Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Strategy As A Field of Study Why Search For A New Paradigm
Strategy As A Field of Study Why Search For A New Paradigm
GARY HAMEL
London Business School, London, U.K.
CCC 0143-2095/94/090005-12
© 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
C.K. Prahalad and G. Hamel
planning challenged, so too was the concept of formed the backbone of the strategy literature,
a purposeful organization. during its period of major growth (1965-85),
To casual observers, metaphors of strategy as may need a basic reevaluation in order to pave
learning and evolutionary adaptation suggested the way for new ideas. It is this belief that drove
that successful firms were simply those that us to undertake the task of editing a special issue
adapted quickly to the changing environmental of the Strategic Management fournal entitled
demands. One was much more likely to hear Stratgegy: Search for New Paradigms. Needless
senior managers call for quicker response time to say that this is but a small beginning in the
than for higher-quality strategic thinking. It was search for new paradigms.
not obvious whether the debate was about the In this introductory section we will outline the
validity of current strategy literature and practice major catalysts that are driving the need for a
or whether it was about the need for strategic revitalized approach to strategic thinking and
focus and behavior in management. At the strategy development. Many of the assumptions
extreme some critics of strategy seemed to forget that were embedded in traditional strategy models
that irrespective of how efficient the body may be incomplete and/or outdated as we
(organization) got. it still needed a brain (strategic approach the new competitive milieu. We will
direction).^ argue that the need for strategic thinking and
Other scholars were similarly concerned about behavior among managers has never been more
the direction of strategy research and practice. urgent. This reality should force us to reexamine
An early warning was sounded by Rumelt, the traditional strategy paradigms. We follow
Schendel. and Teece (1991, 1994). Following on this analysis with a brief outline of the papers
from a 1990 conference, they raised four basic included in this volume and our assessment of
questions that are at the center of strategy their contributions. We then return to our basic
practice and research: How do firms behave? thesis: that more than ever, the strategy area
Why are firms different? What is the function represents a fertile field for innovative research
of, and the value added of the headquarters unit during this decade and beyond.
in a multibusiness firm? and What determines
the success or failure of a firm in international
competition? They invited scholars from non CHANGING COMPETITIVE MILIEU
traditional backgrounds to make contributions.
They were not only posing basic questions for Implicit in the four basic questions posed by
consideration, but were seeking unconventional Rumelt et al. (1991, 1994) is a view of the
responses to them. Healthy self-criticism is a competitive space within which firms operate.
precondition for progress. We believe that during the last 10 years (1984^94),
We believe this turmoil in the field., in research competitive space has been dramatically altered.
and in practice, is a reason for optimism. The The changing fortunes of some of the largest
state of strategy, during the 1990s, can aptly be and "best-managed" firms of the 1970s and early
described as 'the best of times and the worst of 1980s, such as IBM, General Motors, Caterpillar,
times' for strategy scholars. While much of the Xerox, Sears, and DEC, are attributable to the
criticism of the field may be valid, critics often radical changes in their competitive landscape
miss the point. We believe that the need for and the inability of managers to foresee these
strategic thinking, during this turbulent decade, changes. The problem is not unique to U.S.-
is greater than ever. Thoughtful members of the based firms. European (DAF, PhiHps, Benz,
academic community are increasingly recognizing ICI) and Japanese (NEC, Fujitsu, Matsushita,
that the concepts and tools of analysis that Komatsu) firms face the same problem of
refocusing their resources and responding to the
new competitive realities. Why did this radical
' See, for example, the report on the success of re-engineering
efforts in U.S. and European firms, based on an extensive
industry transformation, the contours of which
survey by CSX Index, a consulting firm specializing in re- were visible for some time, escape systematic
engineering efforts. One of the key findings of the survey and persistent attention from managers? It
was that strategy is still critical to improvement of perform- apparently escaped the attention of academics as
ance. CSX Index (1993). State of Re-engineering Report.
Boston, MA. well.
New Strategy Paradigms
The forces impacting on the nature of competi- The new computer industry is very fragmented.
tive space within industries were several. These Intel and Motorola dominate the component
forces were changing the sources of advantage business. Compaq, IBM, and Apple are big on
of firms and the economics of industries in new hardware. Microsoft dominates the operating
and unpredictable ways. Some of these forces system. Lotus and other application vendors
are shown in Figure 1. specialize in clusters of applications. There is
a wide variety of distribution channels—Dell
computers, to Sears, to Value Added Resellers,
Deregulation to owned distribution channels. This structural
Deregulation in the airline industry, followed by change, from the vertically integrated, main-
the telecommunications and financial services frame-oriented, centralized computing environ-
industries, has had a major impact in the U.S.A. ment to a decentralized, fragmented structure
and the U.K. The profitability of industries (e.g., driven by specialist firms changes the nature of
airlines), the pattern of competition and market competitive advantage enjoyed by traditional
opportunities (e.g., telecommunications) have players such as IBM. The basis for competition
been influenced by deregulation. These industries and the economics of the industry are radically
in turn influence a host of other existing different. New competitors have emerged chal-
(e.g.. retailing and logistics) and emerging (e.g., lenging the dominance of large estabhshed
multimedia) industries. Deregulation and privat- players. It is hard to beheve that Compaq did
ization of critical infrastructure industries, how- not exist in 1980. In 1994, it is challenging IBM
ever, is not restricted to the U.S. market but is for world leadership in the PC and laptop market
also emerging as a worldwide pattern—in Europe, and beyond.
in Japan, and in developing countries such as
India. Erstwhile command economies are also
going through these transitions. Excess capacity
Excess capacity invites radical restructuring of
industries. Bulk and commodity chemical industry
Structural changes
used to suffer periodic upheavals caused by excess
While the telecommunications revolution is fueled capacity (Bower, 1986). Bower documented the
by deregulation, the revolution in the computer complex interplay between public and private
industry is driven as much by structural changes policy as the chemical industry tried to negotiate
brought about by technology and customer a restructuring of excess capacity worldwide
expectations. IBM and all IBM compatibles (e.g., involving governments of the U.S.A., Japan,
Fujitsu, Hitachi, Bull) were vertically integrated. and Europe. Involved negotiations determined
Structural
Deregulation Changes
Excess
Global Capacity
Competition
the time frames, cost-benefits, competitive conse- standards. The impact of 'free trade" can be
quences, and social impacts of such restructuring. daunting for some.
During the last decade, a wide variety of
industries—from consumer electronics to
automobiles—were faced with excess capacity. Changing customer expectations
While the industry is burdened with excess During the last decade, the influence of changing
capacity, additional capacity is being added by customer expectations on business has been
newly developing countries such as China and dramatic. From concern for quality and a
India. The global restructuring of capacity is constant demand for improved price-performance
likely to emerge as a major issue during this relationship, customers have influenced strategies
decade. of firms. Mass customization, the value attached
to branded products, the growth of mail order
purchasing and the consolidation of retailing, are
Mergers and acquisitions
but a few signs of the emergence of an aggressive
Mergers, acquisitions and alliances (MA&A) and demanding customer.
have been used as a method of coping with
excess capacity (implicit rationalization) as well
as a way of accessing closed and/or public sector Technological discontinuities
markets. MA&A, around the world, have been This aspect of change has been widely recognized.
a major force in telecommunications, financial Dramatic changes in technology not only impact
services, power and other sectors. MA&A spawn existing industries but spawn new industries as
a wide variety of strategic issues—from antitrust, well. The evolution of the PC and the software
to valuation, to cost, to technology integration industry, for example, is altering multiple
and product line rationalization, to acquisition industries—consumer electronics, education and
integration (Haspeslagh and Jemison. 1991). entertainment, as well as office work. New
product configurations are possible today: cellular
phones, disposable cameras, distance learning
Environmental concerns
and conferencing, personal printers and fax
The emerging concerns over the impact of machines, and access to a wide variety of data
industrialization on the environment have been bases. In combination with changing customer
significant. New forms of packaging, demands expectations, technological discontinuities will
for recycling, notions of stewardship, responsi- usher in new customer benefits at prices that
bility for environmental safety and obligations would have been impossible to imagine.
for cleaning up are making new demands on all
organizations. The idea of being environmentally
friendly, or 'green," will have an impact on all Emergence of trading blocks
aspects of the business—from the conception of The evolution of regional trading blocks, the
products and services to use and subsequent European Community, NAFTA and ASEAN
disposal by customers. change the basis and patterns of trade. Issues
such as location of investments, creation of
logistics networks around the world, and costs
Less protectionism
are influenced by these emerging relationships.
Explicit restrictions to global trade are being
dismantled. While countries and regions still
protect industries, overt attempts at protectionism Global competition
are becoming less tenable. Inefficiencies resulting Global competition has received academic and
from a protected past—telecommunication ser- managerial attention (Porter, 1986). Global com-
vices, power, agriculture, insurance, construction, petition is pervasive. From semiconductors to
retailing—are being exposed. Firms from Japan, cleaning services,"* no industry is free from the
Germany, and France, as well as a wide range
of quasi-planned economies, are suddenly feeling 'Sumantra Ghoshal (1993). ISS Corporation. Case Study.
the pressure to get their services to meet world INSEAD.
New Strategy Paradigms
the orthodoxy that stifles the ability of that How does one identify drivers of industry
firm to decode and anticipate the nature of transition? How does one develop industry
changes taking place and adapt. Rethinking foresight? How does one bet on (and allocate
managerial frames in large firms is an resources to) evolving opportunities such as
important issue for strategists. multimedia? Biotechnology-based businesses?
3. Rethinking the unit of analysis for competi- Is the future unknowable or just different?
tiveness is an object of interest. What should Can firms compete to create a new industry?
be the unit of analysis for assessing competi- Or create standards that influence the direction
tiveness? A product? A product line? A of a new industry? (Hariharan. 1991). Can
business unit? A cluster of business units implicit competition take place before specific
within a firm, the diversified firm? A cluster products and services are offered to the
of firms including suppliers, collaborators, public? Important as these questions are,
home governments? Maybe all of them. many of them have eluded significant academic
Increasingly, the appropriate unit of analysis attention.
for understanding the pattern of competition 3. The primary focus of strategic analysis is the
and for developing appropriate responses is business unit. Industry analysis, once again,
likely to depend on the industry and the firm forces us to focus on strategic analysis of
in question. individual businesses. Corporate strategy, as
popularized by consulting firms such as McKin-
We could add significantly to this list of issues. sey, BCG and others, was often seen as
Readers can identify additional ones, based on portfolio strategy (Hofer and Schendel. 1978).
their perceptions of the nature of collective Only recently have scholars seen the corpor-
impact of the drivers on the basis for competitive ation as more than a collection of business
success. We believe that these emerging issues units. A corporation can be a bundle of
in strategy provide untold opportunities for new resources and competencies (Wernerfelt, 1984;
and innovative research. Practitioners are faced Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Teece, Pisano and
with a sense of urgency. Old recipes do not Shuen. 1990; Barney, 1989; Prahaiad and
work. Scholars have an opportunity. It is in this Hamel, 1990). Even this shift in emphasis
context that we should examine the implicit does not suggest an approach to understanding
assumptions on which strategy concepts were inter-corporate competition. Does Sony com-
built during the period 1965-85. and determine pete with Philips? Does Canon compete with
their validity. Kodak or Hewlett Packard? Does the scope
Some of the key assumptions in traditional of this competition extend beyond specific
strategy analysis can be outlined as follows: business units?
Competition, in many industries, even
1. Strategy is about positioning a business in a extends beyond inter-corporate competition.
given industry structure. (Porter, 1980. 1985). Often clusters of firms compete. In the
This view of strategy dominates the academic, videorecorder industry, the VHS coalition led
consulting and to a lesser extent managerial by JVC and Matsushita competed with the
thinking. This view of strategy is predicated Sony-led coalition (betamax) for industry
on industry structures that are stable and acceptance. The Intel led coalition is battling
identifiable. The reality of business during the the Motorola-led coalition in microprocessors
1990s is that industry structures are far from for PCs. Competition and, therefore, strategy
stable and are undergoing major transitions. must be understood at not just the business
2. The focus of strategy tools and analysis is level, but at the level of corporations and at
existing industries. The preoccupation with the level of coalitions or clusters of firms.
structural analysis forces us to be concerned 4. Strategic outcomes can be explained on the
with existing and stable industries. Sometimes basis of economic analysis. Economic analysis
we focused attention on declining industries is a critical component of strategic analysis.
(Harrigan. 1980). Seldom did the broad sweep However, political and public policy analysis
of academic attention focus on industries in is as crucial as economic analysis. A significant
transition, much less on emerging industries. literature exists in the international business
New Strategy Paradigms 11
Non
Traditional.
New Most
Acceptable Desirable
Subject
Pitatter
P
•
Not suitable for ^^M
the Special I s s u e ^ ^ l ^ ^ ^ H Acceptable
Traditional
Traditional
•I Non Traditiona
Approach(lntellectual
Roots, Methodology)
Figure 2. The framework we used and the nature of suhmissions
process in organizations. However, there is very economies; economies which are moving from
litle attempt to understand the structure of command and quasi-command economies to
knowledge, how organizations 'know' and how market economies. These societies are desperate
knowledge structures develop. Borrowing from to attract investments from overseas as well as
autopoiesis theory developed in the field of support home-grown firms. This article provides
neurobiology, the authors build a case for a framework to think about the complex set of
incorporating the cognitive processes in the study interactions that have to be managed for the
of strategic management. hoped-for happy marriage of public policy and
The essay written by Gunnar Hedlund, 'A private enterprise.
Model of Knowledge Management and the N- The resource-based view of the firm is well
Form Organization,' is an interesting companion developed and documented. Janice Black and
piece. The essay focuses on knowledge manage- Kimberly Boal in their paper, 'Strategic
ment at four levels: individual, small group, the Resources: Traits, Configurations and Paths to
total organization, and the cluster of organizations Sustainable Competitive Advantage,' argue that
of which a specific firm may be a part. Managing we ought to move beyond describing traits and
knowledge—its creation and use—a critical pay attention to the dynamics of how these
component in managing the 'invisible assets' of resources are created and used. They suggest a
the firm, is emerging as an important role of top conceptual model that focuses on the relationships
management. The author suggests a nonhier- between factor networks. The nature of these
archical, in effect a heterarchical structure relationships, they argue, suggests which specific
(framework and a conception), for effective paths can lead to high levels of sustainable
management of knowledge. The task of managers competitive advantage.
must be separated from the tools of management Constantinos Markides and Peter Williamson,
(or the levers of influence). in their paper. 'Related Diversification, Core
The third paper in this cluster, 'Linking Competencies, and Corporate Performance.' sug-
Organizational Context and Managerial Action: gest that a competency view can shed new light
The Dimensions of Ouality of Management*, by on an old problem in the strategy literature: why
Sumantra Ghoshal and Christopher Bartlett. do related diversifiers perform better? They
using a case, describes the process of creating suggest that the traditional explanations were
the context that enables higher performance. based on a static view of relatedness in static
better capability to create, share and use knowl- terms. They point out that the real long-term
edge for action. The article focuses on the benefit—the dynamic view—is about continually
evolution of these tools and the process of rebuilding and expanding the stock of strategic
creating the appropriate context, one brick at a assets—competencies—such that they can con-
time. tinually create new and innovative sources of
Cluster three consists of articles which build competitive advantage (as well as new business
on an existing edifice, but provide nuances that opportunities). The papers focus our attention
are new. Thomas Murtha and Stefanie Ann on the two critical issues that confront a
Lenway discuss the interaction of public and diversified firm: what is a resource and are
private policy in their paper. 'Country Capabilities all resources equally valuable? and what is
and the Strategic State: How National Political relatedness and how does it help the corporation
Institutions Affect Multinational Corporations' to diversify using core competencies? Both take
Strategies." How do countries create capabilities a dynamic view of resources and argue that their
and policy infrastructures that make them attrac- value can be enhanced by the appropriate
tive to local as well as multinational firms? The combination of factors—actions by managers.
thesis here is that rhetoric is not reality. More Cluster four introduces us to a new methodology.
important, how do firms respond to these public By now, all of us are convinced that the strategy
policy initiatives—how do they decode both the field, if nothing else. is characterized by complexity.
intent and the practice of public policy initiatives But do we have the right tools to explore
and accommodate their strategies? During this complexity? David Levy's paper, 'Chaos Theory
decade, with the fall of communism, more and Strategy: Tlieory. Application, and Managerial
than 3 billion people are living in transitional Implications,' suggests that we ought to be exploring
14 C K. Prahalad and G. Hamel
the use of a new methodology, one developed to 3. Premarket competition. Most of the research
explore the turbulent flow of fluids. The author on the dynamics of competition assumes that
provides a very succinct introduction to the theory. a market exists for products and services and
It is then applied, using simulation, to international the battle is for profits and market share.
logistics. While one might argue that problems However, in many emerging industries, com-
such as logistics are easier to model and therefore petition may start years before actual products
susceptible to the application of this approach, it and services are offered to customers. Compe-
must be recognized that for the firm the results tition for competence building, for standards,
were of major importance. It identified the location for core technology leadership can predate
of international sourcing platforms as well as the 'traditional market-based' (product-market)
costs of traditional approaches to manufacturing competition. The battle for HDTV standards
and sourcing. It can lead to reduction of lead time around the world with the European. Japanese
as well as total delivered costs. We believe that and the U.S. systems is a good example of
the study of complexity is a major opportunity in premarket competition.
the strategy field. 4. Intercorporate and intercluster competition.
The papers included in this volume are but an We believe that competition extends beyond
indicator of the extraordinary nature of the business-level competition. Corporations com-
opportunity for new research in strategy. Several pete for intellectual leadership (e.g.. compe-
new substantive issues emerged as worthy of tition for multimedia leadership is pitching
scholarly attention, in various discussions during multiple business units and the corporation
and after the conference. We provide a summary of diversified corporations such as AT&T.
below: Philips, Microsoft. EDS and HP against each
other). They compete for access to and control
1. Emergence of micro-multinationals. The study over competence and standards. While they
of multinational corporations has assumed compete, many of the same firms are also
that multinationals by definition have to be collaborators in consortia and in alliances of
large firms ($5(K) million plus). The new various forms. What is the logic of competition
reality is that very small (less than $10 million and collaboration? What are the costs? Disci-
U.S. in sales), highly specialized firms with plines needed to manage the complex relation-
global scope have become a reality. Industries ships?
such as software, biotechnology, and pro- 5. Building competencies. The nature of rapid
fessional services appear to be hospitable to industry transformations is creating a need
such ventures. How do these firms acquire for managers not only to recognize and
and service a global infrastructure? What are manage existing competencies in a firm, but
the costs associated with geographic spread? to rapidly acquire new ones. Sometimes, firms
What are the benefits? Are size or uniqueness have to discard competencies to enable them
preconditions for multinationality? to adapt to new realities. For example,
2. Protection of intellectual property. Software, how does a defense contractor acquire the
analytical routines, process controls, and competence to create and manage a consumer
knowledge of customers and suppliers—the business? How do regulated, domestic pro-
accumulated intellectual property of the firm— viders of telecommunications services rapidly
is becoming, in a wide variety of industries, transform themselves into competitive, global
more valuable than physical assets. But the players—the task confronting RBOCs, British
process of valuing, protecting, and trading Telecom, and AT&T?
these require new disciplines within most firms
as well as the development of new legal and The analytical lens that we need to creatively
accounting approaches. How do you protect research the new strategy issues may also
property 'that rides elevators and drives home deserve a reexamination. We will suggest a few
every night?' Intellectual property issues focus approaches for consideration of the reader. We
on the intersection between law. human make no attempt at justification. We hope that
resource management, technology, and these will be self-evident.
strategy—an under-researched interface. The role of game theory in strategy develop-
New Strategy Paradigms 15
ment is being actively explored (Rumelt et al., which can be studied from a multiplicity of
1994). Many more theoretical lenses will be theoretical vantage points. There is no need to
needed to explore the range of issues that the limit variation in approaches at this time. This
strategy field offers. For example, the study of volume, we hope, is a small contribution to the
complex phenomena using tools such as chaos search for a new paradigm(s).
theory, we believe, will increase. Theories of
war and diplomacy provide good models for
thinking about competition and collaboration ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
(Kissinger. 1994). The concept of balance of
power, implicit understanding of stability of No effort of this magnitude is possible without
trading patterns, signalling, providing credible the support of a large number of people. First,
threats, and forming preemptive alliances appear we thank all the scholars who responded to our
to emerge as important themes not only in call for papers. We were surprised by the quality
statecraft but in the management of large global and the number of submissions. We would have
enterprises. Human cognition and nature of found it impossible to compile this volume
inference processes may be an attractive theoreti- without the active cooperation of referees who
cal perspective from which to view a wide variety were understanding and worked under enormous
of strategy issues such as the ability of managers time pressure. They helped us select the inno-
to rapidly change large firms. The limits to the vative from the traditional. The discussants at
legal framework in dealing with new intellectual the conference provided the debate a new
property issues is becoming obvious. Neverthe- perspective. Their willingness to participate and
less, legal issues and reasoning will become add to the debate was a critical step in improving
important. Legal issues will also dominate the the manuscripts. Karen Schnatterly, a doctoral
deregulation process and the environmental student at the University of Michigan, provided
concerns. invaluable support. She actively participated in
Recognizing that the strategy field needs a the entire process—from logistics, to conference
new paradigm is a critical first step. However, organization, contacts with authors and referees,
finding a paradigm that fits the emerging needs and the SMJ. Her involvement was crucial to
of the field. let alone one that can emerge as a the production of this volume. We owe her a
dominant paradigm, is a tedious task. During special thanks. Two individuals deserve special
the last decade the I/O paradigm seems to have mention. Dan and Mary Lou Schendel were, as
held sway and emerged as the dominant paradigm always, most helpful—from encouraging us to
in the literature, crowding out other approaches. undertake this responsibility, to helping us with
There is a good explanation for the success of all the details, to attending the conference in
the I/O paradigm. It is parsimonious, is based Ann Arbor, and being more than patient with
on a well-developed and understood method- delays—their role has been unique. We would
ology, and has clearly identifiable theoretical like to thank them not only for their support in
roots. The emerging competitive landscape and this edition but the contribution they have made
the logic of success in the complex competitive to facilitate the development of the field for over
environment, however, transcends the scope of two decades.
the theoretical lens provided by I/O. This implicit
recognition that the I/O paradigm may at best
provide us partial answers is the driver forcing REFERENCES
the field to search for new paradigm(s). Should
the field rally behind I/O economics? game Barney. J. (1986). "Strategic factor markets: Expec-
theory? sociology? or behavioral science? What tations, luck, and business strategy', Management
Science, 32 (10). pp. 1231-1241.
is an appropriate theoretical lens to the study of Barney, J. (1989). "Asset stocks and sustained competi-
strategy, appears to us as a premature question. tive advantage, a comment". Management Science,
Before we as scholars determine what lens to 35 (12), pp. 151I-15I3.
use, we should have a good understanding of Bower, J. L. (1970). Managing the Resource Allocation
the terrain. Process, A Study of Corporate Flanning and
Investment. Division of Research. Harvard Business
Strategy as a field has an abundance of issues School Press. Boston. MA.
16 C.K. Prahalad and G. Hamel
Bower, J. L. (1986). When Markets Quake, Harvard Kissinger. H. (1994). Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster,
Business School Press, Boston. MA. New York.
Burgelman. R. A. (1983). "A model of the interaction Mintzberg. H. (1994). The Rise and Fail of Strategic
of strategic behavior, corporate context, and the Planning. Free Press, New York.
concept of strategy*. Academy of Management Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques
Review. 8. pp. 61-70. for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Free
Davidow. W.H. and M. S. Malone (1993). The Press, New York.
Virtual Corporation: Structuring and Revitalizing Porter. M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating
the Corporation for the 21st Century. Harper- and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press,
Collins. New York. New York.
Dierickx, I. and K. Cool (1989). 'Asset stock Porter. M. E. (1986). Competition in Global Industries.
accumulation and sustainability of competitive Har\ard Business School Press. Boston, MA.
advantage: Reply." Management Science, 35. (12). Prahalad. C. K. and R. Bettis (1986). T h e dommant
p. 1514. logic: A new linkage between diversity and perform-
Doz, Y. L. (1979). Government Control and Multin- ance'. Strategic Management Journal. 7(6),
ational Strategic Management: Power Systems and pp. 485-501.
Telecommunications Equipment. Praeger. New Prahalad. C. K. and G. Hamel (May-June 1990).
York. "The core competence of the corporation". Harvard
Doz, Y. L. and C. K. Prahalad (1988). 'Quality Business Review, pp. 79-91.
of management: An emerging source of global Rumelt. R.P.. D.E. Schendel and D.J. Teece (eds)
competitive advantage?" In N. Hood and J. E. (1991). Fundamental Research Issues in Strategy
Vahlne (eds). Strategies in Global Competition. and Economics. Strategic Management Journal,
Croom-Helm. London, pp. 345-369. Winter Special Issue, 12.
Hariharan, S. (1990). Technological compatibility, Rumelt. R. P.. D. E. Schendel, and D. J. Teece (eds)
standards and global competition: The dynamics of (1994). Fundamental ls.mes in Strategy. Harvard
industry evolution and competitive strategies." Business School Press, Boston. MA.
Doctoral Dissertation. University of Michigan. Teece, D. J., G. Pisano, and A. Sheun (1990).
Harrigan. K. R. (1980). Strategies for Declining 'Dynamic capabilities and strategic management*.
Businesses. D. C. Heath. Lexington. MA. Consortium on Competition and Collaboration.
Haspeslagh, P. C. and D. B. Jemison (1991). Managing Working Paper #90-8. Center for Research in
Acqui.sitions: Creating Value through Corporate Management. University of California, Berkeley,
Renewal. Free Press, New York. CA.
Hofer, C. W. and D. E. Schendel (1978). Strategy Wernerfelt. B (1984). 'A resource-based view of
Formulation: Analytical Concepts. West Publishing. the firm*. Strategic Management Journal. 5(2),
St. Paul, MN. pp. 795-815.