THE BENEFITS OF STRATEGIC HOMOGENEITY AND STRATEGIC HETEROGENEITY: THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE RESOLVING PAST DIFFERENCES

Past research on the relationship between strategic variety and industry profitability has argued for either high homogeneity or high heterogeneity. In this paper, we review the literature on strategic variety and use it to develop hypotheses suggesting that the relationship between strategic variety and average industry profits is curvilinear. Based on our analysis of 61 industries, we find empirical support for our hypotheses, suggesting that very high levels of heterogeneity or homogeneity are more likely associated with industry profitability, while the industries in our sample displaying moderate levels of strategic variety are most likely to suffer from widespread financial losses.     

Do strategic groups exist? an economic framework for analysis

This paper offers a framework and methodology for resolving the question regarding the existence of strategic groups. We say that a strategic group exists if characteristics of the group affect firm performance independently of firm-level and industry-level effects. We argue that group-level effects are a byproduct of strategic interactions among members, and develop an empirical testing model, based on the ‘New Economics of Industrial Organization,’ to distinguish true group effects from spurious effects. From this model, we derive a series of logically consistent propositions, suggesting that while strategic interactions are critical for a group-level effect on profits, mobility barriers are necessary to preserve both groups and their effects over time. A review of prior empirical studies of strategic groups suggests that the inconclusive nature of prior research has been due more to the lack of a theoretical foundation for empirical analysis than to the nonexistence of groups. To the extent that our methods have been employed, there is limited evidence that a rigorous search for strategic groups may prove fruitful. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

中国船舶工业发展的战略思考

本文从船舶工业在中国国民经济中的地位和现阶段经济发展中的作用出发,系统地分析了加快中国船舶工业发展所具备的主要条件,指出船舶工业是推动产业结构升级的战略性产业;针对中国加入WTO后面临的新形势,认为中国船舶工业发展要实现做大、做强的战略目标,就必须克服船舶工业发展中的“低成本＋低效率”引起的结构性矛盾,从转变企业机制和优化政策环境着手,提出了加快中国船舶工业发展的战略措施。     

Does group membership matter? Evidence from the Japanese steel industry

In this study we address criticism that performance differences among strategic groups found in past research may be spurious and attributable to firm effects. The Japanese steel industry provides the setting for the study. Our analysis is based on data from the carbon steel sector of the Japanese steel industry for the periods 1980–87 and 1988–93. A one-way ANOVA indicated that the average performance of firms in the two technology-based groups in this industry—the integrated mills and the minimills—were significantly different during the two periods. Subsequently, we performed a regression analysis to examine the residual group effect after controlling for both environment and firm-specific effects. We found that even after controlling for both environment and firm-specific effects group membership was significantly associated with firm performance. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Measuring strategy coherence through patterns of strategic choices

Strategies at different levels need to be coherent to ensure competitive advantage (Hofer and Schendel, 1978). Strategy coherence is the consistency of strategic choices across business and functional levels of strategy. In this paper we focus on strategy coherence. Using patterns of strategy, we develop a measure of the extent of strategy coherence. The relationship between coherence and performance is used to validate the measure. We illustrate the application of the measurement and validation process, in the context of acute care hospitals. The results indicate that our measure of coherence is monotonically related to performance. We also find performance differences between more and less coherent hospitals on the industry specific performance indicator of occupancy. Implications for theory and practice are highlighted.     

中国战略性技术及其产业化的七大问题

在国际经济竞争越来越激烈的今天，大国之间的竞争更多地表现为战略技术的竞争和战略产业的竞争。所以，无论美国还是欧盟，无一不是把发展自己的战略技术和战略产业放到了重要的地位。中国作为一个大国，要想在世界竞争格局中获得相对优势地位，没有自己的战略技术和战略产业是不可能的。但是，中国发展自己的战略技术和战略产业，也存在着相当的困难。这些问题有些是来自战略技术和战略产业自身属性的，有些则是根源于中国基本经济结构和产业发展水平。21世纪是战略技术和战略产业竞争的世纪，谁拥有更多的战略技术并成功地使其产业化，谁将在未来的竞争中胜出。中国要在这样一场竞争中获得优势位置，必须解决好自身所面临的七个重大问题。即战略产业的高度战略化和低度市场化、高度战略化与高度市场化、低端技术市场化与高端技术政治化、巨量资金需求与筹资渠道狭窄、绝对比较劣势与相对比较优势、跟踪战略与超越战略、国家意志与民营载体。     

Sources of Competitive Advantage and Firm Performance: The Case of Sri Lankan Value-Added Tea Producers

Given the greater importance of firm-effects as opposed to industry-effects in explaining firm performance, this study incorporated the resource and strategy-based views of the competitive advantage paradigm in explaining the performance of value-added tea producers in Sri Lanka. The study revealed the existence of three significantly different strategic groups and justified the assertion that there is significant intra-industry heterogeneity. Only one strategic group, which comprised four dominant firms, revealed strong mobility barriers and higher performance differences. However, no performance differences were evident between the other two strategic groups.     

Convergence across alternative methods for forming strategic groups

We studied the convergence of three different methods for identifying group structure (strategic groups) in a single competitive environment. Using a version of the MTMM matrix, we tested the convergent validity of the concept of strategic groups in a mature, geographically delimited competitive environment. We find significant evidence of convergence between competitive structures identified using archival and perceptual data as well as those identified using archival measures of strategy and direct measures of competitors. There is limited evidence of convergence between competitive structures identified from perceptual and direct measures. Taken as a whole, these results are consistent with the emerging theory of strategic groups. We conclude that strategic groups are a theoretical construct and not a methodological artifact, as is suggested by some authors. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competitive positioning within and across a strategic group structure: the performance of core,secondary, and solitary firms

Drawing from economic and cognitive theories, researchers have argued that firms within an industry tend to cluster together, following similar strategies. Their positioning in strategic groups, in turn, is argued to influence firm actions and firm performance. We extend this research to examine performance implications of competitive positioning not just among but also within groups. We find that performance differences within groups are significantly larger than across groups, suggesting that some firms within groups develop better resource or competitive positions. We also find that secondary firms within a group outperform both core firms within the group and solitary firms, the latter being those not belonging to any multifirm strategic group. This suggests that secondary firms may be able to effectively balance the benefits of strategic distinctiveness with institutional pressures for similarity. We conclude that the primary implication of strategic groups does not relate to the ability of firms to create stable, advantageous market segments through collusion. Instead, strategic groups represent a range of viable strategic positions firms may stake out and use as reference points. Moreover, our results concerning secondary firms indicate that firm positioning within a group structure can have performance implications. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.