1

NAME Kimberley Anne SNELL

DEGREE BA (Hons) Business with

International Management

SUPERVISOR Dr. Mary Thomson

TITLE An Exploration of the use

of Game Theory to
Supplement Scenario
planning in business

DATE April 2017

CAMPUS Newcastle

STUDENT No w13014805

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements of the

BA (HONS) Business with International Management

of Northumbria University
 2

STUDENT NAME Kimberley Anne SNELL

DEGREE BA (Hons) Business with International

Management

DISSERTATION SUPERVISOR Dr. Mary Thomson

DISSERTATION TITLE An Exploration of the use of Game

theory to Supplement Scenario planning
in business

DATE 18th April 2017

KEYWORDS Tri-Hawk-Aggression-Model

Scenario-Analysis

Evolutionary-Game-theory

Strategic-Aggression.

ABSTRACT
In the today’s highly dynamic business environment (Varum & Melo 2010),
scenario analysis has become one of the key tools for management today
(Hirsch, el al. 2013). However, it’s narrative nature (Bowman et al 2013) and
lack of interface between scenario facilitators and decision-makers (Wack
1985) mean it’s use isn’t always trusted as much as more quantitative
business modelling or forecasting methods.

With this in mind, this dissertation explores how Evolutionary Game Theory’s
mathematical analysis of biological contexts can be applied to the business
world by using Maynard-Smith and Price’s (1973) Pivotal Hawk and Dove
model to create a new model, the Tri-Hawk Aggression Model, based on the
original Hawk Competitor to allow for the strategic mapping of businesses in
a market, based on their strategy’s aggression.
 3

A scale was also proposed - created using survey generated professionals’

opinions on the subject – to facilitate the incorporation of companies to the
model. An analysis of the model’s performance when applied to Market X (a
partially real, partially synthesised market based on the Pharmaceuticals
sector) showed the model’s ability to contextualise the users company within
the market place as well as its ability to be tailored by criteria specific to the
user.

The research conducted also showed that Aggression, as a construct for

measuring a company’s strategic competitiveness, received a broad
understanding and acceptance for participants. Content analysis showed
participants’ ability to both identify the main themes or activities they felt
showed aggressive strategy and spot an aggressive or non-aggressive
strategy within the companies they worked. However, the idea of aggression
in a business strategy may benefit from better definition to ensure a
homogenous understanding of what it encompasses.
 4

DECLARATIONS
I declare the following:-

(1) that the material contained in this dissertation is the end result of
my own work and that due acknowledgement has been given in
the bibliography and references to ALL sources be they printed,
electronic or personal.

(2) the Word Count of this Dissertation is: 10,993 words

(3) that unless this dissertation has been confirmed as confidential, I

agree to an entire electronic copy or sections of the dissertation
to being placed on Blackboard, if deemed appropriate, to allow
future students the opportunity to see examples of past
dissertations. I understand that if displayed on Blackboard it
would be made available for no longer than five years and that
students would be able to print off copies or download. The
authorship would remain anonymous.

(4) I agree to my dissertation being submitted to a plagiarism

detection service, where it will be stored in a database and
compared against work submitted from this or any other School
or from other institutions using the service. In the event of the
service detecting a high degree of similarity between content
within the service this will be reported back to my supervisor and
second marker, who may decide to undertake further
investigation which may ultimately lead to disciplinary actions,
should instances of plagiarism be detected.

(5) I have read the University Policy Statement on Ethics in Research

and Consultancy and the Policy for Informed Consent in
Research and Consultancy and I declare that ethical issues have
been considered and taken into account in this research.

(6) I have read the University Policy Statement on Data Protection in

Research and Consultancy and I declare that the data collected
for use in this dissertation has been properly safeguarded and will
be destroyed once the dissertation or subsequent research
activity has been concluded. I acknowledge that it is my
responsibility to destroy the information with due regard to
confidentiality.

SIGNED: ..........................................................
DATE: ................................................................
 5

Acknowledgements

I would like to take the time to thank my supervisor, Dr. Mary Thomson, for
her valuable knowledge and guidance, you have provided a reassuring
presence throughout the dissertation process.

I would also like to thank my paerent for their unwavering support, forever
the voice of warm encouragement, your passion in my beliefs is the only
motivation I will ever need.

My thanks also go to my brother, who always knows how to make me smile,

and to my friends, with the patience of saints, you help get me through.

Finally, I would like to thank my participants, you took the time out of your
busy days to contribute to my research, thank you.
 6

Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 2
Declarations........................................................................................................................ 4
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 5
Contents of tables and figures ......................................................................................... 8
Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 9

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction.............................................................................................. 10

1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 10
1.2 Research topic ...................................................................................................... 10
1.4 Research aims and objectives ............................................................................ 11
1.5 Dissertation structure ........................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2.0 – Literature Review ................................................................................... 13
2.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................. 13
2.1 Why do businesses need to forecast?............................................................... 13
2.2 Business modelling ............................................................................................... 13
2.2 Scenario planning ................................................................................................. 15
2.3 The Scenario planning ‘interface’ ....................................................................... 16
2.4 Business and game theory .................................................................................. 17
2.5 Evolutionary game theory .................................................................................... 18
2.6 Hawk and dove model.......................................................................................... 19
2.6.1 Hawk and Dove Applications ....................................................................... 20
2.6.2 The Model ....................................................................................................... 20
2.7 The Tri-Hawk Aggression Model ........................................................................ 22
Chapter 3.0 – Methodology............................................................................................ 23
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 23
3a.0 The Tri-Hawk Aggression Model ...................................................................... 23
3a.1 Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 24
3a.2 Payoff calculations.............................................................................................. 24
3a2.1 Probability of success .................................................................................. 25
3a.2.2 Cost incurred though competition .................................................................. 26
3a.2.3 Payoff Matrix ................................................................................................ 27
 7

3a.3 Creating a scale .................................................................................................. 28

3a.4 Data Generation.................................................................................................. 28
3a.4.1 Sampling ....................................................................................................... 28
3a.4.2 The questionnaire........................................................................................ 28
3a.4.2.2 Mixed method research........................................................................... 29
3a.4.2.3 Quantitative data ...................................................................................... 29
3a.4.2.4 Qualitative data......................................................................................... 30
3a.5 Ethical considerations ........................................................................................ 31
3a.6 Accounting for bias ............................................................................................. 32
3b.0 – Testing the model ............................................................................................ 33
3b.1 Data synthesis ..................................................................................................... 33
3b.2 Creating the scale ............................................................................................... 34
3b.3 Categorising the companies ............................................................................. 36
3b.4 Applying the companies to the scale ............................................................... 37
Chapter 4.0 – Analysis.................................................................................................... 39
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 39
4.2 The Tri-Hawk Aggression Model ........................................................................ 39
4.3 The Aggression Scale .......................................................................................... 41
4.3.1 Research demographic................................................................................. 42
4.3.2 Creating the scale.......................................................................................... 43
4.4 Aggression as a Construct .................................................................................. 44
4.4.1 Question 8 ...................................................................................................... 44
4.4.2 Question 21 .................................................................................................... 46
4.4.3 Question 23 .................................................................................................... 47
4.4.5 Is aggression a suitable measure? ............................................................. 49
4.5 Model Application.................................................................................................. 51
4.3.3 Model’s analysis............................................................................................. 55
4.4 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 55
Chapter 5.0 – Conclusion ............................................................................................... 56
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 56
5.2 Research Objectives ............................................................................................ 56
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 58

References ....................................................................................................................... 60
 8

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 65

Appendix 2a – Literature review mind map ................................................................. 66

Appendix 3a – Tri-Hawk Aggression Model Assumptions ........................................ 67
Appendix 3b - Payoff calculations ................................................................................ 69
Appendix 3c – Questionnaire (English) ........................................................................ 71
Appendix 3d – Questionnaire (French) ........................................................................ 75
Appendix 3e – Questionnaire (German) ...................................................................... 79
Appendix 3f – Data collection and data synthesis for use in the models’
application ......................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix 3g - Company data ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 3h – Fortran script to run simulation ........................................................... 90
Appendix 4 – Personal Statement ................................................................................ 93
Final Page......................................................................................................................... 96

Contents of tables and figures

Table 2.1 .......................................................................................................................... 21

Table 3.1 ........................................................................................................................... 25
Table 3.2 .......................................................................................................................... 26
Table 3.3 ........................................................................................................................... 27
Table 3.4 .......................................................................................................................... 32
Table 3.5 ........................................................................................................................... 35
Table 3.6 .......................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.1 .......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 4.2 ......................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.3 .......................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.4 ......................................................................................................................... 46
Table 4.5 ........................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 4.6 ......................................................................................................................... 52
Figure4.7 ........................................................................................................................... 32
Table A1 ............................................................................................................................ 81
 9

Glossary

Focal Strategy

The strategy which represents the user of the model, or the strategy
which is being focused upon.

Opponent Strategy

The strategy which the focal strategy is competing against

War of attrition

In an EGT context, the War of attrition game model’s animal

contests in which the outcome is decided using non-aggressive
behaviour, such as displaying, by considering how long the animal
will persist with the contest (Iyer 2016).

Cooperative game

A cooperative game is a game where the players can collude or

converse, and thus know one-another’s strategies.

Non-Cooperative game

In a non-cooperative game, players do not talk and thus, do not

know the strategies to be used by other players.
 10

Chapter 1.0 – Introduction

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the following
dissertation and accompanying research. Initially introducing the research
topic and briefly detailing a background to the area of research, expanded
on in the literature review, the chapter proceeds to outline the objectives of
the dissertation as well as the structure the dissertation will follow.

1.2 Research topic

The research area for this dissertation focuses around the development of a
new framework, to be founded in evolutionary game theory, that uses the
strategies of competing businesses to analyse the competitive make up of a
given market.

Whilst it will be possible to use the model alone, it has been designed as a
tool to support the Scenario Analysis business modelling method. At
present, decision makers often struggle to trust the method as they struggle
to see the base for the scenarios, and there for to trust its outcome.

It is hoped that with the addition of the proposed model, a more scientifically
grounded idea can be created for which scenario is more likely, and this may
help managers and decision makers trust the Scenario Analysis better.
 11

1.4 Research aims and objectives

The author has identified several aims and objectives that they hope will be
realised through the research and study conducted in the area detailed
above.

1. To find a way to help reinforce the scenario analysis process for

businesses by analysing the competitive make up of a market.

2. To build a model with a game theoretic base capable of analysing the

interactions between competitors of different strategic aggressions.

3. To propose a scale to accompany the model to demonstrate its

application on a synthesised market scenario.

4. To use research conducted to understand if strategy aggression is a

suitable measure to reinforce scenario analysis method.

4a. To understand if aggression can be operationalised.

4b. To understand if an analysis of strategy aggression is sufficient

(not too superficial) to aid in the prediction of a company’s success.

1.5 Dissertation structure

This dissertation is divided into five chapters including this first chapter which
aims to set out the purpose of the dissertation, citing its aims, objectives and
providing some background as to the subject area and the need for this
research to be carried out.

Chapter two will be a comprehensive literature review, covering the area of

research by analysing previous efforts made and creating a basis for the
research to build upon in the following chapters.
 12

Chapter Three will be divided into two sections. The first section will focus
on the model’s formulation as well as the primary data generated and used
to create the accompanying scale. This section will also cover how any
ethical issues were mitigated. The second part of the chapter will cover the
application of the new model to a market, Market X, made up of partially real
partially synthesised data collected from the Pharmaceuticals industry.

Chapter four will be the analysis of the model’s creation and application,
covering the outcomes of the model’s creation, as well as the outcome of its
application. This chapter will also analyse the qualitative data collected to
attempt to better understand weather aggression as a construct is a suitable
measure of a company’s competitive capability.

The final chapter, chapter five, will be the conclusion. In this chapter, the
research will be discussed in terms of the objectives for the study and
weather they have been realised. The chapter will also discuss any
ramifications for the research, any limitations faced, and finally any areas
that could be suitable for further research.
 13

Chapter 2.0 – Literature Review

2.1 Purpose
According to Thomas (2011), the purpose of a literature review is to provide
a ‘raft’ on which your research can be built by looking at what has already
been done. This literature review, planned using mind mapping (appendix
2a), will discuss business modelling, with specific reference to scenario
analysis, why it is used, and some potential problems with its application
before going on to discuss how Game theory could provide a solution to the
identified problems.

Whilst the author is aware that some of the articles referenced in this review
are dated, they prove the unequivocal turning points to game theory and
deserve consideration for their status as such.

2.1 Why do businesses need to forecast?

As the business environment changes, companies are forced to adapt to the
new realities, technologies and trends (Varum & Melo 2010). In the fast
paced, highly complexed business environment of today (Tennent & Friend
2011), a company’s ability to identify and adapt to the trends of the future is
fast becoming a determinant of a firm’s competitive advantage (Varum, &
Melo 2010) with the concept of business modelling offering a fresh way of
considering a company’s options in an uncertain, unpredictable environment
(McGrath 2010).

2.2 Business modelling

The increasing prevalence of business modelling, driven by the growing
number of personal computers (Magretta 2002) and increased commercial
access to the internet (Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Tucci 2005), has drawn the
 14

attention of a wide range of disciplines. Thus, whilst many authors have

offered definitions as to ‘what a business model is’, there is a pronounced
lack of consensus between researchers and practitioners alike (Schafer,
Smith & Linder 2005), a disparity represented in the subject’s literature by
the abundance of different definitions and methodologies offered for
business modelling (Osterwalder et al. 2005; Bradfield et al 2005; Zott, Amit,
& Massa, 2011).

This confusion means that, although there has been an almost exponential
rise in the interest in business modelling from both researchers and users
(Zott et al. 2011), it can still be difficult to understand what business
modelling is.

Though it can be hard to find a common definition as to what business

modelling is, perhaps more frequently outlined is the purpose of business
modelling. Providing a ‘discovery driven’ rather than analytical approach
(McGrath 2010), business models are designed to be a “virtual reality
representation” of how and when a business opportunity in the real world
could present its self (Tennent & Friend 2011).

By using business modelling as a tool, managers can explore increasingly

complexed decisions, by using grouped sets of assumptions, it is possible
to predict alternative future environments (Tennent & Friend 2011), and with
prediction, can come preparation.

There are lots of these modelling tools available to the corporate decision
maker to minimise future uncertainty using a mixture of qualitative and
quantitative analysis.

MAPS, proposed by Mitri (1995) is an international market entry tool that is

designed to help senior management make strategic decisions regarding
market entry (Mitri, 1995 & 1996; Mitri, Karimalis, Cannon, & Yaprak, 2000).

Similarly, Heger and Rohrbeck’s (2012) proposed an integrated approach to

strategic foresight that combined competitor, market, financial, and product-
 15

properties analysis to create a new foresight analysis tool designed to look

at the exploration of new business fields.

However, scenario analysis remains one of the most widely used and
accepted tools to facilitate corporate foresight (Hirsch, Buggraf, & Daheim,
2013), either by making a broad assessment of possible future operating
environments, or by focusing in on an important decision (Harris 2014).

2.2 Scenario planning

The creation of scenarios is designed to provide managers with a ‘mental
map to the future’ (Wack 1985) that helps estimate future business
conditions. Scenario planning differs from other business modelling and
forecasting methods in two major ways; firstly, it usually provides a
contextual, qualitative description of how the business environment will
change; secondly, the process culminates with a set of ‘futures’ defined,
each of which is a plausible possibility, but not assured (Schnaars 1987).
These estimations can then form a base on which a company can develop
a set of strategic plans, able to integrate a range of diverse factors from the
social and political climate, to economic and technological changes (Li, Ang,
& Gay 1997).

However, because scenario planning has been around for over thirty years,
as with Business modelling, many different iterations and executions have
developed, resulting in a ‘methodological chaos’ (Bradfield et al 2005).

Despite this, it’s provision of knowledge able to form the backbone of long-
term oriented decision making has helped it become a key tool used in
strategic foresight (Hirsch, el al. 2013), earning it a spot on the list of key
resources in an executive’s arsenal.

Although there are individual differences between practices, the most

common application is deployed in a group-workshop format, led by a
facilitator (Franco, Meadows, & Armstrong 2013).
 16

As a narrative tool, scenario analysis is thought to ‘compel attention’ and

‘promote retention’ (Bowman et al 2013), subsequently, this process of
qualitative group analysis a company goes through when employing this
method often allows for extended learning through the chance to talk about
and prepare for the future (Harris 2014).

However, whilst scenarios are affective at mitigating uncertainty, it has been

argued that managers today are presented with a whole new range of
unexpected situations, indicative to the blind spots hidden in the scenario
method (Postma & Liebl 2005). Similarly, researchers in the area have
argued that no scenario can reliably provide an accurate description of the
future (Varum & Melo 2010) and the scenario analysis method can easily be
pushed into inaccuracy if any unforeseen, unprepared-for, events emerge
(Harris 2014).

These negatives, alone, pose a threat, but one that can be managed through
various mitigation strategies, such as increasing the size or the cognitive
diversity of people taking part in the workshop (Franco et al. 2013).

Whilst the increasing complexity of the business environment has seen the
scenario process adapt to better handle some of the issues listed above,
one issue, remaining unresolved since the model’s inception is the break
down in interface between the Scenario Analysis facilitator and the decision-
maker (Wack 1985).

2.3 The Scenario planning ‘interface’

In his early analysis of the tool, and through the use of anecdote, Wack
(1985) highlighted one of the main issues with scenario planning is the
interface between those implementing the scenario analysis, the
consultants, and those understanding what it means, the managers.

He further highlights that perhaps one reason for the failure or mistrust of
some scenario planning is that the consultants don’t feel responsible for the
 17

client’s comprehension of the subject, only that they deliver it in a manor

satisfactory to themselves (Wack 1985).

Similarly, even though the Scenario analysis tool is used to minimise

uncertainty and predict the future, managers still report finding themselves
surprised as issues that weren’t considered ‘plausible’ during the process
later materialise in a way that decision-makers are unprepared for (Postma
& Libel 2005).

Wack (1985) also hypothesises that, if the scenario’s and analysis fails to
“touch a cord with the manager’s mind” it may fail to have real meaning for
them, and perhaps not be taken as seriously as it should, or could be.

Although in the years since Wack’s (1985) initial reservations, ways have
been found to build a manager’s confidence in the scenario process (such
as defining scope of the scenarios use, or interviewing the participants
before the workshops to highlight areas of concern (Maack 2001)), there is
still a lack of ‘anticipation’ practice from decision-makers unable to see value
in scenario analysis, as, when things are going well, the need is not there
and, when things are going badly, it is too late (Godet 2000).

Perhaps it is the lack of a suitable or supported interface between the

consultants and managers that Wack (1985) suggested. And if this is the
case, how can such an exercise be operationalised or supported in a way
that would appeal to management? Enter Game Theory.

2.4 Business and game theory

In its simplest form, game theory relates to the study of strategy and how
‘players’ make decisions based on their interaction with one another
(Hilsenrath 2005). The use of game theory to refine strategic practice has
helped redefine entire fields of study in the social sciences (Farrell 2016).

Although there is a well-documented presence of informal game theory as

far back as the study of duopoly by Cournot in 1838 and Darwin’s 1871 work
 18

on frequency dependent dynamics, the first ‘formal theory of games’ was

suggested by the mathematician Émile Borel in 1921.

It wasn’t, however, until the publishing of the “Theory of games and

Economic Behaviour” by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in
1944 that the study of game theory became a field on its own right (Turocy
& von Stengel, 2002) and an accepted mathematical means of strategic
analysis (Mills & Marchant-Forde, 2010).

After it’s recognitions as such, a multitude of interpretations began to take

form over the late eighties and nineties including Kreps (1990), Bierman &
Fernandez (1993), and Casson (1994) exploring game theory and
Camerer’s (1991) paper on why strategy should utilise game theory in its
process.

Game theory is frequently criticised in practice in a business forecasting

scenario, as it only provides half of the ‘picture’ that a manager needs
(Camerer 1991), and, whilst the author is not necessarily agreeing this,
surely that would be okay if Game Theory was implemented exactly to do
this: to form half of the picture, to act as a support tool, as the interface Wack
(1985) mentions so that managers can better understand the ‘narrative’
nature (Bowman et al. 2013) of Scenario planning by being able to quantify
or rationalise it in a way that Managers are more likely to understand or
recognise as relevant: Competition.

2.5 Evolutionary game theory

Whilst competition is threaded throughout game theory, as most games
involve interaction between two players often based on some form of
competition, where it is perhaps most transferable to business is in
Evolutionary game theory (herein EGT).

Whilst classical game theory established early in the 1900’s, evolutionary

thinking saw its translation from biology to game theory much later. This was,
in part, due to Maynard-Smith and Price’s (1973) paper on “the logic of
 19

animal conflict” (Van Der Laan, & Tieman 1998), where Evolutionary stable
strategies (ESS) were first explored and the influential Hawk and Dove
model was first introduced.

As EGT itself applies the mathematical theory of games to biological context,

focussing on factors such as resources and frequency dependent fitness of
animals (Alaxander 2010), there are certainly parallels to be drawn between
EGT models and the business environment where competition between
firms and, to some extent, firm survival, is based around the prevalence and
strength of competitors (West 2001).

With this in mind, and with so many options to choose from, how can the
knowledge of similarity between the business environment and the animal
world be translated into a scenario supportive management tool?

By looking to one of the unequivocal turning points of game theory: Maynard-

Smith and Price’s 1973 paper on “the logic of animal conflict”. Famous for
its hypothesising of ESS and proposition of the Hawk and Dove model, it is
the latter that will be focused on for its ability to map conflict situations.

2.6 Hawk and dove model

The Hawk and Dove model is thought to be one of the most important
models in EGT because of the implications it has on conflict mapping (Van
Der Laan, & Tieman 1998).

In its simplest form, extensively detailed by Dixit, Reiley and Seath (2009),
the Hawk and Dove model involves two players: the aggressive hawk and
the passive dove. In a confrontation between two hawks, both fight and there
is a 50% chance of winning and, therefore, getting the resource reward.

If two doves face off, both commit to a displaying behaviour in a war of

attrition style game, where there is a fifty percent chance of success, but
neither animal fights and thus there is no chance of wounding through the
encounter.
 20

If a Hawk and Dove should encounter, when either is the focal strategy, the
result is always the same: the Dove instantly surrenders the resource to the
Hawk and neither are injured as no physical conflict took place.

Both of these tactics are reminiscent of the ‘tournament’ and ‘display’ tactics
described by Maynard-Smith (1974) and help to give a basic way of mapping
conflict by analysing the strategies used by the players involved.

2.6.1 Hawk and Dove Applications

The model has been tailored and applied in many different scenarios since
its conception (Auger, de la Parra, and Sánchez 1988; Auger and Pontier
1998; Auger et al. 2002; Auger et al. 2006), but more traditionally, economic
applications for EGT are few and often isolated (Friedman, 1998). However,
more recently, the Hawk and Dove model has seen a small but increasing
presence in economics, a prime example of this being Hanauske, Kunz,
Bernius, & König (2010) using the model to perform an analysis on the
financial crisis of 2008.

2.6.2 The Model

The Hawk and Dove model its self is a simply constructed game, involving
two players: Hawk (H) and Dove (D).

The payoff for any contest can be displayed as such:

𝐸𝑏 (𝑎) = 𝛿(𝑉 − 𝐶) + 𝜇(−𝐶)

Where 𝐸𝑏 (𝑎) it the payoff to 𝑎 (the focal strategy) when it is competing

against 𝑏 (the opponent’s strategy), 𝛿 is the probability of winning, 𝜇 is the
probability of loosing and 𝑉 and 𝐶 represent the value of the resource and
the cost of competition respectively.
 21

The standard payoff matrices for a Hawk-Dove game is shown in table 2.1
below (taken from Dixit et al. 2009).

Table 2.1 – Table to show the payoffs for the Hawk-Dove game

Opponent strategy

Hawk (𝐻) Dove (𝐷)

Hawk 𝑉
−𝐶 𝑉
Focal (𝐻) 2
Strategy Dove 𝑉
0
(𝐷) 2

To calculate the prosperity of either strategy, the fitness of a strategy is also

considered (Dixit et al. 2009). This takes into account the frequency of each
strategy within a population as well as the payoff depending on the focal
strategies opponent. Below sees the calculation to determine the health of
one player (in the example, the Hawk) in a Hawk-Dove game.

𝑊𝐻 = ℎ(𝐸𝐻 (𝐻)) + 𝑑(𝐸𝐷 (𝐻))

Here, 𝑊𝐻 refers to the fitness of 𝐻, the Hawk strategy, whilst ℎ refers to the
frequency of that strategy within the population. Similarly, 𝐷 references the
Dove strategy whilst 𝑑 refers to the frequency of that strategy within the
population.

By using the Hawk and Dove model on a population, whether animal or

business, a ‘fitness’ for each strategy can be explored. And, whilst here the
model is a clear map for evolution of a population, as others have already
 22

shown (Hanauske et al. 2010) it is not a far cry from the business
perspective.

2.7 The Tri-Hawk Aggression Model

Lorenz (1966) refers to the formal nature of animal contest as if played by
rules, much like that of a boxing match. This is similarly applicable in
business, as there are many rules to fair competition.

So, what if a model could be created, similar to that of the Hawk and Dove
model (Maynard-Smith & Price 1973), capable of analysing a markets
competitive structure? Whilst the Dove pacifist strategy is rarely seen in
business, the ‘Hawkish’ characteristics of the aggressive strategy are
frequently in company competition, whether over contracts, market share, or
customers.

This dissertation proposes a new Tri-Hawk Aggression model, based on the

Hawk component of Maynard-Smith and Prices original (1973) model, where
three Hawk competitors are available as categories into which companies
within a market place can be classified.

By contextualising the user within their markets competitive landscape, it is

hoped this added perspective will be able to serve as a predictor for which
of the more ‘narrative’ scenarios hypothesised is more likely to happen
based on competitor analysis and what this means for the focal company,
explored further in chapter 4.
 23

Chapter 3.0 – Methodology

3.1 Introduction
This chapter will be split into two parts. Part 3.a will cover the creation of the
new Tri-Hawk aggression model, including the primary research undertaken
to create a scale for the application of the new model. Furthermore, the
section will critically assess the methods used in data collection and data
generation, and how any issues that were faced were overcome.

Part 3.b will cover the application of the model using synthesised datasets
based on data taken from the pharmaceuticals industry. This section will
focus on how data was gathered and synthesised, and how the Geany
computer program was used with Fortran to run a simulation.

3a.0 The Tri-Hawk Aggression Model

As mentioned in the literature review, the new Tri-Hawk Aggression model

is based around an expanded variation of the Hawk adversary from
Maynard-Smith and Price’s (1973) Hawk and Dove model, removing the
Dove competitor and adding in two less aggressive Hawks.

In order to apply the model, a set of assumptions to bound the model need
to be outlined and the payoff for each of the three strategies (𝐻1 , 𝐻2 , and 𝐻3 )
when in competition must be calculated, as well as the ‘fitness’ for all players
involved.
 24

3a.1 Assumptions
The assumptions of any theoretic model allow for an environment to be
constructed by controlling possible variables and can be as simple or as
complex as the applier wishes. The assumptions below represent a relatively
simplistic set to allow easy use, however the applicator can add more as
required.

Assumption 1: The game is Non-Cooperative

Assumption 2: 𝑉 > 𝐶 > 0

Assumption 3: 𝐶 is that of the cost to the weakest competitor

Assumption 4: 𝑉 and 𝐶 are arbitrary values, remaining the same respectively

Assumption 5: the three 𝐻 strategies are the only strategies available

These assumptions1 should remain true for each game as they help to
fabricate a ‘stable environment’ for the game to be simulated in by controlling
and reducing variables.

3a.2 Payoff calculations

The payoff for any contest refers to the average outcome for the focal
strategy when it competes against the opponent strategy and can be
displayed as such:

𝐸𝑏 (𝑎) = 𝛿(𝑉 − 𝐶) + 𝜇(−𝐶)

Where 𝐸𝑏 (𝑎) it the payoff to 𝑎 (the focal strategy) when it is competing

against 𝑏 (the opponent’s strategy), 𝛿 Is the probability of winning, 𝜇 is the

1 Reasoned in appendix 3a
 25

probability of loosing and 𝑉 and 𝐶 represent the value of the resource and
the cost of competition respectively.

Thus, to calculate the payoff for the focal strategy, first the probability of
success and the cost incurred though competition were calculated.

3a2.1 Probability of success

Maynard-Smith and Price’s (1997) original Hawk was the basis for the 𝐻1
strategy, and 𝐻3 represents an aggressive ‘Dove’ who fights rather than
displays (and can therefore injure and be injured), but who has the same
probability of beating 𝐻1 : 0.

Furthermore, each strategy has a 0.5 probability of winning when it faces an

opponent using the same strategy (𝐻1 has a 50% chance of beating 𝐻1 )
(Dixit et al. 2009). Additionally, 𝐻2 should be representative of a strategy
falling between 𝐻1 and 𝐻3 in aggression. Thus, table 3.1 shows the
probability of the focal strategy winning when it is competing against the
opponent strategy.

Table 3.1 – A table to show the probability of success in a

competition against the opponent strategy

Opponent Strategy

𝐻1 𝐻2 𝐻3

𝐻1 0.50 0.75 1
Focal
𝐻2 0.25 0.50 0.75
Strategy
𝐻3 0 0.25 0.50
 26

3a.2.2 Cost incurred though competition

The cost incurred to the focal strategy is also necessary when calculating a
strategy’s payoff. As seen in table 3.2 below, the cost to the focal strategy
will always be that of the lowest possible cost. For example, if 𝐻1 is in
competition with another 𝐻1 then the maximum cost possible will be incurred
as both compete with the highest possible level of aggression, thus the
highest possible level of injury.

Table 3.2 – Table to show the Cost incurred to the focal strategy when
in a competition against the opponent strategy

Opponent Strategy
𝐻1 𝐻2 𝐻3
𝐶 𝐶
𝐻1 C
2 4
Focal 𝐶 𝐶 𝐶
𝐻2
Strategy 2 2 4
𝐶 𝐶 𝐶
𝐻3
4 4 4

𝐶
However, if 𝐻1 finds itself in competition with 𝐻3 then a cost of will be
4

incurred. This is based on the logic that, as 𝐻1 has a 100% chance of beating
𝐻3 it will not commit the same resources or ‘aggression’ to the confrontation
as it requires less of it’s personal resources to win, and, by committing less
aggression or resources, is less able to injure.

Translatable to business, it would not be efficient for a large company like

Google or Apple to commit the same resources to a competition with a
smaller company who does not have the ‘aggression’ or resources to beat
them, as they perhaps would to a contest with another big competitor like
Amazon. Thus, the cost to any strategy in a confrontation is that of the cost
 27

𝐶
to the least aggressive player, where the cost to 𝐻1 is 𝐶, the cost to 𝐻2 is 2
𝐶
and the cost to 𝐻3 is 4.

3a.2.3 Payoff Matrix

Below see the calculated payoffs for each strategy in table 3.3 based on the
calculation outlined in section 3a.1. (Extended workings shown in Appendix
3b).

Table 3.3 – Payoff Matrix showing the payoff to the focal strategy
when competing with the opponent strategy

Opponent Strategy
𝑯𝟏 𝑯𝟐 𝑯𝟑

𝑉 3𝑉 − 2𝐶 𝐶
𝑯𝟏 −𝐶 𝑉−
2 4 4

Focal 𝑉 − 2𝐶 𝑉−𝐶 3𝑉 − 𝐶
𝑯𝟐
Strategy 4 2 4

𝐶 𝑉−𝐶 2𝑉 − 𝐶
𝑯𝟑 −
4 4 4

The payoff calculations allow for the ‘fitness’ of a strategy to be calculated

using the formula detailed by Dixit et al (2009). By using the frequency with
which each strategy appears in a population and multiplying that by the
payoff given to the Focal strategy when it faces one of its opponents, a
strategy fitness can be calculated.

However, for the new Tri-Hawk Aggression model to be affective, a way of

categorising other businesses strategies on the same scale must be
realised. Whilst it would be possible for the applying companies to realise
their own scale, for this dissertation one was created, using generated data,
and will serve for the application of the model to the case in section 3b.0.
 28

3a.3 Creating a scale

In the original model, as well as the animal kingdom, each competitor is
clearly categorised as Hawk or Dove based on the tactics exhibited during
conflict. In business, however, all supposed players have some form of
aggression and are thus only differentiated by their inability to compete as
aggressively as some of their opponents. Therefore, a scale must be created
to categorise opponent by strategy: 𝐻1 , 𝐻2 or 𝐻3 .

The aggression scale will act as a weighted measure of a specific

competitor’s strategy based on the data generated from questionnaires.

3a.4 Data Generation

To develop the scale component so that the user, or focal strategy, can place
themselves and their prospective competitors into the representative
categories (𝐻1 , 𝐻2 or 𝐻3 ), a questionnaire was created (appendix 3c) to
generate data on business professionals’ opinions as to what made a
business strategy aggressive or not aggressive.

3a.4.1 Sampling
Whilst convenience sampling was originally used, many of the participants
contacted via email nominated others who would also be willing to take the
questionnaire, meaning that the snowballing sampling method also
manifested. The combination of these methods meant that participants were
more varied and the questionnaire reached a larger number than initially
anticipated.

3a.4.2 The questionnaire

Opinions of business professionals about what makes a strategy aggressive
would form the base of the scale, thus the survey method was chosen for its
ability to reach a large number of people in an easily transmittable format via
 29

internet sites like Survey Monkey, and often encourages higher response
rates as respondents feel increased anonymity (Gillham 2010).

3a.4.2.2 Mixed method research

As a research tool, mixed method research has not been embraced as
enthusiastically in the field of business and management research in
comparison to other more scientific areas such as sociology, psychology and
health science research (Cameron 2011).

For this study, however, mixed method research, the practice of combining
both qualitative and quantitative methods of data generation (Krivokapic-
Skoko 2011), meant that the quantitative data for the scale was
complimented by the participant’s opinions and justifications for their
choices. If the survey distributed had collected solely quantitative results, it
is possible useful insights may have been missed in the depth that qualitative
data generation often facilitates (Groves et al. 2009).

3a.4.2.3 Quantitative data

In the survey, (excluding questions 1 to 7 concerning personal data),
questions 9 to 19, 20 and 22 were designed to generate quantitative data
either through the use of a scale, or by asking for a yes or no answer which
could then be reasoned by the following qualitative answer.

Questions 9 to 19 were designed to generate quantitative data using a Likert

scale to determine participant’s opinions regarding areas of companies
spending and their correspondence to the aggressiveness of their strategy.

These questions were the most important as they provided the ‘backbone’
to the model: the scale on which companies could be placed to determine
which level of strategy, 𝐻1 , 𝐻2 or 𝐻3 , they use. Using such a scale to collect
participant’s opinions on the aggression, or lack-of, for each activity meant
that each area was already operationalised, making it easier to calculate the
scale.
 30

To make the model easily applicable for potential users, all factors listed in
the questions were chosen for their quantifiability through percent or a
financial quantity. This also means that, should a company wish to apply the
model in different areas or more than once, each application of the model
will be using the same data fields, and thus comparable across tests.

Whilst questions 20 and 22 were also designed to generate quantitative data

by asking for a yes or no answer, the subsequent question to each asked for
an explanation, thus backing up the opinion with qualitative reasoning, to
test the survey’s reliability by testing participant’s comprehension on the
topic.

3a.4.2.4 Qualitative data

In the survey, questions 8, 21 and 23 were designed to generate qualitative
data. Whilst quantitative data is often considered to be more objective and
scientific than qualitative data (Crowther & Lancaster, 2012), it’s use in the
questionnaire was either to provide a definition (question 8) – and thus
demonstrate to the researcher the participant’s understanding of the subject
– or to accompany a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ quantitative answer (question’s 20 and 22)
to give the participant the opportunity to provide insight into their opinions.

The first and last questions (8 and 23) were also included to reassure the
author that the participant understood the questions and, in particular, the
inferred meaning of the word aggressive.

All the qualitative questions were then analysed using the content analysis
method to understand if aggression could be quantified and if, as a construct,
it was suitable to be used in this application.
 31

3a.5 Ethical considerations

Ethical issues can be identified when considering possible harm that may
come from the research, as well as possible risks that may occur from your
research (Quinlan, 2011), and may present themselves at multiple stages of
the process (Hair 2012).

Before any research was conducted, a plan for the research, including a
copy of the questionnaire, was submitted to the Northumbria University
Ethics committee to be approved. This research was classed as Amber as it
involved primary data collection from real participants, however every effort
was made to minimise any possible ethical issues.

Throughout the research process, the researcher has remained mindful of

the four key areas of potential risk that are commonly associated with social
science research:
1. Avoiding harm to all involved in or potentially affected by the research
2. Ensuring the anonymity of all participants/respondents
3. Gaining informed consent from all participants / respondents
4. Avoiding deception
Accordingly, every effort has been made, with close guidance from the
academic research supervisor, to eliminate, or as a minimum ameliorate,
these potential risks throughout the processes of research design, data
generation, data analysis and dissemination. All data has been stored
securely, locked or encrypted, throughout the course of the research and will
be destroyed upon completion. Specifically, the following actions were
taken, shown in table 3.4 below.
 32

Table 3.4 – Table to show the ethical considerations undertaken

during this research

Area of potential Specific action/s taken to avoid risk

risk
1. Avoiding harm All participants were informed about nature of the
to all involved in research before they started, having the option to
or potentially withdraw should they wish. Also, the researcher’s
affected by the
email was provided should they have any concerns
research
or wish to withdraw.

2. Ensuring the The provision of personal data was optional, and no

anonymity of all field for participant’s name was given. No completed
participants/ questionnaire was published and after graduation
respondents
the results for each will be destroyed, insuring both
Anonymity and privacy to participants.

3. Gaining The first page of the questionnaire (appendix 3c)

informed explained the study, what the data would be used
consent from all for, and reassured participants of their anonymity.
participants /
The participant’s continuation from this page into the
respondents
survey signified their consent to participation.

4. Avoiding Participants were not deceived to the nature of this

deception research and the informed consent form (detailed
above) helped to ensure they fully understood the
nature of the research before partaking.

5. Data storage Data was kept on a password protected personal

and destruction computer, a backup kept on the secure University
drive. After graduation, data will be destroyed (wiped
from the personal computer and the university drive).
The Survey Monkey account will be closed to ensure
no further access to the data is possible, also
facilitating participants’ right to be forgotten.

3a.6 Accounting for bias

A concerted effort was made to avoid Culture bias by distributing the
questionnaire in three different languages, English (written by the author,
appendix 3c), French (written by the author and checked externally,
appendix 3d) and German (translated externally, appendix 3e). As the
 33

author was aware many of the participants, accessed through the

convenience sampling method, would be English, French or German
speaking natives, these languages were chosen for the questionnaire.

When the questionnaire was distributed, participants were advised to

choose whichever language they felt most comfortable with to maximise the
reliability of results.

3b.0 – Testing the model

To demonstrate the applicability of the model a test was formed using a

blend of secondary data and synthesised data using the secondary data as
a base.

3b.1 Data synthesis

To test the model, a synthesised market was created with 40 companies
(herein referred to as Market X). Whilst it is possible to apply the model to
as few or as many companies as required, 40 were created here to allow for
a breadth in results and a better synthesis of the variation found in a natural
market place.

To ensure the data for the test had a suitable base or was ‘realistic’, data
was taken from the top ten global pharmaceuticals companies, listed by
Anderson (2014) as: Johnson and Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Hoffmann-La
Roche, Sanofi, Merck, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and AbbVie.

The pharmaceuticals industry, and these ten companies, were chosen for
the ease of access to their financial data required to make the model’s scale,
 34

i.e. the percentage of revenues in the areas on the scale like R&D, marketing
and sales2.

Taking these first ten companies as the base companies, thirty more
companies were created using the same percentages for marketing, R&D,
HR, sales, production, purchasing, IT and technology, training, and
recruitment, but reducing the market share and profit.

Thus, companies 1-10 signify the base companies, companies 11-20 are
reduced in size by one quarter. Companies 21-30 are reduced in size by one
half, and companies 31-40 are reduced in size by three quarters. These
incremental reductions, whilst not reducing the health of the company by as
significant an amount as the market share and the profit (because the health
is weighted with the other factors), serves to create the more realistic
structure of a market with different sized companies competing.

3b.2 Creating the scale

The first stage to creating the scale was to gather the means from the
questionnaire data. Questions 9 to 19 were designed to gain participants’
responses as to whether a business’s investment in a certain area made
them more or less aggressive.

The responses to these questions were collated and the averages found,
shown in table 3.5 below.

2 For full details about how all the percentages were calculated, see appendix 3f
 35

Table 3.5 – table showing the mean response to aggression

rating questions

Business area Mean aggression rating

5 = very aggressive
as listed in questionnaire 1 = not very aggressive.

Marketing 3.94
R&D 3.46
HR 2.72
Sales 4.05
Production 3.00
Purchasing 3.03
IT and technology 3.34
Training 3.12
Recruitment 3.36
Market share 2.85
Profit 2.76

These responses provide the basis for the weighting of each area of the
scale. The first nine categories contribute to 50% of the final scale, whilst
market share and profit each contribute to 25%.

Whilst possible for each user to decide the weighting of their scale, the above
weight’s have been chosen for this project to account for the varying financial
resources available to each company. If these two values were equal to the
rest, no suitable differentiation between companies with a large financial
base and small financial base would be realised, presenting an unrealistic
outcome if two such companies competed3.

3 Whilst possible a small company may occasionally beat a larger in contest, this is not
representative of the average occurrence in business
 36

3b.3 Categorising the companies

To categorise the companies in Market X, the scale was applied to each.
This was done by multiplying the average for each category by the
percentage investment for each company (in numeric form, e.g. 23% = 0.23).

See the example for the first company below in table 3.6. (see the
calculations for all other companies in appendix 3f).

Table 3.6 – Table to show the example case of

Company 21 being scaled

Business area Mean aggression

Company 1 Company 1
as listed in rating
% expenditure in Scaled down (column
5 = very aggressive
questionnaire 1 = not very aggressive.
numeric form 2 x column 3)

Marketing 3.94 0.239000 1.909610

R&D 3.46 0.128000 0.442880
HR 2.72 0.001453 0.003953
Sales 4.05 0.256000 0.768000
Production 3.00 0.000406 0.001230
Purchasing 3.03 0.032000 0.106880
IT and technology 3.34 0.000444 0.001385
Training 3.12 0.000308 0.001034
Recruitment 3.36 0.036000 0.102600
Market share 2.85 0.580600 1.602456
Profit 2.76 0.239000 1.909610

Following the process of scaling the companies’ scores, their final

aggression rating was calculated by multiplying the sum of the first 9 numeric
row’s by 1.5, plus sum of row 10 by 1.25, plus the sum of row 11 by 1.25 to
get the company’s total ‘aggression’ score4 (see the final calculation for each
company in appendix 3g).

4Whilst possible to multiply each by 0.5, 0.25 and 0.25 respectively, adding 1.0 meant the
numbers remained big enough to be easily handled without effecting the outcome.
 37

3b.4 Applying the companies to the scale

Finally, to apply all of the companies to the Tri-Hawk aggression model, each
company’s category needed to be calculated.

To do this, the range of the scores was found my subtracting the score of
the company with the lowest aggression from the score of the company with
the highest aggression.

Once the range was found it was divided by three in order to calculate the
boundaries of each category. For example; the boundaries of the 𝐻1
category was the highest score minus one third of the range; the boundaries
of the 𝐻3 category was the lowest score plus one third of the range; and the
boundaries of the 𝐻2 category fell between the two.

Once the companies were calculated into their respective strategy

categories, the fitness of each category could be determined by substituting
𝑉 and 𝐶.

The fitness of a strategy5, for example 𝐻1 , when there are three, is calculated
as such:

𝑊𝐻1 = ℎ1 (𝐸𝐻1 (𝐻1 )) + ℎ2 (𝐸𝐻2 (𝐻1 )) + ℎ3 (𝐸𝐻3 (𝐻1 ))

Here, 𝑊𝐻1 refers to the fitness of 𝐻1 strategy, whilst ℎ1 , ℎ2 , and ℎ3 refers to

the frequency of that strategy (1, 2 or 3) within the population and again,
𝐸𝐻2 (𝐻1 ) refers to the payoff for 𝐻1 when in competition with 𝐻3 and so on,
already calculated in section 3a.1.3 and shown in table 3.3.

Once this is complete the applier of the model or ‘focal strategy’ can now
see the competitive makeup of the market, either by looking at their category
𝐻1 , 𝐻2 , or 𝐻3 and its respective fitness, or by ranking themselves within their
category using the aggression score to determine, not only who they should
be looking to compete with (those in the same category or those in the lower

5 Adapted from Dixit et al. (2009).

 38

categories) but also where they are ranked against the others in their
category (are they the best in their category?).

Because of the sheer number of companies in this example, a script was

written with Fortran to run this task in Geany, a programming support
software (see the Fortran script and result read out in appendix 3h) which
speeded up the process for calculating results and reduced the chance of
human error as, once parameters are set, the only data to be input is the
companies aggression scores and an arbitrary value for 𝑉 and 𝐶.
 39

Chapter 4.0 – Analysis

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the results from parts 3a and 3b of the Methodology chapter
will be examined and discussed.

Part 3a saw the creation of the Tri-Hawk Aggression Model – based partially
on Maynard-Smith and Prices ‘Hawk’ competitor from their (1973) Hawk and
Dove model – and covered primary research conducted to create the
accompanying scale component. The first part of this chapter will therefore
analyse the model, it’s construction, and the scale proposed to accompany
it. Similarly, participant’s opinions about aggression as a construct were
collected and so using content analysis, this section will also explore if
aggression is a suitable measure to understand the competitive landscape,
and if the proposed scale succeeds in operationalising it.

Part 3b of the methodology saw the application of the new model to a

hypothetical construction of the pharmaceutical industry, named Market X.
So, the second part of this chapter seeks to analyse this result, if the Tri-
Hawk Aggression Model performed in a realistic way, and how the model
can be represented, once applied, for ease of use.

4.2 The Tri-Hawk Aggression Model

The literature review clearly highlighted that, whilst scenario analysis
remains one of the most popular methods of business modelling (Hirsch et
al. 2013), its credibility is tested by the lack of understanding or trust it is
given by decision makers, either for its lack of interface between facilitators
and managers (Wack 1985), or its narrative nature (Bowman et al 2013)

Researching a scientific way to support scenario analysis, Game theory was

quickly highlighted as a possible solution, being a mathematically based
(therefore perhaps more trustworthy) study of strategy (Hilsenrath 2005).
 40

Furthermore, EGT’s Hawk and Dove model (Maynard-Smith & Price 1973)
represents a clear candidate for translation to business due to its clear and
simple competitor mapping system based on adversaries’ strategy and their
frequency in a given environment.

However, whilst it was recognised that such a model could support the
scenario analysis process by clarifying a company’s competitive context
within a market, the original ‘players’ strategies were too restrictive.

The pacifist ‘Dove’ is unrealistic in business as all companies are subject to

competition and, whilst the Hawks ‘tournament’ style aggression (Maynard-
Smith 1974) is suitable for the metaphor, having only one level of competitive
aggression prevents differentiation between the size and strategy of
companies.

Therefore, the Tri-Hawk Aggression model, proposed in section 3a, is based

on the Hawk component of the model by Maynard-Smith and Price (1973),
seeing the Dove strategy replaced by two further new Hawk strategies, 𝐻2
and 𝐻3 , both incrementally weaker than the first 𝐻1 (the original Hawk).

The formation of the new Hawk components and the subsequent

calculations of their competitive abilities has remained as close to the
original model’s original logic as possible to preserving the integrity of the
calculations and assumptions.

𝐻3 , conceived as an ‘aggressive dove’, is unable to beat 𝐻1 in contest,

meaning the probability for each strategy in competition could be easily
calculated, as 𝐻2 ’s purpose was to fill the gap between very aggressive and
not very aggressive.

However, 𝐻3 , whilst unable to beat 𝐻1 , still engages in competition rather

than a war of attrition, and thus, can be injured. This ability to be injured
represents the financial cost of competition accrued by businesses, whether
through advertising or bidding against competitors etc. Although not always
the case, to be competitive, companies must spend (translating to injury in
the model – the loss of something).
 41

Whilst the probability was easily quantified, the author recognises cost in the
new model is perhaps weakened as it has no scientific or mathematical data
to support it. Thus, whilst it is a suitable proposition that the ability to inflict
damage would reduce with the size or aggression of the company, there is
no data to quantify the cost inflicted, making this a weaker part of the model.
If the model was re-imagined, or the scope of the dissertation bigger, finding
a more scientific or mathematical representation of this value seems
desirable.

Similarly, whilst the new model follows the most basic dynamic of
competition, the ‘tournament’ style described by Maynard-Smith (1974), this
may not be applicable to all industries. For example, the public sector is a
not-for-profit industry where competitiveness may not be seen as key to
driving the business.

Nevertheless, the model provides a clear base on which a competitive

analysis can be built, when paired with the proposed aggression scale,
providing a foundation perhaps easier to use than some of the forecasting
or other business modelling methods that could be considered in a scenario
analysis.

4.3 The Aggression Scale

Research was conducted, described in section 3a.0 to create a scale to
accompany the model, and to ask participants about strategy aggression, its
quantifiability and whether they recognised it in their own companies.

The eventual mixture of convenience sampling and snowball sampling

meant a much larger demographic of participants was reached, making it
more likely that answers are not biased to one industry or nationality’s
mindset.
 42

4.3.1 Research demographic

Although 104 participants completed the survey, data from 98 was used as
6 participants did not answer one or more of the Likert scale questions
(questions 9-19) and thus, were discounted from the study to maintain the
scale’s integrity.

Figure 4.1 shows the ages of participants. Whilst only 6% of participants

were between the ages of 20-29 this can be viewed as positive: the author
believes that, as aggressiveness in terms of strategy is difficult to quantify,
perhaps a comprehensive understanding of the subject area comes with
increased business experience.

Figure 4.1 - Pie chart to show the age of

participants in the study

20 - 29

30 - 39

40 - 49

50 - 59

60+

Participants represented a varied demographic, 70% were male and 30%

female from 20 different nationalities working in 16 different countries,
helping to improve the scope of the research and reduce culture bias of the
results. Additionally, due to the languages chosen for the questionnaire, 81%
of participants were able to take the questionnaire in their native language,
heightening the reliability of the research6.

6If French and German options were not offered, less than 40% would have had the
chance.
 43

Unfortunately, whilst question 5 asked participants which sector they worked

in, their answers were mostly unclear and if the study were executed again,
a drop-down menu would perhaps be a better option.

4.3.2 Creating the scale

To create the scale detailed in section 3a.4.2.3, participants indicated on a
Likert scale how aggressive they thought investment in certain activities
were. Participants’ answers were then converted into averages, shown in
Figure 4.2, and used to weight the scale.

Figure 4.2 - Graph to show the average aggression

rating for each of the catogories listed in the survey
5.00
4.50
4.00
Average of Likert scores

3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

The dark blue columns represent questions asking whether a higher %

investment in these areas made a business more or less aggressive (where
1= not very aggressive and 5 = not very aggressive), and the two light blue
columns represent questions 18 and 19 which asked whether a larger
market share (question 18) or a larger profit (question 19) made a company
more or less aggressive (same scale applied).
 44

As the graph shows, a high % investment in HR was perceived the least

aggressive with an average score of 2.72, and high investment in Sales was
perceived the most aggressive with an average rating of 4.05. Whilst this
shows distinct differences between the scores, it also means the range is
only 1.33.

Whilst not necessarily negative, this could hint that there is more needed to
assess aggression than simply a financial work up, an idea explored through
the qualitative questions approached in the survey.

4.4 Aggression as a Construct

Almost separate from the model’s application is the attempt to understand
the suitability of ‘aggression’ as a measure for competition, and if this really
is a suitable way to further enhance the scenario analysis process or if, in
fact, more in depth analysis is needed.

To further understand whether aggression was translatable to business in

the minds of professionals, as well as if aggression was suitably represented
by the areas of investment in the survey, and whether respondents were
able to recognise aggressive or non-aggressive strategies in their own
companies, three qualitative questions were included in the questionnaire
and here the answers, analysed through content analysis, will be discussed
to better understand the suitability of aggression as a whole.

4.4.1 Question 8
Question 8 asked participants to “create a definition of your own ideas on
what an aggressive business strategy is/means” expressed through either
prose or key words. Once the answers were collected, a content analysis
was performed to determine how participants defined aggressiveness in
relation to a business’s strategy and nine key themes7 were identified. Figure

7 A theme becomes key when it is mentioned by five or more participants.

 45

4.3 shows the frequency with which each theme appeared. Some themes,
such as Market Share and, to some extent Marketing, were considered in
the scale proposed for the tri-Hawk Aggression Model, however, some
weren’t.

Figure 4.3 - Pie Chart to show the frequent themes

derived from content analysis of question 8
Innovation
Risk Taking
Expansion into New Markets
M&A Activity
Aggressive marketing
Market Share
Goal / Target Setting
Growth
Aggressive Pricing

Goal or Target Setting was mentioned most frequently (21 times), however
Goal or Target Setting is hard to quantify as it is often different between
organisations and therefore hard to express by a common denominator.
Similarly, Innovation was mentioned by 11 participants and Merger and
Acquisition activity was mentioned by 15. Neither were covered in the
proposed scale suggesting an area for improvement should another scale
be created.

Reading through participants’ proposed definitions, many followed similar

ideas about what an aggressive business strategy consisted of, many
reflecting strength and drive, however five participants gave quite negative
descriptions including phrases like “bullying of supplier”, “exploitative
strategies8”, and “no respect for clients9”.

8 Translated from French by the Author.

9 Translated from French by the Author.
 46

These, whilst still consistent with the definition ‘aggressive’ and perhaps
strategies that some companies use by chance, they do not reflect the tone
the author was looking for, suggesting a more refined definition of
aggression should be given to those applying the model, or else another
word chosen.

In this vein, one participant opened their definition by expressing “I prefer to

use the word “determined” to “aggressive””. It would perhaps therefore be
worth exploring the effects of other vocabulary on participants to see if there
is a better definition or word that could be used.

4.4.2 Question 21
Question 20 asked participants if they thought other areas could also be
described as aggressive, and question 21 asked participants to explain their
answer (thus only participants who answered ‘Yes’ are considered below as
‘no’ participants didn’t answer question 21).

Similar to the analysis of Question 8, a content analysis was performed on

the answers to discover the main themes and then translated to the pie chart
in Figure 4.4. below.

Figure 4.4 - Pie Chart to show the frequent themes

derived from content analysis of question 21
Aggressive pricing

Aggressive marketing

Expansion

Innovation

Speed

M&A Activity

Poaching Staff
 47

Here, ‘Speed’ covers both speed to adapt (to market and customer needs),
and speed of products to market as, although both were mentioned, there
was often no distinction. Conversely, Acquisition and Expansion are divided
here as many participants mentioning them made a clear distinction between
the two, often describing Expansion as the activity of growth and Acquisition
as actively buying out others to reduce competition or acquire new
capabilities.

The figure shows similarities with Figure 4.3 such as Innovation, M&A
Activity and Marketing, as well as Expansion. Other areas mentioned
included Disruptive Technology (3x) and Strong Management and
Leadership style (4x). Again, whilst some of these factors listed in Figure 4.6
were partially covered by the scale (e.g. advertising spend), others weren’t
and would be harder to quantify such as Management and Leadership Style
and Staff Poaching (as it is not likely to be advertised).

4.4.3 Question 23
Finally, question 22 asked participants if they felt their employer was
aggressive in strategy, with question 23 requesting an explanation. 63% of
participants answering felt the companies they currently worked for were not
aggressive, with 37% believing the opposite.

When a content analysis was performed on both sides of the argument,

many of the same themes were recurring such as: fast expanding
companies, innovative strategies, or that the company was active in
acquiring others.

The content analysis on those who believed they worked for a company
without an aggressive strategy listed reasons like: being behind the
competition (4x), the company was focusing on other priorities (6x), and,
most popular, the idea that companies had willingly sacrificed aggression to
promote closer customer and partner relations (7x).
 48

Whilst both of these are in-keeping with the general theme of the answers
and themes highlighted in Figures 4.5 and 4.6, perhaps more interesting was
the occasional contradiction between employees working for the same
company.

Table 4.5 below shows the frequency of participants working for the same
company10 and how they answered question 22.

Table 4.5 – Table showing the number of participants working for a

company (when >1) and whether they think it’s strategy is aggressive

No. Of Participants

Think it’s Don’t think it’s

Company Working here
aggressive aggressive

Company A 10 2 8

Company B 5 1 4

Company C 3 2 1

Company D 2 0 2

Company E 2 0 2

The table shows there was not always agreement between participants with
the same employer, seen in companies A, B and C. Whilst this initially
indicates a struggle to quantify aggression, it is notable that none of the
respondents in Company C work in the same country, and thus will see
different sides to the business.

Similarly, the ten employees in Company A are spread over six different
countries and therefore are likely to see a similar effect. However, whilst

10 Names alphabetised to protect privacy.

 49

those in Companies D and E work in the same countries respectively, there

are not enough participants to be definitive either way, perhaps pointing to
an area for further research.

Thus, whilst we should note there is not always concurrence between those
working for the same companies, different locations and positions might
mean each sees a different side of the business as an employee’s
perception of competition can often vary depending on their seniority and
personal experience (West 2001).

4.4.5 Is aggression a suitable measure?

By looking at the results in section 4.4 it’s possible to take another look at
the objectives 4, 4a and 4b listed in Chapter 1.

The results from Figures 4.5 and 4.6 suggest that many participants saw
similar themes as outlining aggression, as well as similar themes to the ones
listed in questions 9 to 19, eventually making up the scale.

Furthermore, participants were then able to decide whether the company

they worked for was aggressive or not, giving reasoning that, for the most
part, matched the ideas in both the scale and other participants’ answers.
Furthermore, whilst Table 7.4 showed there was not always agreement
about which companies were aggressive or not, the fact that the participants
working in those companies came from different positions or were working
in different countries may account for the differentiation.

However, this raises the point that, because we see differentiation

dependent on job position or market, perhaps one company cannot be
defined as aggressive or not aggressive as a whole, but should instead be
contemplated by each market it is in and its behaviours in those markets. As
long as the data used in the scale is market specific for each company, this
could be accounted for as the entity is not considered but it’s behaviour in
one market place.
 50

Whilst these figures would be difficult to find for an application, given the
scope of an undergraduate dissertation, the applying company would have
better access to market resources as well as specialists and consultants who
could help secure the figures to be used with the scale.

Similarly, if this resource were available to a company using the Tri-Hawk

Aggression Model, it may also be possible for new numbers to be calculated
or predicted for the proposed scale, hence tailoring it to the areas or industry
most important to the user.

As outlined in the literature review, some of the potential lack of

understanding between decision makers and the scenario analysis facilitator
was in the narrative nature (Bowman et al. 2013), and the model does
provide a simple quantitative and fact based view of the competitive
landscape of the market.

If the two tools were taken together then the author feels it would be easier
for a manager or decision maker to have confidence in the Scenario Analysis
process as it would give them a better idea of their competitive capability
compared to others in the market and therefore may be able to better gauge
which scenario is more likely because of this.

Whilst the author feels the proposed scale makes a good attempt to
operationalise aggression, more work could be done to incorporate the other
main themes participants mentioned in Figure 4.5 and 4.6 such as
Innovation and M&A activity which are slightly harder to operationalise.

Overall, the use of the word ‘Aggressive’ could be reconsidered. Initially it

was chosen for its use in the literature (Maynard-Smith 1974) and in the
original model (Maynard-Smith and Price 1973) as the descriptive word for
the Hawk strategy and the Author does think that it is perhaps, for the
moment, the best option, however other words like “determined”, as one
participant suggested, could be considered as substitutes, perhaps carrying
less negative connotation.
 51

Thus, the question would be, is the user of the model comfortable with the
connotations, good and bad, that the word ‘aggressive’ can bring? If so, the
author feels it’s use is justified / suitable.

4.5 Model Application

Once the model and scale were created, described in part 3b, the Tri-Hawk
Aggression Model and scale were put together and applied to the 40
companies in Market X, the Pharmaceuticals market. Once the calculations
were run through Fortran and sorted, they were open to interpretation. Below
in Figure 4.6 see the simplest representation of the Pharmaceuticals
market’s competitor analysis.

It shows a division of strategies as 4, 18, 18, which seems realistic, to

imagine a few more aggressive players at the top of the market and a more
pronounced ‘tail’ which would be represented here as lower 𝐻2 and 𝐻3
points. This is reflected in the research as many participants (63%) thought
their employers were not aggressive which may represent the 𝐻3 and some
of the lower scoring 𝐻2 companies.

Furthermore, for ease of use, the points belonging to each strategy, Hawks
1, 2 and 3, have been noted in separate colours and the boundaries of each
category are marked out by colour: red, amber, or yellow, depending on the
aggressiveness of each. This clearly shows a split between the Hawk types,
providing the user with a clear map of the market and its competitive make-
up.

Having this model as a tool the user can clearly see the ‘fitness’ of each
strategy and the concentration of different strategies at each level, as well
as the different rating of each company. The model gives a wealth of
information at a quick glance, with the option to learn more should the user
wish it, but in its current form, represents an easy-to-use tool that could
complement the scenario analysis presentation with some, scientifically
based, clear figures.
 52

Figure 4.6 – Graph to represent the Tri-Hawk Aggression

Model applied to Market X

8.5

8 Strategy
Hawk 1 Fitness:
82.5

7.5

7
Strategy
Fitness:
Hawk 2
67.5
6.5

Strategy
Hawk 3 Fitness:

5.5
29.25

Aggression rating of each

company

However, it is also possible for the user to take the model further. Whilst
Figure 4.6 shows the aggression of each company, it doesn’t provide
 53

further comparison. Yet by manipulating the x-axis to account for another

variable, the model could indicate specific parameters of interest.

Figure 4.7 demonstrates this. Revisiting the Pharmaceutical industry

example and Market X, the graph in Figure 4.4 shows the same Tri-Hawk
Aggression mapping, but also compares how much each Company spends
on R&D per year (in billion dollars).

Whilst the model on its own could stand as a useful analytical tool, this extra
comparison gained by pulling in the x-axis values means that companies can
not only see the competitive make-up of the market, but also use the
horizontal comparison to map which companies are good at something
specific that might be their core capability?

In Figure 4.7 R&D was chosen as, in the Pharmaceutical industry, new drug
development is one way that companies can stay ahead of the game. And,
whilst some of the smaller companies aren’t ranked very high on the
Aggression Model, this new dimension shows that two companies marked
as weak competitors, or 𝐻3 ’s, spend more on R&D than one of the

most aggressive companies. This could indicate these companies as

dangerous to the more powerful hawks as, even though the model lists them
as lower based on their ability to compete, their higher R&D spend may
indicate them as a potential disruptor, or an up and comer that hasn’t yet
fully established.

This feature of the model, plotting the x-axis with a specifically tracked
perimeter, means that the model can be better tailored to industry specific
tasks. For example, R&D is relevant for the Pharmaceuticals industry but
other things can be plotted here. For example, total area of new stores built
per year for supermarkets, or the number of outlets opened for a wholesaler
etc.
 54

Figure 4.7 - Graph to show the Tri-Hawk Agression Model applied to Market X and
taking into account companies R&D Spend per year

8.5

8
Strategy
Hawk 1 Fitness:
82.5
7.5

7 Strategy
Hawk 2 Fitness:
6.5 67.5

6
Strategy
Hawk 3 Fitness:
5.5
69.25

5
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
$bn spend per year on R&D
 55

4.3.3 Model’s analysis

The Tri-Hawk Aggression model was built to be used as a quantitative
analytical tool next to the more qualitative scenario analysis, in order to
provide a firmer, more scientific base to the narrative nature of scenario
analysis (Bowman et al 2013), and create a more traversable interface
between the scenario facilitator and the decision maker, which is where,
according to Wack’s (1985) research, the breakdown and therefore the
weakness of scenario analysis lies.

For a company to get the most out of business modelling and understand
the potential of a business opportunity, the business modelling method used
should be structured in such a way that the impact of different scenarios can
be explored (Tennent & Friend 2011). Whilst scenario planning is recognised
as a key tool for management use (Hirsch, el al. 2013), it does provide a set
of plausible possibilities with no assurance (Schnaars 1987).

Here, the Tri-Hawk Aggression Model creates a range of possibilities. Using

the model to quantify the competitive map of the market, a company can
incorporate this in their Scenario analysis.

For example, if one of the scenarios forwarded suggests that you will be able
to increase market share by a high percentage, but the model shows you to
be an 𝐻3 and therefore not highly competitive in the market, this is perhaps
unrealistic.

4.4 Limitations
This dissertation suffered from the imposition of limitations applied to it by
Northumbria University such as the time restraint and smaller scope often
felt on an undergraduate dissertation. Similarly the author felt limited by the
format required of an undergraduate dissertation (word count and chapter
structure) as the idea proposed and discussed comes in several sections
and thus, structuring the chapters in a cohesive order without adding any
was often found hard.
 56

Chapter 5.0 – Conclusion

5.1 Introduction
The aim of this conclusion chapter is to sum up the dissertation, it’s ideas in
the context of use and its outcomes in the context of the listed objectives.
Furthermore, this chapter will discuss any areas suitable for further research.

5.2 Research Objectives

This research project set out with a goal of realising its objectives. Objectives
1 and 2 can be discussed together as the first proved the driving force behind
the realisation of the second.

1. To find a way to help reinforce the scenario analysis process for

businesses by analysing the competitive make up of a market.

2. To build a model with a game theoretic base capable of analysing the

interactions between competitors of different strategic aggressions.

The issues that the literature review raised, managers mistrust of Scenario
planning due to its narrative nature (Bowman et al 2013), were the kind of
problems that game theory’s strategic analysis capabilities (Hilsenrath 2005)
seemed well equipped to mitigate.

Maynard-Smith and Price’s (1973) ‘Hawk’ competitor was then used as a

base to create the new Tri-Hawk Aggression Model designed to use a
competitor mapping system to contextualise the using company within their
market place and thus, by allowing Managers to use this market place ‘map’
to better understand their prospects in relation to other companies, helping
 57

them understand which scenario predicted is more realistic based on the

strength of their competitors balanced with their aspirations.

3. To propose a scale to accompany the model to demonstrate its

application on a synthesised market scenario.

The third objective saw the proposition of a scale based on the opinions of
business professionals. The aim of the scale was to provide an example for
company categorisation and to allow the market scenario to be run.

The scenario execution showed that the model gave a realistic spread of
companies ‘aggression’ on the scale and that other variables could be
plotted to tailor the market analysis to the specific needs or preferences of
the applying company.

Furthermore, the scale also provided a base for others to change, perhaps
through the addition of industry specific parameters or removing factors they
feel do not apply, allowing it’s further tailoring to suit the needs of the user.

4. To use research conducted to understand if strategy aggression is a

suitable measure to reinforce scenario analysis method.

4a. To understand if aggression can be operationalised.

4b. To understand if an analysis of strategy aggression is sufficient

(not too superficial) to aid in the prediction of a company’s success.

Objective four and its sub categories were all designed to get a better
understanding into the suitability of aggression as a construct. whether it’s
quantification was a possibility and if the meaning of the word was easily
understandable in a business context.
 58

Whilst the research did show that most of the participants understood and
identified the same themes in the word aggression when referencing a
business strategy, a small number of participants saw more negative
connotations than the author intended, perhaps alluding to the idea that
aggression should perhaps be better defined in context with the model, or
that perhaps another word, like one participant suggested, such as
“determined” would be more appropriate. However, the author feels that, as
long as the models users are comfortable with the word aggression and it’s
possible connotations, it is suitable for the purpose of the model.

The application of the model showed sufficient differentiation between

companies to represent the ‘average’ market make up (with a small number
of large companies and more players in the lower groups), and it is fair to
say that this process of contextualisation, when a company can see a
physical representation of themselves in relation to their competitors, may
help balance a company’s aspirations with its reality, pointing out which
scenarios are more likely given the company’s strategic position.

However, no matter what tools are proposed to help managers, in the end
the final judgements of a decision-maker is the crucial factor, and, whilst
well-designed models can make a decision easier (Tennent & Friend 2011),
the end result is in their hands.

5.3 Recommendations
There are many ways the model could be adapted by further research.
Beneath are listed two of the author favourite.

By adding a form of relocator dynamics such as Fishers Fundamental

Theorem (detailed by Price 1972) to account for learning (and thus strategy
change depending on which is perceived as better) would perhaps give the
model a more realistic dimension, taking into account the changing
strategies of businesses. This would allow for the assumption of a kind of
rational decision making where companies can change their strategy when
 59

they see others doing better or a form of rational decision making through
learning etc.

Similarly, it would be interesting to research the addition of a further strategy

that represents companies who do not fit the ‘norm’. Other strategies have
been previously proposed for similar tournament games, such as the
‘Mouse’ competitor (Maynard-Smith and Price 1973).
 60

References

Alexander, J. M. (2010). Evolutionary game theory. Stanford Encyclopedia

of philosophy. Retrieved from: https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archive
s/sum2010/entries/game-evolutionary/
Anderson, R. (2014). BBC. Pharmaceutical industry gets high on fat profits.
Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28212223
Auger, P., & Pontier, D. (1998). Fast Game Dynamics Coupled to Slow to
Slow Population Dynamics: A Single Population with Hawk-Dove Strategies.
Mathematical computer Modelling, 27(4), 81-88.
Auger, P., De La Parra, R.B., & Sánchez, E. (1998). Hawk-Dove Game and
Competition Dynamics. Mathematical Computer Modelling, 27(4), 89-98.
Auger, P., et al. (2002). A predator-prey model with predators using Hawk
and dove tactics. Mathematical Biosciences, 177 & 178, 185-200.
Auger, P., et al. (2006). Bifurcation analysis of a predator-prey model with
predators using hawk and dove tactics. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 238,
597-607.
Basu, P. et al. (2008). Analysis of manufacturing Costs in Pharmaceutical
Companies. Journal of pharmaceutical Innovation, 3, 30-40.
Bersin by Deloitte. (2014). PR Newswire. Bersin by Deloitte Research: US
HR Organizations Spending Increases, Following a Rise in Employee
Turnover. Retrieved from: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases
Bersin, J. (2013). Forbes. Corporate Recruiting Explodes: A New Breed of
Service Providers. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/
2013/05/23/corporate-recruitment-transformed-new-breed-of-service-
providers/#1ed318b540a9
Bierman, H.S., & Fernandez, L. (1993). Game Theory with Economic
Applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.: United States of
America
Borel, É. (1921). La théorie du jeu et les équations intégrales à noyau
symétrique. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séance de l’Academie
des Sciences, 173, 1304–8.
Bowman, G., MacKay, R.B., Masrani, S., & McKiernan, P. (2013).
Storytelling and the scenario process: Understanding success and failure.
Technologies Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 735-748.
 61

Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Van der Heijden, K. (2005).
The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business
planning. Futures, 37, 795-812.
Camerer, C.F. (1991). Does Strategy Research Need Game Theory?
Strategic Management journal, 12, 137-152.
Cameron, R., & Molina-Azorín, J.F. (2011). Mixed Methods Research in
Business and Management. International Journal of multiple research
methods, 5(3), 286-289.
Casson, M. (1994). The economics of business culture: Game theory,
transaction costs, and economic performance. Oxford University Press.
Cournot, A. (1838). Recherches sur les principes mathématiques de la
théorie des richesses. Hachette: Paris.
Creswell, J, W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, London,
New Delhi.
Crowther, D., & Lanchaster, G. (2012). Research Methods. (2nd ed.). Taylor
Frances: Hoboken.
Darwin, C.R. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. (2
Vols., 1st ed.). Hill: London.
Dixit, A., Skeath, S., & Reiley, D.H.Jr. (2009). Games of Strategy. (3rd ed.).
W.W. Norton & Company: New York, London?
Farrell, H. (2016). The Washington Post. Thomas Schelling has died. His
ideas shaped the Cold War and the world. Retrieved from: https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/
Formiconi, L., Lösch, M., Talmon, J.P., & Ziegler, M. (2010). Value creating
Purchasing. McKinsey & Company: Zurich.
Franco, L.A., Meadows, M., & Armstrong, S.J. (2013). Exploring individual
differences in scenario planning workshops: A cognitive style framework.
Technologies Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 723-734.
Friedman, D. (1998). On economic applications of evolutionary game theory.
Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 8, 15-43.
Gillham, B. (2010). Developing a Questionnaire. (2nd ed.). Continuum
International Publishing Group: London, New York.
Godet, M. (2000). The Art of Scenarios and Strategic Planning: Tools and
Pitfalls. Technologies Forecasting and Social Change, 65, 3-22.
Gorman, C. (2014). TLNT. Investing in Employees: Smart Companies Are
Increasing Their L&D Budgets. Retrieved from: https://www.eremedia.com/
 62

tlnt/investing-in-employees-smart-companies-are-increasing-their-ld-
budgets/
Groves, R.M., et al. (2009). Survey Methodology. (2nd ed.). John Wiley &
Sons Inc.: New Jersey.
Hair Jr. J.F., et al. (2011). Essentials of Business Research Methods. (2nd
ed.). M.E. Sharpe: United States of America, New York?
Hanauske, M., Kunz, J., Bernius, S., & König, W. (2010). Doves and hawks
in economics revisited: An evolutionary quantum game theory based
analysis of financial crises. Physica A, 389, 5084-5102.
Harris, G. (2014). Four blind alleys of scenario analysis. Strategy &
Leadership, 42(6), 37-41.
Heger, T., & Rohrbeck, R. (2012). Strategic foresight for collaborative
exploration of new business fields. Technological Forecasting & Social
Change, 79, 819-831.
Hilsenrath, J.E. (2005). The Wall Street Journal. Economic Work on ‘Game
Theory’ Wins Nobel Prize. Retrieved from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB112894253766264318
Hirsch, S., Burggraf, P., & Daheim, C. (2013). Scenario planning with
integrated quantification – managing uncertainty in corporate strategy
building. Foresight, 15(5), 363-374.
Kreps, D.M. (1990). Game Theory and Economic Modelling. Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
Krivokapic-Skoko, B., & O’Neill, G. (2011). Beyond the qualitative–
quantitative distinction: Some innovative methods for business and
management research. International Journal of Multiple Research
Approaches, 5(3), 290-300.

Kuehn, S.E. (2014). Pharmaceutical Manufacturing. What's Trending in

Pharma IT? Retrieved from: http://www.pharmamanufacturing.com/articles/
2014/whats-trending-in-pharma-it/
Li, X., Ang, C.L., & Gay, R. (1997). An intelligent scenario generator for
strategic business planning. Computers in Industry, 34, 261-269.
Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression. Methuen: London.
Maack, J. (2001). Scenario analysis: a tool for task managers. In: Social
Development. Social Analysis: Selected Tools and Techniques, Paper 36.
World Bank: Washington
Magretta, J. (2002). Why Business Models matter. Harvard Business
Review, 80(5), 86-93.
 63

Maynard-Smith, J. (1974). The Theory of games and the Evolution of Animal

Conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 47, 209-221.
Maynard-Smith, J., & Price, G.R. (1973). The Logic of Animal Conflict.
Nature, 264, 15-18.
McGrath, R.G. (2010). Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach.
Long Rand Planning, 43, 247-261.
Mitri, J. (1995). MAPS: An International Market Entry Planning System.
Proceedings the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications,
0 1995, 354-360.
Mitri, J. (1996). MAPS: A Planning System for International Market Entry.
Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 5, 57-72.
Mitri, J., Karimalis, G.N., Cannon, H., & Yaprak, A. (2000). Mapping market
entry in the classroom: The Market Access Planning System (MAPS).
Simulation and Gaming, 31(4), 464-478.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C.L. (2005). Clarifying Business
Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept. Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, 16, 1-25.
Palmer, E. (2014). Fierce Pharma. Top 10 pharma companies by employees
- 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.fiercepharma.com/special-report/top-10-
pharma-companies-by-employees-2014
Pharmaceutical Technology. (2014). Pharmaceutical Technology. The top
10 biggest pharmaceutical companies of 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.
pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/featurethe-top-10-biggest-
pharmaceutical-companies-of-2014-4396561/
Postma, T.J.B.M., & Liebl, F. (2005). How to improve scenario analysis as a
strategic management tool? Technologies Forecasting and Social Change,
72, 161-173.
Price, G.R. (1972). Fisher’s ‘fundamental theorem’ made clear. Annals of
Human Genetics, 36, 129-140.
Quinlan, C. (2011). Business research Methods. South-Western CENGAGE
Learning: Hampshire.
Schafer, S.M., Smith, H.J., & Linder, J.C. (2005). The power of business
models. Business Horizons, 48, 199-207.
Schnaars, S.P. (1987). How to Develop and Use Scenarios. Long Range
Planning, 20(1), 105-114.
Statista. (2015). Statista. Top 20 pharmaceutical companies worldwide
based on prescription drug market share in 2015 and 2022. Retrieved from:
 64

https://www.statista.com/statistics/309425/prescription-drugs-market-
shares-by-top-companies-globally/
Statista. (2017). Statista. AbbVie's number of employees between 2013 and
2017. Retrieved from: www.statista.com/statistics/417023/employees-of-
abbvie/
Tennent, J., & Friend, G. (2011). Guide to Business Modelling. (3rd ed.).
Wiley: Hoboken.
Turocy, T.L. & von Stengel, B. (2002). Game Theory. In Bidgoli, H. (Eds).
(2002). Encyclopedia of Information Systems. Elsevier Inc.: San Diego.
Van Der Laan, G., & Tieman, X. (1998). Evolutionary game theory and the
modelling of economic behaviour. DE Economist, 146, 59-89.
Varum, C.A., & Melo, C. (2010). Directions in scenario planning literature –
A review of the past decades. Futures, 42, 355-369.
von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and
Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press: United States.
Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: shooting the rapids. Harvard Business Review,
36, 139-150.
West, C. (2001). Competitive intelligence. Palgrave: Hampshire, New York.
Zott,C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent
Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019-
1042.
 65

Bibliography

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2012). Management

Research. (4th ed.). Sage Publications ltd.: London, California, New Delhi,
Singapore.
Ng, W., & Coakes, E. (2014). Business Research. Kogan Page Limited:
Great Britain, United States.
Oliver, P. (2010). The Student Guide to Research Ethics. (2nd ed.). (pp.46-
49 & pp.57-59). Open University Press: Berkshire.
Ritchie, J. Lewis, J. Elam, G. (2003). Designing and Selecting Samples. In
Ritchie, J. Lewis, J. (Ed.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social
Science Students and Researchers. SAGE Publications: London.
Wilson, J. (2014). Essentials of Business Research: A guide to doing your
research project. (2nd ed.). Sage: Los Angeles. London, New Delhi,
Singapore.
Wirtz, B.W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business Models:
Origin, Development and Future Research Perspectives. Long Range
Planning, 49, 36-54.
 66

Appendix 2a – Literature review mind map

Non- Cooperative Maynard-Smith Lotka-

games and Price Volterra ˟
Chicken ˟
Evolutionary
Strategy Game Theory
analysis Hawk and
Dove model ˜
Cooperative Disruptor or
games Game theory incumbent

Behavioural
Managers and
Analysis
Consultants Literature review
User
Interface ˜

Competition
Scenario in Business
Drivers
Analysis ˜

Forecasting Demand
& Business Market/
Qualitative
Modelling customer
analysis
Finance Competitor
Analysis

Is this backed Strategy

up by anything? analysis

s
Key Vision and
mission
˟ Idea not perused
˜ Idea explored
_ Idea linked
 67

Appendix 3a – Tri-Hawk Aggression Model

Assumptions

Assumption 1: The game is Non-Cooperative

Although there may be cases of collaboration or collusion in the

business environment, creating or adapting this model to entertain a
cooperative game scenario is out of the scope of an undergraduate
dissertation.

Assumption 2: 𝑉 > 𝐶 > 0

Whilst this is not always the case, it sees fair to assume that, in a
business situation, no company or ‘strategy’ would enter a
competition where the cost of competing (𝐶) was either equal to or
more than the reward that would be gained upon winning (𝑉), thus, 𝑉
should be larger than or equal to 𝐶. Similarly, it is very rare that in a
competition in a business environment the cost of competing is
nothing, thus 𝐶 is larger than 0.

Assumption 3: 𝐶 is that of the cost to the weakest competitor

This assumption, explained further in section 3a.2.2. suggests that

the cost to any one player competing is the same as the cost incurred
to the least aggressive strategy in the competition.

Assumption 4: 𝑉 and 𝐶 are arbitrary values, remaining the same respectively

Values 𝑉 and 𝐶 are representative of a value for cost and a value for
the resource, but their value is not integral to the model. Thus, upon
application of the model, as long as the numbers chosen to satisfy
 68

the bounds of Assumption 2 and is a Rational number11, any arbitrary

value can be chosen for the application as long as it is not changed
in one application or between applications that are intended to be
compared.

Assumption 5: the three 𝐻 strategies are the only strategies available

This assumption simply facilitates the fitness calculation’s accuracy

(as the fitness calculation relies on the frequency of each strategy).
Simply, this ensures that the chance of meeting any one strategy is 1
minus the chance of meeting the other two.

11 Any number that can be expressed in integers (e.g. not 𝜋)

 69

Appendix 3b - Payoff calculations

Bellow, find the payoff calculations for table 3c. where 𝐸𝑏 (𝑎) shows the
payoff for 𝑎 when is competes against 𝑏, and the payoff for any confrontation
is equal to the probability of winning multiplied by the reward minus the cost,
plus the chance of losing minus the cost of losing.

Formula for the calculation taken from Dixit et al. (2009) and shown in
section 2.?. Probabilities for each calculation taken from table 2a and cost
incurred for each calculation taken from table 2b.

𝐶 𝐶 𝐶
𝐸𝐻1 (𝐻1 ) = 0.5 (𝑉 − 2 ) + 0.5(−𝐶) 𝐸𝐻1 (𝐻2 ) = 0.25 (𝑉 − 2 ) + 0.75 (− 2 )

𝑉−𝐶 𝐶 2𝑉−𝐶 3𝐶
𝐸𝐻1 (𝐻1 ) = 2
−2 𝐸𝐻1 (𝐻2 ) = 8
− 8

𝑽 𝑽−𝟐𝑪
𝑬𝑯𝟏 (𝑯𝟏 ) = 𝟐
−C 𝑬𝑯𝟏 (𝑯𝟐 ) = 𝟒

𝐶 𝐶 𝐶
𝐸𝐻2 (𝐻1 ) = 0.75 (𝑉 − 2 ) + 0.5(−𝐶) 𝐸𝐻2 (𝐻2 ) = 0.5 (𝑉 − 2 ) + 0.5 (− 2 )

2𝑉−𝐶 3𝐶 2𝑉−𝐶 𝐶
𝐸𝐻2 (𝐻1 ) = − 𝐸𝐻2 (𝐻2 ) = −4
8 8 4

𝑽−𝟐𝑪 𝑪 𝑪
𝑬𝑯𝟐 (𝑯𝟏 ) = 𝟖
𝑬𝑯𝟐 (𝑯𝟐 ) = 𝟎. 𝟓 (𝑽 − 𝟐) + 𝟎. 𝟓 (− 𝟐)

𝐶 𝐶 𝐶 𝐶
𝐸𝐻3 (𝐻1 ) = 1.0 (𝑉 − ) + 0.0 (− ) 𝐸𝐻3 (𝐻2 ) = 0.75 (𝑉 − ) + 0.25 (− )
4 4 4 4

𝐶 6𝑉 2𝐶
𝐸𝐻3 (𝐻1 ) = 1.0 (𝑉 − 4 ) 𝐸𝐻3 (𝐻2 ) = 8
− 8

𝑪 𝟑𝑽−𝑪
𝐸𝐻3 (𝐻1 ) = 𝑽 − 𝟒 𝑬𝑯𝟑 (𝑯𝟐 ) = 𝟒
 70

𝐶 𝐶 𝐶 𝐶
𝐸𝐻1 (𝐻3 ) = 0.0 (𝑉 − ) + 1.0 (− ) 𝐸𝐻3 (𝐻3 ) = 0.5 (𝑉 − ) + 0.5 (− )
4 4 4 4

𝐶 𝑉 2𝐶
𝐸𝐻1 (𝐻3 ) = 1.0 (− 4 ) 𝐸𝐻3 (𝐻3 ) = 2 − 8

𝑪 𝟐𝑽−𝑪
𝑬𝑯𝟏 (𝑯𝟑 ) = − 𝟒 𝑬𝑯𝟑 (𝑯𝟑 ) = 𝟒

𝐶 𝐶
𝐸𝐻2 (𝐻3 ) = 0.25 (𝑉 − 4 ) + 0.75 (− 4 )

𝑉 4𝐶
𝐸𝐻2 (𝐻3 ) = −
4 16

𝑽−𝑪
𝑬𝑯𝟐 (𝑯𝟑 ) = 𝟒
 71

Appendix 3c – Questionnaire (English)

Questionnaire designed to rate strategy aggressiveness in business

The following questionnaire is designed to collect your personal opinions on

aggression within a business’s strategy. The aim is to find out which areas
of business are identified as increasing a company’s aggression and which
are not.

By proceeding to the questionnaire, you are providing consent for the data
provided to be used in the study. You may leave any questions you are not
comfortable with answering. For ethical reasons, all questionnaires will
remain anonymous and any personal data provided will not be distributed.
All data will be kept until graduation and then destroyed.

If you have any questions regarding the content, the research or the overall
dissertation, or you wish to withdraw your questionnaire from the study
please do not hesitate to contact me at the email address listed at the end.

Thank you for your participation.

General Information

Q1. Age:  ≤19  20 - 29  30 – 39  40 - 49

 50 – 59  60 +

Q2. Gender:  Male  Female

Q3 Nationality: _______________________

Q4. Country of Employment: ____________

Q5. Sector: __________________________

Q6. Company (Optional): _______________

Q7. Position: ____________________

 72

Defining aggression

Q8. Please use the space below to create a definition of your own ideas on
what an aggressive business strategy is/means. Feel free to write your
answer in prose or simply key words.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

Aggression scale

Beneath is a list of company activities. Please read the list and, on a case
by case basis, decide whether a company investing a high percentage of its
sales revenue into each activity describes an aggressive strategy or not.

Please answer using the scale provided, where 1 = not aggressive and 5 =
very aggressive.

Q9. High % investment in: Marketing 1 2 3 4 5

Q10.High % investment in: R & D 1 2 3 4 5

Q11. High % investment in: HR 1 2 3 4 5

Q12. High % investment in: Sales 1 2 3 4 5

Q13. High % investment in: Production  1 2 3 4 5

Q14. High % investment in: Purchasing  1 2 3 4 5

Q15. High % investment in: IT and Technology 1 2 3 4

5
 73

Q16. High % investment in: Training 1 2 3 4 5

Q17. High % investment in: Recruitment  1 2 3 4 5

Aggression questions

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Please answer using the scale provided, where 1= strongly disagree and 5=
strongly agree.

Q18. The larger the market share of a company, the more aggressive the
company is as a competitor. 1 2 3 4 5

Q19. The more profit a company is making, the more aggressive that
company will be. 1 2 3 4 5

Q20. Are there any other areas or activities in business which you think are
aggressive?  Yes  No

Q21. Please list them and state your reasoning

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
 74

Aggressive strategies

Q22. Do you think the company that you currently work for has an aggressive
strategy?  Yes  No

Q23. Please explain your answer

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

If you have any questions regarding the content, the research or the overall
dissertation, or you wish to withdraw from the study, please do not hesitate
to contact me at:

kimberley.snell@northumbria.ac.uk

Thank you for your participation in this questionnaire

 75

Appendix 3d – Questionnaire (French)

Questionnaire destiné à évaluer l’agressivité des stratégies

d’entreprise

Le questionnaire suivant est conçu pour recueillir vos opinions personnelles

sur l'agressivité des stratégies d’entreprise. L'objectif est de déterminer
quels secteurs d'activité développent une stratégie agressive et lesquels
n’en développent pas particulièrement.

Vous pouvez laisser sans réponse toutes les questions trop

embarrassantes ou gênantes. Pour des raisons éthiques, tous les
questionnaires resteront anonymes et toutes les données personnelles
fournies ne seront pas divulguées. Toutes les données seront conservées
jusqu'à l'obtention du diplôme, puis détruites.

Si vous avez une question sur le contenu, la recherche ou la thèse, n’hésitez

à me contacter par l’email

Merci pour votre participation

Informations Générales

Q1. Âge :  ≤19  20 - 29  30 – 39  40 – 49

 50 - 59  60 +

Q2. Sexe :  Homme  Femme

Q3. Nationalité : _______________________________

Q4. Pays d’emploi : ______________________________

Q5. Secteur : __________________________________

 76

Q6. Entreprise (Optionnel) : ___________________________

Q7. Poste : ____________________________________

Définition d’agressivités

Q8. Veuillez utiliser l’espace ci-dessous pour donner une définition ou

description de ce qu’est, selon vous, une stratégie d’entreprise agressive.
Vous pouvez écrire un texte explicatif détaillé, ou simplement lister des
mots-clés.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

Échelle d’agressivité

Vous trouverez ci dessous une liste d’activités. Parcourez cette liste et, au
cas-par-cas, déterminez si une entreprise investissant un pourcentage élevé
de son chiffre d’affaires dans chaque activité, décrit une stratégie agressive
ou non.

Donnez vos réponses en fonction de l’échelle suivante : 1 = pas agressive

et 5 = très agressive

Q9. % Investissement élevé en : Marketing

1 2 3 4 5

Q10. % Investissement élevé en : R & D

1 2 3 4 5
 77

Q11. % Investissement élevé en : RH

1 2 3 4 5

Q12. % Investissement élevé en : Ventes

1 2 3 4 5

Q13. % Investissement élevé en : Production

1 2 3 4 5

Q14. % Investissement élevé en : Achats

1 2 3 4 5

Q15. % Investissement élevé en : Informatique et technologie

1 2 3 4 5

Q16. % Investissement élevé en : Formation

1 2 3 4 5

Q17. % Investissement élevé en : Recrutement

1 2 3 4 5

Questions d’agression

Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous d'accord ou en désaccord avec les

affirmations suivantes ?

Donnez vos réponses en fonction de l’échelle suivante : 1 = fortement en

désaccord et 5 = fortement d’accord.

Q18. Plus la part de marché d’une entreprise est grande, Plus elle est
agressive 1 2 3 4 5

Q19. Plus une entreprise fait des profits, plus elle sera agressive.
1 2 3 4 5
 78

Q20. Est-ce qu’il y a un autre domaine ou une autre activité qui pourrait,
selon vous, être « agressif » ?

 Oui  Non

Q21. Veuillez lister et donner vos raisons :

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

Stratégies d’agression

Q22. Pensez-vous que l'entreprise dans laquelle vous travaillez

actuellement a une stratégie agressive ?  Oui  Non

Q23. Veuillez expliquer votre réponse ci-dessous :

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

Pour toute question sur le contenu, la recherche ou la thèse, n’hésitez à me

contacter par email : kimberley.snell@northumbria.ac.uk

Merci pour votre participation

 79

Appendix 3e – Questionnaire (German)

Fragebogen zur Einschätzung der Aggressivität von

Geschäftsstrategien

Der folgende Fragebogen soll dazu dienen, Ihre persönlichen Ansichten

über die Aggressivität einer Geschäftsstrategie zu sammeln. Das Ziel dieses
Fragebogens ist es, herauszufinden, welche Bereiche eines Betriebes als
Erhöhung der Aggressivität eines Unternehmens angesehen werden, und
welche nicht.

Indem Sie diesen Fragebogen ausfüllen, erteilen Sie Ihre Erlaubnis für die
Verwendung Ihrer Angaben für diese Studie. Sie können etwaige Fragen,
die Ihnen nicht genehm sind, unbeantwortet lassen. Aus ethischen Gründen
werden alle Fragebögen anonym bleiben, und jegliche von Ihnen
angegebenen Personalien werden nicht weitergereicht. Alle Daten werden
bis zum Studienabschluss einbehalten und dann vernichtet.

Sollten Sie irgendwelche Fragen zum Inhalt, zu dieser Forschung oder zu

der Studienarbeit haben, oder falls Sie Ihren Fragebogen von dieser Studie
zurückziehen möchten, zögern Sie bitte nicht, sich mit mir unter der am
Schluss angegebenen Email Adresse in Verbindung zu setzen.

Danke für Ihre Teilnahme an dieser Umfrage.

 80

Allgemeine Angaben

Q1. Alter:  ≤19  20 - 29  30 – 39  40 - 49

 50 – 59  60 +

Q2. Geschlecht:  Männlich  Weiblich

Q3 Nationalität: _______________________

Q4. Land, in dem Sie beschäftigt sind: ____________

Q5. Sektor: __________________________

Q6. Unternehmen/Firma (nicht obligatorisch): _______________

Q7. Stelle/Position: ____________________

Definition von Aggressivität

Q8. Bitte benutzen Sie die untenstehenden Zeilen um eine Definition davon
zu geben, was Sie persönlich unter einer aggressiven Geschäftsstrategie
verstehen. Sie können Ihre Antwort in ganzen Sätzen oder Stichworten
formulieren.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
 81

Aggressivität Skala

Untenstehend ist eine Liste von Unternehmensaktivitäten. Bitte lesen Sie

diese Liste und entscheiden Sie, von Fall zu Fall, ob ein Unternehmen, das
einen hohen Anteil seines Verkaufseinkommens in den jeweiligen Bereich
investiert, eine aggressive Strategie beschreibt oder nicht.

Bitte antworten Sie, indem Sie folgende Skala benutzen: 1 = nicht aggressiv
und 5 = sehr aggressiv.

Q9. Hoher Prozentsatz an Investitionen in: Marketing

1 2 3 4 5

Q10. Hoher Prozentsatz an Investitionen in: Forschung und Entwicklung

1 2 3 4 5

Q11. Hoher Prozentsatz an Investitionen in: Arbeitskräfte/Personal

1 2 3 4 5

Q12. Hoher Prozentsatz an Investitionen in: Umsatz/Verkauf

1 2 3 4 5

Q13. Hoher Prozentsatz an Investitionen in: Produktion

1 2 3 4 5

Q14. Hoher Prozentsatz an Investitionen in: Einkauf

1 2 3 4 5

Q15. Hoher Prozentsatz an Investitionen in: IT und Technologie

1 2 3 4 5

Q16. Hoher Prozentsatz an Investitionen in: Training

1 2 3 4 5

Q17. Hoher Prozentsatz an Investitionen in: Personalanwerbung

1 2 3 4 5
 82

Fragen zur Aggressivität

Inwieweit stimmen Sie den folgenden Aussagen zu oder nicht zu?

Bitte antworten Sie, indem Sie folgende Skala benutzen:

1 = bin stark anderer Meinung und 5= stimme sehr zu

Q18. Je größer der Marktanteil eines Unternehmens ist, desto aggressiver

ist das Unternehmen als Konkurrent 1 2 3 4 5

Q19. Je mehr Profit ein Unternehmen macht, desto aggressiver wird das
Unternehmen sein. 1 2 3 4 5

Q20. Gibt es irgendwelche anderen Bereiche oder Aktivitäten in einem

Unternehmen, die Ihrer Meinung nach aggressiv sind?  Ja  Nein

Q21. Bitte führen Sie sie auf und geben Sie Ihre Begründungen dafür an.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
 83

Aggressive Strategien

Q22. Denken Sie, dass die Firma, für die Sie zur Zeit arbeiten, eine
aggressive Strategie hat?  Ja  Nein

Q23. Bitte erklären Sie Ihre Antwort.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

Sollten Sie irgendwelche Fragen zum Inhalt, zu dieser Forschung oder zu

der Studienarbeit haben, oder falls Sie Ihren Fragebogen von dieser Studie
zurückziehen möchten, zögern Sie bitte nicht, sich mit mir unter der
folgenden Email Adresse in Verbindung zu setzen.

kimberley.snell@northumbria.ac.uk

Vielen Dank für Ihre Teilnahme an dieser Studie.

 84

Appendix 3f – Data collection and data synthesis for

use in the models’ application

Below find a detailed explanation of how the data was either retrieved (for
companies 1-10) or synthesized (companies 11-40) in order to run an
application of the Tri-Hawk Aggression Model proposed in this dissertation.

Companies 1-10

The first 10 companies in the data set in appendix 3g are taken from data
based on the top 10 companies in the pharmaceuticals industry, listed by
Anderson (2014) as: Johnson and Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Hoffmann-La
Roche, Sanofi, Merck, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and AbbVie.

Thus, data was collected from several resources or calculated in the

following way (see the example below of Company 1 (herein known as C1)
which was based on GlaxoSmithKline).

Table A.1 – Table to show the calculated percentage figured for C1

C1 (GSK)
Marketing and Sales 23.90%
R&D 12.80%
HR 0.1453%
Production 25.6
Purchasing 0.0406%
IT and technology 3.2%
Training 0.0444%
Recruitment 0.0308%
Market Share 3.6%
% Revenue (C3 base) 58.06%
 85

Marketing and Sales - in the application, both Marketing and Sales data
were listed by Anderson (2014). However, as they were listed together in
this article (as one percentage representing each companies % of revenue
spent in both) the author did not want to separate them, to preserve the
integrity/accuracy of the data.

R&D – Data retrieved from Anderson (2014)

HR – As there was no available figures for HR spend for any of the

companies, the average HR spend per employee was found (Bersin by
Deloitte 2014) and multiplied by the number of employees working at each
company in the same year (Palmer 2014).

Production – Production costs were unavailable, so were calculated using

Basu’s (2008) logic that production is often twice as high as R&D, but doesn’t
often exceed 30% of the Revenue. Thus, the production costs were found
by doubling the R&D costs and reducing any that were subsequently larger
than 30%, back to 30%.

Purchasing – Purchasing expenditure was not available for each individual

company, thus the industry average was taken for each (at $7m per supplier
and each company having on average 24 suppliers), listed by Formiconi,
Lösch, Talmon, and Ziegler’s (2010).

IT and technology – Kuehn (2014) listed the average spend in the

Pharmaceuticals industry on IT and technology infrastructure was 3.2% of
each company’s revenue, thus, this number was taken.

Training – Gorman (2014) listed the average spend on training employees

in the Pharmaceuticals industry as $1847, thus this was multiplied by the
number of employees in each company, taken from the same year (Palmer
2014).

Recruitment – Recruitment was calculated by first calculating the number

of employees taken on in one year. This was done by first subtracting the
number of employees in 2012 from the number of employees in 2013 (both
 86

numbers taken from Palmer (2014)). Then, the average turnover rate was
also taken into account (24%), at an average between the different
suggested turnover rates by Sinha (2013). Then, the turn over rate (24% 0f
the employee count in 2012) was added to the number of new employees
between 2012 and 2013. This final number was then multiplied by the
average cost of a business ‘spend per hire’, calculated by Bersin (2013) t0
be $3300.

Market Share – Market share as listed by Statista (2013).

Profit – As the profit needed to be represented by some form of percentage

and needed to facilitate the weighting of competitors based on their financial
capabilities, the following calculation was used:

First the revenue for each company was retrieved from Anderson (2014).
Next, the company with the biggest revenue was identified, in this instance
it was C3 (representative of Johnsons and Johnsons).

This revenue was then listed as 100%. Following this, all other revenues
were listed as a percentage of C3. For example, the revenue for C3 was
$71.3bn, and the revenue for C1 was $41.4bn. Thus, as can be seen in
Table 6.1, C1’s new percentage was 58.06%. the same procedure was then
completed for the other companies.

Creation of companies 11-40

Companies 11-40 were created to increase the size of the synthesised

market, market x. However, to maintain the integrity of the test, the author
based the data for these companies on the data retrieved or calculated for
the first 10 companies but changed the Market share and the profit
percentage to reduce the size of the company. (maintaining the percentages
as they were to match the industry norms or the data taken from the original
companies).
 87

Companies 11-20 - are based respectively on the original companies

(where C1 responds to C11, C2 to C12 and so forth), but the market share
1
and revenue percentage were both reduced by 4.

Companies 21-30 - are based respectively on the original companies

(where C1 responds to C21, C2 to C22 and so forth), but the market share
1
and revenue percentage were both reduced by 2.

Companies 31-40 - are based respectively on the original companies

(where C1 responds to C21, C2 to C22 and so forth), but the market share
3
and revenue percentage were both reduced by 4.
 88

Appendix 3g – Company data

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Marketing 23.90% 23.90% 28.80% 24.5% 24.8% 22.1% 17.9% 20.7% 21.6% 24.7%
R&D 12.8% 12.8% 16.7% 11.5% 16.8% 12.8% 18.5% 14.2% 17.0% 23.7%
HR 0.1453% 0.1453% 0.0889% 0.0796% 0.1023% 0.0655% 0.0750% 0.1120% 0.0766% 0.0806%
Production 25.6% 25.6% 30.0% 23.0% 30.0% 25.6.0% 30.0% 28.4% 30.0% 30.0%
Purchasing 0.0406% 0.0406% 0.0654% 0.0236% 0.0286% 0.0319% 0.0334% 0.0378% 0.0382% 0.0727%
IT and technology 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
Training 0.0444% 0.0444% 0.0370% 0.0332% 0.0426% 0.0273% 0.0312% 0.0354% 0.0294% 0.0303%
Recruitment 0.0308% 0.0308% 0.0157% 0.0147% 0.0217% 0.0138% 0.0149% 0.0201% 0.0149% 0.0010%
Market Share 3.6% 3.6% 3.1% 4.0% 5.70% 5.8% 5.2% 4.7% 4.8% 2.1%
% Rev (C3 base) 58.06% 58.06% 36.04% 100.00% 82.47% 72.37% 70.55% 62.27% 61.71% 32.40%

C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20
Marketing 23.90% 23.90% 28.80% 24.5% 24.8% 22.1% 17.9% 20.7% 21.6% 24.7%
R&D 12.8% 12.8% 16.7% 11.5% 16.8% 12.8% 18.5% 14.2% 17.0% 23.7%
HR 0.1453% 0.1453% 0.0889% 0.0796% 0.1023% 0.0655% 0.0750% 0.1120% 0.0766% 0.0806%
Production 25.6% 25.6% 30.0% 23.0% 30.0% 25.6.0% 30.0% 28.4% 30.0% 30.0%
Purchasing 0.0406% 0.0406% 0.0654% 0.0236% 0.0286% 0.0319% 0.0334% 0.0378% 0.0382% 0.0727%
IT and technology 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
Training 0.0444% 0.0444% 0.0370% 0.0332% 0.0426% 0.0273% 0.0312% 0.0354% 0.0294% 0.0303%
Recruitment 0.0308% 0.0308% 0.0157% 0.0147% 0.0217% 0.0138% 0.0149% 0.0201% 0.0149% 0.0010%
Market Share 2.7% 2.3% 3.0% 4.3% 4.4% 3.9% 3.5% 3.6% 1.6% 2.3%
% Rev (C3 base) 43.5% 27.0% 75.0% 61.9% 54.3% 52.9% 46.7% 46.3% 24.3% 19.8%
 89

C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30
Marketing 23.90% 23.90% 28.80% 24.5% 24.8% 22.1% 17.9% 20.7% 21.6% 24.7%
R&D 12.8% 12.8% 16.7% 11.5% 16.8% 12.8% 18.5% 14.2% 17.0% 23.7%
HR 0.1453% 0.1453% 0.0889% 0.0796% 0.1023% 0.0655% 0.0750% 0.1120% 0.0766% 0.0806%
Production 25.6% 25.6% 30.0% 23.0% 30.0% 25.6.0% 30.0% 28.4% 30.0% 30.0%
Purchasing 0.0406% 0.0406% 0.0654% 0.0236% 0.0286% 0.0319% 0.0334% 0.0378% 0.0382% 0.0727%
IT and technology 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
Training 0.0444% 0.0444% 0.0370% 0.0332% 0.0426% 0.0273% 0.0312% 0.0354% 0.0294% 0.0303%
Recruitment 0.0308% 0.0308% 0.0157% 0.0147% 0.0217% 0.0138% 0.0149% 0.0201% 0.0149% 0.0010%
Market Share 1.8% 1.6% 2.0% 2.9% 2.9% 2.6% 2.4% 2.4% 1.1% 1.6%
% Rev (C3 base) 29.03% 18.02% 50.00% 41.23% 36.19% 35.27% 31.14% 30.86% 16.20% 13.18%

C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 C37 C38 C39 C40
Marketing 23.90% 23.90% 28.80% 24.5% 24.8% 22.1% 17.9% 20.7% 21.6% 24.7%
R&D 12.8% 12.8% 16.7% 11.5% 16.8% 12.8% 18.5% 14.2% 17.0% 23.7%
HR 0.1453% 0.1453% 0.0889% 0.0796% 0.1023% 0.0655% 0.0750% 0.1120% 0.0766% 0.0806%
Production 25.6% 25.6% 30.0% 23.0% 30.0% 25.6.0% 30.0% 28.4% 30.0% 30.0%
Purchasing 0.0406% 0.0406% 0.0654% 0.0236% 0.0286% 0.0319% 0.0334% 0.0378% 0.0382% 0.0727%
IT and technology 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
Training 0.0444% 0.0444% 0.0370% 0.0332% 0.0426% 0.0273% 0.0312% 0.0354% 0.0294% 0.0303%
Recruitment 0.0308% 0.0308% 0.0157% 0.0147% 0.0217% 0.0138% 0.0149% 0.0201% 0.0149% 0.0010%
Market Share 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 1.4% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 0.5% 0.8%
% Rev (C3 base) 14.52% 9.01% 25.00% 20.62% 18.09% 17.64% 15.57% 15.43% 8.10% 6.59%

Where C = Company (For how each of these numbers was realised, please see appendix 3f)
 90

Appendix 3h – Fortran script to run simulation

Below see the written script in Fortran (written in Geany) to calculate the
aggression of each company, which of the three hawk strategies they fit in
to and what the health of each strategy is. After the script, see the result
read out from it’s execution.
Note arbitrary values V = 3 and C = 1
91
 92

Below see the result read out from the above script after it was executed
 93

Appendix 4 – Personal Statement

Through my course at Northumbria I have felt myself develop as a student,

a person, and a future business professional. The course has pushed me to
fulfil my potential and taught me to take any opportunity that comes my way.

My first eighteen months on the business with international management

course gave me a solid grounding in the theory of business, a subject I had
little experience in before starting the course. Through the study of theory
and group exercises in subjects like management (HR0154) and
International business environment (SM0147) taken in first year I built the
foundation skills needed by any future business manager working in an
international environment.

Further, my study abroad experience in year two, semester two, took me to

IDRAC in Lyon where these skills were tested and exercised by the
increased incorporation of group projects into the courses. In IDRAC my
presentation skills were also pushed to new levels as we regularly presented
in front of over thirty students and slowly, my confidence developed until I
looked forward to these chances.

These skills I learned through my first two years on the Business with
International management course were tested for practical applicability
when I undertook a seven-month Product management internship from
August to February of my third year. Based with Zumtobel Group in Austria,
I was thrown into the deep end, working in a fast-paced business division
with multinational colleagues and clients based all-over the world. This
opportunity allowed me to practice my French skills, as many of the clients
and some of my co-workers were French, brought on my German skills and
regularly pushed me to try new things.

By regularly discussing with my manager how I wanted to push myself and

what opportunities were open for me I was able to not only make the most
 94

of the tight-knit team working environment but also to make valuable

contributions such as the proposition of product portfolios and representing
the team, along with another co-worker, in talks to create and then develop
an online product catalogue.

I was also able to apply my problem-solving skills, developed through the

group work in the first and second years of uni, to help overcome hurdles in
the product catalogue process, such as how to make the user interface
easier to handle once the catalogue was populated.

In the second part of my third year I studied in Emden in German, and again
had the chance to develop my language skills as well as specialise more into
international business with subjects like international marketing, culture and
International mergers and acquisitions. Furthermore, once this process was
completed I was invited back to my internship in Austria for a summer
position, further expanding on the online catalogue project and devoting my
final two weeks to teaching new members of staff what I had learnt.

It’s not only the course that has helped me develop. During my time at
Northumbria I was on the Judo team in first year, representing Northumbria
at BUCS. I was also on the social Net ball team and, whilst in IDRAC and
Emden Hochschule, was part of the international club and Erasmus club
respectively. Similarly, whilst on my internship I joined the company’s
volleyball team, and was part of the Zumtobel intern group, increasing my
business networking skills.

In my final year of uni, all of my skills have been further developed and tested
by a rigorous course designed to prepare us for the business environment.
Courses in semester one such as Applied business ethics (SM0382) helped
me to understand and strengthen my own personal brand of ethics by
identifying an ethical problem and working through possible solutions in the
end of semester assignment, whilst subjects like Culture and Organisations
(HR0372) and Doing business globally and internationally (SM0380) have
 95

helped me refine the skills I need to become a manager in international

business.

Ultimately, my final year offered not only the chance to specialise further but
also the chance to conduct contemporary and innovative research into a
possible future tool to be used by business managers. Throughout the
research process I have been tested and trialled and have pushed the
boundaries or scope of what I believed my undergraduate research could
achieve.

Through regular scheduled meetings with my supervisor I have been able to

plan my time effectively, structure my work and my research efficiently, and
have finished with a completed project that I feel proud to submit.

Throughout my time on this course, I have enjoyed surprising myself at every

turn and the feeling of reaching ever-higher goals as Northumbria pushed
me to reach my potential. I am confident to present myself to any potential
graduate recruiters as a forward thinking, innovative young business mind,
with a wealth of experience, both theoretical and practical, informal and
professional, that will define me as a graduate of tomorrow and a manager
of the future.
 96

Final Page

This Page was left intentionally blank