O B A B
n A
B
O*
rt
00
p-
r*
ft i X 3" Oa rt K OO B t O- B ty I 1 O 3
C 00 p.
o o n rt *-.
r» A
B B B
3 B n c B- ft B 1 •* 3* r* •O •*
00 B 11< o -o " ° * ^ C A p» A •
B
O.
r%
A
n ft
a
. 3
<
** rt
— .00
B C
00 -o
- 00B
~ a
A 3-3
a
JT
a. BUB *1
B
r-
a a _
O r
*- n -* "- £
oc
n
e
<» 3 ft
rt
• C ' 3 ~ •
: f"
O 3 00 3 rt n
k «
cr 3
O.
»-
ft
Ff c?e
CD *
f
.6 vc a.
i n
S JT
zzo
«•
ft
n o
!•
— o •- 3
fit
a. i
* • ft ft
"O
- O
o2 oca S.P
n • an•
r>
li 1 ft *- A
r.
^O
BA• a« » O **-»! ^ n • ^
3 ~
so
is* Cnsn
O ac
3
a a
3"
—
"O
1 »
O -o
T3 cr oq
h i A 3* c
O 0> D • T3
tj
H 3
O
•»
fcV
kj
3* K>
A
o a *»
r» » •* r* OQ C — a.A a.o a ** a o. -•.
• -
*—H
•» -i
*»
-
ft — "o
,i •
r»
cr
*n
n
p
Cn
o
c a. n d n
O •* • d
c
ft
»
*-
-o
to
—
n
'
ft
» a
3* A
— • A A A A rr nOQ O rt»->-B
• ft* • •*> n n
*l
*<C*
to
• AM a*,
to
i-, » ~ D •
y»- D lm DO *-. O
o
O |T
1 A
A n
•
I ft* I C EL •*
s i
E-o
1— » n .tola) K> »—
*- »» r» ft a 00 It s c 3 c
O 1 1 13 3 cl a
ZB < 3 a ft n <
B
O
3 a a o o o
O" rr
»— a
ft
*1
—
<-?
ft
OQ
r*
ft
r|
Nh
o.
a
g
-o
t~>
o
ft
c B
at n
to
1 •t
a> ?tc
» o
a»
:£< *-
* >< p 3 m 3 r» »-i A n n ** a -^. n n
or a n o" Of O 3 ft 3 r» m • n
i » a •- O. 1 — B OQ 3 n "^j»
—
r*
a • a • *• a.
-.n ft H to a> ®
«-> «o a B « •• o CD « a <* «
a r» n* m C fi» O *—m
9 »»
3
I o a
»
§ .
3
OQ
I
«i o a x 2.;
r.
n
r. H
•- EE ft a
o »•
c —
BS*
^- It 3 *U •» ~ot
oa n» - w n > >• o —
o
3 C O 3
O" 3 * «
tfc 5
« •* n
2? *-*.»» »
f>
oo oo at
• or a
•»o n «» B • n n -l «^* c
o « a • » a •* A 1 A • i B o o *.
n C a i a a *— n B * -*
a t a < n a - it m •»
a
•m,
i a — » o - 3
< n n
«1 M—
a o < O r» S
n •• • »
<
a a O
•
*- • n
o
o
3- O a
to
"
a O 3 o.
a
f»
5 «- -
- r» c a
S 1
c a
o• -
C r. a
a a a
•^
o 1
•i c
to A A A
1 OQ n
A
3
ft
"B 1
O A 3
A
»>>)•« A <1 1 r» to B o A a* B A 3*0
- A
•- a i ft
A n
« a- A
E4
D A
• •
A r*j
to O 3 ft A
n
O
c
AOQ
1A
O A
»* r»
« •— A A *-
to — OQ D ft » — Ot to 3
< M O • " B w - B S 3 o- K "< *! D rt A E E
A A A ft Z 3 3 O 30 3 ft
*
ST i
»
•o
n A
< C •1
to
ft
A 3
A C
^A Da 3
Ok
» C ft r»
3A A C
• -
O D Ck. c
»* B *1 — a. A »< • -O A
•- r» A A Ot A O 3 to 1
A rt 1 | 3 ? if •1 -> O. •1 ft
•1 a- A a n a n A A
•"•> ft 3 PI < 3" A c to O
• A <X a A D C A to 3 A
• < * i t t i I 1 OQ to < A ST. a- a.
a 3 - E a A n !X i & to r» *1
—
oc c
« rt
a
r*
» ** ^ n A
3 o •1
C 3 a
A A
na
B «
r^
ft o ft c tm
a> o n *1 c n O A
•- a s a a
HECKMAN
BINDERY INC
JUN95
_ , N MANCHESTER