ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Research Article

Strategic groups in the hospitality industry: Intergroup and intragroup

performance differences in Alicante, Spain
Enrique Claver-Cortés, José F. Molina-Azorı́n, Jorge Pereira-Moliner
Department of Business Management, University of Alicante, P.O. Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain
Received 28 April 2004; accepted 9 November 2005

Abstract

The hotel sector is currently immersed in a very uncertain, highly competitive environment, due to which it needs information for the
correct management of its establishments. This information can be obtained from the classification of hotels in strategic groups. The
present empirical research presents strategic groups in the hospitality industry as a useful tool for the planning and implementation of
strategies by hotels that helps to determine their competitive strategies and advantages. This research paper additionally shows how the
levels of performance between the hotels belonging to each group can be evaluated from strategic groups. In this study, the tool is applied
to the hotel sector of the Spanish province of Alicante, a very important geographical area in the context of international tourism. The
dimensions resource commitment and tourist activity scope have been used to define the strategic groups.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Strategic groups; Competitive strategy; Performance; Hotels; Alicante

1. Introduction (INE (Spanish Statistics Institute), 2003a; National Statis-

tics Institute Information Bulletin, 2002). Regarding the
Tourism is the 21st century’s main leisure activity. About employment generated by the tourism sector, estimates
160 million people work in the tourism industry; tourism indicate that it usually absorbs ca. 10% of the total
generates 700 billion US dollars in fiscal incomes all over employment available in Spain (National Statistics Insti-
the world and there are 40,000 travel agencies only in tute Information Bulletin, 2003). From the total Spanish
Europe. Even so, figures keep growing and prospects for occupied population, 209,673 people worked in hotels and
the future are very bright (Pizam, 1999; WTO, 2003). guesthouses in August 2003 (INE (Spanish Statistic
Tourism appears as the world’s most important service Institute), 2003a).
industry, both by number of employees and by the effects it Concerning the economic reality of the hotel sector,
has on the social and economic development of regions and according to the data provided by the FEH (Spanish Hotel
countries (Holjevac, 2003). It likewise represents one of the Federation) (2000), 14,692 accommodation establish-
best opportunities to generate wealth and employment in ments—including hotels, guesthouses and boarding
all countries (Fayos, 1996; Smeral, 1998). houses—existed in Spain on December 31, 2000. The
The tourism sector is also very relevant for the Spanish distribution of the hotel plant by categories is shown in
economy. Spain ranks world’s second in this sector both in Fig. 1, from which can be deduced that Spain has a big
number of travelers (behind France) and in terms of reception capacity, since all those establishments together
income from tourism (behind the US) (WTO, 2003). offer a total of 640,802 rooms and 1,215,070 beds.
According to the Tourism Satellite Account, this industry The number of beds is distributed as follows: five-star
gave Spain 11.8% of its GDP for 2002 and 12.1% for 2001 hotels represent 2.52% of the total, 23.77% corresponds to
four-star hotels, 39.47% to three-star ones, 11.63% to two-
Corresponding author. Tel./fax:+34 965 90 3606. star establishments, 5.80% to one-star accommodation,
E-mail address: jorge.pereira@ua.es (J. Pereira-Moliner). and finally, guesthouses and boarding houses account for

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.11.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1102 E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116

9000
8216 To achieve its aims, the study is structured as follows. It
8000 starts by explaining the concept of strategic group and its
7000 usefulness, and we establish the hypotheses about inter-
6000 group and intragroup performance differences. Then, a
5000 description is made of the methodology applied to the
4000 verification of hypotheses; the hospitality sector strategic
3000
2199 groups are formed, and the existence of potential
1835
2000
908
1448 significant differences in performance both between differ-
1000
86 ent groups and inside each group is checked. The final
0 section offers the conclusions along with a reference to
5-star 4-star 3-star 2-star 1-star Guesthouses
and boarding
implications for hotel managers.
houses

Fig. 1. Number of establishments in absolute terms by category on

2. Strategic groups: background and hypotheses
December 31, 2000 (source: FEH (Spanish Hotel Federation), 2000, p. 6).
2.1. Strategic groups and strategic management

16.81% of the total beds. In other words, despite being Two major approaches to the definition and comparison
much less numerous than guesthouses and boarding of organizational configurations have arisen in the
houses, hotels accumulate nearly 85% of the beds in the literature on strategic management. The dominant ap-
sector. proach focuses on the empirical classification of organiza-
In the Valencian Autonomous Community, where the tions that seeks to define inductively a set of configurations
Alicante province is located, there are 588 hotels at present, appropriate to a given context. The inductive approach
of which 295 hotels (50.17%) and 57,804 beds (58.58%) concentrates on maximizing internal validity while sacrifi-
correspond to Alicante (Valencia Region Tourist Board, cing generalizability. The second approach focuses on
2004). Besides, Alicante has consolidated as Spain’s fifth producing configurations generated deductively from pre-
most important tourist destination by number of hotel beds vious theoretical sources. Deductively derived configura-
(INE (Spanish Statistics Institute), 2003b). tions apply broadly and are not dependent on a particular
However, in spite of its great economic relevance, the industry context (Ketchen, Thomas, & Snow, 1993).
hotel sector is immersed in a globalized, dynamic business Both the inductive method (Cool & Schendel, 1987;
environment in which tourists have changed and hotels as Fiegenbaum & Thomas, 1995; Porter, 1979) and the
well as destinations are competing with one another in an deductive one (Dess & Davis, 1984; Kim & Lim, 1988;
increasingly aggressive way (Poon, 1993). This is why being Miller, 1992) have been used in multiple research works
and remaining competitive turns out to be more and more with the aim of finding organizational configurations.
difficult. Faced with this situation, strategic groups serve as Within those organizational configurations we find
a tool that can help hotels know and assess the competitive strategic groups, which are used to describe a set of
strategies and advantages developed by their competitors, companies within an industry that pursue similar strategies
which in turn will provide hoteliers with more and better (Porter, 1979). They can be treated from two main
information for the correct planning and implementation perspectives: that of Industrial Organization and that of
of their own competitive strategy. Strategic Management. This study focuses on the latter.
Therefore, once Alicante’s relevance in the context of Among the features characterizing the study of strategic
tourism has been highlighted, the main aim of this study is groups from the point of view of Strategic Management, it
carrying out an analysis of the hotels located in Alicante so can be highlighted that the research work always focuses
as to identify the strategies they are implementing; to on a single sector, trying to consider all the enterprises that
determine the competitive advantages they are developing; belong to it; that numerous strategic variables are used to
and to check whether some strategy achieves higher reflect, as accurately as possible, the strategic positioning of
performance levels than the others, i.e., to check potential each enterprise within its sector; and finally, that the
intergroup as well as intragroup performance differences. multivariant-type empirical methods are the most often
The main contribution made by this study consequently applied (Flavián & Polo, 1999). Examples of this type of
lies in the fact that it gives an overview of the different ways analysis can be found in the research done by Hatten and
in which a number of hotels located in a very consolidated Hatten (1987), Cool and Schendel (1987, 1988), Cool and
sun-and-sand destination develop their competitive advan- Dierickx (1993), Fiegenbaum and Thomas (1990), among
tages, which additionally allows researchers and profes- others.
sionals to know if any of those competitive advantages is From the Strategic Management approach, the firms
going to produce more success than the rest; and finally, in must be as mutually heterogeneous as possible in order to
the fact that it shows an application of the strategic group carry out a successful study about strategic groups. If the
tool to the hotel sector, something that has seldom been firms analyzed were homogeneous, they should be classified
done so far. and put together in a single group. Thus, the firms are
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116 1103

grouped together because they are comparable, although and Céspedes (2001) distributed Spanish three–five-star
some differences do exist between them. This means that hotels in groups according to the environmental strategy
groups of enterprises which develop similar strategic they applied. Finally, some studies have been carried out
behaviors within the same business sector are identified. following a deductive approach from some already existing
For instance, three- and five-star hotels do not necessarily strategies. For example, Curry, Davies, Phillips, Evans,
have to be included in the same group, as they will and Moutinho (2001) classified the 50 most important
probably show different strategic behaviors, which is why companies in the UK according to the competitive
they could be placed in different groups. strategies described by Porter (1980). On the other hand,
Nevertheless, it must be remembered that according to Monfort (2002), classified the hotels in Benidorm and
the modern Strategic Management approach, heterogene- Peñı́scola according to the strategies described by Zammu-
ity exists both within industries and within strategic to (1988), Garrigós and Palacios (2005) and Garrigós,
groups. Within a strategic group, there can be core firms Palacios, and Narangajavana (2005), classified Spanish
(which follow the group strategy closely) and secondary hotels in accordance with the generic strategies of Miles
firms (which do not follow that group strategy so closely) and Snow (1978).
(McNamara, Deephouse, & Luce, 2003). In other words,
certain strategic differences exist even between the mem- 2.2. Performance differences between strategic groups
bers of the same group.
On the other hand, among the possible applications of The concept of performance is the core of strategy.
strategic groups, we decided to use the following ones in Although it is undoubtedly important to measure enterprise
our study: (1) The descriptive validity or their capacity to performance, its conceptualization and operationalization
describe in an aggregated way the different strategic has always been a very controversial issue both in the
behaviors shown by the firms operating in the same general literature (Chakravarthy, 1986; Hitt, 1988; Venka-
business field. Thus, strategic groups allow to identify the traman & Ramanujam, 1986) and in the specific publica-
strategies which are being implemented by hotels and the tions dedicated to the hospitality industry (Atkinson &
competitive advantages that derive from them. (2) The Brander-Brown, 2001; Harris & Montegiello, 2001).
predictive validity, which consists in determining a priori Strategic groups have to do with the explanation of
the performance level that a firm belonging to a specific performance, as one of their most relevant functions is the
strategic group can achieve (Cool & Schendel, 1987; Hatten predictive validity. This validity has been questioned
& Hatten, 1987; Thomas & Venkatraman, 1988). because there are some works in which significant
This section also refers to the studies on strategic groups performance differences between the different resulting
dedicated to the hotel industry. Edgar, Littlejohn, and strategic groups were obtained and others in which that
Allardyce (1994) grouped the 30 largest hotel enterprises in was not the case (Cool & Schendel, 1987; McGee &
Scotland by number of rooms according to their structure Thomas, 1992). Thomas and Venkatraman (1988) asserted
and their strategy in the sale of 1–3-night tourist packages. that strategic group research had yielded models with only
They also measured hotel performance using the RevPAR weak predictive validity and proposed a number of
(revenues per available room) mean and its standard directions for research that might remedy the situation.
deviation with the aim of evaluating group stability. This all has made some researchers harbor doubts about
Lant and Baum (1995) resorted to the cognitive the predictive validity of groups. A deeper analysis of this
perspective and grouped together 43 of the 72 hotels which dichotomy between research works reveals that the
operated in Manhattan in 1992. Garcı́a, Oreja, and Armas relationship between these two variables will depend on
(2002) identified the strategic groups in the hotel sector of the performance measurements used and the number of
the Tenerife Island taking into account the characteristics groups identified. In some cases, even the actual existence
of the establishment, its geographical location, the services of the groups has been questioned and it has been
and products it offers, the prices, the quality and the suggested that they might be nothing but a statistical
environmental training. artifice (Barney & Hoskisson, 1990). However, various
The studies mentioned below grouped hotels together studies based on the cognitive approach support their
from some strategic dimension but are not, strictly speak- existence (Porac & Thomas, 1990; Reger & Huff, 1993).
ing, research works about strategic groups. Despite that, it There are also arguments in favor of the predictive
is interesting for this research to know what dimensions validity of groups. On the one hand, it is proposed that
were used for the classification of hotels in those studies. firms belonging to the same group collude with one another
Thus, Ingram (1996) grouped together the different hotels so as to isolate themselves in terms of competitiveness from
belonging to the chains that operate in the US depending firms located outside their group (Caves & Porter, 1977;
on whether they assumed the name of their chain. Camisón Fiegenbaum & Thomas, 1990). As a result of this, a
(2000) analyzed the strategic attitudes of two- and three- favorable competitive environment is generated among the
star Valencian Community hotels regarding information members of certain groups (McNamara et al., 2003). This
technologies, and the importance these attitudes had in the collusive behavior is favored by the mobility barriers that
formation of their strategic groups. Álvarez, de Burgos, arise between the different groups and make it difficult for
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1104 E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116

firms belonging to a group with worse performance levels Hypothesis 1. Significant performance differences exist
to join another group with better performance levels due to between hospitality strategic groups.
the uncertainty about the resources they need to build a
specific strategy (Veliyath & Ferris, 1997). These mobility 2.3. Intragroup performance differences
barriers can appear even when collusion between enter-
prises belonging to different groups does not exist. Within Within the research on strategic groups, there are other
the chances of hotel collusion we find, as a particular case, types of studies which analyze the potential existence of
the consortia-based cooperation strategy in which several significant performance differences between firms belong-
hotel firms sign a contract by means of which they ing to the same group. These studies are less numerous,
formalize a long-term mutual relationship and create a though (Claver, Molina, & Quer, 2003; Cool & Schendel,
joint organization, i.e. an organizational scheme they all 1988; Lawless, Bergh, & Wilsted, 1989). The same as in the
belong to (Littlejohn, 1982; Slattery, Roper, & Boer, 1985). case of predictive validity, the results obtained in these
Examples of this are Best Western, Small Luxury Hotels or research studies are contradictory.
Relais et Châteaux. On the one hand, some researchers believed that no
Nevertheless, some studies point out that collusion significant performance differences existed within strategic
depends on industry conditions, and some works conclude groups. This is so because the input combination that
that effective collusion is difficult to achieve due to characterizes each group is peculiar enough to guarantee
coordination difficulties and differences in the costs and homogeneity in the group’s results (Wernerfelt, 1984).
benefits of collusion among industry members (Kwoka & Competition is thus minimized, since firms included in one
Ravenscraft, 1986). conglomerate consider themselves protected from the rest
On the other hand, various theoretical approaches of the industry and the possibilities of developing
support the existence of performance differences between differentiated intragroup behaviors are reduced. Therefore,
groups for different reasons. These approaches are: the the chances of significant performance differences existing
structural inertia theory (Hannan & Freeman, 1984); the between firms belonging to the same groups are equally
traditional industrial organization theory (Bain, 1956) and reduced.
its modern version (Porter, 1980), the resource-based view However, there are studies which show that significant
(Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984), the intragroup performance differences exist. According to this
dynamic capability approach (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994), view, it is believed that enterprises see as their main threat
the cognitive perspective applied to strategic groups the organizations which decide to develop strategies similar
(McNamara et al., 2003; Porac & Thomas, 1990; Reger to theirs, which leads them to exploit to the full the possible
& Huff, 1993) and the population ecology theory differences existing in the allocation of resources and the
(McKelvey, 1982). development of capabilities, and also to develop isolating
The first five theoretical conceptions listed above mechanisms that hinder copying or imitation (Cool &
consider that some specific internal factors like the Schendel, 1988; Lawless et al., 1989; McNamara et al.,
combination of tangible and intangible resources are the 2003). For instance, Baum and Mezias (1992) and Baum
ones which prevent firms from changing their strategy and and Haveman (1997) showed in the case of the Manhattan
therefore, from joining another strategic group. Instead, hotel industry that when establishments have very similar
according to the cognitive approach, the cognitive models characteristics, their chances of survival are reduced.
designed by strategy-makers represent a hindrance to Therefore, from this point of view, firms belonging to the
mobility that makes it difficult for a firm to decide to same group may have significant performance differences
change group, as that would force those strategy-makers to which can even prove lasting, not so much due to the
adopt a new mental model (Hodgkinson, 1997; Tang & mobility barriers between groups but because of the
Thomas, 1992). Hodgkinson (1997) argues that the, isolating mechanisms or imitation barriers that those firms
cognitive inertia many firms are subjected to, makes them develop so that firms located in the same group find it
continue to work in the same way, even when business is difficult to imitate or copy their strategic resources. The
not going well, due to their strategy-makers’ inability to presence of isolation mechanisms can consequently justify
revise their mental models for the competitive space fast the existence of differences in performance between
enough to successfully adapt to a change in the environ- members of the same group.
ment. As for the population ecology perspective, it Hotel resources thus become the key factor in the
establishes that the enterprise population is a stable sector identification of strategic groups and even in relation to the
in the long-term because firms find it hard to adapt to existence of significant performance differences between
changes. Therefore, it is inferred that changes in the hotels belonging to the same strategic group (Mehra, 1996).
environment select the strongest firms that will be able to Therefore, the fact that a hotel has better performance
survive to them, and that changes do not force enterprises levels than the other members of its group is due to the
to adapt to them (Mascarenhas, 1989). differences regarding the tangible, intangible and human
Therefore, from the theoretical considerations above, the resources accumulated. These differences result from the
following hypothesis is proposed: fact that hotels choose different resources in their efforts to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116 1105

implement similar strategies, which makes their invest- an inductive approach proved crucial for the identification
ments go in different directions (Mehra, 1996). of the variables that were used in the present study.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: In this inductive study, the dimensions to be measured
are divided into three large categories. The first two are the
Hypothesis 2. Significant performance differences exist resources commitment that hotels have at their disposal to
between hotels belonging to the same hospitality strategic implement their strategy (resources that are essential to
group. obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage in the
target product-market segment) and the scope of their
3. Research design activities (the range of market segments that are targeted
and the types of products and/or services offered) will serve
3.1. Sample selection and data collection to identify the competitive strategies and the strategic
groups of the industry analyzed. These two dimensions
The target population for this study was formed by the were proposed by Cool and Schendel (1987) and influenced
three–five-star hotels located in the province of Alicante. a large number of later research works dedicated to the
This allowed to focus on the sun and sand segment, as identification and characterization of strategic groups
100% of the hotels interviewed said that, although they (Cool & Dierickx, 1993; Fiegenbaum & Thomas, 1990,
exploited other segments too, they mainly oriented their 1995; Flavián & Polo, 1999; Lewis & Thomas, 1990).
business toward the sun and sand segment. These The third dimension, the performance level achieved by
categories were seen as the most dynamic and innovative hotels in the implementation of those strategies, is used to
ones because they corresponded to the hotels with a wider contrast the hypotheses. Before the complexity involved in
range of characteristics and possibilities, e.g. their size, measuring this dimension, one of the ten ways proposed by
their position within a chain or the types of tourism they Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) is chosen. Thus,
can offer. performance was considered in terms of financial results
The population census was obtained from the hotel list and operational indicators specific to the hotel sector, both
provided by the Valencia Region Tourist Board through its of them measured from primary data. The actual variables
tourist information system (WINSITUR). The population used appear in Table 1.
under study amounted to 153 hotels (107 three-star The variables contained in the different dimensions are
establishments, 41 four-star hotels, and 5 five-star ones). measured both with the Guide of Valencian Community
A study of the whole population was then carried out using Hotels and with a questionnaire addressed to hotel
a structured questionnaire with closed questions (Appendix managers personally. The questionnaire includes questions
A). The questionnaire had to be answered by the of two kinds: one-answer closed questions or lists of
interviewees in the presence of an interviewer. Finally, attributes for an aspect to be researched that had to be
114 out of 153 hotels under study filled in the whole recognized and of valuation, which later tend to become
questionnaire, that is to say, 74.51% of the total. summative scale variables.
For the determination of the variables appearing in
Table 1 and the ways in which they could be measured, we
3.2. Variables and measures carried out a literature review and ten in-depth interviews
with experts in the hotel sector (five hotel managers, a
In this research, the strategic group tool is used to president of a hoteliers’ association and four university
perform an inductive study. An inductive approach is lecturers whose professional activities are linked to the
chosen for the following reasons. On the one hand, the teaching and research in the tourism field).
generic strategies of Porter (1980), Miles and Snow (1978)
and Zammuto (1988), which stand out as the most 3.3. Analytic methods
commonly used ones in the deductive method, are
proposed in a general way for all sectors, while this study Regarding the statistical techniques applied, a principal
has as its aim to focus on the particularities of the hotel components factor analysis was performed in an attempt to
industry. On the other hand, as Poon (1993) pointed out, detect the competitive strategies adopted by the Alicante
the strategies designed by Porter are more appropriate for province hotels, after which these establishments were
static environments and for manufacturing sectors than for grouped together by means of a two-stage cluster analysis
service sectors. For these reasons, strategies have a limited (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995; Punj & Stewart,
value in the present-day hotel industry. Similarly, the 1983). First, a hierarchical cluster was applied with the
strategies of Miles and Snow (1978) (focused on explaining Ward Method so as to determine the number of strategic
the strategic behavior of firms in a general way) and groups, their centroids and the outliers, and then, a non-
Zammuto (1988) (who combines the strategies of Miles & hierarchical cluster was used to classify the hotels in the
Snow with the population ecology approach) do not different groups obtained.
consider the specificities of the hotel sector or the variables Kruskal–Wallis’ H- and w2-tests were carried out to
which affect hotel competitiveness. Therefore, the choice of contrast Hypothesis 1 depending on the type of variables
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1106 E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116

Table 1
Dimensions and variables to be measured

Dimensions Variables Research studies which have used similar measurements

Resource Hotel category (no. of stars). Variable drawn from the Guide Álvarez, de Burgos, and Céspedes (2001), Chung and Kalnins
commitment of Valencian Community Hotels (2001), Pine and Phillips (2005)
No. of rooms. Variable drawn from the Guide of Valencian Baum and Mezias (1992), Lant and Baum (1995), Chung and
Community Hotels Kalnins (2001)
Room equipment and no. of services delivered (sum of 61 Garcı́a et al. (2002)
items relative to these variables drawn from the Guide of
Valencian Community Hotels. If the hotel has the item, it
scores 1, if not, it scores 0)
Employees year 2003 (part-and-full time workers)/number of Brown and Dev (1999)
rooms
Human resource training level (sum of the scores for variables Tihanyi et al. (2000), Boudreau et al. (2001)
2.1–3.3 of the questionnaire in Appendix A)
Commitment to quality (no. of quality certificates owned by Garcı́a et al. (2002)
the hotel)
Commitment to the environment (no. of environmental Garcı́a et al. (2002)
certificates owned by the hotel)
Computerisation level (sum of the scores for variables Camisón (1995), Buick (2004)
6.1–6.12)
Information and Communication Technology (ICT)- and Yeung and Law (2004), Garrigós et al. (2004)
Information Systems (IS)-use level (sum of the scores for
variables 7.1–7.5)
Price (room rate) (average price of a double room during Israeli and Uriely (2000), Israeli (2002)
2003, a piece of information obtained from the Guide of
Valencian Community Hotels)
Activity scope Degree of segmentation. No. of tourism segments the hotel is Andereck and Caldweel (1994)
oriented to (sum of the tourism segments toward which the
hotel is oriented listed in variable 8)
Degree of intermediation (sum of the percentages included in Buhalis (2000), Bastakis et al. (2004)
variables 9.1–9.3)
Type of hotel management Ingram and Baum (1997), Chung and Kalnins (2001)

Performance Occupancy rate per room and beds in 2003 Damonte, Rompf, Bahl, and Domke (1997), Johns,
Howcroft, and Drake (1997), Álvarez et al. (2001)
Valuation between 0 and 10 of the total gross profit and profit Robinson and Pearce (1988), Miller and Cardinal (1994),
per room and day compared to known competitors Álvarez et al. (2001)
Total gross profit in 2003 (measured in 9 intervals)a Brown and Dev (1997), Brown and Dev (1999)
Total gross profit per room and day in 2003 (measured in 9
intervals)a
a
These intervals correspond to the average total gross profit and total gross profit per room and day percentiles between 1998 and 2002 in 53 of the 153
hotels in our study population about which accounting data were available in the Sistema de Análisis de Balances Ibéricos (SABI) database. This way of
measuring these variables was proposed by the experts interviewed.

related in each case. On the other hand, Hypothesis 2 was groups created when the hotels are classified according to
contrasted using the method developed by Lawless et al. the degree of implementation of each strategy. Thus, in
(1989, p. 656), who applied the following reasoning to this order to identify the competitive strategies, a principal
test. If all firms in the same group have identical values in components factor analysis to the dimensions ‘resource
each performance variable, each firm’s performance vari- commitment’ and ‘activity scope’ is applied. The results
able will fall within a 0.95 confidence interval around its obtained are shown in Table 2.
respective group mean. If more than 5% of individual Since the sample size was of 114 elements, only factor
firms’ values for each performance variable fall outside the loads above 70.5 were considered significant (Hair et al.,
confidence interval, then Hypothesis 2 is confirmed. 1995).
The first factor receives the name of ‘Category or
4. Results Tangible Resource Management Strategy’. It includes the
variables number of stars, equipment and services, number
4.1. Competitive strategies and strategic groups in the of employees per room and price (room rate). Besides, all
hospitality industry these variables have factor loads of the same sign, which
means they are all positively related.
This section describes the competitive strategies being The second factor is called ‘Intangible Resource Man-
implemented by the hotels analyzed and the strategic agement Strategy’. This factor has significant scores in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116 1107

Table 2 within the list of hotels studied. A solution was found in

Factor analysis results this way with four groups distributed according to the
Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
criterion of percentual change of the agglomeration
coefficient and the dendogram. On the other hand, no
Stars 0.868 outliers were found, as the observation of the dendogram
Equipment and services 0.768
revealed that there was not a single case whose branch was
No. of employees per room 0.659
0.416
Price (room rate) 0.841 late in joining the rest of cases in its group (Hair et al.,
No. of rooms 0.707 1995).
No. of quality certificates 0.769 The validation of the cluster and the statistical data for
No. of environmental 0.804
certificates
the interpretation of the strategic groups obtained are
Computerization level 0.708 shown in Table 3. This table includes the average scores
Training level 0.730 obtained by each group in each strategy, and in each
ICT- and IS-use level 0.695 variable used for the creation of groups. Besides, it
Type of hotel management 0.603
Degree of segmentation
0.673
indicates the significance of each strategy and each variable
Degree of intermediation 0.848 for each group, the conclusion reached being that the
cluster is valid, as all the strategies and variables are
Eigenvalue per factor 3.955 2.426 1.253 1.031
% of variance explained per 30.426 18.663 9.642 7.927 significantly different between the groups. On the other
factor hand, when a discriminant analysis is applied, 96.5% of the
Accumulated % of variance 30.426 49.089 58.731 66.658 original grouped cases are correctly classified in their
explained
Correlation matrix 0.00691
strategic groups.
determinant After validating the cluster solution, groups are char-
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Index 0.739 acterized as follows.
Bartlett’s significance test of 0.000
sphericity
4.1.1. Group 1
Note: Factor scores with absolute values below 0.4 have been removed. The passive hotels. It is formed by 28 hotels (24.56% of
the total) and is the second largest group. As for factor
analysis scores, these hotels are systematically below-
average in every strategy. These are the hotels which score
variables ‘computerization level’, ‘staff training level’, the lowest in the intangible resource management and
‘Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)- scope strategies, and which besides, assign little importance
and Information Systems (IS)-use level’, and finally, ‘type to the category and improvement and dimension strategies.
of hotel management’. The different variables are positively In other words, firstly, regarding the variables that form
related in this case too. the intangible management resource strategy, these hotels
The third factor is defined as ‘Improvement and Hotel have the lowest computerization, staff training and ICT-
Dimension Strategy’, because the variables ‘number of and IS-use levels. The prevailing hotel management type is
rooms’ and ‘number of quality and environmental certifi- that of the independent hotel or that of one which belongs
cates’ score significantly high and with the same sign for to an association of independent hotels. Secondly, as far as
this factor. the scope strategy is concerned, these are the hotels with
Finally, the fourth factor corresponds to the ‘Scope the lowest degree of intermediation, their degree of
Strategy’, since this factor shows high factor scores in the segmentation ranking among the highest ones though.
variables that measure this dimension, namely the hotel’s Thirdly, in relation to the improvement and dimension
degree of segmentation and intermediation. In this case, strategy, they are the smallest hotels in the area and those
factor scores have opposite signs, which means that these which have obtained the lowest number of quality and
variables are negatively related. It can also be checked that environmental certificates.
the variable ‘number of employees per room’ scores
negatively in this factor, i.e. when the hotel’s degree of 4.1.2. Group 2
specialization increases, its degree of intermediation grows Hotels which base their competitive advantage on their
and the number of employees is reduced, perhaps due to resources and capabilities. 18 hotels (15.79% of the total)
the experience effect and the improved efficiency this belong to this second group, in which the greatest
process can generate. This variable was not taken into importance is assigned to the category strategy (they are
account because its factor load was below 0.5 and therefore the highest-category hotels: those with more stars, with the
non-significant. best equipment and services, with the most expensive room
After identifying the competitive strategies, the different rates and with more employees per room) and to the
accommodation establishments under analysis were intangible resource management strategy (these hotels have
grouped together according to the business strategy they maximum staff training and ICT- and IS-use levels; their
pursued. To achieve this aim, a two-stage cluster analysis degree of computerization is above-average, and the type
was performed that had as its main purpose to form groups of management is the second closest to the management on
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1108 E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116

Table 3
Average values and significance test for each strategy and variable for each group

Mean Statistics

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Total mean

n ¼ 28 n ¼ 18 n ¼ 51 n ¼ 17 n ¼ 28:5

Strategies
Category strategy
0.27 1.75
0.56 0.28 0 70.620(1)***
Intangible resource management strategy
0.61 0.38 0.15 0.15 0 5.502(1)**
Improvement and dimension strategy
0.26
0.54
0.31 1.94 0 75.275(1)***
Scope strategy
1.18 0.09 0.53 0.25 0 33.852(1)***
Variables
Stars 3.11 4.28 3.06 3.65 3.35 0.602(2)***
Equipment and services 30.25 40.44 27.76 38.35 31.96 29.363(1)***
No. of employees per room 0.42 0.62 0.28 0.34 0.37 48.274(3)***
Price (room rate) 91.16 152.49 86.78 108.67 101.49 29.909(3)***
No. of rooms 69.14 134.11 147.73 364.29 158.57 43.474(3)***
No. of quality certificates 0.29 0.50 0.47 1.82 0.63 45.438(3)***
No. of environmental certificates 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.94 0.17 36.487(3)***
Computerization level 8.93 10.11 9.98 11.12 9.91 65.365(3)***
Training level 18.96 21.83 19.94 20.94 20.15 14.189(3)**
ICT- and IS-use level 1.14 2.22 1.41 1.88 1.54 9.011(3)**
Type of hotel management 1.21 2.89 2.61 2.94 2.36 0.363(2)***
Degree of segmentation 4.54 4.56 2.10 3.29 3.26 22.347(3)***
Degree of intermediation 0.19 0.63 0.77 0.81 0.61 30.482(3)***

***po0.001; **po0.05.
(1) F (ANOVA).
(2) Cramer’s V, since, with contingency tables, more than 20% of squares have an expected frequency below 5.
(3) Kruskall–Wallis Test.

an ownership basis by a chain). However, these are also the 4.1.4. Group 4
hotels which assign the least importance to the improve- Hotels which base their competitive advantage on
ment and dimension strategy (they have obtained no improvement and dimension. This group includes 17 hotels
environmental certificates and the number of quality (14.91% of the total), and is therefore the smallest one. The
certificates and rooms is also below the average). Regard- enterprises belonging to it are the ones which assign the
ing the scope strategy, they are located slightly above the most importance to the improvement and dimension
average (they are the least specialized hotels and their strategy (these are the largest hotels and have the highest
degree of intermediation is just above-average). number of quality and environmental certificates of the
four groups). Besides, their other factors or strategies are
4.1.3. Group 3 always above the sector’s average. Thus, regarding the
Hotels which base their competitive advantage on category strategy, these hotels have a number of stars,
specialization. This group is formed by 51 hotels (44.74% equipment, services and room rates above the average, but
of the total) and is the largest one. These are the hotels are below-average in terms of number of employees per
which assign the most importance to the scope strategy room. Concerning the intangible resource management
(as they address the smallest number of segments—i.e. they strategy, it must be highlighted that they are above the
are the most highly specialized establishments—and their average in staff training, computerization and ICT- and
degree of intermediation is above-average). Nevertheless, IS-use levels, and are usually managed on an ownership
they are the ones assigning the least importance to the basis by a chain. Finally, their scope strategy is based on
category strategy (they are the lowest-category hotels, with the highest degree of intermediation of the four groups and
fewer stars, with the worst equipment and services, with the an above-average degree of segmentation.
lowest room rates, and also with the lowest number of
employees per room). On the other hand, as far as the 4.2. Performance differences between hospitality groups
intangible resource management strategy is concerned, they
show a degree of computerization above the average, It can be observed from the results offered in Table 4
although their staff training and ICT- and IS-use levels are that there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence
below the average. Finally, their improvement and dimen- of predictive validity in the strategic groups obtained for
sion strategy is below-average since the number of rooms the hotel sector, since not all the performance variables
as well as the quality and environmental certificates analyzed show significant differences; only those related to
obtained are below the average. occupancy rate per room and bed and total gross profit.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116 1109

Table 4
Difference in performance between strategic groups

Variable w2 Average values in the groups

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Occupancy rate per room 38.356(1)*** 58.01% 60.70% 80.87% 79.84%

Occupancy rate per bed 36.958(1)*** 53.37% 58.63% 79.59% 83.08%
Valuation of total gross profit obtained compared to 33.402(2) 5.43 4.24 5.88 6.12
known competitors
Valuation of gross profit per room obtained compared 35.698(2) 5.43 4.35 5.75 5.82
to known competitors
Total gross profit 0.361(3)** 2.75 3.76 3.57 5.82
Gross profit per room and day 30.683(2) 4.07 4.47 3.43 4.18

***po0.001; **po0.05.
(1) Kruskall–Wallis Test.
(2) w2 from contingency tables.
(3) Cramer’s V, since, with contingency tables, 31 squares (86.1%) have an expected frequency below 5.

Table 5
Mann–Whitney’s U-test with Bonferroni’s correction

Significant variables Strategic groups Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Occupancy rate per room Group 1 Mann–Whitney’s U — — —

Sign.
Group 2 Mann–Whitney’s U 250.500 — —
Sign. 0.973
Group 3 Mann–Whitney’s U 221.500 153.000 —
Sign. 0.000 0.000
Group 4 Mann–Whitney’s U 76.500 45.000 372.500
Sign. 0.000 0.000 0.387
Occupancy rate per bed Group 1 Mann–Whitney’s U — — —
Sign.
Group 2 Mann–Whitney’s U 205.000 — —
Sign. 0.289
Group 3 Mann–Whitney’s U 232.500 190.500 —
Sign. 0.000 0.000
Group 4 Mann–Whitney’s U 51.000 47.000 433.000
Sign. 0.000 0.000 0.994

This means that Hypothesis 1 is partially confirmed. These with Bonferroni’s correction can be applied. The level of
results are most commonly obtained in studies about significance from which the existence of significant differ-
groups (Houthoofd & Heene, 1997; Mehra, 1996; Nair & ences can be established was 0.00833 in this case.
Kotha, 2001; Zúñiga, de la Fuente, & Suárez, 2004). Therefore, as can be seen in Tables 4 and 5, the hotels
This may be due to the fact that, as Porter (1980) pointed belonging to Groups 3 and 4 show significantly higher
out, the performance level of a firm is not only explained by room and bed occupancy rates than those in Groups 1
the group in which it is located, but also by its individual and 2. This is so because Groups 3 and 4 are formed by the
particularities and by the state of the specific and generic largest hotels, which are also the ones with the highest
environment. It may also be due to the fact that mobility degree of intermediation. Due to their size and to their
barriers are not very high between groups, and also to the degree of intermediation, they must make a greater effort
fact that groups are quite flexible and can easily adapt to to sell their rooms.
changes. Furthermore, regarding the total gross profit obtained
A final analysis was performed which sought to discover by each group, we have found that it grows with the size
the pairs of strategic groups showing significant differences in and degree of intermediation of the hotel. As is well
the variables of occupancy rate per room and bed (Table 5), known, the greater the business size, the greater the
since they are the only two variables on which the analysis chances for developing economies of scale and, therefore,
of Mann–Whitney’s U-test for two independent samples for improving the hotel’s gross profit. Additionally, the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1110 E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116

higher the degree of intermediation, the better the chances analyzed. Hypothesis 2 is therefore fully confirmed for
for increasing the hotel’s revenues from sales and to reduce occupancy rates.
distribution costs. These results may be due to the possible existence of a
On the other hand, regarding performance variables with greater rivalry inside the groups than outside them. From
no significant differences, the following reflections can be the resource-based view, it is suggested that the rivalry
made. As for the valuation of total gross profit and gross between hotels increases with the homogeneity of their
profit per room compared to their known competitors, resources (Barney, 1991) and this is what probably happens
Group 4 obtains the highest scores due to its large size and between the hotels that belong to the same group.
its high degree of intermediation. Group 3 shows good Nevertheless, although hotels may have homogeneous
levels in these variables for the same reasons as Group 4. resources, they do not necessarily have to use or develop
The low score obtained in the valuation of Group 2 hotels them in the same way for the implementation of their
must also be highlighted. This is probably due to the fact strategies. This can give rise to a certain degree of
that they are the most self-demanding hotels, and also intragroup heterogeneity, i.e., some hotels follow the group
those that permanently strive to improve, which can strategy closely (core firms) and others follow it less closely
generate in them a feeling of undervaluation with respect (secondary firms) (McNamara et al., 2003) and the
to the other hotels. As for Group 1, they give themselves a situation can generate differences in performance between
good valuation, maybe as a result of the conformism and the subgroups of hotels that may exist inside a single
passivity of their strategic situation. group.
Concerning the gross profit per room and day, it must be It must finally be highlighted that this result can serve as
underlined that Group 2 hotels reach a maximum in that a justification for the non-existence of predictive validity
area. In this case, the best results are not obtained by the for all the variables measured and all the strategic groups
largest hotels, but by those with the highest category and identified.
those who have the most developed intangible resources,
which led us to check whether a hotel’s category 5. Conclusions
significantly influences its gross profit per room and day.
With this purpose, a Cramer’s V test is applied between This study focuses on the analysis of the competitive
the category and the gross profit per room and day of strategies and competitive advantages of three–five-star
hotels, and a significant correlation between these variables hotels in Alicante (Spain), a very important sun-and-sand
ðp ¼ 0:002Þ was obtained, so that the higher the category, destination in the context of international tourism. With
the higher the gross profit per room and day. this purpose, strategic groups have been used as a tool that
can help to better understand the complexity existing in the
hotel industry.
4.3. Performance differences within hospitality groups The strategies identified following an inductive approach
were: Category or tangible resource management, Intangi-
Then the confidence intervals on the average of the ble resource management, Improvement and dimension
performance measures applied for a 5% confidence level and Scope strategy. The competitive advantages which
were used to contrast Hypothesis 2 (Lawless et al., 1989). derive from these strategies are collected in the following
In this case, confidence intervals can only be calculated for strategic groups: Group 1—The passive hotels, Group 2—
the scalar performance variables of occupancy rates; no Hotels which base their competitive advantage on their
confidence intervals can be calculated for the rest of resources and capabilities, Group 3—Hotels which
variables. base their competitive advantage on specialization and
As shown in Table 6, more than 5% of enterprises are Group 4—Hotels which base their competitive advantage
outside the confidence interval built for occupancy rates for on improvement and dimension.
all the groups. Significant performance differences thus As regards the predictive validity of groups, some
exist between the members of each group for the variables hypotheses were formulated about intergroup and
intragroup performance differences. The conclusions drawn
reveal that significant differences in performance
Table 6 exist regarding the competitive advantages for the occu-
Analysis of intragroup performance differences
pancy percentage per room and bed and the total
No. and percentage of hotels per group with gross profit. However, no significant differences for all the
performances outside the 95% interval success variables measured were found between the different
strategic groups. These results are the ones which research-
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
ers usually obtain (Barney & Hoskisson, 1990), as we
Occupancy rate 20 (71.43%) 7 (38.89%) 44 (86.27%) 7 (41.17%) used six performance variables. Besides, it can be seen that
per room the largest hotels with the highest degree of intermediation
Occupancy rate 18 (64.28%) 11 (61.11%) 42 (82.35%) 9 (52.94%)
are the ones which reach higher room and bed occupancy
per bed
rates and total gross profit levels, i.e. the higher the category,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116 1111

the greater the gross profit per room and day for the and to improve their performance levels. Finally, it can
hotel. Finally, the most self-demanding hotels are the be inferred from this study that the rivalry between the
ones which give themselves the worst score in terms hotels which implement similar strategies is greater
of performance with respect to their known competitors. than that of hotels belonging to other groups. This
Nevertheless, the study has revealed significant differ- is relevant because hoteliers see hotels which implement
ences in performance between the hotels belonging to each strategies similar to theirs as their main threat. In
group, which shows the existence of a strong internal other words, managers have to pay more attention to
rivalry inside each hospitality industry strategic group. investments in resources if they want to maintain their
Therefore, perhaps this explains why groups do not show competitiveness level.
significant performance differences for all the variables A possible limitation of this research, however, is
analyzed, as a certain degree of strategic heterogeneity that the results obtained are subordinated to strategy
seems to exist inside them that might additionally and performance measurements and to group identification
responsible for the appearance of significant intragroup procedure. Another possible limitation lies in the fact
performance differences. that, although the concept of strategic group usually
Among the management implications of this presents two aspects, namely, how firms compete
study stands out that the hotel managers now know the and against whom, we must mention that given the
competitive strategies which are being implemented as structural characteristics of the hotel industry,
well as the competitive advantages resulting from them. where competition essentially takes place locally in a
Furthermore, they can identify the variables which have particular destination, the strategic groups obtained
an impact on the competitive advantages found, and must only show the companies’ ways to compete, but the
therefore look after those which are of critical importance firms inside a group may not compete for the same
for competing. Thus, depending on the group the customers.
hotel belongs to, the latter must be aware of the strategic Finally, regarding future lines of research, there is an
status of each of the variables characterizing each group intention to extend the field of study to the whole of Spain;
in order to avoid being left behind in competitive terms. to determine the extent to which each variable and each
We also offered managers empirical data about the groups business strategy affect hotel performance levels; and to
which are achieving higher performance levels in check whether the differences in performance between the
this sector. All this information can become very useful enterprises that belong to the same group are significantly
for them if they decide to modify or maintain greater or smaller than those existing between different
the development level in some of their strategic variables groups.

Appendix A

A copy of the questionnaire is provided below.

Project explanation

The research project that is being carried out here has as its aim to identify the strategic groups in the Alicante province
hospitality sector and measure the average performances for each group.
Strategic groups are a strategic tool that makes it possible to classify the different enterprises belonging to one sector in
different groups taking as a reference a set of strategic variables. In other words, the firms belonging to one group will
follow an identical or similar strategy depending on the strategic variables chosen, and each strategic group follows a
different strategy.
Now you are going to be asked a number of questions about various aspects related to the management of your hotel.
We would like you to answer them as frankly as possible.

Resource Commitment
(A) Human resources
1. How many employees were on your staff in 2003?

1.1 Number of employees with an indefinite contract of employment (including ‘fixed-discontinuous’ or

part-time workers).
1.2 Approximate average number of employees with a temporary contract of employment (specify the
yearly average).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1112 E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116

2. Put a tick or a cross in the corresponding option to show the maximum average official educational (academic)
level of y:

Without With primary Secondary education Diploma (3-year University

primary studies studies (high school or degree) degree (4-/5-year
vocational training) degree)

2.1 The hotel 1 2 3 4 5

manager
2.2 The middle 1 2 3 4 5
management
2.3 The rest of 1 2 3 4 5
employees

3. Put a tick or a cross in the corresponding option to show the maximum average non-official (non-academic)
educational level ofy

None CDT-tourism development centre- Master’s course/degree

courses or a specific speciality

3.1 The hotel manager 1 2 3

3.2 The middle management 1 2 3
3.3 The rest of employees 1 2 3

(B) Quality
4. Commitment to quality
On the following list, put a tick or a cross in the option/s corresponding to the quality certificates owned by your
hotel.

None
Quality brand of the ICTE-Spanish Tourist Quality Institute
ISO 9001
EFQM
Others-which ones?

(C) Environment
5. Commitment to the environment
On the following list, put a tick or a cross in the option/s corresponding to the environmental management
certificates owned by your hotel.

None
ICTE’s Green Q
ISO 14001
EMAS
Others-which ones?

(D) Technologies and IS

6. Hotel computerization level: say which of the following areas are computerised

No Yes No Yes

6.1 Customer management 0 1 6.7 Store/warehouse management 0 1

(non-food products)
6.2 General accounting 0 1 6.8 Staff management 0 1
6.3 Deposit management 0 1 6.9 Bar 0 1
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116 1113

6.4 Cost accounting 0 1 6.10 Restaurant 0 1

6.5 Store management (food 0 1 6.11 Floors 0 1
products)
6.6 Store management (wine cellar) 0 1 6.12 Maintenance 0 1

7. Technology- and Information System-use level: put a tick or a cross in the option that suits your hotel:

No Yes

7.1 Does the hotel use ADSL? 0 1

7.2 Does the hotel use PMS? 0 1
7.3 Does the hotel have a web page? 0 1
7.4 Is the hotel connected to GDS? 0 1
Traditional Electronic mail On-line

7.5 Specify the most advanced system that a 0 1 2

customer can use to make a reservation

Activity scope
(E) Customer segments to which the hotel is oriented
8. Put a tick or a cross in the option/s corresponding to the types of tourism segments your hotel focuses on:

Sun and sand

Urban
Rural/nature
Business
Congresses/conferences/conventions
Golf
Nautical
Beauty/health/SPA
Themed/thematic
Cultural
Cruises
Others-which ones?

9. Specify the percentage of customers that the hotel received in 2003 according to the intermediaries they came
through:

9.1 Tour-operator
9.2 Travel agencies
9.3 IMSERSO
9.4 Direct or passing
9.5 Others

10. Put a tick or a cross in the option that describes the type of management applied in your hotel:

Independent hotel 1
Hotel belonging to an association of independent hotels 2
Hotel belonging to a chain managed on an ownership basis 3
Hotel belonging to a chain managed on a renting basis 4
Hotel belonging to a chain run on a management contract basis 5
Hotel belonging to a chain managed on a franchising basis 6
Success measures
11. Specify the average occupancy rate per room that your hotel had in 2003
12. Specify the average occupancy rate per bed that your hotel had in 2003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1114 E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116

13. Value on the following 0 to 10 scale the total gross profit obtained by your hotel in 2003 in comparison with known
competitors:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

14. Value on the following 0 to 10 scale the gross profit per room obtained by your hotel in 2003 in comparison with
known competitors:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

15. Put a tick or a cross in the option corresponding to the approximate gross profit obtained by your hotel in 2003:

199,999h or less 1
Between 200,000 and 499,999h 2
Between 500,000 and 799,999h 3
Between 800,000 and 1,749,999h 4
Between 1,750,000 and 2,499,999h 5
Between 2,500,000 and 3,999,999h 6
Between 4,000,000 and 4,999,999h 7
Between 5,000,000 and 5,999,999h 8
6,000,000h or more 9

16. Put a tick or a cross in the option corresponding to the approximate gross profit that each room has brought to
your hotel in 2003:
Gross profit/(no. of rooms  365 days)

3.99h/room or less 1
Between 4 and 11.99h/room 2
Between 12 and 23.99h/room 3
Between 24 and 29.99h/room 4
Between 30 and 39.99h/room 5
Between 40 and 62.99h/room 6
Between 63 and 79.99h/room 7
Between 80 and 99.99h/room 8
100h/room or more 9

References Baum, J. A. C., & Mezias, S. J. (1992). Localized competition and

organizational failure in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1990.
Álvarez, M. J., de Burgos, J., & Céspedes, J. J. (2001). An analysis of Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 580–604.
environmental management, organizational context and performance Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of
of Spanish hotels. Omega, 29, 457–471. personality on executive career success in the United States and
Andereck, K. L., & Caldweel, L. L. (1994). Variable selection in tourism Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 53–81.
market segmentation models. Journal of Travel Research, 23(2), Brown, J. R., & Dev, C. S. (1999). Looking beyond RevPAR. Cornell
40–46. Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(2), 23–33.
Atkinson, H., & Brander-Brown, J. (2001). Rethinking performance Buhalis, D. (2000). Relationship in the distribution channel of tourism:
measures: Assessing progress in UK hotels. International Journal of Conflicts between hoteliers and tour operators in the Mediterranean
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(3), 128–135.
region. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administra-
Bain, J. (1956). Barriers to new competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
tion, 1(1), 113–139.
University Press.
Buick, I. (2004). Information technology in small Scottish hotels: Is it
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
working? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B., & Hoskisson, R. E. (1990). Strategic groups: Untested ment, 15(4), 243–247.
assertions and research proposals. Managerial and Decision Economics, Camisón, C. (1995). Dirección hotelera y tecnologı́as de la información:
11, 187–198. Un análisis empı́rico de la empresa hotelera valenciana. Estudios
Bastakis, C., Buhalis, D., & Butler, R. (2004). The perception of small and Turı´sticos, 125, 19–52.
medium sized tourism accommodation providers on the impacts of the Camisón, C. (2000). Strategic attitudes and information technologies in
tour operators’ power in Eastern Mediterranean. Tourism Manage- the hospitality business. An empirical analysis. International Journal of
ment, 25, 151–170. Hospitality Management, 19(2), 125–143.
Baum, J. A. C., & Haveman, H. A. (1997). Love thy neighbor? Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. (1977). From entry barriers to mobility
Differentiation and agglomeration in the Manhattan hotel industry, barriers. Conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to new
1898–1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 304–338. competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, XCI(2), 241–261.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116 1115

Chakravarthy, B. S. (1986). Measuring strategic performance. Strategic Hitt, M. A. (1988). The measuring of organizational effectiveness: Multiple
Management Journal, 7, 437–458. domains and constituencies. Management International Review, 28,
Chung, W., & Kalnins, A. (2001). Agglomeration effects and performance: 28–40.
A test of the Texas lodging industry. Strategic Management Journal, Hodgkinson, G. P. (1997). Cognitive inertia in a turbulent market: The
22, 969–988. case of UK residential estate agents. Journal of Management Studies,
Claver, E., Molina, J. F., & Quer, D. (2003). The linkage between strategic 34(6), 921–945.
groups and firm performance. An analysis of intergroup and Holjevac, I. A. (2003). A vision of tourism and the hotel industry in the
intragroup differences. Management Research, 2(11), 81–89. 21st century. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22,
Cool, K. O., & Dierickx, I. (1993). Rivalry, strategic groups and firm 129–134.
profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 47–59. Houthoofd, N., & Heene, A. (1997). Strategic groups as subsets of
Cool, K. O., & Schendel, D. (1987). Strategic group formation and strategic scope groups in the Belgian brewing industry. Strategic
performance. The case of the US pharmaceutical industry, 1963–1982. Management Journal, 18(8), 653–666.
Management Science, 33(9), 1102–1124. INE (Spanish Statistics Institute). (2003a). Encuesta de ocupación en
Cool, K. O., & Schendel, D. (1988). Performance differences among alojamientos turı´sticos. Establecimientos hoteleros (EOH) (August).
strategic group members. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 207–223. Lon: Press Bulletin.
Curry, B., Davies, F., Phillips, P., Evans, M., & Moutinho, L. (2001). The INE (Spanish Statistics Institute) (2003b). 2002 Hotel occupancy survey.
Kohonen self-organization map: An application to the study of Occupancy level per rooms, areas and months. www.ine.es/inebase/cgi/
strategic groups in the UK hotel industry. Expert Systems, 18(1), axi.
19–31. Ingram, P. (1996). Organizational form as a solution to the problem of
Damonte, T. L., Rompf, P. D., Bahl, R., & Domke, D. J. (1997). Brand credible commitment: The evolution of naming strategies among US
affiliation and property size: Effects on measures of performance in hotel chains, 1896–1980 [Special issue]. Strategic Management Journal,
lodging properties. Hospitality Research Journal, 36, 1196–1250. 17, 85–96.
Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. (1984). Porter’s (1980) Generic strategies as Ingram, P., & Baum, J. A. C. (1997). Chain affiliation and the failure of
determinants of strategic groups membership and organizational Manhattan hotels, 1898–1980. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,
performance. Academy of Management Journal, (3), 467–488. 68–102.
Edgar, D. A., Littlejohn, D. L., & Allardyce, M. L. (1994). Strategic Israeli, A. (2002). Star rating and corporate affiliation: Their influence on
clusters and strategic space: The case of the short break market. room price and performance of hotels in Israel. International Journal of
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(5), Hospitality Management, 21(4), 405–424.
20–26. Israeli, A., & Uriely, N. (2000). The impact of star ratings and corporate
Fayos, E. (1996). Tourism policy: A midsummer night’s dream? Tourism affiliation on hotel room prices. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 17(6), 405–412. and Tourism Research, 2(1), 27–36.
FEH (Spanish Hotel Federation). (2000). www.centropymes.com/clientes/ Johns, N., Howcroft, B., & Drake, L. (1997). The use of data envelopment
fehoteles/federación/el_sector_2000.pdf. analysis to monitor hotel productivity. Progress in Tourism and
Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. (1990). Strategic groups and performance. Hospitality Research, 3(2), 119–127.
The US insurance industry, 1970–84. Strategic Management Journal, 2, Ketchen, D. J., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, C. C. (1993). Organizational
197–215. configurations and performance: A comparison of theoretical
Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. (1995). Strategic groups as reference approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1278–1313.
groups: Theory modeling and empirical examination of industry and Kim, L., & Lim, Y. (1988). Environment, generic strategies, and
competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 461–476. performance in a rapidly developing country: A taxonomic approach.
Flavián, C., & Polo, Y. (1999). Strategic group analysis (SGA) as a tool Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 802–827.
for strategic marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 33(5–6), Kwoka, J., & Ravenscraft, D. (1986). Cooperation vs. rivalry: Price-cost
548–569. margins by line of business. Economica, 53, 351–363.
Garcı́a, F. J., Oreja, J. R., & Armas, Y. M. (2002). El factor Lant, T. K., & Baum, J. A. C. (1995). Cognitive sources of socially
medioambiental en la posición competitiva de los establecimientos constructed competitive groups. Examples from the Manhattan hotel
hoteleros. Estudios Turı´sticos, 154, 57–75. industry. In W. R. Scott, & S. Christensen (Eds.), The institutional
Garrigós, F. J., & Palacios, D. (2005). Competitive strategies and firm construction of organizations (pp. 15–38). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage
performance. A study in the Spanish hospitality sector. Management Publications.
Research, 2(3), 251–259. Lawless, M. W., Bergh, D. D., & Wilsted, W. D. (1989). Performance
Garrigós, F.J., Palacios, D. & Devece, C. (2004). TI y desempeño variations among strategic group members: An examination of
empresarial. Un estudio en el sector hotelero español. XIV Congreso de individual firm capability. Journal of Management, 15(4), 649–661.
ACEDE: Conocimiento y competitividad, September. Lewis, P., & Thomas, H. (1990). The linkage between strategy, strategic
Garrigós, F. J., Palacios, D., & Narangajavana, Y. (2005). Competitive groups, and performance in the UK retail grocery industry. Strategic
strategies and performance in Spanish hospitality firms. International Management Journal, 11, 385–397.
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(1), 22–38. Littlejohn, D. (1982). The role of hotel consortia in Great Britain. Service
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Industries Review, 2(1), 79–91.
Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Mascarenhas, B. (1989). Strategic group dynamics. Academy of Manage-
Prentice-Hall. ment Journal, 32(3), 333–352.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. McGee, J., & Thomas, H. (1992). Strategic groups and intra-industry
Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. competition. International Review of Strategic Management, 3, 77–98.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organiza- McKelvey, W. (1982). Organizational systematics, taxonomy, evolution,
tional change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164. classification. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Harris, P. J., & Montegiello, M. (2001). Key performance indicators in McNamara, G., Deephouse, D. L., & Luce, R. A. (2003). Competitive
European hotel properties: General manager’s choices and company positioning within and across a strategic group structure: The
profiles. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage- performance of core, secondary and solitary firms. Strategic Manage-
ment, 13(3), 120–127. ment Journal, 24, 161–181.
Hatten, K. J., & Hatten, M. L. (1987). Strategic groups, asymmetrical Mehra, A. (1996). Resource and market based determinants of
mobility barriers and contestability. Strategic Management Journal, 8, performance in the US banking industry. Strategic Management
329–342. Journal, 17(4), 307–322.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1116 E. Claver-Cortés et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 1101–1116

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and Robinson, R. B., & Pearce, J. A. (1988). Planned patterns of strategic
process. New York: McGraw-Hill. behaviour and their relationship to business-unit performance.
Miller, D. (1992). Generic strategies: Classification, combination and Strategic Management Journal, 9, 43–60.
context. Advances in Strategic Management, 8, 391–408. Slattery, P., Roper, A., & Boer, A. (1985). Hotel consortia: Their
Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (1994). Strategic planning and firm activities, structure and growth. Service Industries Journal, 5(2),
performance: A synthesis of more than two decades of research. 192–199.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1649–1655. Smeral, E. (1998). The impact of globalization on small and medium
Monfort, V. M. (2002). Estrategia competitiva y desempeño en la enterprises: New challenges for tourism policies in European countries.
industria hotelera costera: Evidencias empı́ricas en Benidorm y Tourism Management, 19(4), 371–380.
Peñı́scola. Cuadernos de Turismo, 10, 7–22. Tang, M. J., & Thomas, H. (1992). The concept of strategic groups:
Nair, A., & Kotha, S. (2001). Does group membership matter? Evidence Theoretical construct or analytical convenience. Managerial and
from the Japanese steel industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22, Decision Economics, 13, 323–329.
221–235. Thomas, H., & Venkatraman, N. (1988). Research on strategic groups:
National Statistics Institute Information Bulletin (2002). The economic Progress and prognosis. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 537–555.
impact of tourism (June). www.ine.es/revistas/cifraine/cifrasine_ Tihanyi, L., Ellstrand, A. E., Daily, C., & Dalton, D. R. (2000).
satelit.pdf. Composition of the top management team and firm international
National Statistics Institute Information Bulletin (2003). Tourism in 2002. diversification. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1157–1177.
Development of tourism from the point of view of tourist supply (May). Valencia Region Tourist Board (2004). http://www.comunitat-valencia-
http://www.ine.es/revistas/cifraine/cifine_turismo02.pdf. na.org/documentacion/estudios/estudios.htm.
Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource- Veliyath, R., & Ferris, S. P. (1997). Agency influences on risk reduction
view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–192. and operating performance: An empirical investigation among
Pine, R., & Phillips, P. A. (2005). Performance comparison of hotels in strategic groups. Journal of Business Research, 39(3), 219–230.
China. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(1), Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business
57–73. performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches.
Pizam, A. (1999). Life and tourism in the year 2050. International Journal Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801–814.
of Hospitality Management, 18(4), 331–343. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic
Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies. England: Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
CAB International. WTO (2003). Tourism highlights. Edition 2003. http://www.world-tour-
Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in competition ism.org/market_research/facts/highlights/Highlights.pdf.
definition. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 224–240. Yeung, T. A., & Law, R. (2004). Extending the modified heuristic usability
Porter, M. E. (1979). The structure within industries and companies’ evaluation technique to chain and independent hotel websites.
performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 61, 214–227. International Journal of Hospitality Managment, 23(3), 307–313.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press. Zammuto, R. F. (1988). Organizational adaptation: Some implications of
Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research. organizational ecology for strategic choice. Journal of Management
Review and suggestion for application. Journal of Marketing Research, Studies, 25, 105–120.
20, 134–148. Zúñiga, J. A., de la Fuente, J. M., & Suárez, I. (2004). Dynamics of the
Reger, R. K., & Huff, A. S. (1993). Strategic groups: A cognitive strategic group membership-performance linkage in rapidly changing
perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 103–124. environments. Journal of Business Research, 57(12), 1378–1390.