WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
1
Week 5 Discussion: Competitive Approach, Competitive Scope, and Decision Models
Kelli Ware
School of Business, Liberty University
Introduction
Foundational to organizational success is strategy, and strategy is informed by
understanding competitive positioning which facilitates strategic decisions regarding
competitive approach and scope (Gamble, 2025). Competitive approaches such as low-cost,
broad differentiation, niche emphasis, and best-cost strategies enables organizations to position
themselves within an industry and maintain competitive advantage by leveraging internal
strengths and being responsive to external forces (Gamble, 2023 & Nkoana & Mashamaite,
2025). Correspondingly, competitive scope which includes horizontal breadth and vertical depth
has inherent advantages, disadvantages, trade-offs, and interdependencies that impact
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
2
operational coordination, resource allocation, and strategic decision-making (Brahm et al.,
2021).
Incorporating relevant decision models facilitates strategic efficiency and allows firms to
account for multiple potential outcomes before determining the best course of action (Krogerus
& Tschäppeler, 2017). This discussion defines the process for determining a competitive
approach, emphasizes the significance of competitive scope, and evaluates current and
prospective decision models that support choosing the most competitive strategy.
Process: Deciding on a Competitive Approach
Deciding on a competitive approach is vital to positioning the firm for profitability and
success in the industry. After identifying inherent advantages and disadvantages, assessing the
external environment to discover competitive standing, and examining the internal
environment to understand strengths and weaknesses the firm is ready to decide its
competitive approach to market domination (Gamble, 2023). Based on the results of the
aforementioned analyses, the first step to deciding a competitive approach is to evaluate the
five over basic competitive strategies that enterprises execute which are the low-cost provider,
broad differentiation, focused low-cost, focused differentiation, and best-cost provider (Gamble,
2023). Below is a breakdown of each of the competitive approaches:
•Low-Cost Provider: exercising cost leadership by diminishing operating costs and
underselling industry competitors in locations that are price sensitive to garner a
wide range of consumers in the market (Gamble, 2023 & Nkoana & Mashamaite,
2025).
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
3
•Broad Differentiation: attracting a vast variety of consumers in locations that expect
high-end features by distinguishing their products’ features from that of their
competitors to command top tier prices (Gamble, 2023 & Nkoana & Mashamaite,
2025).
•Focused Low-Cost: catering to a narrow market segment where cost advantages are
attractive by serving their needs at a drastically lower price than competitors
(Gamble, 2023).
•Focused Differentiation: catering to a niche market segment emphasizing one-of-
akind value offering members of that community tailored features such as
individualized customer service which satisfy their desires and outsell competitors
(Gamble, 2023 & Nkoana & Mashamaite, 2025).
•Best-Cost Provider: a fusion of the low-cost provider and the differentiation
strategies; offering consumers more bang for their buck, exceeding expectations on
specific product qualities while beating competitor pricing (Gamble, 2023). Once the
strategies have been examined, using the aforementioned analyses, the next step is
for organizational leaders should use a decision model such as the Role-Playing
model to discuss each of the strategies from multiple perspectives and decide which
approach is in alignment with the vision, mission, and guiding principles as well as
what the firm has the capacity to execute (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2017). Lastly,
prior to beginning the execution phase business leaders should develop key
performance indicators or another form of performance evaluation based on
organizational objectives to measure performance, productivity, profitability, and
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
4
competitiveness in order to identify gaps that can be address and altered to ensure
targets are hit and goals are met (Gamble, 2023 & Rumelt, 2011).
Strategic Thinking: Determining Competitive Scope
According to Gamble (2023) competitive scope is determined by the size of a firm’s
market share, location, and the magnitude of its operations, offerings, and output relative to its
competition. Competitive scope is divided into two categories which are horizontal scope
encompassing product assortment and market segment, and vertical scope including operating
activities within the business sector’s value chain system (Gamble, 2023). It also involves
decision-making regarding how concentrated or comprehensively the company will compete
within its market, which informs strategic planning and positioning (Gamble, 2023). Because no
organization is completely horizontal or vertical, there are interdependencies and trade-offs
between expanding in either geographic scope (horizontal) which encompasses location,
product line diversity, and innovation adoption and production scope (vertical) which includes
value chain and supply chain operations (Brahm et al., 2021 & Gamble, 2023).
Geographic Scope
Geographic scope also referred to as horizontal breadth deals with organizational
operations across various locations locally, nationally or globally and is pivotal to strategic
business decision because it enables access to new consumer communities, leveraging
economies of scale, and portfolio expansion which can insulate firms from negative impacts
caused by market fluctuations (Brahm et al., 2021). Global scope expansion and strategic
mergers or acquisitions can stabilize a firm’s competitive standing by exploiting advantages
inherent to each location, garner access to a new base of consumers to increase sales and attain
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
5
access to correlative resources and technology (Gamble, 2023). While geographic scope can
boost market reach and access to resources, expanding horizontal breadth increases
complications in aspects such as operations coordination, costs control and regulatory
compliance (Brahm et al., 2021 & Gamble, 2023). To balance the trade-offs in geographic scope
expansion managers should adjust organizational structures to accommodate the expansion,
centralize governance, and optimize congruence within capabilities (Brahm et al., 2021).
Production / Distribution Scope
Production scope synonymous with vertical depth is characterized by the level of control
a company holds within upstream (production) and downstream (distribution) activities which
is vital to business strategy formulation as it enhances supply chain security, reduces costs by
keeping operations internal and increases competitive advantage by leveraging operational
advantages and highly efficient distribution networks (Gamble, 2023). Moreover, production
scope expansion allows for forward integration which cuts out the intermediary and giving firms
direct access to sell to consumers via the internet (Gamble, 2023). Reverse integration which
involves undertaking certain components of manufacturing is only profitable if the firm can
maintain the same production efficiencies as external suppliers without diminishing product
quality (Gamble, 2023). Along with the advantages of enlarging vertical scope, there are some
disadvantages such as increases in costs and risk, added training requirements, complications
with user adoption, and decreased agility (Gamble, 2023). When deepening vertical depth,
Brahm et al. (2021) assert that firms should consider narrowing their breadth to preserve
resources and maintain profitability.
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
6
Decision Model
The decision models I currently use are the Double-Loop Learning and Think-Outsidethe-
Box models. The Double-Loop Learning model which covers lessons learned from past decisions
and actions (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2017) while pertinent in other decision-making scenarios
such as the internal environment assessment, does not support the incipient stages of deciding
on a competitive approach and as such will be removed from this phase. The ThinkOutside-the-
Box model is also less helpful than desired in this context because it involves stretching beyond
the comfort zone to break the rules and innovate (Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2017). This approach
would be more useful in the execution of a competitive approach.
With both decision models ruled out, the decision model I am considering in
determining a competitive approach is the Role-Playing model. The Role-Playing model will be
particularly beneficial in determining the best competitive approach because it integrates all
available, relevant information, incorporates the input of the team which engenders buy-in,
uses an analysis of six perspectives and potential outcomes for each option within a decision
(Krogerus & Tschäppeler, 2017). After each of the five basic strategies are played out the result
of each scenario will help to narrow down the best option based on the competitive scope.
Conclusion
To conclude, when deciding on a competitive approach, managers must conduct a
comprehensive analysis of the firm’s capabilities and capacities relative to the five basic
approaches to select the one that can be efficiently executed (Gamble, 2023). Simultaneously,
leaders must also determine the correct balance between geographical scope (horizontal
breadth) and distribution/production scope (vertical depth) while managing complexities
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
7
inherent within each scope dimension (Brahm et al., 2021 & Gamble, 2023). Krogerus and
Tschäppeler’s (2017) Role-playing decision model is a valuable tactic for simulating potential
scenarios from multiple perspectives allowing the team to contribute to the final decision which
engenders stakeholder buy-in. Organizations across any industry will be both horizontal and
vertical to some degree, and to ensure organizational success managers must identify and
integrate the proper competitive approach and scope that facilitates a strong competitive
standing within its market.
References
Brahm, F., Parmigiani, A., & Tarziján, J. (2021). Can firms be both broad and deep? Exploring
interdependencies between horizontal and vertical firm scope. Journal of Management,
47(5), 1219–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320912296
Gamble, J. E. (2023). Essentials of strategic Management: The quest for competitive advantage
(8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781266496622
Krogerus, M., & Tschäppeler, R. (2017). The decision book: Fifty models for strategic thinking.
Profile Books.
Nkoana, I., & Mashamaite, K. A. (2025). A study on Small and Medium Enterprises in South
Africa: An approach to Gaining Competitive Advantages. Sustainable Business and
Society in Emerging Economies, 7(2), 347–354.
https://doi.org/10.26710/sbsee.v7i2.3397 Rumelt, R. (2011). Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: The
difference and why it matters. Profile
Books.
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
8
Annotated Bibliography
Brahm, F., Parmigiani, A., & Tarziján, J. (2021). Can firms be both broad and deep? Exploring
interdependencies between horizontal and vertical firm scope. Journal of Management,
47(5), 1219–1254.
Summary of Key Points
This peer reviewed scholarly article is an empirical study that investigates
interdependencies between horizontal breadth (project portfolio and location) and
vertical depth (extent of supply chain integration) in the Chilean construction business
sector. The data gathered derived from surveys and analysis of construction industry
data on three hundred fifty-five mature construction companies with production both
locally and internationally. Using a resource-based view, the authors discovered that
scope related capabilities compel interdependencies when managerial coordination and
other constraints are impeded. Moreover, the study revealed that centralized
organizational structures diminishes negative trade-offs by facilitating adaptation and
alleviating coordination conflict.
Evaluation of the Quality of the Publication
This article was peer reviewed and published in May 2021 in Volume 47, Issue 5 the
Journal of Management, a highly regarded scholarly publication known for its austere
academic assessment; having a 6.3% acceptance rate proves it. The authors performed
an empirical study analyzing over twelve thousand projects completed by three hundred
fifty-five viable firms with at least three years of business which illustrates the
comprehensive of their research and. The article not only reflects accurate results but
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
9
also provides implications for management and provides great detail of the rationality
behind their research methods in the footnotes.
Evaluation of the Quality of the Authors
Lead author Franscisco Brahm is a professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at the
London Business School and has publications in more than ten journals with several
hundred citations. Anne Parmigiani is a Professor of Management at Oregon University
with over thirty peer reviewed articles published in several journals with close to four
thousand citation. Jorge Tarzijan is a professor in the School of Management at Pontificia
Universidad Catolica in Chile with over 76 publications and more than two thousand
citations. Collectively their academic affiliations and accomplishments demonstrate
scholarship and academic excellence reflecting highly on their credibility and business
expertise.
Where This Fits into the Discussion
This scholarly article supports the discussion on competitive scope by demonstrating the
interdependencies and trade-offs inherent between geographic scope and production
scope aid which added greater clarification on the moderating impact each sub scope
has on the other. It also aligns with Gamble (2023) on strategically managing scope for a
competitive advantage underpinning additional nuances that must be considered in
making scope related decisions.
Nkoana, I., & Mashamaite, K. A. (2025). A study on Small and Medium Enterprises in South
Africa: An approach to Gaining Competitive Advantages. Sustainable Business and
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
10
Society in Emerging Economies, 7(2), 347–354.
Summary of Key Points
This scholarly article investigates how competitive approach enables small and medium
sized enterprises can have an advantage over large enterprises by leveraging economies
of scale and other factors inherent to smaller businesses. Using an analytical research
design grounded in the David and Goliath theory, the authors through thematic analysis
reviewed literary artifacts from several scholarly databases to examine patterns, themes,
and interconnections of South African businesses. The study highlights how rapid
adaptation, personalized consumer relations management, reduced bureaucracy, and
deep community ties are innate strengths within small and medium sized business that
solidify their competitive advantage and inform their competitive approach to garner
and sustain their competitive advantage over larger enterprises. The study found that
although smaller enterprises have less resources, they can still have an advantage over
larger enterprises if they choose the competitive approach that leverages the strengths
that cannot be easily replicated.
Evaluation of the Quality of the Publication
This scholarly peer-reviewed article was published in June 2025 in Volume 7, Issue 2 of
the Journal of Sustainable Business and Society in Emerging Economies. Although the
article lacks empirical testing, it uses a reputable analytical design and withstood
rigorous academic scrutiny lending to its credibility.
WEEK 5: COMPETITIVE APPROACH AND SCOPE
11
Evaluation of the Quality of the Authors
Lead author Isaac Nkoana is an emerging researcher with academic affiliation at the
University of Limpopo, South Africa and has published twelve scholarly articles within
the last two years. He has achieved the level of Master’s Graduand, a highly esteemed
academic honor. His background in urban planning and project management studies in
South Africa undergirds his expertise in business development within that area. Second
author Kgalema Abbyton Mashamaite is also affiliated with University of Limpopo, South
Africa and has published twenty scholarly articles amassing just under three hundred
citations within the last eleven years. His expertise in rural food security, sustainable
agriculture, and business in emerging markets along with his role as Senior Lecturer at
the University lends to his scholarship credibility. Their combined scholarship is
commendable and supports their continued growth in academic contribution and
impact.
Where This Fits into the Discussion
The peer reviewed article underpins the discussion on competitive approach by
depicting how organizations can leverage their inherent strengths and distinctive
abilities to decide on the most effective and achievable competitive approach that will
sustain their market domination. It aligns with and expounds upon Gamble’s (2023)
depiction of focused differentiation and focused low-cost competitive approaches.
