Strategic View of Performance Printable

Strategic view of performance
This item contains selected online content. It is for use alongside, not as a replacement for
the module website, which is the primary study format and contains activities and
resources that cannot be replicated in the printed versions.
2 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

performance/content-section-0?utm_source=openlearnutm_campaign=olutm_medium=ebook
About this free course
This free course provides a sample of postgraduate study in Business
http://www.open.ac.uk/postgraduate/find/business
This version of the content may include video, images and interactive content that may not be optimised
for your device.
You can experience this free course as it was originally designed on OpenLearn, the home of free
learning from The Open University:
www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view-perfor-
mance/content-section-0.
There you’ll also be able to track your progress via your activity record, which you can use to
demonstrate your learning.
The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
Copyright © 2016 The Open University
Intellectual property
Unless otherwise stated, this resource is released under the terms of the Creative Commons Licence
v4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en_GB. Within that The Open University
interprets this licence in the following way:
www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/frequently-asked-questions-on-openlearn. Copyright and
rights falling outside the terms of the Creative Commons Licence are retained or controlled by The Open
University. Please read the full text before using any of the content.
We believe the primary barrier to accessing high-quality educational experiences is cost, which is why
we aim to publish as much free content as possible under an open licence. If it proves difficult to release
content under our preferred Creative Commons licence (e.g. because we can’t afford or gain the
clearances or find suitable alternatives), we will still release the materials for free under a personal end-
user licence.
This is because the learning experience will always be the same high quality offering and that should
always be seen as positive – even if at times the licensing is different to Creative Commons.
When using the content you must attribute us (The Open University) (the OU) and any identified author in
accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Licence.
The Acknowledgements section is used to list, amongst other things, third party (Proprietary), licensed
content which is not subject to Creative Commons licensing. Proprietary content must be used (retained)
intact and in context to the content at all times.
The Acknowledgements section is also used to bring to your attention any other Special Restrictions
which may apply to the content. For example there may be times when the Creative Commons Non-
Commercial Sharealike licence does not apply to any of the content even if owned by us (The Open
University). In these instances, unless stated otherwise, the content may be used for personal and non-
commercial use.
We have also identified as Proprietary other material included in the content which is not subject to
Creative Commons Licence. These are OU logos, trading names and may extend to certain
photographic and video images and sound recordings and any other material as may be brought to your
attention.
Unauthorised use of any of the content may constitute a breach of the terms and conditions and/or
intellectual property laws.
We reserve the right to alter, amend or bring to an end any terms and conditions provided here without
notice.
All rights falling outside the terms of the Creative Commons licence are retained or controlled by The
Open University.

Head of Intellectual Property, The Open University
The Open University
Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by Hobbs the Printers, Brunei Road, Totton, Hampshire
Contents
Introduction 5
Learning Outcomes 6
1 What do we mean by strategy? 7
1.1 Activity 1 7
1.2 Organisational purposes 7
1.3 Stakeholders 8
2 Market-based approach to strategy 10
2.1 The ‘near environment’ 10
2.2 Porter's five forces framework 10
2.3 Applying the five forces model 11
2.4 Strategy as fit between organisation and environment 13
3 Resource-based approach to strategy 15
3.1 Understanding organisational capabilities 15
3.2 Building capabilities and relationships 17
3.3 Understanding the value chain 19
4 Strategy as rational planning 23
4.1 Emergent strategy 23
Conclusion 27
Keep on learning 28
References 28
Acknowledgements 29

Introduction
Introduction
In this session we take a closer look at what is meant by strategy. The classical approach
to strategic management treats strategic planning and control as purely the province of
senior managers. More recent approaches accept that middle-level managers may have
an important role to play, not only in implementing strategy but also in the emergence and
formulation of strategic direction. We will look at three broad approaches to understanding
strategy. First, we examine the idea of strategy as a formal, top-down process of analysis
and planning based on a considered response to the environment in which the
organisation operates, and its core mission. Second, we consider strategy as the
identification and development of core capabilities and networks of relationships, as a
source of competitive advantage. Third, we turn to one important aspect of strategy:
understanding and managing the creation of value, within and between organisations.
Finally, we consider the ways in which strategic direction can emerge over time as the
accumulation of smaller tactical decisions, as opposed to a formal, top-down process of
analysis and planning.
This OpenLearn course provides a sample of postgraduate study in Business

Learning Outcomes
After studying this course, you should be able to:
● explain the difference between a ‘markets approach’ and a ‘resource-based approach’ to strategy, and how they
complement each other
● explain what is meant by ‘the value chain’, and how it applies to an organisation
● explain what is meant by ‘emergent strategy’ and why intended and actual strategy may differ
● contribute more effectively to developing and implementing strategy in the organisation.
1 What do we mean by strategy?
1.1 Activity 1
Activity 1
Take a couple of minutes to think about what you understand by the word ‘strategy’.
The first context in which many of us will have come across the word ‘strategy’ is
military. In military parlance, strategy describes the broad set of principles and
objectives determining the conduct of a war. Strategy is contrasted with the day-to-day
‘tactical’ decisions taken in the field as events unfold. Similarly, we often talk about
strategy in the context of games. A football team may develop a strategy for a match
based on an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the other side, the
nature and condition of the pitch, and their own strengths and weaknesses. The team's
tactics in response to the unfolding events of the match will be guided by that strategy.
The idea of strategy has also come to be adopted in the world of business and, to
some extent, in not-for-profit organisations.
As we mentioned in the introduction, it is possible to understand strategy from a number

of different perspectives. Each of the different perspectives implies a different
understanding of what we mean by strategy. For the purposes of this course we will adopt
the following broad definition of strategy:
Strategy is the pattern of activities followed by an organisation in pursuit of its

long-term purposes.
First, strategy is concerned with the broad pattern of an organisation's activities, not the
day-to-day detail. Second, strategy is concerned with the long term. Finally, strategy is
concerned with organisational purposes: these may have a commercial focus, such as
market penetration, profitability and growth; or, for some organisations, they may concern
political or social goals.
1.2 Organisational purposes

The starting point for any strategy is the purposes of an organisation. Being clear about
organisational purposes is not a trivial exercise. The very phrase ‘organisational
purposes’ is potentially misleading, suggesting as it does some clear and agreed set of
goals. In practice, the purposes of an organisation are often unclear and often contested.
Different groups both inside and outside the organisation may have competing views (with
varying degrees of influence) of what those purposes should be. Further, organisational
purposes are often tacit rather than clearly articulated.
Common purposes include:

● Profitability – This is the dominant performance measure for commercial western

organisations. It is measured either in terms of absolute profits or as a ratio, such as
return on capital or earnings per share. But this should not be assumed to be the
dominant objective of all organisations, for the following reasons:
• Public-sector service organisations have no profit objectives. They are likely to
use service measures of output and to relate these to their cost base – an
approach that may have been forced upon them by governments’ emphasis on
cash-limited budgets.
• Voluntary-sector organisations may measure success in terms of levels of
funding obtained and levels of service provision.
Commercial organisations outside the UK and the USA often give less
emphasis to profitability as the dominant measure than their Anglo-American
counterparts.
Small organisations – or at least those that survive – will give equal weighting to
cash flow as to profitability
● Growth – This is an important objective for many organisations. Indeed, for some
organisations (for example organisations entering new markets) it is the overriding
objective.
● Shareholder value – As shareholders are the owners of commercial organisations, it
is logical that one objective should be to maximise the value of their holdings. What is
surprising is the limited extent to which this objective features in many strategic
management processes, although some organisations do tie their strategy to an
explicit analysis of shareholder value. This is due in part to the impracticability of
shareholder value as a basis for many management decisions, and in part to the
limited control that shareholders are, in practice, able to exert over the managers of
their assets.
● Customer satisfaction – The three previous objectives ignore the interests of
customers, without which neither commercial nor non-commercial organisations can
long survive. The massive increase in competition in many commercial markets, the
erosion of monopolies and the shift towards increased consumer power are obliging
commercial organisations to give greater weight to customer interests.
● Some organisations pursue other objectives, including ones relating to operations,
innovation and employee satisfaction. Increasingly, albeit often reluctantly, organi-
sations in all sectors are recognising that performance objectives need to take
account of a wider range of stakeholders, and that the needs of these stakeholders
should be balanced against each other.
1.3 Stakeholders
The balanced scorecard framework (Kaplan and Norton, 1998) is one approach to taking
account of stakeholder interests. It is based on the principle that organisations need to
serve the interests of multiple stakeholder groups simultaneously. Failure to serve the
needs of one is likely to prevent them from effectively serving the needs of the others. For
example, failure to serve the needs of customers will damage a firm's ability to serve the
financial needs of shareholders.
Kaplan and Norton explicitly recognise three stakeholder groups in their work on the
balanced scorecard: employees, customers and shareholders. However, for most

organisations a much wider range of stakeholders potentially needs consideration.

Figure 1 shows a typical set of stakeholders. While failure to serve the needs of one set of
stakeholders is likely to cause problems in serving the needs of others, there may also be
conflicts between their interests. Organisations often have to make trade-offs between
conflicting objectives: for example, short-term return on shareholders’ funds versus job
security versus environmental concerns.
Figure 1 An organisation's stakeholders

2 Market-based approach to strategy
2.1 The ‘near environment’

All organisations operate in a near or micro-environment, with which they frequently
interact. These organisations will include customers, suppliers and competitors.
Examples of the impact of the near environment on an organisation include:
● competition for customers

● competition for (or collaboration with) suppliers
● competition for resources
● competition (or collaboration) to influence external factors.
A market-based approach to strategy starts by analysing the near environment and the
organisation's resources, and seeks through a process of further analysis and planning to
fit the organisation to its environment.
The near environment is usually contrasted to the far environment (the macro influences
on the organisation such as general economic and political trends).
2.2 Porter's five forces framework

Much strategy (particularly in the private sector) is concerned with establishing and
maintaining competitive advantage. One of the tools available to assist managers in
analysing the near environment for this purpose is Porter's ‘five forces of competition’
(Porter, 1980). This model is widely used as a means of understanding the structure of an
industry or sector, and as a framework within which to identify possible structural changes.
The model identifies five types of competitive pressure within a sector: established
competitors, new entrants to the market, substitute products, and the bargaining power of
suppliers and of customers. These are summarised in Figure 2.
Suppliers are important because their relative power can determine what proportion of the
price of the final product they capture. In the automotive component business, for
example, many makers of components vie with each other to supply a small number of
car manufacturers, allowing the car manufacturers to put pressure on suppliers’ margins.
In contrast, a large number of computer manufacturers are supplied by a small number of
makers of computer chips for central processors. Customers may vary similarly in their
relative power.

Figure 2 The five forces of competition (Source: Porter, 1980)

Organisations need to consider not only the behaviour of current competitors, but also the
potential for other organisations to enter the market. The important issue here is
assessing the level of barriers to entry. For example, in sectors where brand recognition is
important, new entrants need to spend heavily to build a brand. In other sectors, the
minimum economic scale of operations may be high, thereby requiring heavy capital
investment by new entrants.
An organisation needs to consider not only those competitors offering similar products or
services, but also those offering products or services that may act as substitutes. For
example, cheaper restaurants now suffer considerable competition from supermarkets
selling high-quality, easily prepared ‘ready meals’ to eat at home as a substitute for
dining out.
Porter argues that the degree of competitiveness or rivalry within an industry depends on
the availability of substitutes, the strength of suppliers and buyers (customers), and the
threat of new entrants (which in turn depends on the ease of entry). Thus pharmaceutical
research, with its high entry costs, sophisticated technology and patent protection, has
low levels of rivalry and high margins and profitability. Only the growing power of
customers (health services) threatens this profitability. In the restaurant business, in
contrast, the entry barriers and start-up costs are low, customers have a wide choice and
therefore considerable bargaining power, and there is a range of substitutes. The
restaurant trade is highly competitive and margins and profitability are generally low.
2.3 Applying the five forces model

A five forces analysis allows an organisation to consider the relative attractiveness of
different industry sectors when making strategic choices about exiting or entering
particular sectors and markets. Close analysis of these forces can allow an organisation
to find a position in the sector where it can best defend itself against them or, most
effectively, influence them.

2.3.1 Understanding Forces of Competition In Private Sector

organisations.
The nature of the five forces within an organisation's environment changes over time. For
example, a large part of the food retail sector used to be characterised by relatively large
and powerful distributors serving numerous small and weak retailers. Over time the
balance of power has shifted in many countries as food retailing has become
concentrated in a few supermarket chains with massive purchasing power. A different
type of change is illustrated by the market for telephone services. In the early days of
mobile telephony, mobile telephones were a complement to, rather than a substitute for,
telephone services based on landlines. As price structures have changed in the industry,
mobile telephony has increasingly become a direct substitute for landline-based
telephony. The five forces analysis provides a framework for analysing changes such as
these. Changes in the level and kind of competition affect the structure of the industry, and
the structure of the industry affects the nature of competition.
2.3.2 Understanding Forces of Competition Outside Private Sector

organisations.
Porter's five forces framework is clearly most applicable to private-sector organisations
operating in free markets. However, elements of the model apply to all organisations; and
the notion of strategy, as starting from an analysis of the near environment, is important in
all sectors. For some organisations, an extension of the model may be useful. For
example, in analysing the competitive environment faced by many organisations, it is
important to understand the role played by government regulation. David McKevitt (2000)
has suggested a model for analysing the environment of what he calls street-level public
organisations (that is, public-sector organisations that interact directly with the public).
This model is summarised in Figure 3.
Figure 3 Environment of public-sector organisations (Source: based on McKevitt, 2000)

Professional associations are important since they set standards and may provide career
structures for the professionals involved in service delivery (for example nurses, doctors
or social workers).

Related street-level organisations may be important either as substitutes (e.g. Citizens

Advice Bureau in relation to social services organisations as sources of advice) or
collaborators (for example community health organisations and hospitals).
Suppliers are important in the same way as in the private sector (although we should note
that some suppliers will also be related street-level organisations).
The relationship with the client-citizen, however, is not the same as with buyers in the
Porter model. Often the client is not paying for services and is a consumer rather than
customer. However, in many cases there is some element of choice and their patronage is
important to the organisation in securing resources.
In most cases, government is the funder (although the funding relationship can be at
arm's length or close).
McKevitt points out that it is important to understand not only these separate aspects of
the near environment, but also the tensions and relationships between them: for example,
the frequent gaps between professional bodies’ view of appropriate standards and public
opinion, or the relationship between government views and the media impact of client
groups.
2.4 Strategy as fit between organisation and

environment
The market perspective on strategy suggests that a major focus of strategic decision-
making is how best to ensure an effective fit between an organisation and its environment.
However, that fit is not static. The challenge is constantly to monitor and forecast changes
in the business environment and to adapt the organisation and its strategy accordingly.
Box 1 Managing strategic fit at the US Nature Conservancy

The US Nature Conservancy had a clear mission: to preserve plants and animals and
special habitats that represent the diversity of life. Traditionally they had sought to achieve
this mission through the purchase and management of critical habitats for endangered
species. They measured their success by the land area they owned and protected and in
terms of their membership figures.
However, during the 1990s they began to realise that this strategy was no longer adequate
to achieve their mission. Increasing development pressures meant that often the threats to
wildlife habitats were coming from outside those areas. For example intensive farming on
the outskirts of protected areas was causing damage. They needed a new strategy to meet
the new threats.
They shifted their efforts from the purchase and protection of land parcels to a strategy of
influencing land use in much wider areas. They hoped to ensure that economic and
recreational activities going on outside critical habitats don't undermine the ecological
balance within them.
To support this new strategy they needed to develop new capabilities. They had always
relied on a strong base of scientific expertise and skills in land acquisition and
management. These continued to be important, but they also needed to develop two further
capabilities. First, they needed skills in community development to build and develop
support for conservation in local communities around critical habitats. Second, they needed

business development and marketing skills. An important strand of the strategy was to
promote the growth of businesses with low environmental impact in environmentally
sensitive areas to reduce tension between conservation and local economic health and
employment prospects.
(Source: Howard and Magretta, 1995)
Activity 2
1. In relation to a product or service offered by your organisation, make some notes
on the nature of its near environment, using either Porter's or McKevitt's models
(or a sensible adaptation).
2. What are the most important external forces faced by your organisation, that need
to be taken account of in formulating strategy for this product or service?
One of the first things that may have struck you is that, in order to answer these
questions in other than a very superficial way, you require a great deal of information.
The activity may have left you with more questions than answers about your
organisation's near environment. Often the information that we have – about
competitors (current and potential), customers, suppliers and potential substitutes for
our products or services – is heavily anecdotal. Although many organisations invest
significant resources in scanning their environment and understanding the competitive
forces they face, the information they gain is often partial and quickly outdated.
Gathering information is of course only the start. How is that information analysed and
used? Is the organisation involved in double-loop learning, questioning its basic
assumptions about its activities (like the US Nature Conservancy in the example
above), or is information discounted if it does not fit basic assumptions?

3 Resource-based approach to strategy
3.1 Understanding organisational capabilities

Corporate success … is not the realisation of visions, aspirations, and missions
– the product of wish-driven strategy. It is the result of a careful appreciation of
the strengths of the firm and the economic environment it faces. But nor is
success often the realisation of a carefully orchestrated corporate plan. The
strategy of successful firms is adaptive and opportunistic. Yet in the hands of a
successful company an adaptive and opportunistic strategy is also rational,
analytic, and calculated. Adaptiveness does not mean waiting for something to
turn up. Opportunism is only productive for a firm which knows which
opportunities to seize and which to reject…
Corporate success derives from a competitive advantage which is based on
distinct capabilities, which is most often derived from the unique character of a
firm's relationships with its suppliers, customers, or employees, and which is
precisely identified and applied to relevant markets.
(Kay, 1993, p. 4)
In the previous section, we discussed how organisations fit into their competitive
environment. In this section, we shift the emphasis from the external to the internal
context of strategy: the resources that an organisation possesses, or needs to possess,
as the basis for a robust strategy. We shift from the sector to the organisation, by
looking at:
● what are the organisation's capabilities, and its important networks of relationships
● how relevant they are to the objectives of the organisation
● what new capabilities and relationships may be needed over time
● how these should be built or acquired.
Organisational capabilities are also often referred to as organisational competences,

although strictly a capability refers to the potential and competence suggests an applied
and well-practised capability.
By capabilities we mean an organisation's capacity to engage in a range of productive
activities. All organisations possess unique bundles of resources, and it is how these
resources are used that determines differences in performance between organisations.
Resources are not productive in themselves – they need to be converted into capabilities
by being managed and co-ordinated.
It is these resultant capabilities that, if hard to imitate, are the main source of competitive
advantage. Strategy, from the resource perspective, is therefore about choosing among
and committing to long-term paths of capability development. Figure 4 summarises the
relationship between resources, capabilities and competitive advantage.

Figure 4 The relationship between resources, capabilities and competitive advantage

(Source: Grant, 1998)
To confer competitive advantage on an organisation, capabilities need to have a number
of properties:
● Inimitability – They should be difficult for other organisations to imitate or acquire. For
example, if key capabilities rest on the competence of particular individuals, other
organisations may tempt them away with a better offer. By contrast the capability to
generate effective learning within the organisation may be rather harder to copy
or buy.
● Durability – They should be durable. For example, many technological innovations
are quickly superseded by new developments. An individual technological innovation
may be too short-lived to confer real advantage. However, the capability to generate
technological innovations may confer a more lasting advantage.
● Relevance – They should be relevant. For example, in the banking sector, the size of
the branch network used to be a key source of strategic advantage. Those banks that
were able to deliver services geographically close to the customer were more likely
to secure their business. As telephone and Internet banking become more prevalent,
branch networks become less strategically relevant.
● Appropriability – Not all profits generated by a resource flow to the owner of that
resource. The division of the value generated is subject to negotiation between the
organisation, its employees, customers, suppliers, distributors and partners. For
example, a farming business that develops a capability to produce more cheaply
may reap some benefits in increased profitability but, faced with powerful retail
chains as its customers, it may come under pressure to pass on much of the cost
savings to them. This will result partly in increased profits for the retail chains and
partly in reduced prices for the consumer. Similarly, capabilities that rest on the skills
of individual employees may result in the organisation having to pay a large
proportion of the value generated to those employees in order to keep them from
taking jobs elsewhere.

John Kay (an influential economist and writer on business strategy) identifies three main
classes of organisational capability that meet the above criteria: innovation, architecture
and reputation.
Innovation is an obvious source of distinctive capability, but it is much less often

a sustainable or appropriable source because successful innovation quickly
attracts imitation. Maintaining an advantage is most easily possible for those
few innovations for which patent protection is effective. There are others where
process secrecy or other characteristics make it difficult for other firms to follow.
More often, turning an innovation into a competitive advantage requires the
development of a whole range of supporting strategies.
What appears to be competitive advantage derived from innovation is
frequently the return to a system of organisation capable of producing a series
of innovations. This is an example of a second distinctive capability which I call
architecture. Architecture is a system of relationships within the firm, or
between the firm and its suppliers or customers, or both. Generally the system
is a complex one and the content of the relationships implicit rather than
explicit. The structure relies on continued mutual commitment to monitor and
enforce its terms. A firm with distinctive architecture gains strength from the
ability to transfer information which is specific to the firm, product or market
within the organisation and to its customers and suppliers. It can also respond
quickly and flexibly to changing circumstances. It has often been through their
greater ability to develop such architecture that Japanese firms have
established competitive advantage over their American rivals.
A third distinctive capability is reputation. Reputation is, in a sense, a type of
architecture but it is so widespread, and so important, that it is best to treat it as
a distinct source of competitive advantage. Easier to maintain than create,
reputation meets the essential conditions for sustainability. Indeed an important
element of the strategy of many successful firms has been the transformation of
an initial distinctive capability based on innovation or architecture to a more
enduring one derived from reputation.
(Kay, 1993, p. 14)
3.2 Building capabilities and relationships

So, from the resource-based perspective, an important area of strategic choice concerns
how to recognise and build relevant, inimitable, durable, and appropriable capabilities.
First, it is important that the building of capabilities does not occur in a vacuum. The
resource-based view accepts the importance of understanding the near environment. For
example, Collis and Montgomery (1995) describe how Masco Corporation invested
heavily in building a strong capability in metalworking, as a basis for diversification into
closely related industries. However, buyers were highly price-sensitive, suppliers were
powerful and entry barriers were low in these industries. Consequently, Masco made low
returns on their investment in building capability.
Second, capabilities that confer genuine competitive advantage often take a long time to
build. They require organisations to show persistent intent over an extended period. Many
organisations find it hard to take a sufficiently long-term view to build such capabilities.

Box 2 Marks and Spencer's capabilities in a changing

environment
Marks and Spencer (a UK retail chain) has been a highly profitable organisation. Its
profitability has been founded on a unique set of resources and capabilities that together
have given it significant competitive advantage.
● A base of properties in prime retail locations which help M&S achieve occupancy
costs well below sector averages.
● A brand reputation with a wide base of customers which has not required
reinforcement or building through advertising or promotions.
● Employee loyalty leading to lower than average turnover and retention of
employee skills.
● Close and effective management of supply chains leading to lower costs and
higher quality.
● Flat management structure combined with effective management systems.
(Source: Collis and Montgomery, 1995)
Despite these strengths, Marks and Spencer's performance declined at the end of
the 1990s. It became increasingly apparent that these capabilities were no longer
sufficient to maintain competitive advantage. In particular the reliance on own-brand
goods, and on a brand reputation unsupported by advertising, were creating difficulties.
Consumer tastes had changed, and the target market was placing increased value on
named clothing brands. At the same time competitors were increasingly sourcing goods
overseas while M&S had relied on a high proportion of UK suppliers, so driving up its
relative cost base. It became clear it would have to develop new capabilities if it were to
survive and prosper.
Activity 3
Consider the Marks and Spencer example just given. Categorise M&S's resources and
capabilities in terms of John Kay's categories, leading to competitive advantage and
later to their down turn.You can use Table 1 to help you think about these issues.
Contribution of organisational capabilities to competitive advantage

Organisational capabilities Leading to Contributing Information
competitive to down turn not available
advantage
Innovation
Architecture: Relationships within
firm
Architecture: Relationships
between firm and suppliers
Architecture: Relationships
between firm and customers/
buyers
Reputation

A base of properties in prime retail locations which help M&S achieve occupancy costs
well below sector averages.
This property base can be seen as a resource that translates into a particular capability
(the ability to present goods to the customer in a wide range of locations they want to
shop, consistently and at low cost). In itself this does not translate into a competitive
advantage – other retailers can purchase prime locations. However, over time the
persistent effect of this widespread network of retail locations has been to help build
reputation.
A brand reputation with a wide base of customers which has not required
reinforcement or building through advertising or promotions.
Again, this is about reputation – although, as Kay points out, this reputation is at heart
about the long-term relationships Marks and Spencer has built up with its customers
(who are also an important referral market).
Employee loyalty leading to lower than average turnover and retention of employee
skills.
This concerns the relationships M&S has built up over time with its employees. We
might call this the human resource architecture.
Close and effective management of supply chains leading to lower costs and higher
quality.
Again this concerns architecture: this time, the network of relationships with suppliers.
Flat management structure combined with effective management systems.
This final point again concerns architecture: the routines and systems for managing
internal relationships.
The downturn in the fortunes of M&S rests on two main problems with the relevance of
its traditional capabilities to a changing environment. First, it suffered a decay in
reputation as M&S lost track of what was required to maintain its customer and
reference market architecture. Second, the relevance of its supply chain architecture
was lost in the face of competitive cost pressures.
3.3 Understanding the value chain

The value of any end product or service is built up in stages. These stages may all take
place in the same organisation or across a series of organisations. By analysing the value
chain, an organisation can gain a better understanding of the key capabilities involved in
creating the products or services it is involved with. Essentially, the value chain can be
regarded as a complete transformation model overlaid by the necessary support
functions. Figure 5 shows a simplified model of the value chain involved in producing
Open University educational services.

Figure 5 An OU value chain

At its simplest, a value chain is an activity path through an organisation. It tells you what
the organisation does and the order in which it does it. It should also tell you something
about how it does it. A value chain can be a very helpful tool for understanding the
difference between two organisations that appear to be functioning in similar ways in the
same sector. This is because organisations can construct their value chains in very
different ways. A different design of the value chain, by which we mean a different activity
path through the organisation, might simply indicate a different way of doing things, or it
might generate notable competitive advantage.
Value chains can be used to identify sources of increased efficiency and also to facilitate
‘benchmarking’ of how competitors create value and how their activities compare with
yours. Value chain analysis has four underlying elements:
● identifying the cost of each activity

● understanding what factors are driving the costs behind each activity
● monitoring the processes of competitor organisations in relation to each activity
(‘benchmarking’)
● understanding the linkages in the chain and horizontal strategy opportunities.
You may find that even a very simple overview of an organisation's value chain gives a
great deal of insight into its relative strengths and weaknesses. It is also the case that
imaginative approaches to reconstructing (‘reconfiguring’) the value chain can release
new ways of clustering resources and therefore new types of capability within
organisations.
Analysis of the value chain enables us to identify where an organisation's distinctive
capabilities are based. They may arise from clear advantages in particular functions
(e.g. R& D, manufacture), or from the integration of individual functional capabilities.
These distinctive capabilities give rise to core competencies, which are what make the
organisation what it is. They are the key to the continued success of the institution, and
effective strategies need to recognise and build on them.

Value chain analysis, together with an understanding of an organisation's key capabilities,

can provide a basis for decisions about whether to integrate all stages of the value chain
within the same organisation or to enter into partnerships with other organisations better
equipped to deliver some of those stages. Equally, value chain analysis may allow an
organisation to make decisions about whether to extend its activities up or down the value
chain. Certain activities on any value chain might add a high proportion of financial value
to the finished product or service: these are known as high value-added activities.
Box 3 Managing the value chain at Li & Fung

Li & Fung is Hong Kong's largest export trading company. The company has moved from
acting as a middleman between retailers and manufacturers to playing a much more
extensive role in the management of the whole value chain. They work closely with their
customers in the design and specification of products. Li and Fung have a close
involvement in the high value-added front-end and back-end activities in the value chain.
They are closely involved with design, engineering and product planning at the front end. At
the back end, they carry out quality control, testing and handle logistics. They manage the
lower value-added middle stages through a large network of (7,500) suppliers across the
region. Li & Fung's CEO, Victor Fung, explains:
Say we get an order from a European retailer to produce 10,000 garments.

It's not a simple matter of our Korean office sourcing Korean products or our
Indonesian office sourcing Indonesian products. For this customer we might
decide to buy yarn from a Korean producer but have it woven and dyed in
Taiwan. So we pick the yarn and ship it to Taiwan. The Japanese have the
best zippers and buttons, but they manufacture them mostly in China. OK,
so we go to YKK, a big Japanese manufacturer and we order the right
zippers from their Chinese plants. Then we determine that, because of
quotas and labour conditions, the best place to make the garments is
Thailand. So we ship everything there. And because the customer needs
quick delivery we may divide the order across five factories in Thailand.
Effectively we are customising the value chain to best meet the customer's
needs.
In a sense, we are a smokeless factory. We do design. We buy and inspect
the raw materials. We have factory managers, people who set up and plan
production and balance the lines. We inspect production. But we don't
manage the workers, and we don't own the factories.
Think about the scope of what we do. We work with about 7,500 suppliers in
more than 26 countries. If the average factory has 200 workers – that's
probably a low estimate -then in effect there are more than a million workers
engaged on behalf of our customers. That's why our policy is not to own any
portion of the value chain that deals with running factories. Managing a
million workers would be a colossal undertaking. We'd lose all flexibility; we'd
lose our ability to fine-tune and co-ordinate. So we deliberately leave that
management challenge to the individual entrepreneurs we contract with.
Our target in working with factories is to take anywhere from 30% to 70% of
their production. We want to be important to them, and at 30% we're most
likely their largest customer. On the other hand, we need flexibility – so we

don't want the responsibility of having them completely dependent on us.

And we also benefit from their exposure to their other customers.
If we don't own factories, can we say we are in manufacturing? Absolutely,
because, of the 15 steps in the manufacturing value chain, we probably
do 10.
(Magretta, 1998, pp. 105–6)
Such close attention to the value chain enables Li & Fung both to drive down costs and to
reduce the time from order to delivery, buying their customers (retail chains) vital time in
which to track customer tastes and deliver products that correspond to quickly shifting
fashions.
Activity 4
Consider the description of Li & Fung above. What would you say are the distinctive
capabilities of this organisation? You can use Table 2 to help you to analyse their
capabilities and consider what may lead to future problems.
Contribution of organisational capabilities to competitive advantage

Organisational capabilities Leading to Potential Information
competitive weakness not available
advantage
Innovation
Architecture: Relationships within firm
Architecture: Relationships with firms in
value chain, manufacturers and suppliers
Architecture: Relationships with firms in
value chain, customers/ buyers
Reputation
It seems likely that Li & Fung see themselves as having good skills in the areas of
design, product planning, engineering, quality control and logistics. They also have an
important capability in their supply chain architecture: their network of relationships
with suppliers over a large and diverse geographical region. However, all of these are,
at least in some degree, common and imitable. Underlying the importance of these
factors is the capability they have developed to bring them together by managing large
and complex value chains.

4 Strategy as rational planning
4.1 Emergent strategy

In many organisations, strategic choices are made through a strategic planning process.
A typical strategic planning process that draws on both markets and resource-based
perspectives is sketched out in Figure 6.
Figure 6 A strategic planning process

This strategic planning process may be the preserve of a top team or a specialist strategic
planning department. In smaller organisations the whole process may go on in the mind of
one individual. In some organisations managers throughout the organisation will be
involved in the strategic planning cycle.
While not denying that formal analysis and planning has a role, some writers on strategy
have emphasised another view of strategy processes.
A number of writers on strategy (most notably Henry Mintzberg) have argued that the
strategy process is often less ordered and planned than assumed above (Min-
tzberg, 1994). Mintzberg argued that strategy often emerges as a cumulative pattern of
actions that is only retrospectively rationalised and organised as a plan. Especially where
organisations face a turbulent, fast-changing environment, they may need to respond to
events and information more quickly than a formal strategic planning cycle allows.
Burgelman (1994) carried out an in-depth case study of Intel's withdrawal from the
memory chip (DRAM) market. His findings emphasised that this became a strategic plan
only in retrospect. The decision to withdraw came about as an aggregation of many
smaller decisions by managers as they moved resources away from this product group in
response to market conditions. Burgelman emphasised the role of middle managers in
making these decisions:
While Intel is widely regarded as one of the most innovative and adroitly
managed high-technology firms, the DRAM exit story suggests that even
extraordinarily capable and technically sophisticated top managers, such as

Gordon Moore and Andy Grove, do not always have the foresight of the
mythical Olympian CEO making strategy. Rational justification, emotional
attachment, and bounded rationality, mixed with valid concerns about
protecting a core technology of the firm, made it very difficult for Intel's top
management to exit from DRAMs. At the same time, actions by some middle-
level managers responding to external and internal selection pressures had
already begun to dissolve the strategic context of DRAMs and undermine the
reality of Intel, the memory company. Incremental shifts in the allocation of
scarce manufacturing resources from DRAMs to microprocessors and
technological trade-offs favouring microprocessors over DRAMs happened
before the official corporate strategy was restated. The study of strategic
business exit thus confirms that strategic actions often diverge from statements
of strategy, that resource allocation and official strategy are not necessarily
tightly linked, and that strategic actions of complex firms involve multiple levels
of management simultaneously.
(Burgelman, 1994, pp. 48–9)
An important point here is that emergent strategy should not be equated with lack of
management. It may reflect organisational systems and routines that enable the
organisation to respond quickly and flexibly to threats and opportunities. Planned and
emergent strategy may also co-exist, as illustrated in Figure 7. Emergent strategy and
intended strategy both affect the organisational resource allocation process. The pattern
of actions that emerges is the actual strategy of the organisation.

Figure 7 Processes of strategy formulation and implementation (Source: based on

Christensen and Dann, 1999)
4.1.1 Role of middle managers in the emergence of strategy

As we noted above in our discussion of Intel, middle managers may play a significant role
in the emergence of organisational strategy, since they often have a similarly significant
role in resource allocation. You may like to consider how a middle manager could shape
organisational strategy using the following checklist of functions by Floyd and Wooldridge:
Upward
Synthesising information:
● Gather information on the feasibility of new programmes

● Communicate the activities of competitors, suppliers, etc.
● Assess changes in the external environment
Championing:
● Justify and define new programmes

● Evaluate the merits of new proposals
● Search for new opportunities
● Propose programmes or projects to higher-level managers

Downward
Facilitating adaptability:
● Relax regulations to get new projects started

● ‘Buy time’ for experimental programmes
● Locate and provide resources for trial projects
● Provide a safe haven for experimental programmes
● Encourage informal discussion and information sharing
Implementing deliberate strategy:
● Monitor activities to support top management objectives

● Translate goals into action plans
● Translate goals into individual objectives
● Sell top management initiatives to subordinates
(Floyd and Wooldridge, 1997, p. 467)

Conclusion
Conclusion
Our first learning outcome for this session was that you should be able to explain the
difference between a ‘markets approach’ and a ‘resource-based approach’ to strategy,
and how they complement each other . We first looked at how analysis of the near
environment forms a basis for planning a strategy to achieve an organisation’s purposes.
As part of this, we discussed Porter’s five forcesframework for competitive analysis, and
how it may need to be adapted for some organisations and sectors. Activity 2 asked you
tothink about the near environment faced by your own organisation. We then turned to the
resource-based view of strategy, andconsidered how analysis and development of an
organisation’s resources and capabilities form another basis for strategic planning.We
looked at four prerequisites for the capability to deliver competitive advantage:
inimitability, durability, relevance, and appropriability. We discussed three main categories
of capability: innovation, architecture and reputation. Activity 3 asked you to apply these
ideas to the example of Marks and Spencer. Activity 4 asked you to analyse the distinctive
capabilities of Li & Fung.
Our second learning outcome was that you should be able to explain what is meant by
‘the value chain’, and how it applies to yourorganisation. We looked at how a careful
analysis of the value chain could reveal opportunities for performance improvement both
withinthe organisation and by managing the value chain outside the organisation. We
looked at Li & Fung as an example of effective management across a value chain
involving multiple organisations
Our third learning outcome was that you should be able to explain what is meant by
‘emergent strategy’ and why intended and actualstrategy may differ . We first looked at a
formal rational process of strategic planning, and then observed that unexpected crises
and opportunities and quickly changing environments may produce a significant gap
between intended and realised strategy. Consequently the quality of an organisation’s
strategy is as much determined by its systems and routines for responding to crises and
opportunities as it is by the quality of its formal strategic planning process.
Our final learning outcome was that you should be equipped to contribute more effectively
to developing and implementing strategy in your organisation. We noted that strategy is
increasingly seen as not only the province of a top team, but involving a wide range
ofmanagers throughout the organisation. The Floyd and Wooldridge framework will help
you to look at your role in developing and implementing strategy. This session should
leave you better prepared to play that role.

Keep on learning
Keep on learning
Study another free course

There are more than 800 courses on OpenLearn for you to choose from on a range of
subjects.
Find out more about all our free courses.
Take your studies further

Find out more about studying with The Open University by visiting our online prospectus.
If you are new to university study, you may be interested in our Access Courses or
Certificates.
What’s new from OpenLearn?

Sign up to our newsletter or view a sample.
For reference, full URLs to pages listed above:

OpenLearn – www.open.edu/openlearn/free-courses
Visiting our online prospectus – www.open.ac.uk/courses
Access Courses – www.open.ac.uk/courses/do-it/access
Certificates – www.open.ac.uk/courses/certificates-he
Newsletter –
www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/subscribe-the-openlearn-newsletter
References
Burgelman, R. A. (1994) ‘Fading memories – a process theory of strategic business exit’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 24–56.

Acknowledgements
Christensen, C. C. and Dann, J. B. (1999) ‘The processes of strategy definition and

implementation’, Harvard Business School Teaching Note 9–399–179, Rev. No-
vember 1, 1999.
Collis, D. J. and Montgomery, C. A. (1995) ‘Competing on Resources: Strategy in the
1990s’, Harvard Business Review, July-August. Reprint No. 95403.
Floyd, S. W. and Wooldridge, B. (1997) ‘Middle management's strategic influence and
organizational performance’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 465–85.
Grant, R. M. (1998) Contemporary Strategy Analysis (third edn), Oxford, Blackwell.
Howard, A. and Magretta, J. (1995) ‘Surviving success: an interview with Nature
Conservancy's John Sawhill’, Harvard Business Review, September-October.
Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1998) ‘The balanced scorecard: measures that drive
performance’ in Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance. Boston,
MA; Harvard Business School Press. Originally published inHarvard Business Review,
January-February 1992. Reprint 92105.
Kay, J. (1993) Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Magretta, J. (1998) ‘Fast, global, and entrepreneurial: supply chain management Hong
Kong style – An interview with Victor Fung’, Harvard Business Review, September-
October.
McKevitt, D. (2000) ‘Strategy implementation in public sector organisations’ in Flood, P.,
Dromgoole, T, Caroll, S. J. and Gorman, L. (eds) Managing Strategy Implementation,
Oxford, Blackwell.
Mintzberg, H. (1994) ‘The rise and fall of strategic planning’, Harvard Business Review,
January-February.
Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries and
Competitors, New York, Free Press.
Acknowledgements
Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this
content is made available under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence
Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce
material in this session:
Course image: Images Money in Flickr made available under
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Licence.
Figure 2 From ‘How competitive forces shape strategy’, by E. Porter, Vol. 57, No. 2 1979.
Figure 3 Figure 3 (B700_3_003i.jpg) based on McKevitt, D., ‘Strategy implementation in
public sector organisations’ in Flood, P., Dromgoole, T., Caroll, S.J. and Gorman, L., (eds)
“Managing Strategy Implementation”, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000;
Figure 4 Grant, R.M., “Contemporary Strategy Analysis”, (3rd edition), Blackwell
publishers Ltd, 1998;
Figure 5 Grant, R. M. (1998) Contemporary Images Money
Strategy Analysis (3rd edition), Blackwell Publishers Ltd;
Figure 8 From ‘The processes of strategy definition and implementation’, by C. C.
Christensen and J. B. Dann

Acknowledgements
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright owners, but if any have been
inadvertently overlooked, the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary
arrangements at the first opportunity.
Don't miss out:
If reading this text has inspired you to learn more, you may be interested in joining the
millions of people who discover our free learning resources and qualifications by visiting
The Open University - www.open.edu/openlearn/free-courses


Strategic View of Performance Printable

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic View of Performance Printable

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic view of performance

2 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

3 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

4 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

5 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

1 What do we mean by strategy?

As we mentioned in the introduction, it is possible to understand strategy from a number

Strategy is the pattern of activities followed by an organisation in pursuit of its

1.2 Organisational purposes

7 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

● Profitability – This is the dominant performance measure for commercial western

8 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

organisations a much wider range of stakeholders potentially needs consideration.

Figure 1 An organisation's stakeholders

9 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

2 Market-based approach to strategy

2.1 The ‘near environment’

● competition for customers

2.2 Porter's five forces framework

10 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

Figure 2 The five forces of competition (Source: Porter, 1980)

2.3 Applying the five forces model

11 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

2.3.1 Understanding Forces of Competition In Private Sector

2.3.2 Understanding Forces of Competition Outside Private Sector

Figure 3 Environment of public-sector organisations (Source: based on McKevitt, 2000)

12 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

Related street-level organisations may be important either as substitutes (e.g. Citizens

2.4 Strategy as fit between organisation and

Box 1 Managing strategic fit at the US Nature Conservancy

13 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

14 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

3 Resource-based approach to strategy

3.1 Understanding organisational capabilities

Organisational capabilities are also often referred to as organisational competences,

15 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

Figure 4 The relationship between resources, capabilities and competitive advantage

16 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

Innovation is an obvious source of distinctive capability, but it is much less often

3.2 Building capabilities and relationships

17 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

Box 2 Marks and Spencer's capabilities in a changing

Contribution of organisational capabilities to competitive advantage

18 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

3.3 Understanding the value chain

19 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

Figure 5 An OU value chain

● identifying the cost of each activity

20 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

Value chain analysis, together with an understanding of an organisation's key capabilities,

Box 3 Managing the value chain at Li & Fung

Say we get an order from a European retailer to produce 10,000 garments.

21 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

don't want the responsibility of having them completely dependent on us.

Contribution of organisational capabilities to competitive advantage

22 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

4 Strategy as rational planning

4.1 Emergent strategy

Figure 6 A strategic planning process

23 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

24 of 30 http://www.open.edu/openlearn/money-management/management/human-resources/strategic-view- Wednesday 21 October 2020

Figure 7 Processes of strategy formulation and implementation (Source: based on

4.1.1 Role of middle managers in the emergence of strategy